Measuring team situation awareness through team communication: A study on nuclear main control room crews

Veronika Klara Takacs; Marta Juhasz

doi:10.5055/jem.0815

Authors

Veronika Klara Takacs, PhD https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2699-320X
Marta Juhasz, PhD https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3481-522X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.0815

Keywords:

team situation awareness, communication analysis, high reliability organizations, team communication, crew performance, nuclear power plant

Abstract

Situation awareness (SA) in complex socio-technical systems is considered a key cognitive activity, as control crews are often engaged in simultaneous task processes and are required to monitor and evaluate system parameters, making decisions and projections for the future accordingly. However, measuring SA at the team level is still a challenging area of research within the topic. In our research, we applied verbal protocol analysis as an alternative method to assess nuclear power plant control room crews’ team SA. We conducted a study of 10 control room crews, examining their intrateam communication and its relatedness to team performance. We have found that communication categories related to the second and third levels of team SA increased significantly after the onset of an emergency event. Furthermore, while none of the team communication categories was related to team performance before the emergency event, all of them showed a strong positive correlation with team performance after the emergency situation occurred. Our results underline the importance of adequate verbalization of key information within the team, so as to support the rapid and accurate development of team SA during emergency situations.

Author Biographies

Veronika Klara Takacs, PhD

Department of Ergonomics and Psychology, Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary

Marta Juhasz, PhD

Department of Ergonomics and Psychology, Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary

References

Cooke NJ, Gorman JC, Myers CW, et al.: Interactive team cognition. Cogn Sci. 2013; 37(2): 255-285. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12009

Cooke NJ, Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA, et al.: Measuring team knowledge. Hum Factors. 2000; 42(1): 151-173. DOI: 10.1518/001872000779656561. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1518/001872000779656561

LePine JA: Team adaptation and postchange performance: Effects of team composition in terms of members’ cognitive ability and personality. J Appl Psychol. 2003; 88(1): 27-39. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.27

Grote G, Kolbe M, Zala-Mezö E, et al.: Adaptive coordination and heedfulness make better cockpit crews. Ergonomics. 2010; 53(2): 211-228. DOI: 10.1080/00140130903248819. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130903248819

Marques-Quinteiro P, Curral L, Passos AM, et al.: And now what do we do? The role of transactive memory systems and task coordination in action teams. Group Dyn Theory Res Practice. 2013; 17(3): 194-206. DOI: 10.1037/a0033304. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033304

Park J, Kim Y, Kim JH, et al.: Estimating the response times of human operators working in the main control room of nuclear power plants based on the context of a seismic event—A case study. Ann Nucl Energy. 2015; 85: 36-46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2015.03.053

Schmutz J, Hoffmann F, Heimberg E, et al.: Effective coordination in medical emergency teams: The moderating role of task type. Eur J Work Organiz Psychol. 2015; 24(5): 761-776. DOI: 10.1080/1359432x.2015.1018184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2015.1018184

Waller MJ, Gupta N, Giambatista RC: Effects of adaptive behaviors and shared mental models on control crew performance. Manag Sci. 2004; 50(11): 1534-1544. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1040.0210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1040.0210

Ishak AW, Ballard DI: Time to re-group. Small Group Res. 2012; 43(1): 3-29. DOI: 10.1177/1046496411425250. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496411425250

Colquitt JA, LePine JA, Zapata CP, et al.: Trust in typical and high-reliability contexts: Building and reacting to trust among firefighters. AMJ. 2011; 54(5): 999-1015. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2006.0241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.0241

Park J, Lee D, Jung W, et al.: An experimental investigation on relationship between PSFs and operator performances in the digital main control room. Ann Nucl Energy. 2017; 101: 58-68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2016.10.020

Tang P, Zhang C, Yilmaz A, et al.: Automatic imagery data analysis for diagnosing human factors in the outage of a nuclear plant. DHM 2016: Digital human modeling: Applications in health, safety, ergonomics and risk management. In International Conference on Digital Human Modeling and Applications in Health, Safety, Ergonomics and Risk Management. 2016: 604-615. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40247-5_61

Boring RL, Ulrich TA, Joe JC, et al.: Guideline for Operational Nuclear Usability and Knowledge Elicitation (GONUKE). In 6th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE 2015) and the Affiliated Conferences, AHFE 2015. 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.287

Jung W, Park J, Kim Y, et al.: A framework of HRA data collection in nuclear power plants. In 13th International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management (PSAM 13). 2016.

Kim Y, Park J, Jung W: Measuring variability of procedure progression in proceduralized scenarios. Ann Nucl Energy. 2012; 49: 41-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2012.06.009

Liao H, Hildebrandt M: Empirical insights on operators’ procedure following behavior in nuclear power plants. In Harris D (eds.): Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics. Understanding Human Cognition. EPCE 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 8019. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39360-0_27

Rico R, Sanchez-Manzanares M, Gil F, et al.: Team implicit coordination processes: A team knowledge-based approach. Acad Manag Rev. 2008; 33(1): 163-184. DOI: 10.2307/20159381. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.27751276

Crichton MT, Flin R: Identifying and training non-technical skills of nuclear emergency response teams. Ann Nucl Energy. 2004; 31(12): 1317-1330. DOI: 10.1016/j.anucene.2004.03.011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2004.03.011

Lee SW, Kim AR, Park J, et al.: Measuring situation awareness of operating team in different main control room environments of nuclear power plants. Nucl Eng Technol. 2016; 48(1): 153-163. DOI: 10.1016/j.net.2015.09.008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2015.09.008

Endsley MR: Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors. 1995; 37(1): 65-84. DOI: 10.1518/001872095779049499. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049499

Mohammed S, Hamilton K, Tesler R, et al.: Time for temporal team mental models: Expanding beyond “what” and “how” to incorporate “when.” Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 2015; 24(5): 693-709. DOI: 10.1080/1359432x.2015.1024664. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2015.1024664

Mohammed S, Harrison DA: The clocks that time US are not the same: A theory of temporal diversity, task characteristics, and performance in teams. Organiz Behav Hum Decis Process. 2013; 122(2): 244-256. DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.08.004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.08.004

Salmon P, Stanton N, Walker G, et al.: Situation awareness measurement: A review of applicability for C4i environments. Appl Ergon. 2006; 37(2): 225-238. DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2005.02.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2005.02.001

Kaber DB, Endsley MR: Team situation awareness for process control safety and performance. Proc Safety Prog. 1998; 17(1): 43-48. DOI: 10.1002/prs.680170110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/prs.680170110

Sarter NB, Woods DD: How in the world did we ever get into that mode? Mode error and awareness in supervisory control. Hum Factors. 1995; 37(1): 5-19. DOI: 10.1518/001872095779049516. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049516

Endsley MR: Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors. 1995; 37(1): 32-64. DOI: 10.1518/001872095779049543. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049543

Gorman JC, Cooke NJ, Winner JL: Measuring team situation awareness in decentralized command and control environments. Ergonomics. 2006; 49(12-13): 1312-1325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130600612788

Salas E, Dickinson TL, Converse SA, et al.: Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In Swezey RW, Salas E (eds.): Teams: Their Training and Performance. New York, NY: Ablex Publishing, 1992: 3-29.

Cooke NJ: Measuring team knowledge. In Stanton NA, Hedge A, Brookhuis K, et al. (eds.): Handbook of Human Factors Methods. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2004: 49-1-49-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203489925.ch49

Salas E, Bisbey TM, Traylor AM, et al.: Can teamwork promote safety in organizations? Annu Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav. 2020; 7(1): 283-313. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045411. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-045411

Salas E, Prince C, Baker DP, et al.: Situation awareness in team performance: Implications for measurement and training. Hum Factors. 1995; 37(1): 123-136. DOI: 10.1518/001872095779049525. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049525

Klein G: Cognitive task analysis of teams. In Schraagen JM, Chipman SF, Shalin VL (eds.): Cognitive Task Analysis. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000: 417-431. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410605795-36

Lee SW, Park J, Kim A, et al.: Measuring situation awareness of operation teams in NPPS using a verbal protocol analysis. Ann Nucl Energy. 2012; 43: 167-175. DOI: 10.1016/j.anucene.2011.12.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2011.12.005

Sneddon A, Mearns K, Flin R: Situation awareness and safety in offshore drill crews. Cogn Tech Work. 2006; 8(4): 255-267. DOI: 10.1007/s10111-006-0040-1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-006-0040-1

Cooke NJ, Stout RJ, Salas E: A knowledge elicitation approach to the measurement of team situation awareness. In McNeese M, Salas E, Endsley MR (eds.): New Trends in Cooperative Activities. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2001: 114-139.

Salmon P, Stanton N, Young K: Situation awareness on the road: Review, theoretical and methodological issues, and future directions. Theor Issues Ergon Sci. 2012; 13(4): 472-492. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1463922X.2010.539289

Salmon P, Stanton N, Walker G, et al.: Measuring situation awareness in complex systems: Comparison of measures study. Int J Ind Ergon. 2009; 39(3): 490-500. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2008.10.010

Ven AH, Delbecq AL, Koenig R: Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. Am Sociol Rev. 1976; 41(2): 322. DOI: 10.2307/2094477. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2094477

Grote G, Zala-Mezo″ E: The Effects of Different Forms of Coordination in Coping with Workload: Cockpit versus Operating Theatre. Report on the Psychological Part of the Project. GIHREKolleg (Group Interaction in High Risk Environments) of the Daimler-Benz Foundation. Zurich: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, 2004.

Uitdewilligen S, Rico R, Waller MJ: Fluid and stable: Dynamics of team action patterns and adaptive outcomes. J Organ Behav. 2018; 39(9): 1113-1128. DOI: 10.1002/job.2267. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2267

Chang YJ, Bley D, Criscione L, et al.: The SACADA database for human reliability and human performance. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2014; 125: 117-133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2013.07.014

Rasmussen J, Lind M: A model of human decision making in complex systems and its use for design of system control strategies. In 1982 American Control Conference. 1982. DOI: 10.23919/acc.1982.4787855. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23919/ACC.1982.4787855

Elliott AC, Garner SD, Grimes E: The cognitive tasks of the driver: The approach and passage through diverging junctions. In Wilson J, Norris B, Clarke T, et al. (eds.): People and Rail Systems. Human Factors at the Heart of the Railway. London: CRC Press, 2007.

MacMillan J, Entin EE, Serfaty D: Communication overhead: The hidden cost of team cognition. In Salas E, Fiore SM (eds.): Team Cognition: Understanding the Factors That Drive Process and Performance. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2004: 61-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/10690-004

Marlow SL, Lacerenza CN, Paoletti J, et al.: Does team communication represent a one-size-fits-all approach?: A meta-analysis of team communication and performance. Organiz Behav Hum Decis Process. 2018; 144: 145-170. DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.08.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.08.001

Xiao Y, Seagull FJ, Mackenzie C, et al.: Team communication patterns as measures of team processes: Exploring the effects of task urgency and shared team experience. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Ann Meet. 2003; 47(12): 1502-1506. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120304701228

Marks MA, Mathieu JE, Zaccaro SJ: A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Acad Manag Rev. 2001; 26(3): 356. DOI: 10.2307/259182. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/259182

Sexton JB, Helmreich RL: Analyzing cockpit communications: The links between language, performance, error, and workload. J Hum Perform Extreme Environ. 2000; 5(1). DOI: 10.7771/2327-2937.1007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7771/2327-2937.1007

Fukuda R, Voggenberger T, Sträter O, et al.: Analysis of communication in nuclear power plant. In Strasser H, Kluth K, Rausch H, et al. (eds.): Quality of Work and Products in Enterprises of the Future. Proceedings of the Annual Spring Conference of the GfA on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of the Foundation of the Gesellschaft Für Arbeitswissenschaft. Stuttgart: Ergonomia, 2003: 615-618.

Kleindienst C, Brüngger J, Koch J, et al.: Adaptation in control crews—An observational study of adaptive and coordinative behaviours in unexpected and unknown situations in the operating room of a nuclear power plant. In EAWOP Small Group Meeting “Dynamics of Team Cognitions and Team Adaptation,” Lisbon, Portugal, October 23-25, 2014.

Soós JK, Juhász M: Capturing team performance differences through communication based analyses of team cognition. Per Pol Soc Man Sci. 2010; 18(2): 75. DOI: 10.3311/pp.so.2010-2.03. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3311/pp.so.2010-2.03

Stachowski AA, Kaplan SA, Waller MJ: The benefits of flexible team interaction during crises. J Appl Psychol. 2009; 94(6): 1536-1543. DOI: 10.1037/a0016903. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016903

Krifka M: Structural features of language and language use. In Dietrish R, Childress T (eds.): Group Interaction in High Risk Environments, The GIHRE Project. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 2004: 141-164.

Kim MC, Park J, Jung W, et al.: Development of a standard communication protocol for an emergency situation management in nuclear power plants. Ann Nucl Energy. 2010; 37(6): 888-893. DOI: 10.1016/j.anucene.2010.01.003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anucene.2010.01.003

Espinoza JA, Lerch FJ, Kraut RE: Explicit versus implicit coordination mechanisms and task dependencies: One size does not fit all. In Fiore SM, Salas E (eds.): Team Cognition: Understanding the Factors That Drive Process and Performance. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2004: 107-129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/10690-006

Takacs VK, Juhasz M: Team communication of nuclear fire brigades during routine and non-routine task phases. Int J Ind Ergon. 2022; 90: 103300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2022.103300

Mohammed S, Nadkarni S: Are we all on the same temporal page? The moderating effects of temporal team cognition on the polychronicity diversity–team performance relationship. J Appl Psychol. 2014; 99(3): 404-422. DOI: 10.1037/a0035640. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035640