The Situational Awareness Paradox
And How Good UX Leads to Better Decisions with the Right Information (Part II)

By: Larry Marine and Dr. Dan Padgett

The Department of the Air Force is constantly looking to improve its situational awareness (SA). At CyberWorx, we’ve helped solve a wide range of problems. While each problem is unique, nearly all share a common theme of SA and data access. While data is a critical component to SA, simply displaying more information isn’t the answer. The data needs to be processed, normalized, and displayed in a way that improves human use.

In the last article, we explained the common problems we see in trying to “fix” legacy systems. (Read it here.) While these systems need to be improved, the opportunity exists to upgrade the entire system instead of building more technology into an outdated system.

Opportunities for Improvement

Just as a human-centered design perspective helps identify recurring issues, it also suggests four approaches for designing a system to correct them.

• Task-Oriented Design. We conduct user research for every project to understand what tasks and goals an Airman is responsible for. Focusing on tasks allows us to design solutions that provide functionality in the right way, at the right time.

Unlike feature-oriented design, where all features are available all of the time, task-oriented design doesn’t require knowing where each feature is located or when it’s appropriate to use it. Our goal is to design a system that will make someone just as successful on day one of their job as someone who’s been at it for several years.

• Task Management and Prioritization. Focusing on the task instead of the features allows the user to better manage and focus on each task, reducing the cognitive load and “switching cost” that comes with multitasking. Minimizing switching does not mean presenting all of the information at once. A well-designed system should assist users in prioritizing and managing their tasks so they switch tasks seamlessly and only when necessary.

• Mitigate Information Overload. Gathering, normalizing, correlating, and understanding data are all mentally demanding. Humans can only process so much data before they become cognitively overloaded. A system designed for users mitigates information overload by automating routine tasks – gathering, normalizing, and correlating as much information as possible – then presenting it to the user in an easy-to-understand format.

For instance, operators monitoring different sensors are primarily interested in trends and exceptions. Rather than overwhelming the operator with all of the available sensor data, the system can be designed to present only significant trends and exceptions. That doesn’t include omitting important information from the user. It’s organizing data into meaningful chunks related to that step of the task.

• Augmented Intelligence. The Department of the Air Force places a priority on keeping personnel in the decision-making loop. A fully automated system conflicts with that priority and isn’t feasible. Despite the advances in AI, machines still can’t mimic or replace human cognition. A better approach uses technology to support human thinking. The result is an intelligent application that uses computer strengths to complement human strengths.

Seizing opportunities for system-wide improvement will make personnel more efficient and decrease the workload on individuals while increasing their overall mission effectiveness. As the need for situational awareness grows and the amount of available data increases, delivering actionable information is more crucial than ever. We must define system requirements that put human needs as the focal point of those requirements. Hence the name Human-Centered Design.

The Situational Awareness Paradox
And How Good UX Leads to Better Decisions with the Right Information

By: Larry Marine and Dr. Dan Padgett

The Department of the Air Force has a situational awareness (SA) problem. And no, the answer is not “we need more data.” Data, while a critical component to SA, is only a part of the problem. At CyberWorx, we often encounter solutions aimed only at acquiring and displaying more data, and we’re asked to design a visualization. The data is never the real problem.

From a human-centered design perspective, the systems we see are relics of the 1990s—and we’re not saying that because they lack the style of the latest visual design trends. Rather, the systems we see are technology-first approaches that saturate human cognitive capabilities. Adding more technology or data to the user’s task hinders his ability to complete the mission.

For example, a typical legacy system relies on the user to gather data through email, phone, and other disconnected sources. As the user gathers and processes this information, they log it–typically in an Excel spreadsheet custom built for the organization by a wizard who is no longer there to fix or update it. Once they’ve logged that information, the user can finally turn their attention to the task itself.

Often, something more urgent pops up before they can do that task. The user gets distracted and hopes they haven’t lost their train of thought when they return to the original task. Every time the user has to change tasks, technologies, or software, they incur a “switching cost.” [1] These costs add up, resulting in cognitive overload with potentially disastrous consequences.

Problems with Current Systems

Our discovery research on many projects reveals five recurring problems with legacy designs and proposed solutions:

• Pervasive Reliance on Humans. The systems we see rely on the user’s skill and knowledge (including how to use the system), both of which are highly variable. As a result, the success of the mission varies and cannot exceed the skills of individual users.

• Discrete, Non-Integrated Technology. Current systems are often a patchwork of technologies that are not integrated. This work of gathering, assimilating, and responding to information falls entirely on the user. While this “hands-on” approach to information sounds like it would increase SA, it actually puts the user at a perpetual risk for cognitive overload which can impact mission success.

• Processes Dictated by Technology. Many AF processes were developed as a response to the limitations of previous system capabilities. For instance, a conference call line might have been established due to communication difficulties, then process and protocol behaviors were established to support the conference call solution. These processes become sacrosanct, protecting the use of current technology—even when the technology is outdated, and it’s time to reevaluate and optimize (or remove) that process to promote new technology innovations. Keeping processes the same when updating technology doesn’t really change anything and limits the effectiveness of new technology. We refer to this phenomenon as automating current frustrations.

• “We Just Need More Training.” On its face, training sounds like a great way to overcome the above problems–more familiarity with the system should make it easier to use. However, we believe training should focus on the task, not using the system. If users need more training to use a system, it has poor design that takes attention from task completion.

• Automate, Automate, Automate. Automation can improve productivity by reducing the time to receive and view information. However, too much automation decreases efficiency. Without increasing overall comprehension, there’s only so much automation can do before the speed of information presentation overloads the user. (Have you ever tried to sip from a firehose?)

We can’t continue solving problems the same way we did in the 90s. We have the opportunity and ability to improve the entire system – not just add more technology – using human-centered design. The CyberWorx perspective with human-centered design not only calls attention to the recurring problems we see, it also suggests opportunities for improvement. We’ll discuss those opportunities in part II of this article. (Read it here)

[1] https://www.apa.org/research/action/multitask

Team Comments – Q3

What does an AF CyberWorx “win” look like? As we touched on in previous newsletters, we use our unique blend of user experience and modern problem solving/product development methods to tackle a wide range of operational and organizational challenges.  The solutions can range from a white-paper strategy/policy recommendation, re-engineered business processes, to technology (software/hardware) solutions or a combination of the three. 

We had three major wins in quarter three representing how we work to support Air Force solutions:

•  Early Warning Radar Sustainment: As we supported Air Combat Command’s legacy radar sustainment effort, we not only assisted operators, maintainers, and sustainers in bringing together different viewpoints of the challenge, we combined a common future vision with acquisition strategies to engage industry to achieve the optimal solution for the Air Force. 
  
• Six Degrees of Kevin Beacon: In our work with the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center, we helped them develop the concept for process flows and a software tool to streamline identification and response tracking to emergency beacons across the continental United States.  Additionally, we helped prepare them to submit for Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) funds via AFWERX/AFRL, bringing together multiple partners in the AF innovation ecosystem and multiply AFRCC’s initial development investment. 
  
• OPTIMIS: The originally airlift-focused flight evaluation app developed in a project originally taken up by Academy cadets took a different turn as we recognized complementary flight scheduling efforts under way by Kessel Run, another partner in the AF innovation ecosystem.  We transitioned our user-tested, minimum viable product into their portfolio to broaden its scope across all mission platforms, allow for full mission support integration, and provide for out-year sustainment. 

What all our solutions have in common is that through our end-user focused processes, we re-imagine how people, organizations, and technology interact to best accomplish and support the Air Force mission.  When we help with solutions, we don’t just stop with an idea or concept to solve a problem. We support with strategies and coordination to identify and engage partners for development and transition to sustainment. 

Successful outcomes from AF CyberWorx engagements are as diverse as the challenges they answer but always focus on the end-user to maximize mission impact and bring to bear our full range of academic, industry, and government partnerships to maximize transition potential. Resolve, Accelerate, Deliver! What would an AF CyberWorx-powered win look like for your organization?

Good News – OPTIMIS – Q3

As Lt Col Helgeson stated above, we’ve had multiple wins the last quarter. OPTIMIS is but one example and shows what we love to do: take a previously unaddressed end-user need, develop a prototype, and transition it to maturity and full sustainment.

In March 2018, the 21st Airlift Squadron (AS), Travis Air Force Base, California, reached out for help updating their home-grown pilot training and evaluation system, OPTIMIS. The unit built their database in MS Access years before and the developer had long since departed, leaving an unsupported system. Add to that their desire for more functionality and compatibility with the GTIMS system, and they were ready for some help.

Between November 2018 and November 2019, Academy cadets answered the call for help, using the real-world improvement project for a capstone course. As they worked on the improved app, they developed their skills in teamwork, user design fundamentals, and project management. By the final presentations, the cadets had created a mid-quality prototype that had already gone through the first phase of user testing at Travis AFB. Their time had come to graduate, however, so AF CyberWorx took the project and continued to code for transition.

AF CyberWorx carried OPTIMIS through more user testing, further refined the design, and found other programs following similar objectives. Kessel Run was already working on other mission planning and support applications, so we worked to transition a refined prototype to be included in their suite of matured applications. Recently, our attempts bore fruit as OPTIMIS transitioned for out-year sustainment. That’s our favorite part of a “win”: seeing the needs of end users being addressed as a solution moves from an idea through prototyping and testing to sustainment and implementation. Here’s to many more wins in the future.

COLLABORATION

Last week, we had a slow start due to the snow storm on Tuesday; but, AF CyberWorx was able to recover and have a successful #AFCTM Sprint. Six teams split into groups of six and worked together to solve challenges related to Air Force’s Cyber Talent Management. 

We’ll have a press release and report prepared in a few weeks on the solutions that were proposed, but in the meantime, check out the photos taken during #AFCTM on our Flickr page. 

View Now!

VISIT US AT THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN CYBERSPACE SYMPOSIUM 

INNOVATION

From February 4-7, 2019 we’ll be at the Broadmoor in Colorado Springs for RMCS in booth 65. RMCS provides a national forum for industry and government to work together to help solve the challenges of cybersecurity, community cyber readiness, and national defense. Join us in the conversation to learn how you can work with us. 

Join Us ?

JOIN US AT COLLIDER ON CATALYST CAMPUS

NETWORKING

Connect with our government and industry personnel at Catalyst Campus for a networking happy hour event on an RMCS evening. Collider is an open house where guests can gain insight on AF CyberWorx projects of the past and future. We can’t wait to see you on Wednesday, February 6, 5-7 pm at Catalyst Campus Co-Lab Kitchen & Railyard.

RSVP Now ?

THE AIR FORCE CHALLENGE

Join AF Cyberworx and the Air Force Research Laboratory in the Vice Chief’s Challenge. 

The Vice Chief’s Challenge is an open competition to solicit innovative ideas to tackle Air Force level problems. This year’s challenge will take on Multi-Domain Operations (MDO). Submissions must be entered into the Air Force IdeaScale before February 28, 2019. 

Join Us ?

PRE-GAME PART TWO: EXPECTATIONS

“Our thoughts about an event can have a dramatic effect on how we go through the event itself.” –Martha Beck, life coach

Any time a group of people are about to embark on a new goal, there are expectations. As much as motivational quotes talk about having no expectations, they still exist in one form or another. A major part of the initial event planning is expectation management. Stakeholders have in mind what they think AF CyberWorx can do and will do. At the same time, the facilitation team has specific things they hope the stakeholders and participants will do. Sometimes the mystery continues on until the event itself. We hope this blog will work towards solving that mystery by setting realistic expectations.

When stakeholders request an event, they know the status quo is not working. They and the users they represent all have ideas of what might “fix” everything. Dr. Dan Padgett, a user experience designer on staff with AF CyberWorx, explains that the facilitation team does not “validate solutions they’ve already thought of.” Instead, they help with a process of thinking differently that gets the team to an answer. The key word being process. A problem solving event does not start with the solution. That being said, some participants and stakeholders come with the expectation that the AF CyberWorx team is going to either provide the answer to their problem or enable the idea they already have.

Vel Preston, Head of Innovation Design, explains it this way: “You scope a problem one way, and a lot of people come to the sprint who haven’t had the same background with new ideas. The group decides, ‘Well, we hadn’t considered that. Maybe we should scope this differently than we thought.’” The process AF CyberWorx guides event participants through leads experts and industry partners to refine the problem and find an impactful solution.

What the team thinks they’re going to fix at first may not be what needs to be focused on. Larry Marine, Lead UX Designer, explains why it’s necessary to lead participants away from their initial expectations as soon as possible: “Folks come in with a strong tendency towards the symptoms without fully understanding the problem.”

That being said, the facilitating team members are also not subject matter experts themselves. As Dr. Padgett says, “sometimes it takes participants a bit to realize that we’re there to facilitate the sprint, and that we’re not SMEs ourselves.” As designers, their specialty is facilitation and guiding teams to consider the user experience in their own designs. They are not experts in every field, nor are they experts on exactly what the stakeholders need to fix their problem. That’s why a group of experts from the field are brought together to solve the problem.

What AF CyberWorx cannot do for stakeholders is solve their problem. They will not immediately verify initial solutions before the process is followed, because they don’t know the current system well enough to say “yea” or “nay.” What we can do is assist a special focus team towards finding a desirable and feasible solution. We can provide facilities with a workspace, tools, and facilitators to make problem solving easier. We also provide networking with industry partners to broaden the knowledge and capabilities of the DoD talent pool. We facilitate improvement and growth, but the subject matter experts in the field are the real heroes that do the work.

Of course, expectations go both ways. Jayleen Guttromson-Johnson, Program Manager, lays out the AF CyberWorx expectations succinctly: “We expect full-time commitment while [participants are] in the design sprint. No email, phone calls, or disappearances. Also, be open to living with the uncomfortable. Our process isn’t like what most people are used to, so just trust the process.”

Stakeholders request AF CyberWorx facilitation and capabilities. We’re here for the team’s success. Let us help turn problems into solutions that go beyond simple expectations.

PRE-GAME PART THREE: PROJECT LOGISTICS

Written By: Author

What do hotels, food, security, and video recording have in common? They’re all part of the chain of logistics that happens behind the scenes before a successful event. The AF CyberWorx logistics guru is Cheyenne Ellis. She does more than just gather and send out a hotel list and coordinate access badges and video recording of the event outbrief. She also lines up transportation into the secure location where events are held, builds baskets with supplies for each breakout team, coordinates with our support team for food delivery, ensures buildings and elevators are accessible, and a myriad of other small details to let participants and the team focus their energy on the problem being worked during the event.

For her to be successful, though, she needs the cooperation of stakeholders and participants involved in the event. She says the most important thing she needs is for participants to fill out the requested information as quickly and accurately as possible. Otherwise, she may be unable to help, constrained by security or other deadlines. “We’re very strategic on what we ask for. We’re doing this because we need to.”

The place to give information is through the portal every participant is directed to at registration. The information provided allows Cheyenne to acquire security badges, lets her know if there are any food allergies (or preferences), as well as gives contact information in case there’s a last-minute change or weather issues to ensure participant safety and comfort. Without the proper information, we can’t get you on base, get you access badges, and through security to attend the event.

It’s critical that participants read the information they’re given before arriving on base for an event. It may involve what to bring (and not bring), base visitor hours, directions to the parking area, shuttle transportation, and how to navigate the maze of hallways to AF CyberWorx.

For stakeholders, the most important thing is to be involved and responsive, even if they are unable to attend the event. The best results happen when stakeholders give fully fleshed-out directions including their goals and a fully formed problem statement. Not only do these give the problem-solving team direction, they keep the stakeholder in the loop with what’s going on. The stakeholder is a critical part to shaping the way forward to a solution. Having involved stakeholders helps the event run smoother from the beginning all the way through approving implementing changes identified by the project teams.

AF CyberWorx does as much work behind the scenes as possible to make a design sprint run as smoothly as possible. Without cooperation from participants, however, that work is difficult. Be prepared with your end of the logistics and we will be that much more effective at designing a solution!