Investigating information-processing performance of different command team structures in the NATO Problem Space

Neville A. Stanton, Ling Rothrock, Catherine Harvey, Linda Sorensen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The structure of command teams is a significant factor on their communications and ability to process, and act upon, information. The NATO Problem Space was used in this study to represent three of the main dimensions in the battle-space environment: familiarity, rate of change, and strength of information position. Results show that the five common team structures (chain, Y, circle, wheel and all-connected) did not generally perform as predicted in team literature. Findings suggest that under dynamic and highly variable conditions, high levels of synchronisation and trust should be present. On the other hand, synchronisation and trust are less important in hierarchical, highly centralised structures, because team members are more willing to accept the authority of a single leader and this tight control ensures that these teams can perform well as long as the Problem Space is familiar, information is explicit and the environment does not change.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2078-2100
Number of pages23
JournalErgonomics
Volume58
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2 2015

Fingerprint

NATO
Automatic Data Processing
information processing
Synchronization
Aptitude
performance
Wheels
Communication
communications
leader
ability
Recognition (Psychology)

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Human Factors and Ergonomics
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

Cite this

Stanton, Neville A. ; Rothrock, Ling ; Harvey, Catherine ; Sorensen, Linda. / Investigating information-processing performance of different command team structures in the NATO Problem Space. In: Ergonomics. 2015 ; Vol. 58, No. 12. pp. 2078-2100.
@article{e6aeb374418d48a5818728d99f38ab11,
title = "Investigating information-processing performance of different command team structures in the NATO Problem Space",
abstract = "The structure of command teams is a significant factor on their communications and ability to process, and act upon, information. The NATO Problem Space was used in this study to represent three of the main dimensions in the battle-space environment: familiarity, rate of change, and strength of information position. Results show that the five common team structures (chain, Y, circle, wheel and all-connected) did not generally perform as predicted in team literature. Findings suggest that under dynamic and highly variable conditions, high levels of synchronisation and trust should be present. On the other hand, synchronisation and trust are less important in hierarchical, highly centralised structures, because team members are more willing to accept the authority of a single leader and this tight control ensures that these teams can perform well as long as the Problem Space is familiar, information is explicit and the environment does not change.",
author = "Stanton, {Neville A.} and Ling Rothrock and Catherine Harvey and Linda Sorensen",
year = "2015",
month = "12",
day = "2",
doi = "10.1080/00140139.2015.1046499",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "58",
pages = "2078--2100",
journal = "Ergonomics",
issn = "0014-0139",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "12",

}

Investigating information-processing performance of different command team structures in the NATO Problem Space. / Stanton, Neville A.; Rothrock, Ling; Harvey, Catherine; Sorensen, Linda.

In: Ergonomics, Vol. 58, No. 12, 02.12.2015, p. 2078-2100.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Investigating information-processing performance of different command team structures in the NATO Problem Space

AU - Stanton, Neville A.

AU - Rothrock, Ling

AU - Harvey, Catherine

AU - Sorensen, Linda

PY - 2015/12/2

Y1 - 2015/12/2

N2 - The structure of command teams is a significant factor on their communications and ability to process, and act upon, information. The NATO Problem Space was used in this study to represent three of the main dimensions in the battle-space environment: familiarity, rate of change, and strength of information position. Results show that the five common team structures (chain, Y, circle, wheel and all-connected) did not generally perform as predicted in team literature. Findings suggest that under dynamic and highly variable conditions, high levels of synchronisation and trust should be present. On the other hand, synchronisation and trust are less important in hierarchical, highly centralised structures, because team members are more willing to accept the authority of a single leader and this tight control ensures that these teams can perform well as long as the Problem Space is familiar, information is explicit and the environment does not change.

AB - The structure of command teams is a significant factor on their communications and ability to process, and act upon, information. The NATO Problem Space was used in this study to represent three of the main dimensions in the battle-space environment: familiarity, rate of change, and strength of information position. Results show that the five common team structures (chain, Y, circle, wheel and all-connected) did not generally perform as predicted in team literature. Findings suggest that under dynamic and highly variable conditions, high levels of synchronisation and trust should be present. On the other hand, synchronisation and trust are less important in hierarchical, highly centralised structures, because team members are more willing to accept the authority of a single leader and this tight control ensures that these teams can perform well as long as the Problem Space is familiar, information is explicit and the environment does not change.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84930607407&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84930607407&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/00140139.2015.1046499

DO - 10.1080/00140139.2015.1046499

M3 - Article

VL - 58

SP - 2078

EP - 2100

JO - Ergonomics

JF - Ergonomics

SN - 0014-0139

IS - 12

ER -