A field study of team working in a new human supervisory control system

This paper presents a case study of an investigation into team behaviour in an energy distribution company. The main aim was to investigate the impact of major changes in the company on system performance, comprising human and technical elements. A socio-technical systems approach was adopted. There were main differences between the teams investigated in the study: the time of year each control room was studied (i.e. summer or winter),the stage of development each team was in (i.e. 10 months), and the team structure (i.e. hierarchical or heterarchical). In all other respects the control rooms were the same: employing the same technology and within the same organization. The main findings were: the teams studied in the winter months were engaged in more `planning’ and `awareness’ type of activities than those studies in the summer months. Newer teams seem to be engaged in more sharing of information than older teams, which maybe indicative of the development process. One of the hierarchical teams was engaged in more `system-driven’ activities than the heterarchical team studied at the same time of year. Finally, in general, the heterarchical team perceived a greater degree of team working culture than its hierarchical counterparts. This applied research project confirms findings from laboratory research and emphasizes the importance of involving ergonomics in the design of team working in human supervisory control

Storing and Transporting

Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 This publication was reproduced from the best available copy Submitted by the subcontractor and received no editorial review at NREL NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof. Available electronically a

Biomass Commercialization Prospects the Next 2 to 5 Years; BIOMASS COLLOQUIES 2000

A series of four colloquies held in the first quarter of 2000 examined the expected development of biomass commercialization in the next 2 to 5 years. Each colloquy included seven to ten representatives from key industries that can contribute to biomass commercialization and who are in positions to influence the future direction. They represented: Corn Growers, Biomass Suppliers, Plant Science Companies, Process Engineering Companies, Chemical Processors, Agri-pulp Suppliers, Current Ethanol Producers, Agricultural Machinery Manufacturers, and Enzyme Suppliers. Others attending included representatives from the National Renewable Energy Lab., Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Fuels Development, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, environmental groups, grower organizations, and members of the financial and economic development community. The informal discussions resulted in improved awareness of the current state, future possibilit ies, and actions that can accelerate commercialization. Biomass commercialization on a large scale has four common issues: (1) Feedstock availability from growers; (2) Large-scale collection and storage; (3) An economic process; (4) Market demand for the product