Citation

Stanton NA, Rothrock L, Harvey C, Sorensen L. Ergonomics 2015; 58(12): 2078-2100.

Affiliation

a Civil, Maritime, Environmental Engineering and Science, Faculty of Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton , Southampton , SO16 7QF , UK.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2015, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/00140139.2015.1046499

PMID

25992491

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 synchronization 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.

Language: en