12 February 2008 Human-Human Interactions to Guide Collaborative Decision Making Design – The Cockpits Perspective Matthias Groppe - Marc Bui Laboratoire

12 February 2008

Human-Human Interactions to Guide Collaborative Decision Making Design –

The Cockpit’s Perspective

Human-Human Interactions to Guide Collaborative Decision Making Design –

The Cockpit’s Perspective

Matthias Groppe - Marc BuiLaboratoire d’Informatique et des Systèmes Complexes

Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Paris-Sorbonne

Cranfield [email protected]

Matthias Groppe - Marc BuiLaboratoire d’Informatique et des Systèmes Complexes

Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Paris-Sorbonne

Cranfield [email protected]

1st International Conference on Advances in Computer-1st International Conference on Advances in Computer-Human Interaction - Sainte Luce, Martinique Human Interaction - Sainte Luce, Martinique

EUROCONTROLExperimental

Centre

2 MATTHIAS GROPPE 1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCES IN COMPUTER-HUMAN INTERACTION PAPER #47MATTHIAS GROPPE 1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCES IN COMPUTER-HUMAN INTERACTION PAPER #47

Introduction Introduction

Cockpit’s operational decision making is based on insufficient quality & flow of information (observation & own experience)

But operational efficiency within ATM requires all partners to have the complete picture (Common Situational Awareness CSA)

Airport CDM includes information sharing & CSA as concept elements

Cockpit’s operational decision making is based on insufficient quality & flow of information (observation & own experience)

But operational efficiency within ATM requires all partners to have the complete picture (Common Situational Awareness CSA)

Airport CDM includes information sharing & CSA as concept elements



But how is the information shared on a day-to-day basis?But how is the information shared on a day-to-day basis?



Information is shared via human-machine interactions (e.g. ACARS) and human-human interactions (e.g. radio, telephone, or face-to-face)

Information is shared via human-machine interactions (e.g. ACARS) and human-human interactions (e.g. radio, telephone, or face-to-face)


The Challenge The Challenge

From human-human interaction to human-human cooperation– But: Different operational domains have unique

situational constraints

– Is it possible to establish a global goal among all partners?

– Can conflicting interests be identified?

Investigation modes include observation and a cockpit survey

From human-human interaction to human-human cooperation– But: Different operational domains have unique

situational constraints

– Is it possible to establish a global goal among all partners?

– Can conflicting interests be identified?

Investigation modes include observation and a cockpit survey


The BackgroundThe Background

Flight operation situations are highly dynamic and require synchronous human-human cooperation between pilots and other operators

– Problem: How can we measure level of cooperation?

– Application of a theoretical model from J. Ferber [1] on human-human interactions among pilots & other actors

– Interaction situations are classified via aims, resources, and abilities in regard to assigned tasks

Flight operation situations are highly dynamic and require synchronous human-human cooperation between pilots and other operators

– Problem: How can we measure level of cooperation?

– Application of a theoretical model from J. Ferber [1] on human-human interactions among pilots & other actors

– Interaction situations are classified via aims, resources, and abilities in regard to assigned tasks

[1] J. Ferber (1995) [1] J. Ferber (1995) Multi-Agent SystemsMulti-Agent Systems, Addison-Wesley, Munich, Addison-Wesley, Munich


The Theoretical BackgroundThe Theoretical Background

Classification of Interaction Situations (Ferber,1995)Classification of Interaction Situations (Ferber,1995)

[1] J. Ferber (1995) [1] J. Ferber (1995) Multi-Agent SystemsMulti-Agent Systems, Addison-Wesley, Munich, Addison-Wesley, Munich

Aims/ Interests Ressources Abilities Type of Situation Category

compatible sufficient sufficient Independence Indifference

compatible sufficient insufficient simple working together Indifference

compatible insufficient sufficient blockade Cooperation

compatible insufficient insufficient coordinated collaboration Cooperation

incompatible sufficient sufficient pure individual competition Cooperation

incompatible sufficient insufficient pure individual competition Antagonism

incompatible insufficient sufficient individual resource conflict Antagonism

incompatible insufficient insufficient collective resource conflict Antagonism


The Practical BackgroundThe Practical Background

Pilots are neutral users of the ATM system

– Non-punishment versus bonus-malus practice

Prototypical interactions at several flight situations are described and analysed at action level [2]

– Action level refers to interactions with a shorter time span and less abstraction than interactions at planning level

– Possible situations during flight and turn-round

Pilots are neutral users of the ATM system

– Non-punishment versus bonus-malus practice

Prototypical interactions at several flight situations are described and analysed at action level [2]

– Action level refers to interactions with a shorter time span and less abstraction than interactions at planning level

– Possible situations during flight and turn-round

[2] Jean-Michel Hoc (2000) [2] Jean-Michel Hoc (2000) From Human-Human Interaction to Human-Machine CooperationFrom Human-Human Interaction to Human-Machine Cooperation


The Scope of Human-Human InteractionsThe Scope of Human-Human Interactions

Strategic

Pre-tactical

Tactical

Ad hoc

LANDSIDE OPERATION

AIRSIDE OPERATION

Interactions across different layers

APOC

ATC, Aircraft Operator, Airport, Ground Handler, ATFCM, Supervisor

actors

ATCRamp Agent Pilots Dispatch ….

Detai

l of I

nfor

mat

ion

Operation Centres ATC - Aircraft Operators Ground Handler - AirportDis

tanc

e to

Act

ion

Meta Cooperation

Cooperation in Planning

Cooperation in Action


The AimsThe Aims

Identify, how human-human interactions are established between pilots and other actors in critical situations during flight & turn-round

Identification of cooperative behaviour within day-to-day interactions (cooperation or non-cooperation)

Assessing, how further interactions in form of negotiation (interference creation – mutual goal identification – resolution+/-) have positive effect on cooperation (mutual agreement on goal) [2]

Identify, how human-human interactions are established between pilots and other actors in critical situations during flight & turn-round

Identification of cooperative behaviour within day-to-day interactions (cooperation or non-cooperation)

Assessing, how further interactions in form of negotiation (interference creation – mutual goal identification – resolution+/-) have positive effect on cooperation (mutual agreement on goal) [2]

[2] Jean-Michel Hoc (2000) [2] Jean-Michel Hoc (2000) From Human-Human Interaction to Human-Machine CooperationFrom Human-Human Interaction to Human-Machine Cooperation


The ApproachThe Approach

In-depth interviews with senior commanders of different airlines in order to identify critical key events during turn-round and flight situations (action level)

Self-administered on-line questionnaire based on critical interaction situations using classification of interactions adapted from Ferber [1]

Further actions include semi-structured individual interviews to understand emergence of cooperation on action level to guide future CDM operation on planning level (strategic & pre-tactical)

In-depth interviews with senior commanders of different airlines in order to identify critical key events during turn-round and flight situations (action level)

Self-administered on-line questionnaire based on critical interaction situations using classification of interactions adapted from Ferber [1]

Further actions include semi-structured individual interviews to understand emergence of cooperation on action level to guide future CDM operation on planning level (strategic & pre-tactical)


Sample Questions I: Cooperation Sample Questions I: Cooperation

SITUATION I DURING TURN-ROUND: Please recollect any of your more recent flights: you have just landed at your destination and your parking stand is still occupied.

1. When were you notified of that? □ after landing □ during flight

□ I did not encounter a situation like this

2.a. How long did you have to wait for your parking stand? □ 1-5 minutes □ 6-10 minutes □ 11-15 minutes □ 16-20 minutes □ more than 20 minutes

3. On a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 ( extremely important), how would you rate ‘timely notification’ of parking stand problems?

□ 1 (Not important) □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 (Extremely important)

4. At which airport did this happen?□ Hub airport (LHR/FRA/CDG/AMS/MAD/LGW/FCO/ORY/MUC/BCN) □ Other airport than above

5. How often does this happen? □ daily □ weekly □ monthly □ quarterly

6. Do you think this would be avoidable through better planning? □ YES □ NO □ Don’t know


Sample Questions I: Interaction ComponentsSample Questions I: Interaction Components

SITUATION DURING TURN-ROUND II

7. With your experience, what could be the reason(s) for this delay?

a) Competing interests among functions responsible for the allocation of the parking stand such as airport, airline, and ground handling (e.g. decision making responsibility is unclear).

□ 1 (not very likely) □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 (very likely)

b) Not enough parking stands available □ 1 (not very likely) □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 (very likely)

c) Inability of responsible function/individual, to timely allocate another gate/stand □ 1 (not very likely) □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 (very likely)


Sample Questions II: CooperationSample Questions II: Cooperation

SITUATION DURING TURN-ROUND OR FLIGHT: Please recollect your last flight or turn-round where YOU have yourself proposed operational changes (e.g. via ACARS, telephone,

radio…)

Your proposal was about: □ Speed-/ cruising altitude changes □ Shortcuts on planned routing □ Necessary technical repair during turnaround □ Connecting passenger □ Other changes or information (please name)………………..

□ I did not encounter a situation like this

1. Consequences from your proposal: □ Your proposal was considered (you got an answer on your proposal)

□ Your proposal was not considered (no reaction on your proposal)

2. How much delay (departure or arrival) did you encounter because of this? □ 1-5 minutes □ 6-10 minutes □ 11-15 minutes □ 16-20 minutes □ more than 20 minutes□ no delay encountered

3. On a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (Exremely important), how would you rate ‘timely reaction’ on your proposal?□ 1 (Not important) □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 (Extremely important)

4. At which location did this happen:□ At a hub airport (LHR/FRA/CDG/AMS/MAD/LGW/FCO/ORY/MUC/BCN) □ Other airport than above

5. How often does this happen? □ daily □ weekly □ monthly □ quarterly6. Do you think this would be avoidable through better planning?

□ YES □ NO □ Don’t know


Sample Questions II: Interaction ComponentsSample Questions II: Interaction Components

7. In your opinion, what could be the reason(s) for the late information?

a) Competing interests among responsible persons like technicians, airline company, flight manager, ATC, pilots….

□ 1 (not very likely) □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 (very likely) b) Not enough resources available (e.g. airspace, noise procedures, personnel..)

□ 1 (not very likely) □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 (very likely)

c) Inability of the responsible function/individual, to perform the assigned task□ 1 (not very likely) □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 (very likely)


Additional Benefits from QuestionnaireAdditional Benefits from Questionnaire

Identification of constrained resources

Decision Making or Sharing of Responsibilities: Best placed or provoking conflicts

Identification of constrained resources

Decision Making or Sharing of Responsibilities: Best placed or provoking conflicts


ConclusionsConclusions

Study of cockpit’s perspective on interactions allows an neutral analysis of turn-round and flight operation situations

Results can be used to improve predictability of airside operation and system behaviour simulation

Include a behavioural & cognitive perspective to decision making in complex systems

Guide future CDM procedure development and performance measures

Study of cockpit’s perspective on interactions allows an neutral analysis of turn-round and flight operation situations

Results can be used to improve predictability of airside operation and system behaviour simulation

Include a behavioural & cognitive perspective to decision making in complex systems

Guide future CDM procedure development and performance measures


THANK YOU!THANK YOU!

[email protected]@eurocontrol.int

Q & A?Q & A?

Documents

12 February 2008 Human-Human Interactions to Guide Collaborative Decision Making Design – The Cockpits Perspective Matthias Groppe - Marc Bui Laboratoire