A Team Cognitive Readiness Framework for Small-Unit Training

Abstract

The modern battlefield is characterized by a need to mitigate the effects of creative tactics by insurgent enemies. At the small-unit level, this need requires coordination by team members highly proficient in battle drills and immediate actions. Furthermore, these teams must demonstrate a facility in adaptive decision making and flexible action execution to effectively respond to threats. At issue is whether current training theory can appropriately support this need to enable teams that are not only procedurally ready but also cognitively ready. In this article, the authors provide a theoretical framework meant to guide the development of training for team cognitive readiness (TCR). Beginning with perceptual processing and cue recognition, elevating to problem solving and decision making, and scaling up to complex coordinative processes, TCR requires a comprehensive theoretical framework capable of addressing the varied processes and performance demands at the small-unit level. In service of this need, the authors provide a framework to improve the understanding of, and to improve adaptive coordination in, teamwork in dynamic environments.

The Three‐Level Collaboration Exercise – Impact of Learning and Usefulness

“…The technology was regarded as not being so user friendly to be useful during real‐life events. In a conceptual article, Fiore, Ross, and Jentsch () concluded that small military unit teams must demonstrate collaborative decision making by preparing for surprising and complex situations. They suggest specific exercises in order to provide scenarios in which team members have the opportunity to coordinate responses.…”

Adaptive Flexibility

“…Perceptual knowledge, which enables recognition of critical environmental cues, is thought to develop much quicker than conceptual knowledge (the ability to interpret the relevance and meaning of such cues; Melcher & Schooler, 2004). Supporting this, novice AFOs were able to see when current SOPs were not working (perceptual knowledge), but they were not always able to understand how they could adapt to these cues (conceptual knowledge; Fiore et al, 2012).…”

“…For instance, as expert SFOs described, mental modeling reflected a process of "picture developing" to (a) causally connect and explain the situation in a meaningful way, (b) build expectations, (c) direct decision making, and (d) prepare for subsequent actions and outcomes (Fackler et al, 2009). Mental models (conceptual knowledge) not only enabled expert SFOs to immediately recognize contextual changes and when standard tactical options were failing in the current context (based on previously projected occurrences, outcomes, and own responses) but also enabled their understanding of how and why they could adapt their training or assigned role to the identified situational changes (Fiore et al, 2012). Both samples uti-lized mental modeling strategies; however, expert SFOs were able to quickly generate a larger number of hypothesized potential occurrences.…”

A data driven approach to assess team performance through team communication.

“…Team effectiveness has particular impact within a military setting, as within combat situations the performance of a group has a direct bearing on the survival of the group and those dependent on them [2], situation that holds true when considering the success of naval operations [3]. In an attempt to determine the critical elements that make up an effective team in a military setting, variables related to team effectiveness have been examined from a variety of perspectives, including team cohesiveness (i.e., shared interpersonal closeness and group goal-orientation) [4], [5] collective orientation [1], shared mental models (i.e., synthesis of input from individual team members) [6], [7], [8], team selection and composition (e.g., the skills possessed by the individual team members, how long the members have been working together) [5], [6], [9], quality of decisions made by commanders [10], [11], cognitive readiness and adaptive decision making at the group level [12], training adequacy [5], the workload involved [13], and even neurophysiologic synchrony between team members, as assessed via electroencephalogram [14].…”