How Are Situation Picture, Situation Awareness, and Situation

Understanding Discussed in Recent Scholarly Literature?

Ilkka Tikanmäki

1, 2 a

and

Harri Ruoslahti

1,3 b

Security and Risk Management, Laurea University of Applied Sciences, Vanha maantie 8, Espoo, Finland

Department of Warfare, National Defence University, Kadettikouluntie 7, Helsinki, Finland

Organizational Communication & Public Relations, University of Jyväskylä, Seminaarinkatu 15, Jyväskylä, Finland

Keywords: Situation Picture, Common Situation Picture, Situation Awareness, Situation Understanding.

Abstract: There are several different definitions of situation awareness. However, all of them have in common is

knowing and understanding of what is happening, an understanding of future changes or problems, and the

prediction of the future situation and the decisions to be made on its basis. Situation picture and Situation

Awareness are narrow. Situation understanding of the situation is the understanding of the decision-makers

and their assistants about what has happened, the circumstances that have affected them, the goals of the

different parties and the possible development options of the events needed to make decisions on a particular

issue or subject. The results of this study indicate that the recent discussion in scholarly literature focus on

situation awareness. A further result is that the context of the many of the recent literature are focused on

issues related to cyber security or on intelligent systems, thus on IT systems, which are very relevant to

modern situation awareness and understanding in these modern times where more and more systems become

digitalized and interconnected..

1 INTRODUCTION

The Security Committee of Finland lists elements of

situation leadership. The creation of a situation

picture involves a substantial understanding of the

situation and an assessment of the development of the

situation. Collecting and sharing a situation picture is

a prerequisite for situation management. Decision-

making requires a quick formation of the situation

picture and the creation of situation awareness.

Sharing information and technical solutions require

enabling authorities to collaborate as

comprehensively as possible. (The Security

Committee, 2017).

According to Endsley (2000, pp. 4-5) “Situation

awareness therefore is represented as the main

precursor to decision making, however, many other

factors also come into play in turning good situation

awareness into successful performance”.

In multi-authority operations, the responsible

authority is responsible for operational activities;

other authorities are involved in the operation and

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8950-5221

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9726-7956

provide official assistance to the extent necessary.

Management is based on statutory tasks and

responsibility of the competent authority, and with

the support of other authorities to the competent

authority (The Security Committee, 2017).

It has been, however, noted that a common

situation picture is missing within sectors and

between authorities. Actors look at this from their

own point of view: the data are collected at different

locations and the data are not comparable to each

other, making it difficult to use the information

gathered (FIMAC, 2018).

The development of situational awareness by and

for the participating authorities and respondents are

carried out through joint monitoring and assessment.

Networked cooperation under the collaborative

model is important at both national and international

levels. Creating, and practising situation picture and

situation awareness are important elements (The

Security Committee, 2017).

The research question of this study is: How are

situation picture, situation awareness, and situation

understanding discussed in recent scolarly literature?

Tikanmäki, I. and Ruoslahti, H.

How Are Situation Picture, Situation Awareness, and Situation Understanding Discussed in Recent Scholarly Literature?.

DOI: 10.5220/0008494104190426

In Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2019), pages 419-426

ISBN: 978-989-758-382-7

419

1.1 Structure of This Paper

The second chapter of this study defines common

situation related terms. The third chapter presents the

methods used, the fourth chapter the results, which

are divided into four sections; situation picture,

common situation picture, situation awareness, and

shared situation awareness. The fifth chapter offers

discussion and recommendations for future research.

2 DEFINING SITUATION

RELATED TERMS

Table 1 provides definitions of Oxford and Merriam-

Webster dictionaries for the most common terms in

this study (Oxford Dictionary, 2019; Merriam-

Webster, 2019).

Table 1: Definitions for situation related terms.

Term

Oxford dictionary

Merriam-Webster

dictionary

Picture

A painting or

drawing, etc. that

shows a scene, a

person or thing

A design or representation

made by various means

such as painting, drawing,

or photography

Situation

All the

circumstances and

things that are

happening at a

particular time and

in a particular place

The way in which

something is placed in

relation to its surroundings

Awareness

Knowing that

something exists

and is important

The quality or state of

being aware: knowledge

and understanding that

something is happening or

exists

Understanding

The knowledge that

somebody has

about a particular

subject or situation

The capacity to apprehend

general relations of

particulars or the power to

make experience

intelligible by applying

concepts and categories

Situation picture, situation awareness and

understanding arise through the acquisition and

interpretation of knowledge (Kuusisto, 2005).

According to Alberts et al., (2001), situational

awareness focuses on what is known about past and

present situations, while situation understanding is

how the situation is or can be formed and how the

different activities affect the developing situation.

3 METHOD

The research was done as a qualitative study, where

according to Yin (2003) the sources of evidence

commonly used in case study are qualitative data,

which can, be collected by observing interactions,

conducting interviews or scrutinising materials

(Denzin and Lincoln 1994). Yin (2003) recommends

using various sources. Data collection methods are

usually combined in case study research and evidence

may be qualitative, quantitative or both (Eisenhardt,

1989). The case study is therefore useful when the

phenomenon is broad and complex when

comprehensive, thorough research is needed (Dubé

and Baré, 2003). Conducting qualitative research is

an information-based process; most of the time,

inductively, empirical observations on more general

theories or methods need to be made (Alasuutari,

2004).

This study is a work in progress, and it uses recent

(past three years) academic (peer-reviewed) literature

sources that were collected in a structured manner by

searching the scientific databases ProQuestCentral

and EBSCO Host with search words that were

directly based on the RQ of this study.

A final sample of 22 papers was selected based on

reading their title and abstract (e.g., 10 papers with a

medical context, 5 with a device level context, and

two with an outer space context were among the

papers that were not included in this final sample).

These 22 articles are then read entirely and relevant

content and mention of situation picture, situation

awareness and situation understanding were extracted

to a data extraction table (DET) that were directly

based on the RQ and one column addressed the

context of the paper.

Material from earlier and further scientific

reports, articles, and a more general literary review

was used to supplement the data collected from the

primary source of structured literature review.

4 RESULTS

The results of this study indicate that the recent

discussion in scholarly literature focus on situation

awareness. Only one paper of the sample was focused

on situation understanding. A further result is that the

context of the many of the recent literature are

focused on issues related to cyber security or on

intelligent systems, thus on IT systems, which are

very relevant to modern situation awareness and

KMIS 2019 - 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

420

understanding in these modern times where more and

more systems become digitalized and interconnected.

Table 2: The contexts of the sample papers.

Context

Number of papers

Situation awareness within systems

Cyber

Intelligent systems

Authority situation awareness

Big Data usage

Disaster recovery

Maritime

Police

The sample of 22 papers were further classified in

two major categories. There were 11 papers that deal

with how authorities or the military promote situation

picture, awareness, and understanding, and 11 papers

that deal with situation awareness of systems. These

were deemed relevant to the study, as many of today’s

situation picture and awareness systems are cyber-

physical in nature (Rajamäki and Ruoslahti, 2018).

4.1 Situation Picture

Each organization needs information about its

environment and its events, and its impact on their

own activities. Appropriate and rapid situation

awareness, based on correct information and

estimates, are emphasized in situations of disruption,

in which case it is necessary to quickly make

decisions in a very wide range of impressions. The

situation picture is a presentation of the situation or

performance capabilities compiled from the

individual information giving grounds for situational

awareness. (Lehto et al., 2018).

According to Kuusisto (2005), a situation picture

is a real-time picture of current events and includes an

analysis of the current state and an estimate of future

events.

The European Union describe Situational Picture

as “means of graphical interface to present near-real-

time data and information received from different

authorities, sensors, platforms and other sources,

which is shared across communication and

information channels with other authorities in order

to achieve situational awareness and support reaction

capability along the external borders and pre-frontier

area” (European Parliament, 2013 p.14). The

situation picture shall be composed information

collected from a) surveillance systems, b) stationary

and mobile sensors, c) patrols (e.g. vessel, aircraft),

d) command and control centres, e) other authorities

and systems, and f) other sources. (European

Parliament, 2013)

E.g. maritime surveillance data are gathered e.g.

by a) physical observation from vessels and aircrafts;

b) unmanned vehicles and drones; c) remote sensing;

and d) coastal radars and other sensors. Situation

Picture should base on raw data from which each

organisation builds their own Situation picture

according to their needs. A situation picture must be

sharable both nationally and internationally.

Figure 1 shows the European maritime user

communities that the Common Information Sharing

Environment (CISE) better interlinks with one

another for an integrated maritime surveillance across

the entire European maritime domain, and the waters

leading to it. However yet, “In the area of maritime

surveillance, there is no inherent complexity, which

is due to the fact that numerous systems are not yet

interconnected and operate simultaneously”

(Tikanmäki, 2017, p. 288).

Figure 1: The Common Information Sharing Environment

(CISE) interlinks user communities for integrated maritime

surveillance (Tikanmäki and Ruoslahti 2017, p. 392).

4.2 Common Situation Picture

According to Horsmanheimo et al., (2017), a

Common Situation Picture should consist of the most

important requirements presented in Table 3.

So far, achieving coherence between the many

different national Member State processes has been

challenging. Crossing sectorial borders can be even

more difficult than crossing national ones. A lack of

integrated mechanisms for distributing information

prevents spreading situational awareness to all who

need it in the case of a crisis (Tikanmäki and

Ruoslahti, 2017).

According to United States Department of

Defence (2017, p. 212) Common operational picture

is “A single identical display of relevant information

shared by more than one command that facilitates

collaborative planning and assists all echelons to

achieve situational awareness. Also called COP”.

European Union and national authorities may gain

“faster recognition, assessment, planning, and

How Are Situation Picture, Situation Awareness, and Situation Understanding Discussed in Recent Scholarly Literature?

421

reaction capabilities, which lead to a safer, more

secure European maritime domain” (Ruoslahti and

Tikanmäki, 2017, p. 273).

Table 3: Major important requirements for Common

Situation Picture (Horsmanheimo, et al., 2017).

Requirement

A Situation Picture is a series of presentations

whose form does not matter. It is essential that

someone manages it, makes analysis and decisions.

Information is produced in collaboration with the

Situation Picture system. Each actor independently

responds to the production and correctness of the

information in its field of expertise.

The information must be processed, analysed and

understandable. It must play a role both for itself

and for other recipients.

The information should be presented visually and

clearly.

The information must be presented without

unnecessary technical details. The information

must be understandable to people from other

domains.

The data should be automatically transferred

between the systems. This reduces the problems

caused by human errors.

Situation Picture system should be dynamic and

tailored to the user groups or domain. The

information should have different levels of views.

Terminology and classifications should be

harmonized.

Situation Picture system should be incorporated

into the processes of organizations so that there is

no additional task to maintain it.

Different actors should be able to define what

information they need and what information they

are able to enter the system.

Situation Picture system should be able to

exchange information between different actors at

different organizational levels. Information should

also be shared with supervising organizations.

Situation Picture system should provide

predictions about what happens in 3, 6, and in 12

hours.

Situation Picture system should be able to present

the temporal dimension of how things have

evolved - whether they are going in the wrong or

better direction.

The national situational picture is composed of

information collected from the i.e. sources presented

in the following Table 4.

Table 4: Sources of information (European Parliament,

2013).

Source

The national surveillance system in accordance with

national law

Stationary and mobile sensors operated by national

authorities with a responsibility for external border

surveillance

Surveillance patrols and other monitoring missions

Local, regional and other situation centres;

Other relevant national authorities and systems,

including operational centres and contact points

National situation/operations centres in other Member

States

Authorities of third countries, on the basis of bilateral

or multilateral agreements and regional networks;

Ship reporting systems in accordance with their

respective legal bases

Other relevant European and international organisations

Other sources

4.3 Situation Awareness

Endsley (1988) defines situation awareness as “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”. Situation awareness enables preliminary

information gathering and information exchange and

is applicable mechanism for real-time monitoring and

anomaly detection. Thus, situation awareness is the

process of being aware of what is happening in the

surroundings. (Ferreira et al., 2017).

Situation awareness (also called as situational

awareness) is the result of a situation picture and its

analysis. The situation picture and situation

awareness are limited concepts and should strive

towards a broader concept of situation understanding.

Situation awareness and situation understanding

require collaboration and knowledge that enable

comprehensive monitoring of the operating

environment, analysis, and compilation of

information, and sharing of information. (Lehto et al.,

2018). The absence of an integrated information

sharing mechanism prevents the dissemination of the

situation awareness to those in need. (Vuorisalo,

2012).

Individuals and organisations are developing new

ways to execute their mission by utilising the power

of knowledge and applying network-centric concepts.

Three domains: physical, information and cognitive

must be covered to understand how information

influence the capacity to execute operations. The

physical is the domain where e.g. manoeuvres take

place across environments (ground, sea, air, space),

and connected by physical platforms and

communications networks.

Information is created, manipulated and shared,

and command and control are communicated in the

information domain. All information is influenced by

the interaction within the information domain. In the

cognitive domain perceptions, awareness,

understanding, beliefs, and values underlie, and as a

result of sense making, decisions are made. (Alberts,

Garska, Hayes, and Signori, 2001).

KMIS 2019 - 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

422

Alberts and Hayes (2003) add the social domain

as the fourth domain of command and control.

According to Alberts and Hayes “… the interactions

between and among individuals and entities that

fundamentally define organization and doctrine exist

in the social domain”. (Alberts and Hayes, 2003, p.

45).

According to Smith and Hancock (1995, p. 2),

“Situational awareness is the invariant in the agent-

environment system that generates the momentary

knowledge and behaviour required to attain the goals

specified by an arbiter of performance in the

environment”. According to Endsley (2000),

Situation Awareness is “Most simply put, SA is

knowing what is going on around you” (Endsley,

2000, p. 2). Situational awareness bases on perceived

information, and the information features affect how

information is transmitted (Seppänen, 2015).

Basically, SA levels explain: where have we been,

where are we now and where are we going?

Perla, Markowitz, Nofi and Weuve (2000, p. 9)

define Situation awareness as “a sense of knowing

what’s going on in our current environment, what

could happen next, what options we have for action,

and what the possible outcomes of those actions

might be”. Simply said, “A team must share to

understand what’s going on, why it’s going on, and

how will it affect their mission” (Perla et al., p. 34).

Nofi (2000) describes situation awareness as “the

result of a dynamic process of perceiving and

comprehending events in one's environment, leading

to reasonable projections as to possible ways that

environment may change, and permitting predictions

as to what the outcomes will be in terms of

performing one's mission.” (Nofi, p. 5)

There are three main schools of thought on

explaining Situation Awareness. Endsley (1999) has

a three-level model in information processing

approach, Smith and Hancock (1995) use the model

of the perceptual cycle, while Bedny and Meister

(1999) use the model of activity theory to describe SA

(Salmon et al., 2007). Endsley (1999) divides SA into

three levels.

Table 5: Levels of Situation awareness.

Situation awareness (SA)

Level 1

Perception of the elements in the environment

Level 2

Comprehension of the current situation

Level 3

Projection of the future status

The first step in achieving SA Level 1 is to

discover the state, characteristics, and dynamics of

relevant environmental elements. SA Level 2 bases

on a synthesis of Level 1 elements. Level 3 SA

projects future actions and forms third level SA

(Endsley, 1999). Smith and Hancock (1995) consider

SA to be a knowledge creation and knowledge-based

process. Their description bases on the model of the

perceptual cycle, which describes the interaction of

an individual's interaction with the world and the

influence of the models in our role.

Bedny and Meister (1999) describe SA as an

activity theory outlining various cognitive processes

related to human behaviour. Activity theory strives to

ensure that individuals have goals, which represent an

ideal image or the desired end state, motives that

guide them in the final state and the policies (or

action) that allow for the achievement of these

objectives. (Salmon et al., 2007).

According to (Nofi, 2000, p. 71). SA is “the result

of a dynamic process of perceiving and

comprehending events in one’s environment, leading

to reasonable projections as to possible ways that

environment may change, and permitting predictions

as to what outcomes will be in terms of performing

one’s mission”.

4.4 Shared Situation Awareness

In cooperation with expert organizations, each

organization has its own specified goals and tasks.

The collaboration of expert organizations does not

require common situational awareness. In co-

operation, a common understanding of the conceptual

level is needed. Co-operation can be described by the

concept of shared situation awareness. The pursuit of

common situation awareness may even be

detrimental to the quality and effectiveness of

cooperation. Cooperation between expert

organisations arises from the task of tied situation

awareness and communication. (Luokkala, 2009).

Shared Situation Awareness (SSA) is defined as

“the degree to which team members have the same

SA on shared SA requirements” (Endsley and Jones,

2001, p. 48). In co-operation, a common

understanding of the conceptual level is needed. Co-

operation can be described by the concept of shared

situation awareness (Luokkala, 2009).

Shared Situation Awareness has several

alternative terms: Common Understanding, Team

Shared Awareness, Shared Understanding,

Distributed Cognition, Distributed Understanding,

Group Situational Awareness, Shared Cognition,

Shared Visualization, Team Awareness and Coherent

Tactical Picture. Despite these terms, SSA seems to

remain the term of preference. (Nofi, 2000).

SSA requires building individual SA, sharing

individual SA, and developing the group’s SSA. We

are building individual SA all the time. The most

How Are Situation Picture, Situation Awareness, and Situation Understanding Discussed in Recent Scholarly Literature?

423

critical issue in creating SSA is sharing individual

SA: it integrates the individual model into a shared

model. Building SSA integrates the different

individual mental models of the situation. (Perla et al.,

2000).

There are clear efforts toward authorities working

together on different levels (Table 6 below).

Table 6: Concepts related to how authorities work together

(Modified from Frey, Lohmeier, Lee and Tollefson, 2006).

Network

Coordination

Collaboration

Co-creation

information for

common good

Modify

operations to

reach common

goals

Share resources

to reach common

goals

Develop

common

capabilities to

reach common

goals

In the simplest form, authorities network to share

information and their plans. This may then evolve

into coordinating plans and operations to reach

common goals, and to collaborate on a resource

sharing level, and finally to co-create common

capacities and innovation (Ruoslahti and Tikanmäki,

2017). In seeking to gain understanding of the process

of co-creation of knowledge for innovation, Ruoslahti

(2017) finds, by exploring current insights in

academic literature on co-creation, that multi-

stakeholder networks can be structured for different

aims, and four categories of projects were identified.

Co-creation projects may benefit the organization

that drives the project, or, secondly, a value chain

network (and especially its main driver), a public

entity spearheading the co-creation, or in some cases

quite evenly the stakeholders of the innovation

network. This network cooperation may evolve

between these four categories.

Maritime security and its actors are linked to

economic and political development (Bueger, 2015).

Practices, such as surveillance activities at sea, law

enforcement, coordination and naval diplomacy or

capacity building may raise the risk of cyber-attacks

against shipping and maritime infrastructure. The

European Union (EU) raises the potential impacts of

natural disasters, extreme events and climate change

as security threats on the maritime domain (European

Union, 2014). Maintaining a situation picture of these

risks help prevent them.

5 CONCLUSIONS

One conclusion is that organizations need

information from the environment and events

surrounding them and their impact on their own

activities. Graphical interfaces that present near real-

time information can be shared with other authorities

and relevant actors to support reaction capabilities.

Situation picture provides a real-time picture of the

current situation and an estimate what is going to

happen in near future. The United States Department

of Defence (2017), for example, describe the

Common Situation Picture as an identical display of

relevant information shared by multiple commands,

which facilitates interactive planning and assists all in

the management of situational awareness.

Secondly, there are differences in the definitions

of situation awareness, however, what all of them

have in common are knowing and understanding of

what is happening, and an understanding of possible

future changes or problems, predictions of future

situations and making decisions on these bases.

Situation picture and Situation Awareness are narrow

concepts, instead, we recommend (e.g. Lehto et al.,

2018), using a broader concept Situation

understanding.

Thirdly, Endsley’s situation awareness theory can

be seen as a fundamental way to make decisions and

actions in dynamically changing environment – to

realise situation understanding. Organisational

theories and models have become an important

research challenge, and cybernetics and situation

awareness theory relationship is useful to solve issues

related to situation awareness-based systems. (e.g.

Anjaria and Mishra, 2018). Shared situation

awareness remains a reference term, even though it

has several synonyms such as common

understanding, team shared awareness, shared

understanding, distributed cognition, distributed

understanding, group situational awareness, shared

cognition, shared visualisation, team awareness and

coherent tactical picture.

Fourthly, situation understanding of the situation

is the understanding of the decision-makers and their

assistants about what has happened, the

circumstances that have affected them, the goals of

the different parties and the possible development

options of the events needed to make decisions on a

particular issue or subject. (e.g. Lehto et al., 2018).

A further conclusion is that the relative lack of

papers dealing with how authorities or the military

promote situation picture, awareness, and

understanding would seem to indicate that there is a

need to further investigate this area. This work is in

KMIS 2019 - 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

424

progress with systematic searches from master’s and

PhD level studies and scientific reports. Much is

about systems and cyber security of these systems.

This is, however, very relevant with today’s cyber-

physical systems. This work in progress yet lacks an

in-depth analysis of the 22 sample articles. This will

follow and be published as an extended paper in the

near future. Further study of the relevant military

context and the study of inter-authority and inter-

sector collaboration and co-creation are also

recommended.

REFERENCES

Alasuutari, P., 2004. The Globalization of Qualitative

Research. In: Clive Seale et al: Qualitative Research

Practice. London: Sage, pp. 595-608.

Alberts, D. S., Hayes, R. E., 2003. Power to the Edge. In

Command...Control... in the Information Age.

Washington DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary of

Defense (OASD), Command &Control Research

Program (CCRP), Washington, DC,20301.

Alberts, D., Garska, J., Hayes, R., Signori, D., 2001.

Understanding Information Age Warfare. Washington

D.C.: Assistant Secretary of Defence (C3I/Command

Control Research Program.

Anjaria, K., Mishra, A., 2018, "Relating Wiener's

cybernetics aspects and a situation awareness model

implementation for information security risk

management", Kybernetes, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 58-79.

Bueger, C., 2015. What is maritime security? Marine Policy

Volume 53, March 2015, Pages 159-164.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.12.005

Dubé, L., Baré, G., 2003. Rigor in Information Systems

Positivist Case Research: Current practises, trends, and

recommendations. MIS Quarterly Vol. 27 No. 4, pp.

597-635.

Eisenhardt, K., 1989. Building Theories from Case Study

Research. Academy of Management. The Academy of

Management Review. Vol. 14 No. 4 pp. 532-550.

Endsley, M. R., 1988. Design and Evaluation for Situation

Awareness Enhancement. Human Factors Society

Annual Meeting (pp. 97-101). SAGE Journals.

Endsley, M. R., 1999. Situation Awareness in Aviation

Systems. In D. W. Garland, Handbook of Aviation and

is Human Factors (pp. 257 - 276). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Endsley, M. R., 2000. Theoretical underpinning of situation

awareness: A critical review. In Endsley, M.R. &

Garland, D. J. (Eds.) (2000). Situation Awareness

Analysis and Measurement. Mahwah NJ: Taylor &

Francis.

Endsley, M. R., Jones, W. M., 2001. A model of inter- and

intrateam situation awareness: Implications for design,

training and measurement. In M. McNeese, E. Salas, &

M. Endsley (Eds.), New trends in cooperative

activities: Understanding system dynamics in complex

environments (pp. 46–67). Santa Monica, CA: Human

Factors and Ergonomics Society.

European Parliament, 2013. Establishing the European

Border Surveillance System (Eurosur). Official Journal

of the European Union, L295(11).

European Union, 2014. European Union maritime security

strategy. Council of the European Union Doc. 11205/14

European Union, Brussels (2014).

Ferreira, C., Guardalben, L., Gomes, T., Sargento, S.,

Salvador, P., Robalo, D., Velez, F.J., 2017, "Supporting

Unified Distributed Management and Autonomic

Decisions: Design, Implementation and Deployment",

Journal of Network and Systems Management, vol. 25,

no. 2, pp. 416-456.

FIMAC, 2018. Finnish Maritime Authorities Cooperation.

(I. Tikanmäki, Interviewer)

Frey, B.B., Lohmeier, J.H., Lee, S.W., Tollefson, N., 2006.

Measuring collaboration among grant partners.

American Journal of Evaluation, 27(3), 383-392.

Horsmanheimo, S., Kokkoniemi-Tarkkanen, H., Kuusela,

P., Tuomimäki, L., Puuska, S., Vankka, J. (2017).

Situational awareness of critical infrastructure. The

Prime Minister's Office.

Kuusisto, R, 2005. From Common Operational Picture to

Precision Management. Managemental Information

Flows in Crisis Management Network. Helsinki:

Ministry of Transport and Communications.

Lehto, M., Limnéll, J., Kokkomäki, T., Pöyhönen, J.,

Salminen, M., 2018. Strategic management of cyber

security in Finland. Helsinki: Prime Minister´s Office.

Luokkala, P., 2009. Jaetut kontekstit METO-yhteistyössä

(Shared Contexts in METO-Co-operation). Faculty of

Engineering and Architecture. Espoo: Helsinki

University of Technology.

Merriam-Webster, 2019. https://www.merriam-

webster.com/ Accessed: 27.6.2019.

Nofi, A. A., 2000. Defining and measuring shared

situational awareness. Alexandria, Virginia: Center For

Naval Analyses.

Oxford Dictionary, 2019. https://www.oxford

learnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/. Accessed:

27.6.2019.

Perla, P., Markowitz, M., Nofi, A., Weuve, C, 2000.

Gaming and Shared Situation Awareness. Alexandria,

Virginia: Center for Naval Analyses.

Rajamäki, J., Ruoslahti, H., 2018. Educational competences

with regard to critical infrastructure protection. In A.

Jųsang (Ed.), ECCWS 2018: Proceedings of the 17th’

European Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security

(pp. 415-423). Academic Conferences International.

Ruoslahti, H., 2017. Co-creation of Knowledge for

Innovation requires Multi-Stakeholder Public

Relations. In Sarah Bowman, Adrian Crookes, Stefania

Romenti, Øyvind Ihlen (ed.) Public Relations and the

Power of Creativity (Advances in Public Relations and

Communication Management), Volume 3, Emerald

Publishing Limited, pp.115 - 133

Salmon, P. M., Stanton, N. A., Ladva, D., Jenkins, D. P.,

Walker, G. H., Rafferty, L., 2007. Measuring Situation

Awareness during Command and Control Activity: A

How Are Situation Picture, Situation Awareness, and Situation Understanding Discussed in Recent Scholarly Literature?

425

Comparison of Measures Study. Human Factors

Integration Defence Technology Centre. Somerset:

Human Factors Integration Defence Technology.

Seppänen, H., 2015. Defining critical information

requirements and quality in cooperative disasters

management. Aalto University, School of Engineering,

Department of Real Estate, Planning and

Geoinformatics. Helsinki: Unigrafia Oy.

Smith, K., Hancock, A,.1995. Situation Awareness is

Adaptive, Externally Directed Consciousness. The

Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Volume: 37, Issue:1, pages:137-148.

Tikanmäki, I., Ruoslahti, H., 2017. Increasing Cooperation

between the European Maritime Domain

Authorities. International Journal of Environmental

Science, Volume 2, pp. 392-399.

The Security Committee, 2017. The Security Strategy for

Society. Helsinki: The Security Committee.

The United States Department of Defence, 2017. Joint

Operations. Joint Publication 3.0. 17 January 2017.

Vuorisalo, V., 2012. Developing Future Crisis

Management. University of Tampere, School of

Management. Tampere: Tampereen Yliopistopaino -

Juvenes Print.

Yin, R., 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods.

edition. London: Sage Publications.

KMIS 2019 - 11th International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Systems

426