Dealing With Task Interruptions in Complex Dynamic Environments

Objective: This study examined whether teaming up mitigates individual vulnerability to task interruptions in complex dynamic situations. Background: Omnipresent in everyday multitasking environments, task interruptions are usually detrimental to individual performance. This is particularly crucial in dynamic command and control (C2) safety-critical contexts because of the additional challenge imposed by the continually evolving situation during the interruption. Method: We employed a firefighting microworld to simulate C2 in the context of supervisory control to examine the relative impact of interruptions on participants working in a functional dyad versus operators working alone. Results: Although task interruption was detrimental to participants’ efficacy of monitoring resources, the negative impact of interruption was reduced for those working in teams. Teaming up translated into faster resumption time, but only if both teammates were interrupted simultaneously. Interrupting only one team member was associated with increased postinterruption communications and slower resumption time. Conclusion: These findings suggest that in complex dynamic situations working in a small team confers more resistance to task interruption than working alone by virtue of the reduced individual workload typical of teamwork. The benefit of collaborative work seems nevertheless mediated by the coordination and communication overhead associated with teamwork. Application: The present findings have practical implications for operators dealing with unexpected events such as task interruptions in C2 environments.

[1]  Christopher A. Monk,et al.  Recovering From Interruptions: Implications for Driver Distraction Research , 2004, Hum. Factors.

[2]  P. Sanderson,et al.  Interruption management in the intensive care unit: Predicting resumption times and assessing distributed support. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[3]  Berndt Brehmer.  Understanding the Functions of C 2 Is the Key to Progress , 2007 .

[4]  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.

[5]  Avi Parush,et al.  Communication and team situation awareness in the OR: Implications for augmentative information display , 2011, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[6]  E. Entin,et al.  Communication overhead: The hidden cost of team cognition. , 2004 .

[7]  Yvonne Waern.  Co-operative Process Management , 1998 .

[8]  Paul E. Spector,et al.  The Impact of Cross-Training on Team Functioning: An Empirical Investigation , 1996, Hum. Factors.

[9]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Tightly Coupling Cognition: Understanding How Communication and Awareness Drive Coordination in Teams , 2008 .

[10]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  New Trends in Cooperative Activities: Understanding System Dynamics in Complex Environments , 2001 .

[11]  Jane T. Malin,et al.  A Framework of Interruptions in Distributed Team Environments , 2004, MedInfo.

[12]  J. Gregory Trafton,et al.  Memory for goals: an activation-based model , 2002, Cogn. Sci..

[13]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Interruption of the Tower of London task: support for a goal-activation approach. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[14]  J. Lepine.  Adaptation of teams in response to unforeseen change: effects of goal difficulty and team composition in terms of cognitive ability and goal orientation. , 2005, The Journal of applied psychology.

[15]  Marie-Eve Jobidon,et al.  Team Response to Workload Transition: The Role of Team Structure , 2006 .

[16]  Carol McCann,et al.  The human in command : exploring the modern military experience , 2000 .

[17]  N. Allen,et al.  The ‘romance of teams’: Toward an understanding of its psychological underpinnings and implications , 2004 .

[18]  Dennis J. Devine.  A Review and Integration of Classification Systems Relevant to Teams in Organizations , 2002 .

[19]  Nancy J. Cooke,et al.  On Teams, Teamwork, and Team Performance: Discoveries and Developments , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[20]  B. Brehmer,et al.  Experiments with computer-simulated microworlds: Escaping both the narrow straits of the laboratory and the deep blue sea of the field study , 1993 .

[21]  Jan Chong,et al.  Interruptions on software teams: a comparison of paired and solo programmers , 2006, CSCW '06.

[22]  David Woods,et al.  Communication of Intent in Military Command and Control Systems , 2000 .

[23]  Henrik Artman,et al.  Team Situation Awareness as Communicative Practice. , 2004 .

[24]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Team Cognition: Process and Performance at the Inter- and Intra-Individual Level , 2002 .

[25]  W. C. Howell.  of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society , 2010 .

[26]  Penelope M. Sanderson,et al.  Designing Teams for First-of-a-Kind, Complex Systems Using the Initial Phases of Cognitive Work Analysis: Case Study , 2003, Hum. Factors.

[27]  Thomas B. Sheridan,et al.  Telerobotics, Automation, and Human Supervisory Control , 2003 .

[28]  D. Stub,et al.  Trauma Resuscitation Errors and Computer-assisted Decision Support , 2011 .

[29]  Harvey S. Smallman,et al.  Recovery from Interruptions to a Dynamic Monitoring Task: The Beguiling Utility of Instant Replay , 2005 .

[30]  Endsley,et al.  A model of inter- and intrateam situation awareness: implications for design, training and measurement , 2001 .

[31]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Flight to the Future: Human Factors in Air Traffic Control Edited by Christopher D. Wickens, Anne S. Mavor, & James P. McGee 1997, 368 pages, $44.95. Washington, DC: National Academy Press ISBN 0-309-05637-3 , 1997 .

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

[33]  Patricia M. Jones,et al.  Cooperative support for distributed supervisory control: Issues in modeling cooperative work in complex dynamic systems , 1992, [Proceedings] 1992 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[34]  Susan G. Hutchins,et al.  Adaptive Architectures for Command and Control: Toward An Empirical Evaluation of Organizational Congruence and Adaptation , 2002 .

[35]  Daniel Lafond,et al.  Evidence of Structure-Specific Teamwork Requirements and Implications for Team Design , 2011 .

[36]  E. Ramsden.  Group Process and Productivity , 1973 .

[37]  E. M. Altmann,et al.  Timecourse of recovery from task interruption: Data and a model , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[38]  S. Tremblay.  A Cognitive Approach to Situation Awareness: Theory and Application , 2004 .

[39]  Harvey S. Smallman,et al.  Staying Up to Speed: Four Design Principles for Maintaining and Recovering Situation Awareness , 2008 .

[40]  Murray R. Barrick,et al.  Team Structure and Performance: Assessing the Mediating Role of Intrateam Process and the Moderating Role of Task Type , 2000 .

[41]  Kazuo Furuta,et al.  An inference method of team situation awareness based on mutual awareness , 2005, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[42]  J. Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory and Complex Learning: Recent Developments and Future Directions , 2005 .

[43]  Kara A. Latorella,et al.  The Scope and Importance of Human Interruption in Human-Computer Interaction Design , 2002, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[44]  Roel Popping.  Co-operative Process Management , 1998 .

[45]  M. A. Campion,et al.  The Knowledge, Skill, and Ability Requirements for Teamwork: Implications for Human Resource Management , 1994 .

[46]  L. McGillis Hall,et al.  Interruptions and pediatric patient safety. , 2010, Journal of pediatric nursing.

[47]  J. Sexton,et al.  Analyzing cockpit communications: the links between language, performance, error, and workload. , 2000, Human performance in extreme environments : the journal of the Society for Human Performance in Extreme Environments.

[48]  Sexton Jb,et al.  Analyzing cockpit communications: the links between language, performance, error, and workload. , 2000 .