The effects of spatial processing load and collaboration technology on team performance in a simulated C2 environment

ABSTRACT

Motivation -- To address the effects of spatial processing load and text-based collaborative tools on team performance in command and control environments.

Research approach -- Thirty-two people served as paid participants in this study. Teams of two participants competed against a computer opponent in a RoboFlag simulation based on 'capture-the-flag.' Participants either could or could not see their teammates' simulated vehicles during a trial, and they were restricted to no communication, verbal communication, text-based communication, or verbal and text communication.

Findings/design -- Spatial processing load substantially impacted team performance and participants' ratings of workload and situational awareness. Team communication condition influenced workload, situational awareness, and team communications, but did not affect team performance.

Take away message -- Results of the current experiment support and extend previous research concerning the effects of collaborative technologies on team performance in C2 environments.

REFERENCES

• 1: Albert, D. S. & Hayes, R. E. (2003). Power to the Edge. Washington, DC: CCRP Publication Series.
• 2: Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• 3: Baltes, B. B., Dickson, M. W., Sherman, M. P., Bauer, C. C., & LaGanke, J. S. (2002). Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 156--179.
• 4: Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (2001). Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 195--202.
• 5: Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In N. J. Castellan (Ed.), Individual and Group Decision Making (pp. 221--246). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• 6: D'Andrea, R., & Babish, M. (2003). The RoboFlag testbed. Proceedings of the American Control Conference, 22, 656--660.
• 7: Funke, G. J., Galster, S. M., Nelson, W. T., & Dukes, A. W. (2006). Instant messaging and team performance in a simulated command and control environment. Proceedings of the 2006 Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium. San Diego, CA.
• 8: Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In P. A. Hancock and N. Meshkati (Eds.), Human Mental Workload (pp. 139--183). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science/North Holland.
• 9: Hertel, G., Geister, S., & Konradt, U. (2005). Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research. Human Resource Management Review, 15, 69--95.
• 10: Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (2004). Designing experiments and analyzing data (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Erlbaum.
• 11: Taylor, R. M. (1990). Situational awareness rating technique (SART): The development of a tool for aircrew systems design. In Situational Awareness in Aerospace Operations (AGARD-CP-478, pp. 3--1 and 3--17). Neuilly Sur Seine, France: NATO-AGARD.
• 12: Wickens, C. D. (1980). The structure of attentional resources. In R. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII (pp. 239--258). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

INDEX TERMS

Keywords:
RoboFlag simulation, collaboration technology, command and control, team performance