How to Pick up the Needed Information about What Is Going

Around Us: Information Awareness in Crisis Management

Amina Saoutal, Nada Matta and Jean Pierre Cahier

ICD/Tech-CICO, Troyes University of Technology, 12 Marie Curie, Troyes, France

Keywords: Awareness, Information Sharing, Communication Emergency Response, Collaboration, Crisis Response.

Abstract: Emergency responders require maintaining awareness of the relevant information, in order to collaborate

and achieve their activities successfully. However, the multitude organizations involved in crisis response

are faced with many challenges and boundaries such as culture, terminology, objectives and priorities. All

of this hampers the coordination and communication of the different information requirements for each

particular need within inter-organizational collaboration. As result, this leads to issues in awareness,

decision making and carrying out activities in addition to the loss of time. Hence, awareness is an important

factor for crisis response success. This prompted us to ask the original question: How to pick up the needed

and the relevant information about what is going around us to integrate and achieve our activity? In this

paper, we present: (1) the results of this study on awareness issues, causes and effects in Inter-

Organizational Collaboration in Crisis Management (2) We describe a semi structured system approach

supporting Information Awareness, this approach help the different actors to pick up the needed and the

relevant information about what is going around them to coordinate, integrate and achieve their activities.

1 INTRODUCTION

Emergency responders (ERd) require maintaining

awareness of the relevant information, in order to

collaborate and achieve their activities successfully

(Schmidt, 2002; Steinmacher et al., 2013). However,

the multitude organizations involved in crisis

response (CR) are faced with many challenges and

boundaries such as culture, terminology, objectives

and priorities. All of this hampers the coordination

and communication of the different information

requirements for each particular need within inter-

organizational collaboration. As result, this leads to

issues in awareness, decision making and carrying

out activities in addition to the loss of time. Hence,

awareness is an important factor for CR success.

The concept of awareness varies with the

variation of discipline; Belkadi pointed out relevant

literature about awareness concept (Belkadi et al,

2013). In cognitive science, situation awareness is

the perception of the elements in the environment

within a volume of time and space, the

comprehension of their meaning and the projection

of their status in the near future (Endsley, 2000). In

collaborative work, awareness “refers to a person’s

being or becoming aware of something.” (Schmidt,

2002). Another definition given by Dourish and

Bellotti: “awareness is an understanding of the

activities of others, which provides a context for our

own activity” (Dourish and Bellotti, 1992). Others

researchers use the term awareness with an adjective

in order to qualify its use in a specific context (e.g.

peripheral awareness (Gaver, 1992; Bly et al., 1993,

p. 34; Benford et al., 1994), general awareness

(Gaver, 1991; Bly et al., 1993, p. 29), passive

awareness (Dourish and Bellotti, 1992, p. 107;

Dourish and Bly, 1992, p. 541) workspace

awareness (Gutwin, 1997; Gutwin and Greenberg,

1999; Gutwin and Greenberg, 2002) etc.) In

(Schmidt, 2002). Overall, even though the concept

of awareness is still ambiguous, all concepts of

‘awareness’ involve adopting the right information

at the right time to the right actor in order to analyze

information, make decision and achieve actions

(Gorman et al., 2006; Salmon et al., 2010).

However, awareness is often affected and hampered

by communication process problems: what is

communicated and how communication occurs

(Damian et al., 2007). The communication is not the

only problem of awareness as people could

communicate information without achieving

awareness. The central problematic of this concept

in collaborative work is how actors pick up what is

Saoutal, A., Matta, N. and Cahier, J..

How to Pick up the Needed Information about What Is Going Around Us: Information Awareness in Crisis Management.

In Proceedings of the 7th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2015) - Volume 3: KMIS, pages 119-127

ISBN: 978-989-758-158-8

119

going on around them in order to integrate and align

tacitly their activities (Schmidt, 2002).

Picking up what is going around could be by

monitoring the activities of other actors, this

involves observing directly their activities (co-

located) or by communicating information in face to

face or by tools when actors are remote. In our

context of work, monitoring activities in inter-

organizational collaboration in crisis management is

difficult by face to face, as the crisis could be in a

large space, actors are remote and could not observe

others activities directly.

Thus actors need to be supported in order to be

aware about what is going around. Bly conceived a

media space to bring people together in a video,

audio, and computing environment as it is important

for informal interaction and general awareness (Bly

et al., 1993), similarly, the Portholes experiment at

Xerox EuroPARC, was conceived as an aspect of

informal interaction. “Awareness involves knowing

who is “around”, what activities are occurring, who

is talking with whom; it provides a view of one

another in the daily work environments. Awareness

may lead to informal interactions, spontaneous

connections, and the development of shared cultures

– all important aspects of maintaining working

relationships which are denied to groups distributed

across multiple sites” (Dourish and Bly, 1992, p. 541

in Schmidt, 2002). However, this concern social

context work, not the ongoing activities within the

cooperative effort (Schmidt, 2002). Being aware of

what is going around is very large and wide; actors

can be aware about others’ activities that are not

relevant to their own activity and it can lead to

information overload. In addition, information

overload makes actors under stress in the case of

crisis management and affect the decision making

and activities achievement. Thus, we use the

combination information awareness: as picking up

only needed and the relevant information at the right

time about what is going around us for a given

context in order to integrate and achieve our own

activities.

Information Awareness means two things that

are not separated: the first is that actors know and

identify what they have to pick up around

themselves and which is relevant for their activity;

the second is that actors have to pick up what they

have not anticipated previously and which is

relevant to integrate and adjust their activity.

In this work, we propose an approach to answer

the principal question How to pick up the needed

and the relevant information about what is going

around us to integrate and achieve our activity?

This approach is based on activities’

interdependency model and relies on organizing

information and occurrences of activities generated

and performed by different actors and organizations

involved in crisis management so that actors could

pick up easily the needed information about what is

going around them. The organization of this

information and the identification of actors’ need are

based on modelling the inter-dependencies of the

different activities (operations) between the different

organizations. We believe that this approach will

enhance information awareness as this model is

flexible and can be managed during crisis response.

2 RELATED WORK

Numerous studies were conducted to support intra-

organizational communication of information and

awareness; Location-Based Notification System for

Police to enhance awareness about incident location

(Streefkerk et al., 2008), peer to peer system to

support communication and alert between firefighter

(Jiang et al., 2004), information sharing prototype

providing awareness about the most important roles

in fire department (Prasanna et al., 2011). However,

the fact remains that these studies are restricted to

one emergency service. For multi-organizations

studies, we mention, Request-and-report system

based on android devices supporting the information

articulation which enriches awareness between

actors in the field and the control centers by

providing necessary information (Ludwig et al.,

2013). Nevertheless, this work did not tackle the

information articulation and the awareness between

the different organizations in inter-organizational

level. Ley proposed a centralized information

repository of documents (.pdf, .doc) for all

organizations involved in which users are able to

access to the information from different types and

sources (Ley et al. 2013), but it still not sufficient.

This approach may be relevant for decisional level

when decision makers need internal and external

information (e.g. water level, weather forecast etc.)

for decision making. In case of actors in operational

level, they could not search needed information

easily from the repository as it suppose that they

have to know what they will search for. However it

could be other information that they ignore and

which is relevant for their activities.

In the same align; Bui suggests a framework for

designing a Global Information Network to improve

communication, gathering and dissemination of

information for the humanitarian assistance and

KMIS 2015 - 7th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

120

disaster relief (Bui, 2000). In fact, we do not

perceive clearly in this article how the dissemination

was organized and established to allow to the actors

picking up what. Regarding Sapareito and Antunes,

an emergency-model should be capable to maintain

the interdependencies between events, actors,

actions etc and any other factors involved in the

process (Sapateiro and Antunes, 2009), thus they

proposed emergency response model to improve and

achieve collective shared situational awareness. The

Barhosa proposed a new role of “orchestrator” to

coordinate information flows between multiple

agencies and share awareness. The orchestrator takes

care of the information needs that go beyond the

boundary of a single agency (Bharosa et al., 2011).

However, with the massive information available in

CR, it will be difficult for the orchestrator or liaison-

officer to manage all this information. Additionally,

it is not clear in this article how to help the

orchestrator to adress this information to the

different agencies.

3 APPROACH TO SUPPORT

INFORMATION AWARENESS

In order to propose an approach to enhance and

support information awareness in inter-

organizational collaboration, we proceed to

understand first the collaborative practices in crisis

management and studying the information

awareness from the communication of information

corner. Thus, we conduct the qualitative study in

which we focus specially on professional actors and

organizations involved in crisis management (CR).

We conducted interviews with different

organizations, we participated to some exercises and

we analysed experience-feedback documents about

previous real cases.

3.1 Methodology

We conducted in a first step, individual semi

structured interviews (Table 1) with different actors

from different organizations involved in crisis (Fire,

Emergency medical service (EMS), Police…) in

order to understand their current practices on inter-

organizational collaboration and highlight the root

causes of communicating information problem that

prevent meeting the different objectives and impact

decision making. In a second step of interviews, we

focused especially on information in common core

among the various organizations involved. We note

that we did debriefings on real cases (Table 2) and

we participated to two exercises as observers (Table

3). In the first exercise (E1) we observed the inter-

organizational communication in the different levels:

operational level (OL), tactical level (TL) in the

field, the communication center of hospital and

strategic level (SL) in prefecture (crisis cell,

departmental operational center). The exercise was

video recorded in OL and we took notes in other

levels. Besides, interviews were audio recorded and

transcribed for subsequent data analysis following

the process of qualitative content analysis (Mayring,

2000).

Table 1: Interviews.

N° Organization Role

I1 Fire department Commandant

I2 Fire department Colonel

I3 Fire department Group chief

I4 Fire department Trainer at firefighter/former

firefighter

I5 Fire department Commandant of rescue operation

I6 EMS Chief of emergency medical

assistance service/ expert

I7 EMS Assistant chief of emergency medical

I8 Police Captain: Deputy officer of

information

I9 Police Colonel: commandant of police

I10 Consultant Former firefighter/ expert

Table 2: Debriefing.

N° Debriefing type Participants

D1 Accident bus in

highway

Real case Expert -EMS

D2 Nuclear transport Exercise Expert-EMS

D3 Retirement home Real case Expert-EMS

D4 Storm 99 Real case Commandant of Rescue

Operation Firefighter

Table 3: Debriefing.

N° Exercise observation Participants

E1 Shooting in commercial stores FRS-Police-EMS-others

E2 Population evacuation Red Cross

3.2 Information Awareness Problems

Analysis

In crisis management, the situation is very critical

and actors have to pick up what is going around as

soon as possible in order to integrate their activities

and save victims. The plan and the procedure

indicate that information about activities in inter-

organizational collaboration is provided by

communicating this information through the

Command Posts (CPs) in the tactical level.

However, based on our ethnographic data, the

How to Pick up the Needed Information about What Is Going Around Us: Information Awareness in Crisis Management

121

communication of information in real situation of

crisis management is not fluid. This is due to the

problem of information flow; bottom-up and top-

down, weak interaction between actors in inter-

organization as well as the information

unavailability due to the lack of awareness about

others actor needs.

We present in detail the current communication

and awareness problems hamper information

awareness within inter-organizational collaboration

in crisis management:

3.2.1 Weak Interaction between Actors

Monitoring activities in inter-organizational

collaboration in crisis management is difficult. The

crisis could be in a large space; actors are remote

and could not observe others activities directly as

well as the tools used are generally the radio which

does not enable to achieve information awareness

effectively. In the procedures, the CP of each

organization should assume inter-organizational

communication and information sharing about

activities; however it is not always the case. CPs are

not always established at the beginning of crisis, “As

the CP is not yet installed, there is a period of

waiting and communication is very complex” (I8). In

this case, the only way to pick up what is going

around is via interlocutor. Actors try to find other

organization’ interlocutor to pick up what is going

around, whereas, it is difficult to interact between

each other; as it is difficult to reach and determine

who is in the field, the position of remote actors and

actors’ roles, we note that the roles are dynamic and

an actor may have different role at each time: e.g.

“CRO cannot find an interlocutor from EMS to have

a medical answer” (E1)

“We need to identify who is the interlocutor for each

service and who is the decision maker” (I6)

This issue is caused by missing awareness about

actors’ network “it is necessary to maintain a

network of knowledge to communicate information

rapidly” (I10).

3.2.2 Information Unavailability

Even if the CP are set up (e.g. after one hour of

crisis (E1)), the information still unavailable due to

the difficulty to manage and send the right

information at the right time; in one hand, the CPs

are overloaded by the treatment of many calls in

radio as well as the transmission of information

report to the operational center and to the crisis cell

(e.g. Departmental Operation Center if the crisis is

departmental). So this hamper communicating

information transversally. (e.g “We are not able to

access to the field, we need to know the perimeter of

exclusion, information about victims and what could

we do” (I6, D1).

In the other hand actors could not determine

precisely the relevant information needs for others.

“We realize that we are really advanced and we wait

the vehicles of firefighter and that police give us the

information of access… The transmitter does not

give information at the right time” (I6, D1)). “There

is a transmission of information but not necessarily

the right one […] The transmitter may give

fragmented information that are not exploitable” (I6,

D1).

This is due to the missing awareness about

actors’ priorities and objectives, in addition to the

lack of awareness about actions interdependencies.

Hence, the interlocutor of each organization could

not determine the right information needed by other

actors neither at each time they need it. (E.g. The

police know that there is an escape route, but they

do not necessarily communicate…” (I6)

“There is a logistical dependence also related to

information at the right time. We do not transmit the

relevant information for the activity of the other at

the right time” (I6)

3.2.3 Information Flow (Top-down;

Bottom-up)

Information flow is very long from operational (OL)

to the strategic level (SL). It is as follows: for each

organization, actors in OL send information report

about their activities vertically to their own

Command Post (CP) to make tactical decision. In

turn information are reported to the different centers

to inform them what is going on the field (actions

carried out, resources required etc). Afterward, this

information is reported to the SL (DOC).

Consequently, all this, produces a shift phase

between the different levels operational, tactical and

strategic levels. This is due to the lack of tools that

enable actors to pick up what is going around

instantly. Hence, the major decision making and

unfolded measures are affected. “The time is not the

same in the field as in the CC of EMS, and in the

DOC” (I6)

In other hand, actors in the field are not aware

instantly about the major decision made in strategic

level or the decision made by the Commander of

rescue (in tactical level) to embed and align in the

field. “We are not necessarily aware at the right

time about the decisions made in strategic level”

(I6). “There is a problem of information top-down,

KMIS 2015 - 7th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

122

Table 4: Information Awareness issues, causes and effects.

we are not aware about the major decision made in

SL and they are not communicated to actors on

field” (I6,D2).

“Sometimes, the Commander of rescue makes

decision. However there is a delay to receive this

decision” (I6). Top-down and bottom-up, affect the

global information awareness in SL and the major

decision-making.

In table 4, we summarize the information awareness

issues, causes and effect in inter-organizational-

collaboration in crisis management:

To summarize: currently actors pick up what is

going around through tactical level, this is not

efficient as actors have to research an interlocutor

from who to pick up his needs. In other hand the

CPs do not transmit all information needed neither at

the right time. Hence, picking up information

awareness with current communication and

awareness problem is not sure. Besides, actor

transmitter (e.g CP in tactical level) and actor

looking for information (E.g. actors in the field) may

pay cost instead they benefit -in transmitting

information and looking for interlocutor,

information needed etc.). Second, actors can receive

information that the sender believes relevant for

them, whereas he cannot determine the relevance

without the context of other own activity. Third,

sender cannot predict relevant information for others

and time of needed (Dourish and Bellotti, 1992).

3.3 Supporting Information Awareness

in Inter-organizational

Collaboration

To support information awareness we asked the

question if it is relevant to support social awareness

in order to enable actors the identification of “to

whom displaying their activities” and identify

“interlocutor from who to pick up what is going

around”. On analyzing the situation of crisis

management, this solution will enhance interaction

between actors. However, it is difficult in such

situation with dynamic event; in addition action, the

roles and responsibilities of actors in the field are

dynamic, so defining a list of transmitter and

receiver will not be exhaustive. Besides, the

transmitter and the person who search for

information may pay cost of time to transmit or

request the information during executing their

activities. Another reason is that actors could not

monitor all this all this dynamism. Thus, we focus

our solution on the core definition of awareness in

the cooperative work as taking heed of needed

information and other relevant occurrences in order

perform and integrate interdependent activities.

Before we present our approach, we give some

recommendations to support cooperative application

for inter-organizational collaboration:

The crisis is a dynamic process of events and actions

that are unpredictable, thus the systems should not

automate all process.

How to Pick up the Needed Information about What Is Going Around Us: Information Awareness in Crisis Management

123

The sender could not predict relevant information

for others and time of needed. Thus we suggest a (1)

system that distributes information within the

context; information which critical to a decision or

performing action: for instance, determine

information by action or goal intended, location, and

role etc. (2) the system must support audiovisual and

geographical information. GIS could provide a good

representation of data (3) Information must flow

instantaneously bottom-up, top-down and

transversally. (4) Use tools that actors are used to

use (e.g. the Smartphone; actors use mobile phones

in parallel with the radio) (5) keep the current

systems used by actors (e.g. information system) and

make an interoperable system that centralizes

information in the common core and distribute the

needed information to the existing systems.

What we propose is semi-structured system

which collects information in the common core and

distributes information awareness to the different

actors in the different level (figure 1). The

distribution rely on (1) model of interdependent

action/activities that are defined

from the crisis response plan and previous

experience. (2) The distribution considers also the

model of actors’ network, which includes dynamic

role and responsibilities in addition to other meta-

data (e.g. organization, time, function etc.). These

models are explained in detail in (Saoutal et al.,

2015). Briefly, empirical data shows that the most

information needed to achieve an action are related

to other set of activities or subsidiary of activity.

Thus, we model the different activities -in common

core-, sub-activities (actions) and their

dependencies. When the information is collected in

common core -we notice that this information is

originally reported by the different actors executing

actions and exercising their activities- then this

different information such as {decision, message of

information, video, photos, data and unfolded

Figure 1: Semi-Structured System for Distributed

Information Awareness.

logistics} is organized under multi-level: principal

activity -> subsidiary activity (see an example in

figure 2). After that, we distribute to each actor

context, the information awareness needed. To apply

that, we consider the context by the set of

information {the goal intention and/or the operation

that he will perform, his location and his role} in

order to provide the information provided by

interdependent activities and provide also additional

information based on his location and role. All this

information is represented with metadata such as

time, actor provider, responsibility, organization etc.

This model is dynamic and updatable in which we

can add, modify or remove activities, sub-activities

and dependencies during crisis response, for that, we

suggest to add a new role of “supervisor” who will

monitor all situation in the field remotely, control

the interaction and the integration of the different

information that are not supported by the system

previously and who will manage the dependencies as

judged by the situation.

We are currently, implementing the prototype

and developing the system using a user-centered

design methodology to meet the end user

requirement. The system will be implemented in

heterogeneous tools (such as Smartphone, tablet, PC

etc.) in order to facilitate the portability and the

usability of the systems by the different actors: in the

field (OL), in tactical level (TL) and in the strategic

level (SL).

Some guideline to develop cooperative system

for CR:

• We used the field studies in order to analyze the

practice work and the current problem and needs

of crisis responders. This was conducted by

observation and interviews about specific issues

(such communication and awareness) in order to

pick up other problem/solution that they do not

perceive and do not require.

Figure 2: Example for Activities Interdependency and

Information Structure.

KMIS 2015 - 7th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

124

Figure 3: Application for distributing Information Awareness.

• The prototype should focus on those

functionalities which will handle the analyzed

problem. Before developing, we propose to

perform a scenario-based walkthrough with

professionals based on a paper or other format of

presentation explaining the solution. The goal is

to see if actors with the proposed prototype, will

accomplish their activities (in this case: we want

to analyse of actor will achieve information

awareness based on described scenario) and to

have some professional feedback in order to

improve the system.

• Technically, we can use distributed architecture

which enable the functioning of many systems

and provide information with different format to

these system at the same time. One technical

solution is to use the web service REST as its

architecture is oriented-resource dedicated for

distributed hypermedia and its services are

implemented by HTTP-servlets. We suggest also

using NoSQL database in order to support a

massive number of transactions, data, users etc.

and for their simple use and development.

In figure 3, we present the application for

distributing Information Awareness. Responders in

the field have the application in Smartphone which

is attached to the actor's arm to facilitate sending

report and doing their activities at the same time.

When an actor send report (e.g. firefighter send

information about victims’ recognition - evaluation),

this information is structured under the activity

“recognition victims fire” and sub-activity

“evaluation”. The structure is previously established

in the database according to the model of activities

dependency. To facilitate the management of

dependencies, we included in IA-activity, the

information about internal operation output and the

information about dependant operations output, so

that actor could pick up all and just information

related to the activity that he interested in. In this

example, we have IA-Recognition which contains

according to figure 2, recognition victims EMS,

recognition victims firefighter and Secure perimeter,

as actors that are interested to executing the

recognition need all these information.

So when the EMS responder subscribe to IA-

recognition, he will have access to this information

and will be aware about the perimeter of security,

what was done by firefighter, when, who, the

victims previously treated, their localization through

the visual information on map, which facilitate him

to integrate and execute his own activity.

This model is manageable during crisis,

supervisor could manage the information report that

are not categorized and structured under operations

as he has the global view of what is going around.

He/she can assign this information to the suitable

IA-operation as he prejudges its relevance for an

organization or an operation. This role needs a

minimum of knowledge about each organization, the

objectives, culture etc.

How to Pick up the Needed Information about What Is Going Around Us: Information Awareness in Crisis Management

125

4 CONCLUSION

In this work, we identify the multitude inter-

organizational failures related to the information

awareness issues rooted in a lack of awareness

about: actors ‘network (role, organization, position

etc.), activities’ interdependency and actors

requirement. All this problems hamper IA

achievement and lead to issues in decision making

and action achievement. Thus, we propose an

approach that addresses the problem of information

awareness and how “picking up all and only needed

and the relevant information at the right time about

what is going around us for a given context in order

to integrate and achieve our own activities”. This

approach is based on activities’ interdependency

model and relies on organizing information and

occurrences of activities generated and provided

from different actors and organization involved in

crisis management so that actors could pick up

easily the needed information about what is going

around them.

We believe that this approach system will

enhance information awareness as this model is

flexible and can be managed during crisis; add new

activities and new interdependencies during dynamic

situation of crisis so that actors could achieve

information awareness about unanticipated

occurrences. Actors could add in their system new

operations (or an unanticipated event) and new

interdependencies during dynamic situation so that

actors could achieve information awareness about

unanticipated occurrences.

In our future work, we will experiment the

system to prove the effectiveness of this approach in

crisis response, the mitigation of the time-consuming

and the achievement of information awareness at the

right time, to the right actor through the system in

order to make decision and achieve action at the

right time.

REFERENCES

Bharosa, N., Janssen, M. and Tan, Y.-H. (2011) A

research agenda for information quality assurance in

public safety networks: information orchestration as

the middle ground between hierarchical and netcentric

approaches Cognition, Technology & Work, Springer,

13, 203-216.

Belkadi, F., Bonjour, E., Camargo, M., Troussier, N. and

Eynard, B. (2013) A situation model to support

awareness in collaborative design International

Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Elsevier, 71,

110-129.

Benford, Steven D., John M. Bowers, Lennart E. Fahlén,

and Chris Greenhalgh (1994): Managing mutual

awareness in collaborative virtual environments. In G.

Singh, S. K. Feiner, and D. Thalmann (eds.):

VRST’94: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI

Conference on Virtual Reality and Technology,

Singapore, 23–26 August 1994. New York: ACMPress,

pp. 223–236.

Bly, Sara, Steve R. Harrison, and Susan Irwin (1993):

Media spaces: Bringing people together in a video,

audio, and computing environment. Communications

of the ACM, vol. 36, no. 1, January 1993, pp. 28–47.

Bui, T., Cho, S., Sankaran, S. and Sovereign, M. (2000) A

framework for designing a global information network

for multinational humanitarian assistance/disaster

relief Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, 1, 427-

442.

Damian, D., Marczak, S., and Kwan, I. (2007).

Collaboration Patterns and the Impact of Distance on

Awareness in Requirements-Centred Social Networks.

15th IEEE International Requirements Engineering

Conference 59–68. doi:10.1109/RE.2007.51.

De Souza, C. R. & Redmiles, D. F. The Awareness

Network, To Whom Should I Display My Actions?

And, Whose Actions Should I Monitor? Software

Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, IEEE, 2011, 37,

325-340.

Dourish, P. and Bellotti, V. (1992) Awareness and

coordination in shared workspaces. Proceedings of the

1992 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported

Cooperative Work - CSCW ’92, 107–114.

doi:10.1145/143457.143468.

Dourish, P. and Bly, S. (1992): Portholes: supporting

awareness in a distributed work group. In P. Bauersfeld,

J. Bennett, and G. Lynch (eds.): CHI’92 Conference

Proceedings: ACM Conference on Human Factors in

Computing Systems, 3–7 May 1992, Monterey,

California. NewYork: ACM Press, pp. 541–547.

Endsley, M.R. and others Theoretical underpinnings of

situation awareness: A critical review Situation

awareness analysis and measurement, Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000, 3-32.

Fish, Robert S., Robert E. Kraut, and Barbara L. Chalfonte

(1990): The VideoWindow system in informal

communications. CSCW’90, Proceedings of the

Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative

Work, Los Angeles, Calif., 7–10 October 1990.

ACMPress, New York, pp. 1–11.

Gaver, William W. (1991): Sound support for

collaboration. In L. J. Bannon, M. Robinson, and K.

Schmidt (eds.): ECSCW’91: Proceedings of the

Second European Conference on Computer-

Supported CooperativeWork, Amsterdam, 24–27

September 1991. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic

Publishers, pp. 293–308.

Gorman, J. C., Cooke, N. J. and Winner, J. L. (2006)

“Measuring team situation awareness in decentralized

command and control environment”. Ergonomics, 49

(12-13), 1312-25. DOI: 10.1080/00140130600612788.

Gutwin, Carl (1997): Workspace Awareness in Real-Time

KMIS 2015 - 7th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

126

Distributed Groupware. PhD dissertation, Department

of Computer Science, The University of Calgary,

Calgary, Alberta, December, 1997.

Gutwin, Carl and Saul Greenberg (1999): The effects of

workspace awareness support on the usab- ility of real-

time distributed groupware. ACM Transactions on

Computer-Human Interaction, vol. 6, no. 2, September

1999, pp. 243–281.

Gutwin, Carl and Saul Greenberg (2002): A descriptive

framework of workspace awareness for real-time

groupware. Computer Supported Cooperative Work.

The Journal of Collaborative Computing, vol. 11, nos.

3–4, 2002. – This issue.

Jiang, X., Chen, N. Y., Hong, J. I., Wang, K., Takayama,

L., and Landay, J. A. (2004) Siren : Context-Aware

Computing for Firefighting. Proceedings of the

Second International Conference, PERVASIVE 2004.

Linz/Vienna, Australia, April 2004. 87–105.

http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/503376.503378.

Ley, B., Pipek, V., Siebigteroth, T., and Wiedenhoefer, T.

(2013) Retrieving and Exchanging of Information in

Inter-Organizational Crisis Management. In

Proceedings of the Information Systems for Crisis

Response and Management (ISCRAM) (pp. 812–822).

Ludwig, T., Reuter, C. and Pipek, V. (2013) What You

See Is What I Need: Mobile Reporting Practices in

Emergencies. Proceedings of the 13th European

Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative

Work, 21-25, Cyprus.

Mayring, P (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis [28

paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung /

Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), Art. 20,

http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0002204.

Prasanna, R. Yang, L. and King, M. (2011) Evaluation of

a software prototype for supporting fire emergency

response. Proceedings of the 8th International

ISCRAM Conference – Lisbon, Portugal.

Robertson, Toni (1997): Designing Over Distance: A

Study of Cooperative Work, Embodied Cogni- tion

and Technology to Enable remote Collaboration.

Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy,

School of Computing Sciences, University of

Technology, Sydney, 1997. 195 pp.

Salmon, P. M.; Stanton, N. A.; Walker, G. H.; Jenkins, D.

P. and Rafferty, L. (2010) Is it really better to share?

Distributed situation awareness and its implications

for collaborative system design Theoretical Issues in

Ergonomics Science, Taylor & Francis, 11, 58-83.

Sapateiro, C. and Antunes, P. (2009) An emergency

response model toward situational awareness

improvement. Proceeding of the 6th International

conference on information systems for crisis response

and management, Göteborg, Sweden .

Schmidt, Kjeld (1994): Modes and Mechanisms of

Interaction in Cooperative Work. Risø National

Laboratory, P.O. Box 49, DK-4000 Roskilde,

Denmark, 1994. [Risø-R-666(EN).]

Schmidt, K. (2002) The problem with ‘‘awareness’’.

Introductory remarks on ‘‘awareness in CSCW’’,

Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW): The

Journal of Collaborative Computing 11(3–4),285–298.

Streefkerk, J. W., van Esch-Bussemakers, M. P. and

Neerincx, M. a. (2008) Field evaluation of a mobile

location-based notification system for police officers.

Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on

Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices

and Services - MobileHCI ’08, 101. doi:10.1145/

1409240.1409252

Steinmacher, I.; Chaves, A. P. & Gerosa, M. A. (2013)

Awareness support in distributed software

development: A systematic review and mapping of the

literature Computer Supported Cooperative Work

(CSCW), Springer, 22, 113-158.

How to Pick up the Needed Information about What Is Going Around Us: Information Awareness in Crisis Management

127