Endsley’s model of Situational Awareness did not emerge from combat maneuver or competitive decision-making. It emerged from a different problem set entirely: why highly trained professionals in high-risk, technology-dense environments were still making catastrophic errors despite having access to abundant information.
The framework was developed by Mica Endsley, a cognitive psychologist and human factors scientist whose work focused on aviation safety, command-and-control systems, and complex human–machine interaction. Her research addressed environments where failure was rarely the result of a single bad decision, but rather the cumulative effect of misunderstanding, misinterpretation, or delayed comprehension.
In these settings—commercial aviation, air traffic control, military command centers—the problem was not speed.
It was situational comprehension.
Operators were often flooded with data, alerts, indicators, and displays. They were observing constantly, yet still missing what mattered. Accidents occurred not because information was absent, but because it was not integrated into a coherent understanding of the situation in time to act appropriately.
Endsley’s work sought to explain this breakdown.
Context and Origin
The result was a three-level model of Situational Awareness:
- Perception of relevant elements in the environment
- Comprehension of their meaning
- Projection of their status into the near future
Unlike the OODA Loop, which emphasizes adaptive cycling and competitive tempo, Endsley’s model emphasizes cognitive construction. It describes how awareness is built step by step from raw data into understanding and expectation. The framework was intended to help designers, trainers, and evaluators identify where awareness failed so that systems and training could be improved.
The environment in which the model was developed shaped its assumptions. Endsley was working in domains where:
- roles were clearly defined
- authority structures were explicit
- engagement was procedural rather than adversarial
- action was often delayed until confirmation thresholds were met
In these environments, premature action was often more dangerous than delayed action. Errors of projection—misjudging where the situation was heading—were a leading cause of failure. Endsley’s model addressed this directly by making anticipation a formal component of awareness rather than an assumed byproduct of experience.
Another defining aspect of the model’s origin is its evaluative purpose. Endsley’s Levels of SA were designed not only to explain awareness, but to measure it. The framework allowed researchers and instructors to diagnose whether failures occurred at the level of perception, comprehension, or projection. This diagnostic clarity made the model especially influential in training and systems design.
However, like all models, it reflects the environment it was built to serve. It assumes structured roles, clear tasking, and systems designed to support human decision-making. It does not assume ambiguity of intent, moral responsibility for others, or the need for rapid self-directed action under social constraint.
Understanding this origin explains both the model’s strength and its limits.
Core Mechanics—How the Levels Function
Endsley’s model defines situational awareness as a construct built in layers, not a single act of noticing. Each level depends on the integrity of the one before it. Failure at any stage degrades the entire structure.
This layered architecture gives the model its diagnostic power—and also constrains its application outside structured environments.
Perception, the first level, concerns the detection of relevant elements in the environment. This is not passive seeing. It requires identifying which cues matter and separating them from background noise. In Endsley’s research domains, perception included instrument readings, alerts, environmental conditions, and observable behaviors. The model assumes that relevant data exists and can be accessed if attention is properly directed.
When perception fails, attention has usually been misallocated, overloaded, or interrupted.
Comprehension, the second level, is where meaning is assigned. Perceived elements are integrated into an understanding of what is happening now. This requires mental models—frames that allow relationships and implications to be recognized. Two people may perceive the same inputs, yet only one comprehends their significance.
In many documented failures, this is where error quietly accumulated.
Projection, the third level, extends comprehension forward in time. It answers a critical question: What is likely to happen next if nothing changes? Projection enables anticipation rather than reaction and is closely tied to safety margins and contingency planning. In aviation and command environments, projection failures often produced surprise—systems appeared stable until they were not.
Mechanically, the levels are hierarchical but interactive. Perception feeds comprehension; comprehension enables projection. At the same time, projection shapes what is perceived next. Expectations bias attention. Endsley acknowledged this feedback effect but maintained the layered distinction to preserve analytical clarity.
A critical feature of the model is that action is external to awareness. Endsley treated situational awareness as a state of knowledge, not a decision or behavior. This separation allowed awareness to be studied independently from execution, which was essential for system design and training evaluation.
It is also one of the model’s defining constraints.
Strengths Under Pressure
Endsley’s model is exceptionally strong in environments where information density is high, consequences are severe, and decisions must be justified rather than improvised.
Its greatest contribution is diagnostic clarity.
By separating awareness into perception, comprehension, and projection, the model allows failures to be located precisely. Errors can be traced to what was not seen, not understood, or not anticipated—rather than being dismissed as generic “human error.”
Another major strength is the explicit treatment of projection as a skill. Many frameworks assume anticipation naturally follows understanding. Endsley makes it deliberate. Under pressure, people often fixate on the present and neglect the future. The model counteracts this tendency by formalizing forward-looking awareness.
Endsley’s framework also supports disciplined information filtering. In complex environments, data overload is a constant threat. The model reinforces relevance over volume, preserving cognitive bandwidth for interpretation and anticipation.
Because it treats awareness as a cognitive state, the model integrates cleanly with team-based operations, standardized procedures, and shared displays. Teams can align understanding without constant verbal coordination—an advantage in aviation, emergency operations centers, and command-and-control environments.
Finally, the model promotes restraint. By prioritizing understanding and projection before action, it counterbalances impulsivity. In domains where premature action can cascade into systemic failure, this restraint is not a weakness—it is protection.
These strengths explain why Endsley’s Levels remain foundational in safety-critical fields.
Limitations for Civilian Protection
Endsley’s model begins to strain when applied outside the structured environments for which it was designed.
One key limitation is the separation of awareness from action. The model assumes that once perception, comprehension, and projection are intact, appropriate action will follow. In civilian protection contexts, this assumption often fails. Individuals may understand a situation clearly yet hesitate, misjudge proportionality, or act inconsistently with their responsibilities.
Another limitation is reliance on stable tasking. Endsley’s framework assumes the operator knows their role and objective. Civilian protection rarely offers this clarity. Roles shift dynamically—parent, protector, employee, bystander—and objectives can conflict. The model provides no mechanism for resolving these competing responsibilities.
The framework also struggles with social ambiguity. Civilian environments are governed by norms, tone, and unspoken rules. Early indicators of danger often appear as social incongruence rather than explicit threats. Endsley’s model treats environmental elements as neutral data, which can delay meaningful interpretation of these signals.
Time sensitivity introduces another constraint. Emphasizing full comprehension and projection can encourage over-deliberation when safe action windows are brief. In some civilian scenarios, waiting for certainty increases risk rather than reducing it.
Finally, the model under addresses internal state. Fatigue, stress, fear, and emotional investment significantly affect perception and interpretation. While Endsley acknowledged workload and stress, they are treated as modifiers rather than integral components of awareness—an omission that matters in real-world civilian contexts.
These limitations explain why Endsley’s Levels, applied directly to self-defense training, often produce practitioners who see and understand clearly—but struggle to act decisively when action is required.
Lessons Extracted for KMW Synthesis
Endsley’s model offers one of the clearest articulations of how awareness is constructed, not merely experienced. For the Krav Maga Worldwide situational awareness system, its greatest contribution is the recognition that awareness is layered, cumulative, and fragile.
Clarity does not arrive all at once. It is built.
KMW fully retains the distinction between seeing and understanding. Many civilian failures occur not because warning signs were absent, but because they were not interpreted correctly or connected to consequence.
The emphasis on projection is also preserved—reframed toward opportunity and risk windows rather than system stability alone. Anticipation in KMW is tied directly to responsibility.
Endsley’s diagnostic clarity is another lasting contribution. The model provides language for identifying where awareness broke down without assigning blame. This supports learning and reinforces awareness as a trainable skill.
Where KMW deliberately departs is in reintegrating awareness with action. In the KMW system, awareness is decision-enabling, not decision-adjacent. Awareness that does not inform movement, repositioning, communication, restraint, or response is incomplete.
KMW also embeds awareness within Protection Context. Perception, comprehension, and projection are filtered through a central question: Who or what am I responsible for right now? This alignment ensures that clarity serves purpose rather than abstraction.
Finally, KMW balances Endsley’s restraint with decisiveness. Civilian protection requires operating with sufficient clarity—not perfect certainty—while remaining open to correction as conditions evolve.
In this way, Endsley’s Levels become a foundational cognitive layer within the KMW system—sharpening perception and understanding while no longer isolated from responsibility, timing, or action.
KMW’s Situational Awareness Model & Certification is coming soon! Make sure you register today!
