Gold Command Wall Evaluation; EAST Analysis of Electronic, Radio and Paper Methods of Command and Control
Abstract
This report presents the findings derived from a series of Event Analysis of Systemic Teamwork (EAST) analyses of three command and control systems: an electronic command system (Brunel command wall), a radio command system and a paper command system. The aim of this research was to evaluate the Brunel command wall system based on a comparison with existing methods of command and control (e.g. paper and radio systems). Each command system was used to conduct a battlespace area evaluation scenario involving a situational overlay construction task, a route planning and allocation of resources task, and a recall overlay task. There were four conditions for each system related to the way in which task-related information was communicated (‘pushed’ or ‘pulled’) with the commander and also the length of the time that this information was available to the commander (permanent or temporary). The EAST methodology was used to analyse task performance during each scenario. A summary of the results is presented below.
Hierarchical Task Analysis
Hierarchical task analyses (HTA) were constructed for each scenario condition. A generic task model (catering for all
scenario conditions) was developed based on the HTA outputs. According to the task model, the battlespace area evaluation
scenario comprised the following three phases: construct situational overlay based on incoming intelligence, plan routes and
allocate resources; and recall situational overlay.
Co-ordination demands analysis
Co-ordination between agents within each command system network was calculated using co-ordination demands analysis. The level
of co-ordination between agents (during teamwork tasks identified from the HTA) was the same for each command system. The level
of co-ordination was, however, greater in the ‘pull’ conditions than in the ‘push’ conditions. It was concluded that this
difference was a function of the commander having to request the intelligence (i.e. requires co-ordination between agents and
assertiveness, mission analysis and adaptability on behalf of the commander) in the ‘pull’ conditions, as opposed to simply
waiting for the intelligence in the ‘push’ conditions.
Comms Usage Diagram
The technology used to mediate communications between agents was analysed using the comms usage diagram. In the electronic
conditions, the gold command wall and wearable units were used for communications. In the radio conditions, the communications
were verbal radio comms, and in the paper conditions, paper messages were used for communications. It was concluded that there
are a number of key differences between the three systems that could affect the efficiency and accuracy of communications
between agents within the three networks. The advantages and disadvantages associated with each communications technology used
are described fully in the report.
Social Network Analysis
Social network analysis was used to analyse the relationships between agents within each network. The networks involved were
all classified as large, well distributed networks. The key agents (according to centrality and degree ratings) in the
electronic conditions were the commander, the gold command knowledge wall and the wearable units. The key agents in the radio
condition were the paper maps (commander, field agent and foot unit paper maps) and the commander. The key agents in the paper
conditions were the paper maps (commander, field agent and foot unit paper maps) and the commander.
Operation Sequence Diagram
Operation Sequence Diagrams (OSD) were constructed for each scenario. Operational loading figures were then calculated for
the following OSD operators: Operation, Receive, Delay, Decision, Transport, and Combined Operations. It was concluded that,
of the agents involved, the commander in each condition performed the greatest number of operations during the scenario. The
commander in the electronic conditions performed the highest number of component task steps during the scenarios (e.g. 113 in
the pull condition and 98 in the push condition). The number of operations differed between the push and pull conditions, with
the commander having to perform more operations in the pull conditions. It was concluded that this was a function of the
additional requests for intelligence that the commander had to make in the pull conditions, as opposed to the push conditions
where the commander simply has to wait for the intelligence to arrive.
Critical Decision Method
Critical Decision Method probes were used to extract information related to the cognitive aspects of the commander’s
decision-making during the scenarios. ‘Expert’ CDMs were constructed for each condition using a participant who had substantial
experience of performing the role of the commander in each condition.
Propositional Networks
Propositional networks were constructed for each condition using the CDM data. The propositional networks indicated that the
commander in the electronic conditions used the smallest number of knowledge objects, both overall (all scenario phases) and in
each of the three scenario phases, and that the commander in the radio conditions used the greatest number of knowledge objects
overall and during phase one. The commanders in the radio and paper conditions used the greatest number of knowledge objects
during phases two and three. It was also concluded that the knowledge objects required by the commander decreased as the scenario
progressed i.e. the amount of knowledge required to conduct the task decreased per scenario phase. The key knowledge objects that
had salience for each scenario phase were defined. These included the situational overlay, the battlespace, roads, buildings,
footpaths, field agents, locations and co-ordinates, the enemy, own forces, agent symbols, target areas of interest, orientation,
intelligence, and maps (paper, 2D and 3D).
Conclusions
The underlying structure of the processes used during the scenarios across the three command systems was the same i.e. the same
communications were made and the same tasks were performed. The main differences between the three systems related to the size of the
agent networks, the ‘route’ of communications and the technology used during the communications. In the electronic command system,
communications between the commander and field agents were mediated by the command wall interface and the wearable units
(i.e. commander speaks to command wall which then speaks to the wearable units which then speak to the field agents), whereas the
communications in the radio system were direct verbal communications mediated by the radio devices, and the communications in the paper
system were handwritten paper messages. It was concluded that the electronic command system offered the most support for communication
tasks, and also for planning, interpretation and task monitoring processes, and therefore that the gold command wall (electronic) command
system was the most efficient of the three tested when used to perform the battlespace area evaluation scenario. The findings from the
EAST analyses also indicate that the electronic command system was the most suitable for the battlsepace evaluation scenario. Specifically
the analyses indicated that the electronic commander had the least amount of knowledge objects to consider during the scenario (from the
propositional networks) had the most technological support from network agents during the receipt, integration and understanding of
information (from the comms usage diagram analysis). Of the advantages that the gold command wall system offered (over and above the paper
and radio systems), the provision of dynamic 2D and 3D map displays of the battlespace, which facilitated the conversion of comms
information into spatial representations was identified as the most important. This meant that the commander could immediately see which
field agent was sending intelligence, and where the field agent was located in the battlespace area. Further, the commander could monitor
the unfolding situation using the map displays. This in turn made it easier to classify and understand intelligence information. In the
radio and paper conditions, the commander had to translate verbal and paper communications into spatial representations, a process which
could be erroneous, time consuming and could also increase workload. The gold command wall system also permitted simultaneous communications
(thus speeding up the receipt and understanding of information) which facilitates the commanders situation awareness and situational
understanding.
The EAST analyses of the three command system highlighted a number of design flaws relating to the gold command wall system. These included the lack of a ‘receipt and understanding of information notification’ function and the absence of a first person view/walkthrough facility on the 2D and 3D map displays.
contact us