Bringing in the Experts

Abstract

This study investigates the separate and joint effects of the inclusion of experts and collaborative planning on the performance of analytic teams. Teams either did or did not include members with expert-level task-relevant cognitive abilities, and either did or did not receive an intervention that fostered collaborative planning. Results support the authors' hypothesis that analytic performance requires both task-appropriate expertise and collaborative planning to identify strategies for optimally using that expertise. Indeed, high expertise in the absence of collaborative planning actually decreased team performance. Teams engaging in collaborative planning were more likely to effectively integrate their information on key aspects of the analytic problem, which significantly enhanced their analytic performance. Furthermore, information integration mediated the effects of the interaction of expertise and collaboration on performance. The implications of the findings for the optimal use of team member skills and the development of team performance strategies are discussed.

The Cambridge Car Memory Test: A task matched in format to the Cambridge Face Memory Test, with norms, reliability, sex differences, dissociations from face memory, and expertise effects

“…1) as the starting point for our new test because it produces very good reliability (α = .88, Bowles et al, 2009;α = .83, Herzmann, Danthiir, Schacht, Sommer, & Wilhelm, 2008;α = .90, Wilmer, Germine, Chabris, et al, 2010), requires only 10-15 min to administer, and has become a standard and frequently used tool in face recognition studies. This includes use in the diagnosis of potential prosopagnosia (e.g., Bate, Haslam, Tree, & Hodgson, 2008;Bowles et al, 2009;DeGutis, Bentin, Robertson, & D'Esposito, 2007;Iaria, Bogod, Fox, & Barton, 2009), in the selection of people with exceptional face recognition abilities (Woolley, Gerbasi, Chabris, Kosslyn, & Hackman, 2008), and in the study of individual differences in the typical population (e.g., Wilmer, Germine, Chabris, et al, 2010).…”

Toward quantifying metrics for rail-system resilience: identification and analysis of performance weak resilience signals

“…Boosting the relation-oriented abilities within the organization can strengthen these processes and as such reinforce the overall level of system resilience (Hollnagel 2009). Enhancing cooperation and knowledge sharing with other teams could, for example, aid in minimizing information-processing failures (Woolley et al 2008) where transformational leadership (Bass 1990) could contribute to sense-making, interpretation and understanding of a situation among all members of the (corridor) team (Bartone 2006). In this context, a WRS analysis function should be seen as a means to an end.…”

“…In these situations, the dispatcher responsible for the rail trajectory in which the disruption occurs focuses on the direct (short-term) actions involved with the disruption handling (i.e., quick responsive action to train and timetable delays directly resulting from the disturbance) while the 'emergency' dispatcher assists by taking over verbal communication with other actors (i.e., telephone calls from train drivers) and (long-term) planning activities. As is the case in almost all high-pressure situations, the corridor team was unable to integrate and develop implications for this specific situation based on the full set of information held by all actors involved (Woolley et al 2008). This due to the fact that no direct line of communication could be established between the rail control center and the commander, nor other members, of the mobile police unit.…”

Intelligence analysts’ strategies for solving analytic tasks

“…Finally, collaborative analysis is often encouraged because there is a belief that it helps to overcome the limitations of individual analysis (see e.g., Cooper, 2005). Past studies on collaborative versus individual analysis, however, report mixed findings as to the respective benefits of these two ways of working (e.g., Convertino, Billman, Pirolli, Massar, & Shrager, 2008;Dhami & Careless, 2015a;Woolley, Gerbasi, Chabris, Kosslyn, & Hackman, 2008). Some psychological research suggests that collaborative working can lead to cognitive loafing (Weldon & Gargano, 1985;1988).…”