Towards a generalized team task complexity model

The objective of this research was to develop and validate a generalized team task-complexity model and framework by drawing on the literature from various team and task factors grouped into three task-dimensions, which compose task-complexity space and how these affect the task-performance. A number of task typologies have been presented in the teams' literature to better define and understand the critical role of the tasks and the associated team processes. In addition, most of the research work has defined team measures as highly abstract concepts not capable of providing the quantitative comparison of team performances from various domains. This research proposed a model of task-complexity based on different task-characteristics including task-scope, task-coordination and task-uncertainty that provide the capability to quantify different attributes that impact team performance. A multiple linear regression analysis was used to validate the contribution of each task-complexity dimension towards complexity and performance. Analysis of variance was also used to account variance in measurement scales and not to force linear relationship. The results indicate a significant three-way interaction of task-scope, task-coordination and task-uncertainty. Since three-way interaction was significant, all the three task-complexity dimensions were significant and not equally contributing towards team task-performance. Two-way interaction of task-scope and task-coordination was significant when task-uncertainty was negligible. Thus both were not equally contributing towards team task-performance. From effect tests, task-coordination and task-uncertainty were found to be highly significant with relation to task-performance. Though task-scope was not significant, further analysis reveals that it had significant impact on task-performance at its highest level and when task-uncertainty was negligible. Thus explains its inclusion in the three-way interaction. Workload, a subjective team performance measure in team literature, was used for model cross-validation. Results found a significant negative correlation between perceived task-workload and task-performance, thereby validating the model from workload perspective. This study summarizes the different task-characteristics affecting the team task-performance. This study has practical implications in the design and evaluation of collaborative tools and team training. Further research would develop a synthetic collaborative system that would emulate certain complex work environments and enable the collection of team performance data for assessing hypotheses about collaboration.

[1]  L. Rothrock *,et al.  A theoretical framework and quantitative architecture to assess team task complexity in dynamic environments , 2005 .

[2]  Janice Langan-Fox,et al.  Team Mental Models: Techniques, Methods, and Analytic Approaches , 2000, Hum. Factors.

[3]  J. Hackman,et al.  Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration , 1975 .

[4]  J. McGrath.  Time, Interaction, and Performance (TIP) , 1991 .

[5]  E. Salas,et al.  Team performance assessment and measurement , 1997 .

[6]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations , 1995 .

[7]  E. Sundstrom,et al.  Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. , 1990 .

[8]  E. A. Fleishman,et al.  Team Dimensions: Their Identity, Their Measurement and Their Relationships , 1985 .

[9]  Ling Rothrock,et al.  Using Time Windows to Evaluate Operator Performance , 2001 .

[10]  Jon R. Katzenbach,et al.  The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization , 1992 .

[11]  John Øvretveit,et al.  Team decision-making , 1995 .

[12]  S. G. Cohen,et al.  What Makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite , 1997 .

[13]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Principles for Measuring Teamwork Skills , 1992 .

[14]  M. D. Dunnette.  Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology , 2005 .

[15]  Joseph S. Valacich,et al.  The Effects of Interruptions, Task Complexity, and Information Presentation on Computer-Supported Decision-Making Performance , 2003, Decis. Sci..

[16]  Craig M. Harvey,et al.  Toward a model of distributed engineering collaboration , 1998 .

[17]  James G. March,et al.  How Decisions Happen in Organizations , 1991, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[18]  Clint A. Bowers,et al.  Workload, Team Structure, and Communication in Team Performance , 1995 .

[19]  C. Cooper.  Theories of Group Processes , 1976 .

[20]  R. Golembiewski.  Handbook of Organizational Behavior , 2001 .

[21]  J. McGrath,et al.  Task and group characteristics as factors influencing group performance , 1969 .

[22]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

[23]  Donald K. Campbell.  Goal Levels, Complex Tasks, and Strategy Development: A Review and Analysis , 1991 .

[24]  Clint A. Bowers,et al.  Effects of Workload and Structure on Team Processes and Performance: Implications for Complex Team Decision Making , 1996, Hum. Factors.

[25]  Richard A. Guzzo,et al.  Teams in organizations: recent research on performance and effectiveness. , 1996, Annual review of psychology.

[26]  Daniel R. Ilgen,et al.  TEAMS EMBEDDED IN ORGANIZATIONS : SOME IMPLICATIONS , 1999 .

[27]  Jon Doyle,et al.  Truth Maintenance Systems for Problem Solving , 1977, IJCAI.

[28]  J. Hackman,et al.  Toward understanding the role of tasks in behavioral research. , 1969, Acta psychologica.

[29]  Daniel R. Ilgen,et al.  Multilevel theory of team decision making: Decision performance in teams incorporating distributed expertise. , 1995 .

[30]  Henry Mintzberg,et al.  Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations , 1983 .

[31]  J. March.  Decisions and Organizations , 1991 .

[32]  Craig M. Harvey,et al.  Distributed collaboration for engineering design: A review and reappraisal. , 2001 .

[33]  G. Klein,et al.  Decision Making in Action: Models and Methods , 1993 .

[34]  Walter C. Borman,et al.  Job behavior, performance, and effectiveness. , 1991 .

[35]  Kalervo Järvelin,et al.  Task complexity affects information seeking and use , 1995 .

[36]  Jane M. Carey,et al.  The Impact of Communication Mode and Task Complexity on Small Group Performance and Member Satisfaction. , 1997 .

[37]  D. Gabbay,et al.  Temporal Logic Mathematical Foundations and Computational Aspects , 1994 .

[38]  James G. Greeno,et al.  Situativity and Symbols: Response to Vera and Simon , 1993, Cogn. Sci..

[39]  Craig M. Harvey,et al.  Cognitive, social, and environmental attributes of distributed engineering collaboration: A review and proposed model of collaboration , 2000 .

[40]  Kenneth L. Kraemer,et al.  The impact of technological support on groups: An assessment of the empirical research , 1989, Decis. Support Syst..

[41]  Clint A. Bowers,et al.  The Impact of Cross-Training and Workload on Team Functioning: A Replication and Extension of Initial Findings , 1998, Hum. Factors.

[42]  R. Saavedra,et al.  Complex interdependence in task-performing groups , 1993 .

[43]  T B ROBY,et al.  Considerations in the analysis of group tasks. , 1958, Psychological bulletin.

[44]  Susan G. Straus,et al.  Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on group performance and member reactions. , 1994, The Journal of applied psychology.

[45]  Carolyn Prince,et al.  An Overview of Team Performance Measurement , 1997 .

[46]  Alan Bundy,et al.  Truth Maintenance System , 1984 .

[47]  Norman E. Lane,et al.  Improving the Measurement of Team Performance: The TARGETs Methodology , 1994 .

[48]  E. Salas,et al.  A Framework for Developing Team Performance Measures in Training , 1997 .

[49]  B. Tuckman.  DEVELOPMENTAL SEQUENCE IN SMALL GROUPS. , 1965, Psychological bulletin.

[50]  B. B. Morgan,et al.  An Analysis of Team Evolution and Maturation , 1993 .

[51]  S. Guastello,et al.  Origins of Coordination and Team Effectiveness: A Perspective From Game Theory and Nonlinear Dynamics , 1998 .

[52]  Baijun Zhao.  A structured analysis and quantitative measurement of task complexity in human-computer interaction , 1992 .

[53]  E. Salas,et al.  Enhancing teamwork in complex environments through team training. , 1997, Group dynamics : theory, research, and practice : the official journal of Division 49, Group Psychology and Group Psychotherapy of the American Psychological Association.

[54]  J. R Hackman,et al.  Group process and group effectiveness: A reappraisal , 1978 .

[55]  Alasdair Urquhart,et al.  Temporal Logic , 1971 .

[56]  Li Lin,et al.  Decomposition of interdependent task group for concurrent engineering , 2003 .

[57]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  The interdisciplinary study of coordination , 1994, CSUR.

[58]  Nancy J. Cooke,et al.  Measuring Team Knowledge , 2000, Hum. Factors.

[59]  E. Salas,et al.  Team decision making in complex environments. , 1993 .

[60]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Team Performance Assessment and Measurement: Theory, Methods, and Applications. Series in Applied Psychology. , 1997 .

[61]  I. Steiner.  Group process and productivity , 1972 .

[62]  E.,et al.  GROUPS : INTERACTION AND PERFORMANCE , 2001 .

[63]  Janis A. Cannon-Bowers,et al.  Performance measurement tools for enhancing team decision-making training. , 1997 .

[64]  Holly Arrow,et al.  Small Groups as Complex Systems: Formation, Coordination, Development, and Adaptation , 2000 .

[65]  J. H. Davis,et al.  The Social Psychology of Small Groups: Cooperative and Mixed-Motive Interaction , 1976 .

[66]  James F. Allen.  Towards a General Theory of Action and Time , 1984, Artif. Intell..

[67]  J. McGrath.  Small group research, that once and future field: An interpretation of the past with an eye to the future. , 1997 .

[68]  K. B. Akhilesh,et al.  Global virtual teams: what impacts their design and performance? , 2002 .

[69]  Catherine E. Volpe,et al.  Defining Competencies and Establishing Team Training Requirements , 1995 .

[70]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  The Measurement of Team Process , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[71]  Elliot E. Entin,et al.  Adaptive Team Coordination , 1999, Hum. Factors.

[72]  J. Hackman,et al.  The design of work teams , 1987 .

[73]  E. A. Fleishman,et al.  Toward a taxonomy of team performance functions. , 1992 .

[74]  D. Campbell.  Task Complexity: A Review and Analysis , 1988 .

[75]  A. Brooks.  Power and the Production of Knowledge: Collective Team Learning in Work Organizations. , 1994 .

[76]  J. Hackman.  Effects of task characteristics on group products , 1968 .

[77]  C. Perrow.  A FRAMEWORK FOR THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATIONS , 1967 .

[78]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Situation Awareness in Team Performance: Implications for Measurement and Training , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[79]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Temporal Logic: Mathematical Foundations and Computational Aspects: Volume 2 , 1994 .

[80]  D. P. Baker,et al.  Principles for Measuring Teamwork: A Summary and Look Toward the Future , 1997 .

[81]  J. Greeno.  THE SITUATIVITY OF KNOWING, LEARNING, AND RESEARCH , 1998 .

[82]  R. Daft,et al.  A Tentative Exploration into the Amount and Equivocality of Information Processing in Organizational Work Units. , 1981 .

[83]  Stephanie C Payne,et al.  Measuring team-related expertise in complex environments. , 1998 .

[84]  R. Wood.  Task complexity: Definition of the construct , 1986 .

[85]  I. Altman,et al.  Small Group Research: A Synthesis and Critique of the Field , 1966 .