effective team support for time critical complex work environments pis: bonnie e.john, katia sycara...
Post on 19-Dec-2015
215 views
TRANSCRIPT
Effective Team Support forTime Critical ComplexWork Environments
PIs:Bonnie E.John, Katia Sycara
Key personnel:Sandy Esch, Joseph Giampapa, Rahul Singh
7mar03 2
Goals of the project
• Advance understanding of team performance• Provide a simulation environment to cognitive modeling /
teamwork research community– Executables and source code
– Operated by humans and computational cognitive models
– Scenario editor
– Data logging
– Documentation
– Data of team performance
• Build cognitive models of team members• Build software agents to support team members & the team• Evaluate effectiveness of approach and resulting systems
7mar03 3
Outline of the talk
• Domain of interest• Simulation environment overview• Teamwork characteristics of the simulation
environment– Factors effecting performance of teams– How these factors can be manipulated in the simulation
environment– Dependent measures of team performance
• Project status and next steps
7mar03 4
Range operations
• Safe and efficient operation of the launch range during launch
• Several distributed range operators must collaborate to achieve successful launch within the launch window or abort the mission – Responsible for monitoring a particular area in the launch zone– Negotiate with other range operators for resource allocation
• Some tasks include…– Maintaining clear airspace over the entire range during launch– Predicting plume dispersion– Efficient allocation of resources to minimize risk and cost while
maximizing safety
• Typically a team task with distributed responsibility• Typically a time critical task• Information-rich and communications-intensive
MORSE Architecture
• Flow of the task is controlled by the MORSE Command• MORSE Command models entire mission and simulation world• MORSE Stations display focused subset of simulation world to each user• MORSE Command maintains accounting of costs incurred, coordination penalties
MORSE-Command
MORSE-Station CharlieAscension Islands
MORSE-Station Bravo
Antigua
MORSE-Station Alpha
Cape Canaveral
Scenario File
Weather Queries
Timing Synchronizatio
n
Incursion Information
Shared Information
between Stations
7mar03 7
Team performance(Galbraith, 1977; Kraut, Fussell, Lerch, & Espinosa, 2002)
• The more uncertainty in a task, the more information-processing necessary to achieve a given level of performance (Galbraith, Organization Design,1977)
• The more coordination within a team, the higher level of performance achieved (Kraut, et. al., 2002)
• Thus, to increase performance on a given task, take measures to – decrease uncertainty
– make information-processing less costly
– improve coordination
• Such measures may include– Designing the task environment, including software agents
– Designing the organization
7mar03 8
Team performance(Galbraith, 1977; Kraut, Fussell, Lerch, & Espinosa, 2002)
• The more uncertainty in a task, the more information-processing necessary to achieve a given level of performance (Galbraith, Organization Design,1977)
• The more coordination within a team, the higher level of performance achieved (Kraut, et. al., 2002)
• Thus, to increase performance on a given task, take measures to – decrease uncertainty
– make information-processing less costly
– improve coordination
• Such measures may include– Designing the task environment, including software agents
– Designing the organization
7mar03 9
Uncertainty or information to be acquired and processed
Amount of information possessed by organization
Amount of information required for task
performance
Determined by goal diversity,level of goal performance, division of labor
Determinants of informationand task uncertainty
(adapted from Figure 3.1 Galbraith, 1977)
7mar03 10
Factors affecting uncertainty (Galbraith 1977) instantiated in MORSE
• Diversity of goals– Safe launch
• No incursions or interceptors within Impact Lines• Toxic plume would not disperse to populated area
• Level of goal performance– Time constraints– Limited resources: interceptors, weather balloons,
participant attention & actions– Cost metrics
• Division of labor– Small team, organically coordinated, or trained
• Territory covered by each team member• Radar placement
7mar03 11
Factors affecting uncertainty (Galbraith 1977) manipulable in MORSE
• Diversity of goals– Safe launch
• No incursions or interceptors within Impact Lines• Toxic plume would not disperse to populated area
• Level of goal performance– Time constraints– Limited resources: interceptors, weather balloons,
participant attention & actions– Cost metrics
• Division of labor– Small team, organically coordinated, or trained
• Territory covered by each team member• Radar placement
7mar03 12
Mechanisms to economize oninformation processing capacity (Galbraith 1977)
instantiated in MORSE
• Rules, programs or procedures - decisions in advance of their execution– Could arise organically, or could be trained
• Discretion guided by planning or professionalism– Could plan via chat (or talking outside the experiment)– Could involve activation of radar, activation/location of
interceptors
• Adjusting the hierarchy of authority (Narrowing span of control)– Could arise organically, or could be trained– Could assign roles, e.g., one person monitor weather,
others handle incursions
7mar03 13
Mechanisms to economize oninformation processing capacity (Galbraith 1977)
manipulable in MORSE
• Rules, programs or procedures - decisions in advance of their execution– Could arise organically, or could be trained
• Discretion guided by planning or professionalism– Could plan via chat (or talking outside the experiment)– Could involve activation of radar, activation/location of
interceptors
• Adjusting the hierarchy of authority (Narrowing span of control)– Could arise organically, or could be trained– Could assign roles, e.g., one person monitor weather,
others handle incursions
7mar03 14
Reduce the need for information processing (Galbraith 1977 )
manipulable in MORSE
• Environmental management– Provide software agents that, in effect, change the
environment
• Creation of slack resources– Evaluation function, e.g., tolerate some incursions or
interceptors left within the Impact Lines, change the cost of deploying weather balloons or sharing data, etc.
• Creation of self-contained tasks– Could arise organically, or could be trained– E.g., handle only own radar areas, no communication
7mar03 15
Increase capacity to process information (Galbraith 1977)
manipulable in MORSE
• Invest in vertical information systems– Provide software agents to collect and process
information for the team
• Creation of lateral relations– Small team, free to communicate; this mechanism does
not apply to this task
“The organization must adopt at least one of the five strategies when faced with greater uncertainty. If it does not consciously chose one of the five, then slack, reduced performance standards will automatically happen.” (p. 55, Galbraith 1977)
7mar03 16
Coordination in teams(Kraut et. al. 2002)
• Factors contributing to coordination – Communication frequency– Communication evenness– Common history– Shared cognition
• Factors are beneficial individually, compensate for each other
• The Morse environment can measure these factors more directly than Kraut, et. al. were able to in their study of a simulated management game
7mar03 17
Objective Measures in MORSE
• Communication frequency– Clicks to ask for resources– Chat messages
• Communication eveness– Who asked whom for what– Who chatted with whom about what
• Common history– Time on task
7mar03 18
Shared cognition
• Kraut, et. al., investigated shared cognition about expertise of team members– Skills will not differ between team members in MORSE– Software agents will have specialized expertise that would
complement what the people are doing
• Other types of shared cognition to investigate– Weather (what is it doing and what does everyone else
know about it?)– Plume dispersion– Incursions on the way– Availability of other participants (how busy are they)
• Measuring shared cognition in MORSE– Questionnaires after a trial (like Kraut et. al. did)– Think-aloud protocols during a trial
7mar03 19
Coordination in the MORSE task
• Mechanistic coordination vs. organic coordination– Mechanistic: align individual actions through structure o
directive– Organic: individuals exchange information about their
current states and adjust their behavior to other’s goals and actions
– Could have either, or both, in MORSE
• Benefits of coordination– Allocate limited or costly resources more efficiently– Improve performance (according to Kraut, et. al.)
• Costs of coordination– It takes time away from other task activities
7mar03 20
Direct measures of coordination in MORSE
• Failures, e.g.,– Two participants assign interceptors for same incursion– Two participants deploy weather balloons to same
location– Denial of resource request
• may be failure from one participant’s perspective• may not be a failure for the team
– Using a costly interceptor when coordinating would have been less costly
– Chat to plan, then plan ignored– Launch safety disagreement
• Successes, e.g.,– Clicks and acceptances to share/release resources– Chat to plan, then plans executed
7mar03 21
Measures of performance
• Both team and individual• Evaluation function
– Launch safety miscalculation– Incursions or interceptors left with Impact Lines– Radar costs– Interceptor costs– Weather balloon costs
7mar03 22
MORSE status
• Interface– Colors accommodate color-blind population– Icons encode speed, direction, ownership– Less cluttered screen– More natural ways to provide information– Window management– Chat
• Evaluation function– Drafted, not yet implemented
• Far fewer bugs!
7mar03 23
Next steps
• Building MORSE – Redesign command sequences for less clicking– Usability of scenario editor– Usability of data logging– Documentation
• Collect human performance data• Develop cognitive models• Develop software agents• Study their effectiveness