Advertisement

Making Multi-team Systems More Adaptable by Enhancing Transactive Memory System Structures – The Case of CDM in APOC

  • Dirk Schulze KissingEmail author
  • Carmen Bruder
  • Nils Carstengerdes
  • Anne Papenfuss
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 876)

Abstract

The DLR project ‘Inter Team Collaboration’ (ITC) aims to provide systems engineers with tools and human factors concepts that allow a systemic access to the social side of socio-technical systems. A main design question for implementing Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) in APOC is how to induce collaborative decision making in a dynamic environment of ATM to make it more adaptive and resilient. Our main assumption is that the establishment of a Transactive-Memory System (TMS) is the basic predisposition for a successful implementation of intensive CDM. A TMS reflects linkages across MTS boundaries. Assumedly, its emergence is a function of social structures (like motives), but also of communication structures. The MTS is conceptualized as a nonlinear dynamical system (NDS), where CDM is conceived as an attractor to system-behavior. Recurrence analyses on behavioral data assessed within Human-in-the-Loop-experiments will be applied to identify MTS transition phases in reaction to perturbations.

Keywords

Human factors Systems engineering APOC Collaborative Decision Making Multi Team System Transactive Memory System Nonlinear Dynamic System 

References

  1. 1.
    Papenfuss, A., Carstengerdes, N., Schier, S., Günther, Y.: What to say when: guidelines for decision making. An evaluation of a concept for cooperation in an APOC. In: Proceedings of the 12th USA/Europe Air Traffic Management Research and Development Seminar (ATM2017) (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bogers, H., Linde, M., Matas Sebatia, J.R., Álvarez Escotto, I., Martin Espinosa, J.I., Ciprián Tejero, B., et al.: D16 - OFA05.01.01 Consolidated OSED Edition 3, Part 2, Brussels, Belgium (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coury, B.G., Terranova, M.: Collaborative Decision Making in Dynamic Systems, 35th edn, pp. 944–948. SAGE Publications, Sage (1991)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vail, S., Churchill, A., Karlsson, J., McInerney, T., Domitrovich, J., Phillips, T.: Guidebook for Advancing Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) at Airports (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ball, M.O., Chen, C.Y., Hoffman, R., Vossen, T.: Collaborative decision making in air traffic management: current and future research directions. In: New Concepts and Methods in Air Traffic Management, pp. 17–30. Springer (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hoffman, R.R., Hancock, P.A.: Measuring resilience. Hum. Factors 59(4), 564–581 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dul, J., Bruder, R., Buckle, P., Carayon, P., Falzon, P., Marras, W.S., Wilson, J.R., van der Doelen, B.: A strategy for human factors/ergonomics: developing the discipline and profession. Ergonomics 55(4), 377–395 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Karwowski, W.: A review of human factors challenges of complex adaptive systems: discovering and understanding chaos in human performance. Hum. Factors 54(6), 983–995 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lintern, G.: Cognitive Systems Engineering, 15 August 2017. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ca96/1aa540819e0783514ab58bbdf035c877df74.pdf
  10. 10.
    Guastello, S.J.: Nonlinear dynamical systems for theory and research in ergonomics. Ergonomics 60(2), 167–193 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Obradovich, J.H., Smith, P.J.: Problem solving in a distributed collaborative environment: The necessity of shared knowledge within the air traffic management system, pp. 100–104 (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Billings, C., Smith, P.J., Woods, D.D., McCoy, E., Denning, R., Sarter, N., Dekker, S.: Advanced air transportation technologies: Problem definition and exploration of a solution space. Human-centered technologies and procedures for future air traffic management, Report, Contract No. NAG2–995 (1997)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Funke, J.: Complex problem solving. In: Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, pp. 682–685. Springer (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mathieu, J.E., Marks, M.A., Zaccaro, S.J.: Multi-team systems. In: International Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology, vol. 2, no. 2 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zaccaro, S.J., Marks, M.A., DeChurch, L.A.: Multiteam systems: an introduction. In: Multiteam Systems, pp. 18–47. Routledge (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Somech, A., Khalaili, A.: Team boundary activity: its mediating role in the relationship between structural conditions and team innovation. Group Organ. Manag. 39(3), 274–299 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Davison, R.B., Hollenbeck, J.R.: Boundary spanning in the domain of multiteam systems. In: Multiteam Systems: An Organization Form for Dynamic and Complex Environments, pp. 323–362 (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kanfer, R., Kerry, M.: Motivation in multiteam systems. In: Multiteam Systems: An Organization Form for Dynamic and Complex Environments, pp. 81–108 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lewis, K., Herndon, B.: Transactive memory systems: current issues and future research directions. Organ. Sci. 22(5), 1254–1265 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gorman, J.C., Dunbar, T.A., Grimm, D., Gipson, C.L.: Understanding and modeling teams as dynamical systems. Front. Psychol. 8, 1053 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Knight, A.P., Kennedy, D.M., McComb, S.A.: Using recurrence analysis to examine group dynamics. Group Dyn. Theor. Res. Pract. 20(3), 223 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Webber, C.L., Marwan, N.: Recurrence Quantification Analysis: Theory and Best Practices. Springer International Publishing (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fusaroli, R., Tylén, K.: Investigating conversational dynamics: interactive alignment, Interpersonal synergy, and collective task performance. Cogn. Sci. 40(1), 145–171 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schulze Kissing, D., Bruder, C.: Relating gaze patterns to assess coordination within small groups, Research Report 2018. DLR Institute of Aerospace Medicine (2018, to be published)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dirk Schulze Kissing
    • 1
    Email author
  • Carmen Bruder
    • 1
  • Nils Carstengerdes
    • 2
  • Anne Papenfuss
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Aerospace Medicine, Department Aviation and Space PsychologyDeutsches Zentrum für Luft-und Raumfahrt (DLR)HamburgGermany
  2. 2.Institue of Flight Guidance, Department Human FactorsDeutsches Zentrum für Luft-und Raumfahrt (DLR)BrunswickGermany

Personalised recommendations