Learning From the Past to Advance the Future: The Adaptation and Resilience of NASA’s Spaceflight Multiteam Systems Across Four Eras of Spaceflight

Abstract

Many important “grand” challenges—such as sending a team of humans on a voyage to Mars—present superordinate goals that require coordinated efforts across “multiteam systems” comprised of multiple uniquely specialized and interdependent component teams. Given their flexibility and resource capacity, multiteam system structures have great potential to perform adaptively in dynamic contexts. However, these systems may fail to achieve their superordinate goals if constituent members or teams do not adapt their collaboration processes to meet the needs of the changing environment. In this case study of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)’s Spaceflight Multiteam Systems (SFMTSs), we aim to support the next era of human spaceflight by considering how the history of manned spaceflight might impact a SFMTS’s ability to respond adaptively to future challenges. We leverage archival documents, including Oral History interviews with NASA personnel, in order to uncover the key attributes and structural features of NASA’s SFMTSs as well as the major goals, critical events, and challenges they have faced over 60 years of operation. The documents reveal three distinct “eras” of spaceflight: (1) Early Exploration , (2) Experimentation , and (3) Habitation , each of which reflected distinct goals, critical events, and challenges. Moreover, we find that within each era, SFMTSs addressed new challenges adaptively by modifying their: (1) technical capabilities; (2) internal collaborative relationships; and/or (3) external partnerships. However, the systems were sometimes slow to implement needed adaptations, and changes were often spurred by initial performance failures. Implications for supporting future SFMTS performance and future directions for MTS theory and research are discussed.

Examining Multiteam Systems Across Context and Type: A Historiometric Analysis of Failed MTS Performance

“…This first overarching theme echoes other research on collective collaboration. Past MTS research has indicated that component teams, and especially failing teams and teams under stress, turn their attention and behaviors inwards ( Kanfer and Kerry, 2012 ; Beck and Plowman, 2014 ; Stoate, 2015 ; Wijnmaalen, 2015 ; Rico et al, 2016 , 2018 ; Bick et al, 2017 ; Schecter, 2017 ; Schipper, 2017 ; Schipper and Gerrits, 2017 ; Wijnmaalen et al, 2018 , 2019 ; Pendergraft et al, 2019 ; Ziegert et al, 2020 ; Torres et al, 2021 ). Both cognitive and motivational mechanisms explicate this trend in failing MTSs.…”

“…Our methodological approach builds upon case study analysis methods used in recent MTS studies (e.g., Pendergraft et al, 2019 ; Torres et al, 2021 ), leveraging historiometric analysis (HMA; Simonton, 2003 ; Crayne and Hunter, 2018 ) to conduct a structured examination sof MTS performance situations and contexts. In a recent review, Burke et al (2021) describe historiometry as “special case of archival analysis,” unique for its use of quantification to support qualitative data analysis of historically significant events.…”

“…Extant MTS performance research has provided insight into the mechanisms that facilitate optimal performance for MTSs ( Zaccaro et al, 2020 ). In particular, MTS experimental and case studies have found support for the importance of between-team interactions for successful MTS performance across different types of MTSs (e.g., Marks et al, 2005 ; Beck and Plowman, 2014 ; Stoate, 2015 ; Wijnmaalen, 2015 ; Rico et al, 2016 , 2018 ; Bick et al, 2017 ; Schecter, 2017 ; Schipper, 2017 ; Schipper and Gerrits, 2017 ; Wijnmaalen et al, 2018 , 2019 ; Pendergraft et al, 2019 ; Ziegert et al, 2020 ; Torres et al, 2021 ). For example, Beck and Plowman’s (2014) analysis of the Columbia shuttle explosion response effort highlighted the impact of between-team interactions on performance enhancing mechanisms.…”

“…Prior studies of failed MTS performance have been somewhat hampered by typical MTSs’ complexity, not only in the multilevel structure and goal hierarchies of MTSs ( Rico et al, 2016 , 2018 ), but also the significant dynamism of MTS coordination processes and the contexts within which they typically operate ( Luciano et al, 2018b ; Pendergraft et al, 2019 ). That is, given the inherent difficulties of studying MTSs, a lack of evidence persists regarding the mechanisms that drive MTS performance.…”

The Evolution and Maturation of Teams in Organizations: Convergent Trends in the New Dynamic Science of Teams

“…Context matters, and certain industries have embraced the importance of team dynamics as the links between team functioning and valued organizational outcomes in that industry are particularly salient. Articles in this special address spaceflight (Bell et al, 2019 ; Pendergraft et al, 2019 ) military (Demir et al, 2019 ; Johnston et al, 2019 ), healthcare (Stevens et al, 2019 ), and isolated and confined environments (Landon et al, 2019 ). While this list of industries is by no means exhaustive of those pursuing team-based work strategies or engaged in research efforts to understand and improve team dynamics, it is representative of the key contributors.…”