曝光台 注意防骗
网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
Battlefield Command Support Systems (BCSS) into the numerous Brigades (Bde). As
DSTO-TR-1034
2
a consequence, there is a high degree of urgency in developing an increased
understanding of this domain. The introduction of digitised systems into what has
previously been a completely manual process has the potential for significant impact.
Research in the U.S. and the U.K. has already shown that assumptions that
digitisation will improve performance may be faulty. For example, a study by
Bowers, Thornton, Braun, Morgan, and Salas (1998) found that automating certain
tasks was associated with improved system performance on only 1 in 4 measures.
Given the increasing emphasis on digital systems, it is important that research be
conducted that will assess the impact on the performance of the C2 team. To date,
Human Factors research on the effectiveness of BCSS has attempted to assess the
impact of digitisation by asking the user what they think of the system. As noted by
Klein (1993), a common mistake that system developers make is to ask users about
the effectiveness of the system, without conducting empirical evaluation. While a
great deal of insight may be gleaned from such a process (eg. attitudes to the system),
it does not provide information on actual team performance. An alternative
approach is for analysts to examine the impact of the system on the performance of
the team.
In summary, a consequence of the introduction of digitised systems, and of the
minimal empirical research to date, is a requirement for research that investigates
and establishes techniques for analysing team tasks. In particular, techniques are
required to identify and delineate the teamwork knowledge, skills, and attitudes
(KSAs). In addition, there is also a need for research on team cognition. As noted by
Cannon-Bowers and Salas (1998), the increase in information technology and
consequent increase in tasks with high cognitive demands, means that shared
knowledge will become an ever-increasing critical factor in team performance. An
aim of the current report is to refine potential methodologies that can be used to
examine the impact of digitised command support tools on Army C2 teams. In
particular, there will be a focus on adapting research methodologies developed by
TADMUS researchers for use with Australian Army C2. The advantage of these
methods is that they are already standardised, and have clearly demonstrated
reliability and validity.
1.3 Defining the Team Performance
In order to determine what data collection techniques we should be using, it is
important to clarify what is meant by team performance. Two categories of
behaviour can be distinguished in a team: a taskwork track and a teamwork track
(Gregory & Kelly, 1998). Taskwork consists of behaviours that are performed by
team members, and are critical to the execution of team member functions.
Teamwork, in contrast, consists of behaviours that are related to team member
interactions, and are necessary to establish coordination among the team members to
achieve team goals (Salas, Prince, Baker, & Shrestha, 1995). McIntyre and Salas (1995)
define taskwork as the “technical aspects of the team operations” and teamwork as
“all the interactive behaviours among the team members”.
These two aspects of working within a team are influenced by different factors, yet
both contribute to effective performance. Research has shown that while individual
competency is necessary, it is not sufficient for successful team performance (Stout,
DSTO-TR-1034
3
Salas & Carson, 1994). These findings point to the importance of evaluating the team
interactions that occur, as well as assessing an individual’s ability to do their job.
What must also be kept in mind is the primary task of the C2 team: That is, to assist
the commander in the decision making process (Orasanu & Salas, 1993). While battle
command responsibility is focused on the commander, command itself is a process
conducted by an organisation (Leedom, 1999). In other words, the HQ is composed
of a distributed decision making team, and is part of a complex sociotechnical system
(Vicente, 1999). Thus, to assess command system performance and effectiveness, it is
necessary to understand it as an organisational process that involves the complex
interaction of cognitive, technological, and social factors (Leedom, 1999). In addition,
because military teams operate in a complex and dynamic environment, a host of
other factors influence the quality of behaviour and performance (eg. ambiguous
goals and information, high time and risk states, and unstructured problems)
(Pascual, 1999). A consequence is that in such a complex system, there is no one
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
航空资料30(4)
