The paper discusses distributed cognition in an airline cockpit, where the cognitive labor of flying a modern jet is distributed across the crew. It presents a case study simulation of a flight from Sacramento to Los Angeles to illustrate how information processing is distributed across representational media like checklists, displays, and standard operating procedures. The study puts forth the hypothesis that understanding human cognition requires examining how it is distributed in social and cultural systems using tools and artifacts.

1. Distributed Cognition PresentersNa MiAndy WoodAnamary LealHongbo ZhangDiscussion Group Danielle SmithJennifer FrancoisAndrew Wood1

2. Chactersiticbrakobamalindaylowhan

3. Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction researchJAMES HOLLANEDWIN HUTCHINSDAVID KIRSHUniversity of California, San Diego

4. Who are the authors?James D. HollanEdwin HutchinsDavid Kirsh

5. James D. HollanExperiencePh.D in cognitive psychology;Postdoc in artificial intelligence;Research faculty;Intelligent Systems Group at UCSD and Future Technologies Group at NPRDC;Chair of the CS in University of New Mexico (1993); Professor of Cognitive Science at UCSD (1997)Research interest across cognitive ethnography, distributed and embodied cognition, multimodal interaction, information visualization, etc.

6. Edwin HutchinsThe father of modern Cognitive EthnographyA strong advocate of the use of anthropological methodsThe student of the cognitive anthropologies Roy D’AndradeEarly work involved the relationships among language, culture, and thoughtAs a postdoc, worked for US Navy, used insights from first-hand ethnographic studies to build training systems for radar navigationCognition in the Wild (1995)- distributed cognitionMoved to commercial aviationFormer department head of cognitive science at UCSDCurrently, with James Hollan, runs the Distributed Cognition and Human Computer Interaction Lab at UCSD

7. David KirshExperienceBA from University of Toronto in philosophy and economicsPh.D from Oxford University on foundations of cognitive scienceA research scientist at MIT Artificial intelligence Lab (1984-1985)Professor at Dept. of Cognitive Science at UCSD and lead interactive Cognition LabResearch interests include artificial intelligence, situated cognition, philosophy of mind and science, interactive design, interactive environment, etc.Publications: Representation and rationality: foundations of cognitive science (1983)

8. Information about this paperACM Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction: Special Issue on Human-Computer Interaction in the New Millenium. Cited by 742

9. Look at it from big picture..Single computer  networked computers  a complex world of informationHuman information processing psychology Distributed cognition (Hutchins, 1995)Cognition distributed across individuals and artifacts in a social-cultural and technical systemsA cognitive theory to understand interactionA framework as a new foundation for HCIHow this framework works

10. 2 principles of distributed cognitionThe boundaries of unit of analysis for cognition

11. The range of cognitive eventsTraditional cognitive theory IndividualsCognitive events inside individual actorsDistributed cognitionLooks for cognitive process a broader class of cognitive events (eg. Airline cockpit)

12. Characteristics of Distributed cognition Socially distributed cognitionDistributed across the members of a social groupEmbodied cognitionInvolve coordination between internal and external structures Culturally embedded cognitionCulture shapes the cognitive processes of systems that transcend the boundaries of individuals

13. An integrated research frameworkTheory: Distributed cognitionMethods: ethnographic observation + experimentsProducts: digital work materials + collaborative workspaces

14. Examples…design of digital work materialsShip navigationAirline cockpit automationDirect manipulationHistory-enriched digital objectsBut these research programs did not exist at the time of this paper..

15. Conclusion All cognition can be fruitfully observed as occurring in a distributed mannerwell- suited to understanding the complex networked world of information and computer-mediated interactionsTo inform the design of digital work materials an collaborative workplaces

16. Any questions?

17. Reexamining Organizational MemoryMark AckermanChristine Halverson

18. ContextMark AckermanAt time of publication, was an an associate professor in Information and Computer Science at the University of California, Irvine.Currently a professor of EE and CS and School of Information at the University of MichiganChristine HalversonSocial Computing researcher at IBMFormerly cognitive scientist in the CHI Center at SRI International, Menlo Park CAThe PaperAppeared in the Communications of the ACM in Jan. 2000ACM lists 15 citations

19. Defining Organizational Memory (OM)Despite 10 years of research, OM has different, sometimes conflicting definitions and little supportive empirical research, thusOM as a concept must result from studies within the context of everyday useAn empirical studyEthnography involving telephone helpline group at CyberCorpAnalyzed with a more cognitive approachSpecific example of database lookup

20. Key Points/FindingsThere is no monolithic repository of OMMemories as a set of artifacts and processesEven simple tasks involve complicated distributed memoryA single agent’s process is simultaneously embedded within several organizational processesIndividual memories have mixed provenanceMemories are transferred and reused in the form of boundary objectsThey go through a process of decontextualization and recontextualizationProper consideration should be given about how a memory may be reused.

21. Jacob T. Biehl, William T. Baker, Brian P. Bailey, Desney S. Tan, Kori M. Inkpen, and Mary CzerwinskiPresenter: Anamary Leal"IMPROMPTU: A New Interaction Framework for Supporting Collaborationin Multiple Display Environments and Its Field Evaluation for Co-locatedSoftware Development“

22. Cited by 27Downloaded 223 timesAt CHI Conference 2008Impact of Paper

23. Jacob T. BiehlInterests: Human-Computer Interaction, Software Engineering, Programming LanguagesFrom: University of Illinois, UrbanaCurrently at: Research Scientist at FX Palo Alto Laboratory Fact: Getting more liberal by the minuteWilliam T. BakerInterests: Supercomputing for astronomy, security planning, automated build system, middleware developmentFrom: University of Illinois, UrbanaCurrently at: Research Programmer at NCSAFact: Create a diagram from ASCIIAbout the Authors

24. Brian P. BaileyInterests: developing interactive tools that foster human creativity; systems that improve interruption management, and user interfaces for multiple display environmentsFrom: University of Illinois, UrbanaCurrently at: Assistant ProfessorDesney S. TanInterests: Human-Computer Interaction, Physiological Computing, and HealthcareFrom: Microsoft ResearchCurrently at: Senior Researcher in the Visualization and Interaction, Microsoft ResearchFact: Serving as General Chair for CHI 2011 in Vancouver, BCAbout the Authors

25. Kori M. InkpenInterests: CSCW for home, work, education, healthcare and funFrom: Microsoft ResearchCurrently at: Microsoft Research, researcher in the Visualization and Interaction GroupFact: Conference Co-Chair, ACM CSCW 2010, Savannah, GA Mary Czerwinski"Interests: Human-Computer Interaction, Visual Attention, Task Switching, User Interface Design, Information Visualization,Groupware, Ubiquitous Computing, Spatial Cognition, Novel Interaction Techniques"From: Microsoft ResearchCurrently at: Research Area Manager of the Visualization and Interaction (VIBE) Research GroupFact: Likes The Daily Show, The Colbert ReportAbout the Authors

26. IMPROMPU: (IMPROving MDE’s Potential to support Tasks that are genUine New interaction framework that handles sharing in team problem solving and discussion, multiple-display environmentsLightweight: works with off-the-shelf applicationsEvaluated in 3 week field study with Microsoft software development teamsMain Argument

27. Build a system that supports the benefits of shared, multi-display environments"to understand how groups leverage MDEs to perform their activities and the resulting impact....for real activities in authentic settings."Goals

28. All applications can be:do not show or shareshowshareCollaborator DockShared Screen DockDesigning for Group Work

29. 2 teams, 3 weeks of observations, user logs, and user feedbackshared a wide variety of appsWays of usage:person to person, with verbal face to face or phonemultitaskinggroup: using the shared display to show image on personal deviceField Study Results

30. 2 kinds of uses:activate as neededrun alwaysPhysical movement of objects to personal devices decreased by 60-40%Most features used, though not frequentlyField Study Results

31. Find better data in terms of activities of replicated windowsMerge Collaborator into more informationGive user sharing controls regardless of deviceRecommendations

32. IMPROMPTU: "to support opportunistic, short-lived collaborative engagements"Flexible, lightweight applications encourage better collaboration for multi-display environmentsTake Home Message

33. Questions?

34. Distributed cognition in an In Cognition and Communication at Workairline cockpit Cited:40633

35. First AuthorCurrent Projects:1. How do airlines outside the US use Boeing airplanes? What can be done to design airplanes for the world's pilots?2. Light Jet Training for Corporate AviationEdwin HutchinsSpent his entire academic career trying to understand human cognition in social, cultural and material context. Department of Cognitive ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaSan Diego34

36. Department of Communication, Aalborg University, DENMARKSecond AuthorTove Klausen35

37. Study Background Information processing in the distributed system is: a propagation of representational state across representational media. Keyword: Information, State, Media36

38. Simulation HypothesisCognitive labor is socially distributedFlying a modern jet transport can not be done by an individual acting alone37

39. SimulationScenario: the flight from Sacramento, California to Los Angeles, California

40. Instrument: audio, video record of the event for the transcript analysis

41. Coding technique: ensure the assumptions do not remain unexamined

42. Simulation goal: analyze the propagation of representational state across a series of representational media38

43. Simulation CharactersCaptain: commander of the flight, Pilot NOT flying,

44. housekeeping and monitoring aircraft and crew performance

45. First Officer: secondary commander in the flight (Pilot flying)

46. flying

47. Second Officer: engineer or relief crew

48. making a report to the company of the condition of the flight39

49. CAPTFOSO40

50. Simulation TasksPlanning to climb higher altitude PLANRedundant read backs for error checking CHECKIntersubjectivity as a basis for communication COMMUNICATESet radio frequency ACTDistribution of labor again INTER-ACT Computation by propagation and transformation of representational state COMPUATE Intersubjectivity and distribution of storage again COMMUNICATEFirewall thrust ACT41

51. Simulation ResultsInformation flow is bi-direction Information flow is transparent to all crew members, instruments, and air traffic control There is often a misunderstanding among crew membersIndividual cognition is the fundamental of the distributed cognition 42

52. Simulation Implication?Airline safety is a system engineering problem Have to consider the overall system to minimize the risk of accidentDistributed cognition -> increase redundancy 43

53. Distributed cognition: hardcore Science?Challenges: Distributed ~= Complex ~= Hard to deal with Solutions:Can borrow system engineering methods: data flow diagram, decision matrix, Pugh method 44

54. Sullenberger, a possible opposite example of distributed cognition?Media: this man have saved 155 lives, 1.15.200945

55. We almost forget this manJeffrey Skiles, First Officer of flight 154946

56. Questions for Discussion:Under what paradigm do the various paper’s approaches to distributed cognition fall?What is “cognitive ethnography,” and is it somehow different or “better” than normal ethnography?How do organizational memory and distributed cognition relate? Are they just different ways of describing the same thing, or are they somehow distinct?

57. Questions for Discussion:Are CSCW and its tools, such as IMPROMPTU, just a subset of distributed cognition?Intersubjectivity results in some dated artifacts, for example, the floppy disk as the universal save icon. Is this phenomenon counter to progress, or is it just a quirk?Does distributed cognition theory put us in a better position to tackle wicked problems?Or does it itself contain wicked problems?Today, people are constantly documenting everything, with photos, status updates, etc. What ramifications might this have for distributed cognition?