Discussion following Hayes opening briefing:
Socio-technical approach
Technology needs to support organization while organization is responsible for supporting technology.
“inter-connectedness”
We have very few systems that help created shared awareness. Our tools aid individual.s
The people who have access to money to fund research aren’t familiar with organizational processes
Difficulty in talking SM with engineers, though 2 large corporations are interested. One is oil the other is a financial group.
Difficult to see, study, analyze thinking and emotions in the SM process. Even though they are there, without ‘evidence’ it is difficult to sell the idea to funders.
- A pure technical/mil approach doesn’t work
- There have been huge invstmts in the physical sciences, and it has produced results including tools. There have not been such investments in the social sciences, though there is strong reason to believe that investments would yield equally productive results.
- Human cognition – we can use knowledge and get returns.
Need to look at new teams, unfamiliar with eachother; distributed virtual teams; heterogeneous teams
Use of storytelling and gaming: need research on how to train storytelling as means of effective communication and shared SA. It should stay away from mil approach and jargon b/c does not meld with other areas.
Look at practical significance, not just statistical significance when analyzing the training process, because we are probably missing important areas or excluding them just b/c they aren’t as measurable statistically.
Want human factors woven into the design of systems.
Need active cooperation btwn suppliers/consumers for best possible design. This is a long term project.
SM is already being done in the military.
Problem being that little is called SM, and little is documented.
Crab/Egg chart: info domain as interface between cognitive and physical. Also interface between social sciences and engineers.
Need to cross org, group, individual barriers in research, training and tools.
Nosek:
Are we asking questions that there aren’t answers for until we create them?
SM needs to happen on parallel planes and not sequentially to allow for multiple SM.
Need to build trust btwn NGO and military.
Wisnosky:
Observation to knowledge to action
SM – deciding if it is real, then deciding what to do about it.
SM framework puts facts and events into patterns. Agent computing organizes info
Reinforcing learning paradigm allows decisions about organizational relationship in specific context.
IDEF: reality simpler than models often are.
Always need human in the loop.
Knowledge engineering – extracting knowledge from experts, though can’t be shared.
Jelinek:
Org problems: aims for consistency but is replaced with rigidity
Top down structure results in managers as sole thinkers
Alienation between levels
Alternatives: shared cognition.
Embrace ambiguity rather than discarding because it does not fit into a model.
Need multidisciplinary approach.
Reality Testing: Evaluation of SM
People have tendencies to reach for stability, come to premature closure and replicate biases.
These are obstructions to thorough SM
Wants to include hunches, speculations about enemy and psych.
Traditional orgs are rigid to change.
Takes 2 years for a complete organizational restructuring.: from inkling, to motivating factor or event, to restructuring.
Benign neglect in companies/orgs allows for experimentation.
Working Group B:
Dana Institute and Richard M. Restak – author of The Brain, Brainscapes, and The Secret Life of the Brain.
He is a practicing neurosurgeon in Dupont.
Karl Weick
DKL, work on 17 p’s of the millitary – can be transferred to other orgs and areas.
People need to be aware of all info available.
Collaboration and measurement of comprehension
CCOM Custom
Gap – psych doesn’t address comprehension b/c psych is context free
Disagreement: Have been many studies across all age groups on comprehension and ability to put things together.
Need for cognitive model and data mining algorithms.
Sensory v. abstract.
CNA
Expert: problem set of researach
What tools help people make sense?
Levels/tactical action decision
We tell stories to make sense of data [beer and diapers]
Sm creation of actionable knowledge.
My thoughts:
LEVEL / DISCIPLINE / DEGREE OF SM / NEEDS/REQUIREMENTS / CONTEXT / GEO
Individual / Behavioral
Neurological / Info
SA / Metrics
Technology / Environmental factors / Tactical [in situ] v. Abstract [distanced]
Group / Behavioral
Neurological
+ Cognitive / Info
SA
Shared SA / Flexibility
Open Info Systems
Speed / Environmental factors / Localized
Distributed
Virtual / Hard V. Soft Teams
Team / Behavioral
Neurological
Cognitive
+ Organizational / Info
SA
Shared SA
Collaboration
DM
= actionable knowledge / Time/Speed
Management Structure
Reorganization/Accept ambiguities
Need all levels of group and indiv / Environmental factors / Localized
Distributed
Virtual / Hard V. Soft Teams