The strengths and limitations of teams for detecting problems

Problem detection in operational settings requires expertise and vigilance. It is a difficult task for individuals. If a problem is not detected early enough, the opportunity to avoid or reduce its consequences may be lost. Teams have many strengths that individuals lack. The team can attend to a wider range of cues than any of the individuals can. They can offer a wider range of expertise, represent different perspectives, reorganize their efforts to adapt to situational demands, and work in parallel. These should improve problem detection. However, teams can also fall victim to a wide range of barriers that may reduce their alertness, mask early problem indicators, confound attempts to make sense of initial data, and restrict their range of actions. Therefore, teams may not necessarily be superior to individuals at problem detection. The capability of a team to detect problems may be a useful measure of the team’s maturity and competence.

[1]  Marie E. Gomes,et al.  A Cognitive Systems Engineering Application for Interface Design , 1993 .

[2]  D. Hantula Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions , 2001 .

[3]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training. , 1998 .

[4]  Gary Klein,et al.  Decision Making in Complex Naval Command-and-Control Environments , 1996, Hum. Factors.

[5]  Gary Klein,et al.  An Accident Waiting to Happen , 1999 .

[6]  Nigel Shadbolt,et al.  Use of the Critical Decision Method to Elicit Expert Knowledge: A Case Study in the Methodology of Cognitive Task Analysis , 1998, Hum. Factors.

[7]  George L. Kaempf,et al.  Decision Making in the AEGIS Combat Information Center , 1993 .

[8]  K. Weick FROM SENSEMAKING IN ORGANIZATIONS , 2021, The New Economic Sociology.

[9]  Paul J. Feltovich,et al.  Common Ground and Coordination in Joint Activity , 2005 .

[10]  Roberta Calderwood,et al.  Critical decision method for eliciting knowledge , 1989, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[11]  R. Wohlstetter,et al.  Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision. , 1962 .

[12]  Gary Klein,et al.  Implications of the Naturalistic Decision Making Framework for Information Dominance. , 1997 .

[13]  J. Logsdon The challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA , 1997 .

[14]  L. Wilkins,et al.  On the power of intuition. , 2001, Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing.

[15]  R. Westrum Social Intelligence A bout Hidden Events , 1982 .

[16]  A. J. Grimes Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies , 1985 .

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