The science of teams contributes to team effectiveness in the same way that the science of individual performance contributes to individual effectiveness.

No abstract

Cognition in work teams has been predominantly understood and explained in terms of shared cognition with a focus on the similarity of static knowledge structures across individual team members. Inspired by the current zeitgeist in cognitive science, as well as by empirical data and pragmatic concerns, we offer an alternative theory of team cognition. Interactive Team Cognition (ITC) theory posits that (1) team cognition is an activity, not a property or a product; (2) team cognition should be measured and studied at the team level; and (3) team cognition is inextricably tied to context. There are implications of ITC for theory building, modeling, measurement, and applications that make teams more effective performers.

Multioperator tasks often require complex cognitive processing at the team level. Many team cognitive processes, such as situation assessment and coordination, are thought to rely on team knowledge. Team knowledge is multifaceted and comprises relatively generic knowledge in the form of team mental models and more specific team situation models. In this methodological review paper, we review recent efforts to measure team knowledge in the context of mapping specific methods onto features of targeted team knowledge. Team knowledge features include type, homogeneity versus heterogeneity, and rate of knowledge change. Measurement features include knowledge elicitation method, team metric, and aggregation method. When available, we highlight analytical conclusions or empirical data that support a connection between team knowledge and measurement method. In addition, we present empirical results concerning the relation between team knowledge and performance for each measurement method and identify research and methodological needs. Addressing issues surrounding the measurement of team knowledge is a prerequisite to understanding team cognition and its relation to team performance and to designing training programs or devices to facilitate team cognition.

The authors report an effort aimed at developing and evaluating measures of taskwork and teamwork team knowledge for teams in which members differ in knowledge backgrounds. These measures were used in a study with 36 teams to explore the cognitive underpinnings of team performance variations due to cross-training regime. The authors demonstrate that these measures are valid and provide team performance information that complements outcome and behavioral measures. Teams exposed to full cross-training acquired more taskwork and teamwork knowledge than control teams or teams exposed to a conceptual version of cross-training. Measures of team knowledge provide information regarding team task performance critical for system design and training programs.

Objective Three different team configurations are compared with the goal of better understanding human-autonomy teaming (HAT). Background Although an extensive literature on human-automation interaction exists, much less is known about HAT in which humans and autonomous agents interact as coordinated units. Further research must be conducted to better understand how all-human teams compare to HAT. Methods In an unmanned aerial system (UAS) context, a comparison was made among three types of three-member teams: (1) synthetic teams in which the pilot role is assigned to a synthetic teammate, (2) control teams in which the pilot was an inexperienced human, and (3) experimenter teams in which an experimenter served as an experienced pilot. Ten of each type of team participated. Measures of team performance, target processing efficiency, team situation awareness, and team verbal behaviors were analyzed. Results Synthetic teams performed as well at the mission level as control (all human) teams but processed targets less efficiently. Experimenter teams performed better across all other measures compared to control and synthetic teams. Conclusion Though there is potential for a synthetic agent to function as a full-fledged teammate, further advances in autonomy are needed to improve team-level dynamics in HAT teams. Application This research contributes to our understanding of how to make autonomy a good team player.

Teams have become an integral and essential social component in organizations. There is no doubt that there are more businesses, industries, and agencies implementing team-based systems than ever before. Organizations believe that teams, teamwork, and effective team functioning can provide a competitive edge. Teams are, after all, dispatched to tackle difficult and complex problems. Why? Organizations think teams hold the solution to many problems. The perception is that teams can manage stress, teams can adapt and be flexible, teams can make better decisions, and teams can be more productive than individuals. So, teams are a popular commodity in organizations.While the evidence of the efficacy of teams remains open, social scientists have begun to provide much needed answers to this issue. In fact, the amount of research effort and resources aimed at understanding what comprises effective team performance is overwhelming. Military, human factors,

Objective: We report an experiment in which three training approaches are compared with the goal of training adaptive teams. Background: Cross-training is an established method in which team members are trained with the goal of building shared knowledge. Perturbation training is a new method in which team interactions are constrained to provide new coordination experiences during task acquisition. These two approaches, and a more traditional procedural approach, are compared. Method: Assigned to three training conditions were 26 teams. Teams flew nine simulated uninhabited air vehicle missions; three were critical tests of the team's ability to adapt to novel situations. Team performance, response time to novel events, and shared knowledge were measured. Results: Perturbation-trained teams significantly outperformed teams in the other conditions in two out of three critical test missions. Cross-training resulted in significant increases in shared teamwork knowledge and highest mean performance in one critical test. Procedural training led to the least adaptive teams. Conclusion: Perturbation training allows teams to match coordination variability during training to demands for coordination variability during posttraining performance. Although cross-training has adaptive benefits, it is suggested that process-oriented approaches, such as perturbation training, can lead to more adaptive teams. Application: Perturbation training is amenable to simulation-based training, where perturbations provide interaction experiences that teams can transfer to novel, real-world situations.