Abstract Research addressing the effects of collaboration tools indicates that team task is an important moderator of task performance. However, little research has been conducted utilizing execution tasks [McGrath, J.E., 1984. Groups: Interaction and Performance. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ], even though such tasks represent a substantial portion of real-world teams’ experiences. The current study addressed the effects of cognitive processing load and text-based collaborative tools on team performance in a simulated execution task. Thirty-two people served as paid participants in this study. Teams of two participants competed against a computer opponent in a RoboFlag simulation based on ‘capture-the-flag.’ As a manipulation of cognitive processing load, participants either could or could not see their teammates’ simulated vehicles during a trial. In addition, participants were restricted to no communication, oral communication, text-based communication, or oral and text communication combined. Results indicated that cognitive processing load substantially impacted team performance and participants’ subjective ratings of workload and situational awareness. Team communication conditions influenced workload, situational awareness, and team communications, but did not affect team performance. Overall, the results of the current experiment support previous research indicating that text-based communication may be as effective as oral communication during an execution task, and that factors such as shared task-specific knowledge may exert a greater influence on team performance than communication modality. Relevance to industry The results obtained in this experiment help to further characterize the factors that affect performance in distributed collaborative environments, and may provide useful information to military organizations concerning the development of tactical displays and communication tools for command and control. More broadly, these results indicate that organizations engaged in distributed execution tasks do not need to be overly worried about the effects of text-based collaborative tools, such as instant messaging, on team performance.
[1]
R. Kirk.
Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences
,
1970
.
[2]
Christopher D. Wickens,et al.
The Structure of Attentional Resources
,
1980
.
[3]
P. Hancock,et al.
Human Mental Workload
,
1988
.
[4]
E. Salas,et al.
Shared mental models in expert team decision making.
,
1993
.
[5]
R. D'Andrea,et al.
The RoboFlag testbed
,
2003,
Proceedings of the 2003 American Control Conference, 2003..
[6]
S. Hart,et al.
Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research
,
1988
.
[7]
Gregory R. Berry.
Can Computer-Mediated Asynchronous Communication Improve Team Processes and Decision Making? Learning From the Management Literature
,
2006
.
[8]
Lindsley Boiney.
Team Decision Making in Time-Sensitive Environments
,
2005
.
[9]
Guido Hertel,et al.
Managing virtual teams: A review of current empirical research
,
2005
.
[10]
John R. S. Batiste,et al.
The Fight for Samarra: Full-Spectrum Operations in Modern Warfare
,
2005
.
[11]
Keith E. Muller,et al.
Approximate Power for Repeated-Measures ANOVA Lacking Sphericity
,
1989
.
[12]
B. Baltes,et al.
Computer-Mediated Communication and Group Decision Making: A Meta-Analysis
,
2002
.
[13]
Scott M. Galster,et al.
Impact of Instant Messaging on Team Performance, Subjective Workload, and Situation Awareness in Tactical Command and Control
,
2006
.
[14]
Gregory J. Funke,et al.
Instant Messaging and Team Performance in a Simulated Command and Control Environment (Briefing Charts)
,
2006
.
[15]
J. McGrath.
Groups: Interaction and Performance
,
1984
.
[16]
E. Salas,et al.
Reflections on shared cognition
,
2001
.
[17]
P. Bordia.
Face-to-Face Versus Computer-Mediated Communication: A Synthesis of the Experimental Literature
,
1997
.