| Affiliations: |
Industrial and Systems Engineering
|
| Project Leader: | Changwon Son cson@tamu.edu Dr. Farzan Sasangohar, Ph.D. |
| Faculty Mentor: | Flexible (preferably once a week) |
|
Meeting Times:
|
TBD |
|
Team Size:
|
7 (Team Full) |
| Open Spots: | 0 |
|
Special Opportunities:
|
This project provides very unique opportunities to access to U.S. Homeland Security policies, hands-on understanding of emergency operations service, and possible chances to visit the world-renowned firefighting and emergency planning simulation facility
|
|
Team Needs:
|
TREO is a multidisciplinary project in which different views and knowledge are required. First, the domain of the project is emergency or disaster management. Therefore, those who are interested (or preferably knowledgeable) in firefighting, law enforcement, emergency medical service can make a great contribution. Second, as this project involves human operators’ perception, decision-making, and action implementation, those who are learning (or learned) human factors and cognitive systems can apply their knowledge. Third, considering the size and complexity of data collected in relation to this project is large, those who are interested in analyzing qualitative (e.g., thematic analysis, grounded theory) and quantitative (e.g., network analysis, team dynamics analysis) are believed to sharpen their skills. Based on the all aforementioned needs, this project is very suitable for Aggies Research Leadership Program. The expected number of team members is three to five
|
|
Description:
|
Team Resilience in Emergency Operations (TREO) aims to understand how incident management teams (IMTs) adapt their performance to constantly changing situations surrounding a disaster. In order to understand the IMT’s adaptive performance, this project investigates patterns of interactions between human (e.g., emergency operators) and technical agents (e.g., information and communication tools) in a team environment. For the investigation, we collected data from multiple sources (e.g., naturalistic observation, interview, survey), which can be analyzed in both qualitative and quantitative manners. Especially, the current project efforts are focused on comparing expected IMT behaviors (‘work-as-imagined’) and actual IMT performance (‘work-as-done’). By inspecting the difference between the two, recommendations can be made to reconcile ‘work-as-imagined’ and ‘work-as-done’ in order to enhance the resilience of the IMTs.
|