1. Situational Awareness WG Survey Results – Q1 2013

2. Survey Preamble The scope of the SA (Situation Awareness) working group is to analyze the effectiveness of information delivery systems in mining equipment and develop a unified display design, to mitigate against the proliferation of screens within equipment cabs. This working group comprises a variety of stakeholders representing a cross-section of relevant mining and mining-related organizations. This stakeholder network will help guide the direction of the working group towards a common, mutually beneficial end. For now, the focus is on shovel displays; however it should be noted that this work is expected to form the foundation for similar work with other equipment in the future. The following survey aims to collect input from stakeholders for the direction of next steps in the Common User Interface project and to create a strategy for greater outreach to and inclusion of industry in the project. We appreciate your taking the time to complete the survey. In the interest of your time, please provide a brief, 2-3 line response to questions, or feel free to use bulleted lists, etc, in your answers.

3. Q1: Describe the SA working group’s mandate based on your understanding 1.Eliminate clutter and screen sprawl / improve situational awareness in the cab 2.Developing frameworks or guidelines on how to consolidate systems so that unified screen may be used

4. Q2: Do you feel the first round of work completed by Situational Awareness (SA) Technologies was well aligned with the project scope? Can you identify any areas that were lacking? Two themes to the responses (excluding those that declined to answer due to being new to the group): 1.Fully aligned (and this was the overwhelming response from 7 of 11 respondents) 2.Two respondents mentioned that the initial work described the ‘end’ but we should be focusing more on the means to the end. Areas identified as lacking: 1.Alarm/message prioritization 2.Optimal alarm / message delivery methods 3.Justification or the science to back the UI design

5. Q3. What do you think are the biggest threats to the success of this project? 1.Lack of buy-in from: stakeholder companies at executive level mining equipment and software vendors 2.Lack of time from working group participants 3.Overstepping the bounds of the MSGC goal

6. Q4. What do you think are the biggest benefits and opportunities brought on by this work? 1.Increased safety 2.Increased productivity 3.More efficient use of available technology (reduced training time, increasing operator acceptance)

7. Q5. The mission of the MSGC is to make all information publicly available and to engage the mining industry on the results of the first phase; what issues and/or challenges do you see and how do you see accomplishing this? Challenges: 1.Resistance from OEM/OTMS (“what’s in it for me?”, perceived as encroaching into their territory) 2.Conflicts of interest Addressing these issues: 1.Communication: publishing papers, presentations at conferences 2.Licensing the output of the work (GNU/GPL perhaps) 3.Emphasizing that the vendor-driven solutions rather than user-driven are unsustainable

8. Q6. Who do you think will benefit the most from the results of this project?

9. Q7. What should be the SA working group’s top priorities in 2013?

10. Q8. What do you envisage as the final outcome of the projet? 1.Mock-up of unified display 2.Guidelines on how applications should be expected to interface to a single display 3.Industry awareness of SA 4.A real-world deployment of a unified display

11. Q9. Name at least 2 companies/stakeholders that are not currently represented in the working group who you think are most important to get involved