Transcript ACITA2009_Miscommunication_final

Miscommunications and
Context Awareness
Steve Poteet (Boeing, US)
Cheryl Giammanco (Army Research Lab, US)
Jitu Patel (Dstl, UK)
Anne Kao (Boeing, US)
Ping Xue (Boeing, US)
Iya Whiteley (Systems Engineering & Assessment, UK)
International Technology Alliance Conference
September 22-24, 2009
Overall Study Goal
To discover effective ways of minimizing miscommunication and
to discover how communication of contextual knowledge can
improve mutual understanding during coalition operations.
• Examine and identify categories & patterns of
miscommunication due to variations of language use
• Examine and identify categories & patterns of
miscommunication due to background and cultural
differences
• Examine and identify categories & patterns of
miscommunication due to contextual differences in general
Study Aim
• Collect additional data on miscommunication between
coalition partners
• Refine our previously identified categories of
miscommunication due to variations in language and
language use
• Examine and identify categories of contextual knowledge
that are essential for successful communication
Omni Fusion 2008
• Distributed, federated simulation based experiment
conducted at BCBL and other US Battle Labs (Sept. 0319, 2008)
• Over 230 participants from US, UK, Australia, and
Canada
• Purpose: study division-level issues involving use of the
network and network degradation
• Objective:
– Determine how commanders use the network to understand,
visualize, describe, direct and assess full spectrum operations
– How commanders do so if network is degraded or absent
Research Design
• Participants
• ABCA (America-Britain-Canada-Australia) military personnel
who were participants of Omni Fusion 2008 Simulation Exercise
(OF08 SIMEX) at the Battle Command Battle Laboratory (BCBL)
in Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, US
• Participation is completely voluntary
• Method of Data Capture
• Questionnaires distributed to them during the exercise – 116
responses
• One hour follow-up interviews with 4
• Questions Asked
•
•
•
•
Nature & source of the miscommunication
When it was identified
The effect of the miscommunication on performance
How and when it was resolved
Miscommunications
Reported
• 14 reported one or more
– 1 reported more than 3
– 5 reported 2 or 3
– 8 reported 1
• Most common medium
– Email (7), VOIP/Audio (5), IWS/Chat (4), face-to-face
(4)
• Most miscommunications were identified
immediately
• Most problems were resolved in a few minutes,
but 2 took a few hours and 1 was not resolved
until end of the day
Additional Survey Results
• Type of Impacts on Miscommunications
–
–
–
–
27 responses
22%: loss of efficient use of time
22%: loss of accuracy (increase in human error)
19%: loss of situation awareness
• Non-linguistic factors of miscommunication
– 23 responses
– 29%: lack of a Common Operational Picture (COP),
and Shared Situation Awareness
Suggested Methods of
Prevention
• 22 responses
• 32%: use a standardized language (e.g.
NATO or DoD dictionary) would help
• 27%: multinational combined training prior
to operations, exercises or experiments
• Sample is too small to draw conclusions
New Evidence Supporting Prior
Hypotheses
• Standard terminology not used
– UK used NATO and US used CENTCOM
• While basic concepts were shared, they are often expressed
in different terminology
• E.g. acronyms, jargon, slang
• Acronym use caused confusion
– More ambiguous because the length is shorter
– E.g. AI (Air Interdiction) was mis-typed as IA
(Influence Activities – e.g. PsyOps – in UK, or
Information Operations in US)
– E.g. NGO (Non-Governmental Organizations) was
mistook to mean OGA (other [non-military]
government organizations
More on Jargon and Slang
• Besides US-UK differences, these were
compounded by different uses in Navy, Marine
etc.
• E.g. “leaving 16 and a buff” was not understood
– Means B52 for US Air Force
• E.g. “coming in hot”
– To Air Force: coming in fast
– To ground force: coming in shooting
• E.g. Commander said “burn the brief”
– Burn it on the CD, not set it on fire
New Findings
• Important to look at miscommunication in
‘context’
• Crucial to have a shared common
understanding of the ‘context’
• In a network centric environment, use of
language must take on a bigger role in
establishing and maintaining shared
context or common ground
Examples of Context in
Iraq War
• 1st pilot talked to controller about one group, and
controller confirmed it was hostile
• Controller broke off radio contact
• 2nd pilot spotted another group of friendly
vehicles and spoke to 1st pilot about it; controller
did not know
• Controller came back, 1st pilot asked to confirm if
there is friendly force there (referring to 2nd
group); controller thought he was referring to the
1st group and said no
• A fatality occurred as a result
US - UK Team Communication
Differences
• Differences in language and language use
• Differences in concepts including
differences in doctrine and conceptual
mismatch
• Differences in procedures such as
planning process
• Differences in organization structure
Potential Mitigation Strategies for
Coalition Miscommunication
• Multinational combined training prior to
operations
– The more people work together, the more they
understand each other
• Cultural awareness and communication training
– Encourage questions
– Be aware of the interlocutor’s context
• Standardized terminology
– Only with limited use in certain situations
• Glossaries and other communication tools
– Electronic tools will be useful in some situations
More Study of Context
• What major contextual elements are critical to
communication during coalition operations
• How do these elements interact with the use of
language to contribute to successful
communication or lead to miscommunication
• How can knowledge of these contextual
elements can be captured and provided before
an operation, such as in training or in the form
of information tools.
Summary
• Confirmation of previous findings
• Importance of context and shared context
awareness in understanding
• Potential strategies for minimizing
miscommunications
Questions or Comments?