Most Valuable Player? : Assessing the impact of individual team role activity on team performance in a microworld environment

Studying team performance dynamics in tasks and activities has proven difficult because of the dynamic and unpredictable nature of the real world. Microworld systems aim to address that issue by providing researchers with controllable simulated environments that captures the essence of their real-world counterpart activities. This study utilized one such microworld system, called C3Fire, to simulate a forest firefighting setting where 48 participants divided into 12 teams were tasked with cooperating in extinguishing the fires. Teams consisted of four roles – each with its different responsibilities and resources. The aim of this study was to determine whether any individual team role had a greater impact on team performance than the other roles. Each team encountered three distinct scenarios of varying difficulty. Command input action counts and self-assessed performance scores were collected for each participant. These measurements were tested for correlations with team scores. The logistics chief role, who was responsible for re-filling and re-fueling other units, stood out as being the only role whose command input count correlated with team score, and being one of only two roles for which command inputs and self-assessed performance scores were correlated, as well. Results of a multiple regression procedure also indicated that the command counts of the logistics chief was a significant predictor of team score

Implementing the Endeavor Space Dimensions : Towards an understanding of perceived complexity in C2 operations

The challenge of operating and managing complex and dynamic environments, known as complex endeavors, has become a central issue in the C2 research community. NATO research groups have studied how to combat the negative effects of endeavor complexity on performance. Essential to these efforts is the study of C2 Agility, which is the ability of an entity to cope with change and employ different C2 approaches based on the requirements imposed by—and changes in—the current operational environment. An important aspect in accomplishing this research goal is to study how operational environments are constituted, as this would enable research into how the effectiveness of different C2 approaches is affected by different endeavors. The Endeavor Space model, which represents endeavor complexity in three dimensions, was developed for this purpose. In an effort to continue research on the Endeavor Space, the current study set out to implement the dimensions in a C2 research platform called ELICIT. Three ELICIT scenarios were created to represent different regions of the Endeavor Space. Additionally, the study designed, developed, and tested a prototype self-assessment instrument—the ESSAI—to capture how the Endeavor Space dimensions—Tractability, Dynamics, and Dependencies—were experienced by operators. Eight teams completed the scenarios and rated their complexity using the ESSAI. No significant differences in perceived complexity could be found between the scenarios. However, all Endeavor Space dimensions indicated correlational relationships with perceived difficulty, and most of them correlated with ELICIT performance. This is indicative of underlying patterns that were not thoroughly revealed in the current study. Implications and improvements for future research are discussed

Implementing the Endeavor Space Dimensions : Towards an understanding of perceived complexity in C2 operations

The challenge of operating and managing complex and dynamic environments, known as complex endeavors, has become a central issue in the C2 research community. NATO research groups have studied how to combat the negative effects of endeavor complexity on performance. Essential to these efforts is the study of C2 Agility, which is the ability of an entity to cope with change and employ different C2 approaches based on the requirements imposed by—and changes in—the current operational environment. An important aspect in accomplishing this research goal is to study how operational environments are constituted, as this would enable research into how the effectiveness of different C2 approaches is affected by different endeavors. The Endeavor Space model, which represents endeavor complexity in three dimensions, was developed for this purpose. In an effort to continue research on the Endeavor Space, the current study set out to implement the dimensions in a C2 research platform called ELICIT. Three ELICIT scenarios were created to represent different regions of the Endeavor Space. Additionally, the study designed, developed, and tested a prototype self-assessment instrument—the ESSAI—to capture how the Endeavor Space dimensions—Tractability, Dynamics, and Dependencies—were experienced by operators. Eight teams completed the scenarios and rated their complexity using the ESSAI. No significant differences in perceived complexity could be found between the scenarios. However, all Endeavor Space dimensions indicated correlational relationships with perceived difficulty, and most of them correlated with ELICIT performance. This is indicative of underlying patterns that were not thoroughly revealed in the current study. Implications and improvements for future research are discussed

Swarms, teams, or choirs? : Metaphors in multi-UAV systems design

Future Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are projected to fly and operate in swarms. The swarm metaphor makes explicit and implicit mappings regarding system architecture and human interaction to aspects of natural systems, such as bee societies. Compared to the metaphor of a team, swarming agents as individuals are less capable, more expendable, and more limited in terms of communication and coordination. Given their different features and limitations, the two metaphors could be useful in different scenarios. We also discuss a choir metaphor and illustrate how it can give rise to different design concepts. We conclude that designers and engineers should be mindful of the metaphors they use because they influence—and limit—how to think about and design for multi-UAV systems

Enabling Human-Autonomy Teaming in Aviation : A Framework to Address Human Factors in Digital Assistants Design

The introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in aviation necessitates more research into human-autonomy teaming in these domain settings. This paper describes the development of a design framework for supporting Human Factors novices in considering human factors, improving human-autonomy collaboration, and maintaining safety when developing AI tools for aviation settings. Combining elements of Hierarchical Task Analysis, Coactive Design, and Types and Levels of Autonomy, the design framework provides guidance in three phases: modelling and understanding the existing system and associated tasks; producing a new function allocation for optimal Human-Autonomy Teaming (HAT); and assessing HAT-related risks of the proposed design. In this framework, designers generate a comprehensive set of design considerations to support subsequent development processes. Framework limitations and future research avenues are discussed. This research was conducted in the SafeTeam project. SafeTeam has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation program under grant agreement No. 101069877</p