Development of a team performance task battery to evaluate performance of the command and control vehicle (C2V) crew

Abstract

Requirements for mobility and speed in battle command led to the development of a mobile, digitized command and control vehicle (C2V). Conducting battle command in a C2V impacts how the individual and team will acquire, process, and disseminate information. To test the effect that the C2V will have on battle command performance requires an evaluation of both individual and team performance. Cognitive test batteries exist to assess individual performance. The current effort was to develop a task battery for use in evaluating team performance. Four team performance functions (information exchange, resource matching, coordination, and error checking) were proposed and used to guide the selection of tasks to form a team performance task battery. Tasks were selected from a large sample of group tasks identified and assessed for applicability to the team performance functions. Tasks that most exemplified each of the four functions and that could be used to support the C2V test were compiled into a task list and developed for implementation. Task development included creating, gathering, or assembling stimulus materials, instructions, and test protocols. Manual versions of all the selected tasks and digital versions of some tasks were developed. A sufficient number of replications of each task were developed to support the C2V test design. Four of the tasks developed were used during the C2V test. It was concluded that the C2V environment impaired performance of all group performance tasks, especially those that required a great degree of coordination and integration. Future research must expand this initial effort to empirically define and validate team functions and related tasks.

Coordination issues in modular systems

“…With regard to the group level factors -one of the frequent pitfalls in human groups is the assigning and adjustment of roles and responsibilities based on characteristics that are only indirect, and often incorrect, indicators of persons' suitability, such as social / organizational position or age. At least in principle this assignment should be instead based on the appropriate "matching of member resources, skills, abilities, prior knowledge, task information, numbers, etc., to subtask requirements" ( [22], as cited in [1]). In practice, though, the latter approach may lead to complications, too, when people do not get the roles they think they deserve and will therefore underperform or sabotage due to being dissatisfied, so the issue should be handled carefully (via, for example, open honest dialogue, fair sharing of the benefits, etc.…”

Barriers to Adaptability in a Multinational Team

“…For example, team performance is determined by individual competence, team competence, individual and team accountability, and team reward. Team competence is determined by the ability of the team to exchange information, coordinate actions, assign roles and responsibilities, error check, and act as a source of motivation (McGlynn, Sutton, Sprague, Demski, & Pierce, 1999). While there are other conceptualizations of teams and team competencies (e.g., Fleishman & Quaintance, 1984;Fleishman & Zaccaro, 1992;Salas, Dickinson, Converse, & Tannenbaum, 1992), we selected the McGlynn et a1 taxonomy for use in this initial investigation because it emphasizes cognitive functions of teams.…”

The Compass Paradigm for the Systematic Evaluation of U.S. Army Command and Control Systems Using Neural Network and Discrete Event Computer Simulation

“…Currently this is not known to exist. While the literature reflects an extensive amount of work that is focused on the description and evaluation of the military C2 environment, all of the literature surveyed focuses on the human and team performance aspect of this work space, (Cowings, Toscano, DeRoshia, and Tauson, 1999;Dryer, 1998;Ford et al, 1997;Huron, 1997;McGlynn and Pierce, 1997;Rasker, Post, and Schraagen, 2000;Reynolds, 1997), to name a small representative of recent work. This study goes beyond the human performance aspect of the C2S and is intended to consider all aspects that make up the total system surrounding the C2 effort.…”