Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An evaluation method of team communication based on a task flow analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Effective communication is essential for positive teamwork irrespective of task types, and thus, team communication analysis methods have received much attention. Many methods for analyzing the relationships between team performance and team communication have been proposed; however, they have often only dealt with correlations between performance and communication in some specific contexts and have not directly identified problem parts of team task processes that require shared cognition in team. It is necessary therefore to develop such a method for evaluating team communication that is both task-independent and able to analyze problem parts of team task processes. This study aims to propose an evaluation method of team communication based on a task flow analysis and to verify the method by team experiments. The results implied that the new evaluation index named SCF can be applied to other team tasks and can identify problem parts of team task processes in terms of task steps. The characteristics of the index are also discussed using case studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Blickensderfer E, Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E (1998) Cross training and team performance. In: Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E (eds) Making decisions under stress: Implication for individual and team training. American Psychological Association, Washington, pp 299–311. doi:10.1037/10278-011

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers CA, Jentsch F, Salas E, Braun CC (1998) Analyzing communication sequences for team training needs assessment. Hum Fact J Hum Fact Ergon 40(4):672–679. doi:10.1518/001872098779649265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunt H (2000) Dialogue pragmatics and context specification: studies in computational pragmatics. In: Bunt H, Black W (eds) Abduction, belief and context in dialogue. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 81–150. doi:10.1075/nlp.1.03bun

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke NJ, Kiekel PA, Salas E, Stout R, Bowers C, Cannon-Bowers J (2003) Measuring team knowledge: a window to the cognitive underpinnings of team performance. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract 7(3):179–199. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.7.3.179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox G, Sharples S, Stedmon A, Wilson J (2007) An observation tool to study air traffic control and flightdeck collaboration. Appl Ergo 38(4):425–435. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2007.01.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devine DJ (2002) A review and integration of classification systems relevant to teams in organizations. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract 6(4):291–310. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.6.4.291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman P, Friesen WV (1975) Unmasking the face: a guide to recognizing emotions from facial clues. Prentice Hall, Englewood Clifls, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Foltz PW, Martin MJ, Abdelali A, Rosenstein M, Oberbreckling R (2006) Automated team discourse modeling: test of performance and generalization. In: Proceedings of the cognitive science annual meeting, pp 1317–1321

  • Gorman JC, Cooke NJ, Amazeen PG, Fouse S (2012) Measuring patterns in team interaction sequences using a discrete recurrence approach. Hum Fact J Hum Fact Ergon Soc 54(4):503–517. doi:10.1177/0018720811426140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houghton RJ, Baber C, Cowton M, Walker GH, Stanton NA (2008) WESTT (workload, error, situational awareness, time and teamwork): an analytical prototyping system for command and control. Cogn Technol Work 10(3):199–207. doi:10.1007/s10111-007-0098-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanno T, Furuta K, Kitahara Y (2013) A model of team cognition based on mutual beliefs. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 14(1):38–52. doi:10.1080/1464536X.2011.573010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiekel PA, Cooke NJ, Foltz PW, Gorman JC, Martin MJ (2002) Some promising results of communication-based automatic measures of team cognition. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society’s annual meeting, USA, 46:298–302

  • Kim AR, Lee SW, Park J, Kang HG, Seong PH (2013) Correlation analysis between team communication characteristics and frequency of inappropriate communications. Ann Nucl Energy 58:80–89. doi:10.1016/j.anucene.2013.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacMillan J, Entin EE, Serfaty D (2004) Communication overhead: the hidden cost of team cognition. In: Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E (eds) Team cognition: Process and performance at the inter and intra-individual level. American Psychological Association, Washington, pp 61–82. doi:10.1037/10690-004

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath JE (1984) Group interaction and performance. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre RM, Salas E (1995) Measuring and managing for team performance: emerging principles from complex environments. In: Guzzo RA, Salas E (eds) Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 9–45. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00566.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Mesmer-Magnus JR, DeChurch LA (2009) Information sharing and team performance: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol 94(2):535–546. doi:10.1037/a0013773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris D (1977) Manwatching: a field guide to human behavior. Jonathan Cape, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Muniz E, Stout R, Bowers C, Salas E (1998) A methodology for measuring team situational awareness: situational awareness linked indicators adapted to novel tasks (SALIENT). NATO human factors and medicine panel on collaborative crew performance in complex systems, Edinburgh, North Atlantic Treaties Organisation, Neuilly-sur-Seine, pp 20–24

  • Nonose K, Kanno T, Furuta K (2010) An evaluation method of team situation awareness based on mutual belief. Cogn Technol Work 12(1):31–40. doi:10.1007/s10111-008-0127-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris CR, Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA (2000) Teamwork in multi-person systems: a review and analysis. Ergonomics 43(8):1052–1075. doi:10.1080/00140130050084879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parush A, Kramer C, Foster-Hunt T, McMullan A, Momtahan K (2014) Exploring similarities and differences in teamwork across diverse healthcare contexts using communication analysis. Cogn Technol Work 16(1):47–57. doi:10.1007/s10111-012-0242-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen MA, Salas E, Wilson KA, King HB, Salisbury M, Augenstein JS, Robinson DW, Birnbach DJ (2008) Measuring team performance in simulation-based training: adopting best practices for healthcare. Simul Healthc 3(1):33–41. doi:10.1097/SIH.0b013e3181626276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau V, Aubé C, Savoie A (2006) Teamwork behaviors a review and an integration of frameworks. Small Group Res 37(5):540–570. doi:10.1177/1046496406293125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salas E, Sims DE, Burke CS (2005) Is there a “big five” in teamwork? Small Group Res 36(5):555–599. doi:10.1177/1046496405277134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salas E, DiazGranados D, Klein C, Burke CS, Stagl KC, Goodwin GF, Halpin SM (2008a) Does team training improve team performance? A meta-analysis. Hum Fact J Hum Fact Ergon Soc 50(6):903–933. doi:10.1518/001872008X375009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salas E, Wilson KA, Murphy CE, King H, Salisbury M (2008b) Communicating, coordinating, and cooperating when lives depend on it: tips for teamwork. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 34(6):333–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt K (1990) Analysis of cooperative work: a conceptual framework. Risø Technical Report, Risø-M-2890, June

  • Serfaty D, Entin EE, Johnston J (1998) Team coordination training. In: Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E (eds) Making decisions under stress. American Psychological Association, Washington, pp 221–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperling BK (2006) Information distribution and team situational awareness: an experimental study. Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 50th annual meeting. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, pp 477–481. doi:10.1177/154193120605000356

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner ID (1972) Group process and productivity. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Svensson J, Andersson J (2006) Speech acts, communication problems, and fighter pilot team performance. Ergonomics 49(12–13):1226–1237. doi:10.1080/00140130600612671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urban JM, Bowers CA, Monday SD, Morgan BB Jr (1995) Workload, team structure, and communication in team performance. Military Psychology 7(2):123–139. doi:10.1207/s15327876mp0702_6

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, Japan

    Kohei Nonose, Taro Kanno & Kazuo Furuta

Authors
  1. Kohei Nonose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Taro Kanno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kazuo Furuta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kohei Nonose.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nonose, K., Kanno, T. & Furuta, K. An evaluation method of team communication based on a task flow analysis. Cogn Tech Work 17, 607–618 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-015-0340-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-015-0340-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation