an ATC environment has been problematic. This paper reports on a study exploring perceptions of coordination and communication for air traffic controllers ...
Owen, C, Beyond teamwork! Reconceptualising communication, co-ordination and collaboration in Air Traffic Control, Human Factors and Aerospace Safety: An International Journal, 4, (4) pp. 289-306. ISSN 1468-9456 (2005) [Refereed Article]
Beyond teamwork! Reconceptualising communication, coordination and collaboration in air traffic control Abstract
In aviation human factors, much has been made of the benefits of strategies to enhance teamwork in terms of improving the safety and performance of aircrews. However, very little research has examined the relevance of these teamwork models in other domains such as air traffic control (ATC), and in the past this has meant that transferring these benefits to an ATC environment has been problematic. This paper reports on a study exploring perceptions of coordination and communication for air traffic controllers working in an Australian environment. The study involved, in part: (a) 50 hours of observation of ATC work; and (b) 50 interviews with ATCs. The paper will outline controller’s perceptions of the collaborative elements of ATC work. Implications for training and work practice will be discussed.
Introduction One of the key safety mechanisms high reliability organisations have available involves the people who work within them, particularly when they work in coordinated ways, such as that found in teamwork. A number of researchers have provided insights into what constitutes a “team” (e.g., Baker & Salas, 1992; Guzzo & Dickson; Beyerlein, Johnson & Beyerlein, 1997; Brannick & Prince, 1997). The definitions of teamwork used in the literature define teams as having the following features. They consist of a group of people who are (i) interdependent, (ii) who work consistently together (including training), (iii) whose membership is clearly defined and stable for designated periods of time and (iv) who produce synergy (e.g., Brannick & Prince, 1997; Baker & Salas, 1992).
Effective teamwork has been shown to increase safety in highly dynamic environments (Cannon-Bower, Salas & Converse, 1993; Stout, Cannon-Bowers, Salas and Milanovich, 1999). Indeed, the main impetus for this finding has resulted in significant investment in CRM related training in the aviation industry, notably with aircrews. This is because effective teamwork strategies in highly dynamic environments allow groups of people to build up a shared understanding of the work environment. Thus effective teamwork strategies allow individual situation awareness to be shared such that it is a resource to the rest of the group. In some of the literature this sharing has been referred to as “team situation awareness” though most research development work in this field has been done with the related concept of “shared mental models” (Mathieu, Goodwin, Heffner, Salas and Cannon-Bowers, 2000; Stout et al, 1999).
A mental model has been defined as “a mechanism whereby humans generate descriptions of system purpose, and form explanations of system functioning and observed system states, and predictions of future system states" (Cannon-Bowers, Salas and Converse, 1993 p. 360). Mental models create situation awareness for individuals because they allow people to describe, explain, and predict events in their environment. That is, they enable operators to draw inferences, make predictions, understand phenomena and decide which actions to take (Stout et al, 1999). In expanding this idea research into shared mental models has revealed that they are an important resource that helps explain how groups are able to cope with difficult and changing task conditions (Mathieu et al, 2000). Hence the role of shared mental models for groups of people working together is that they allow members to draw on their own well-structured knowledge as a basis for selecting actions that are consistent and coordinated with those of their colleagues. Shared mental models have been found to allow operators working interdependently to continue to coordinate their behaviour even when task load renders communication impossible (Kleinman and Serfaty, 1989 in Bowers, Blickensderfer and Morgan, 1998). When a group is working well together it is important to recognise that there is not one shared understanding of a situation but possibly many. According to Klimoski and Mohammed (1994, in Mathieu et al, 2000) there are probably multiple mental models coexisting among members at a given point in time. These shared understandings can involve (i) the technology, (ii) interdependencies in the roles and responsibilities of operators and (iii) expected information flow and communication patterns. First, members need to have an understanding of the technology with which they are interacting and the ways in which their input influences and interacts with the input of others. Second, to effectively collaborate, operators need to hold a shared understanding of their respective job or tasks and the ways in which these inter-relate. Third, operators need to hold shared conceptions of how interaction
is optimised through interaction patterns, information flow and communication channels, and information sources. Finally team members need an understanding of their respective teammates (i.e., their knowledge, skills, attitudes, preferences, strengths, weaknesses, tendencies, and so forth). According to Cannon-Bowers et al (1993) such knowledge is crucial for team effectiveness because it allows team members to tailor their behaviour in accordance with what they expect their team-mates to do. The problem of “team” approaches to collaboration and coordination in air traffic control While these findings have been well supported in the research literature focussing on aircrews there are two problems when transferring these concepts to the work of air traffic control, particularly in Australia. First, little research has been undertaken examining the relevance of these concepts to other domains, such as air traffic control. Indeed, as Bowers et al (1998, p. 234) says, this literature should be used as the basis for development but not as a substitute. “An analysis of air traffic control (ATC) team coordination requirements must be the initial effort toward developing ATC team coordination programs. There is currently no appreciable understanding of the relative importance of the variables that might influence ATC team coordination.” Secondly, as will be argued in the next section, much of the work that occurs in air traffic control occurs with members who may not be part of a team, as defined earlier. To what extent, then, do the behaviours and practices that support shared understanding operate in these contexts? Moreover, new methodologies have also been called for to better understand performance in ATC. For example, a report by the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (1996, p. 12) recommended greater use of qualitative research processes in aviation psychology for exploring job tasks in ATC. This paper aims to contribute to these understandings. It reports on one component of a study that explores ATC perceptions of the relevance or otherwise of teamwork dimensions previously
described in the literature (Smith-Jentsch et al, 2001) and elaborates on the degree to which these may form the basis for developing understanding on the nature of ATC communication and coordination requirements.
Differences between air traffic control teams and air crew teams If the existing research literature is to be used as a basis for development, it is important to clarify how air traffic control teams differ from that of aircrews. Smith-Jentsch, Baker, Salas and Cannon-Bowers (2001) have undertaken a comparison in the US and report the following differences.
ATC teams are much more individualised than aircrew. Although interdependencies within and across ATC teams abound, for the most part, individual controllers make individual decisions about individual aircraft within their designated airspace, whereas aircrew make decisions about their particular flight. Despite the individualised nature of air traffic control work, the trajectory of multiple flights within and between different designated airspaces means that the work however, is highly interdependent. These interdependencies between controllers means that one controller can make the work of another easy or difficult, depending on the accuracy and completeness of the information conveyed, the separation provided between aircraft and the orderliness of the air traffic flow.
Status variability. A second feature that differentiates ATC teams from aircrews is the degree of status variability. While ATC teams have a team leader, ultimately it is the
controller at the console who is responsible for his or her airspace. Sometimes the team leader may not even be present. Even when present, the dynamics between controllers and supervisors are vastly different from those between captains and first officers. Whereas captains usually have more technical expertise as a pilot than their subordinates, the same cannot always be said for ATC team leaders. ATC team leaders may be viewed as having less expertise/currency than their team members because they spend less time per month at the console actually controlling traffic.
Stability of team membership. According to the international literature (see Smith-Jentsch et al, 2001), ATC teams are typically stable and are far more stable than aircrews. However, this last point is where the Australian experience differs and why the notions of collaboration and cooperation have been highlighted here rather than teamwork. While Smith-Jentsch et al (2001) report an FAA ATC team survey that found that 95% of the facilities sampled had scheduling policies designed so that controllers worked with the same team-mates for the majority of their working hours, the same is not the case in Australia due to rostering and personnel constraints. The controllers sampled in the study reported here stated that, although they are designated (for administrative purposes) as belonging to a particular air traffic control team, they may be rostered to work with only some of their teammates and may rarely see the others, working instead next to members from other teams who also work in the same broad airspace sector group. That is, controllers who are full performance controllers and are licensed to operate across, for example, three sectors may find themselves working alongside controllers who are part of their designated team , as well as controllers from other teams, who are also licensed to operate the same groups of airspace.
This experience led almost all of the controllers interviewed to comment that they were in teams “in name only”. Partly as an acknowledgement of this, AirServices Australia (ASA) have adopted a group based structure which includes 3-4 teams of controllers who are part of a “group” of between 28-30 people, resulting in both managers and controllers alike sometimes describing these groups as “super teams”. However, even this reference falls short of comprising the components of teamwork defined earlier in this paper. While there would be benefits for Australian ATC if the same teams were able to be rostered to regularly work together, such a proposition in essence also overlooks a key feature of ATC work. The most important difference between aircrews and ATC teams and one not discussed in any of the ATC team literature reviewed to date is that ATC’s, engage in highly coordinated activity with other controllers who may or may not be part of their team or even their “super-group”. The reason for this stems, in part, from the physical organisation of ATC work, which is structured according to geographical airspace. Controllers coordinate with one another based on the trajectory of certain flight paths. Controllers can be coordinating work with controllers who may be part of (i) their team; (ii) a group of controllers licensed to operate the same airspace (airspace group); (iii) an adjoining group (because the coordination work occurs at the boundary between groups e.g., arrivals and enroute). This work may involve controllers who work at the same Centre and who are physically present in the same ATC room, or who are physically separated because they work (a) in different locations at the same centre (e.g., tower and approach); (b) in another centre (e.g., Melbourne Centre and Brisbane Centre); or (c) in another country (e.g., Brisbane Centre and Jakarta). While this provides an outline of the various sectors a controller may be interacting with, there is even further variation in the people that controller may encounter on a shift when interacting with any of these sectors. Controllers operating on a shift will take breaks and these will occur on different sectors at different times, so that
during a shift the controller is likely to work with multiple controllers on each adjoining airspace sector. Despite these differences, however, the same level of seamlessness in the work is expected, as if the controllers were part of a team, as defined earlier. That is, the same level of shared understanding between interdependent operators is needed. This point is central to beginning to understand how ideas such as shared mental models and notions of teamwork may be applied to the ATC organisation of work activity but will need to be expanded. Moreover, it is contended that rather than viewing this organisational work structure as a weakness in need of resolution by reverting to a traditional team structure, it is important to recognise the range of other work environments that rely on similar kinds of cooperative activity that are not easily explained in any traditional team structure (see Engestrom, Engestrom and Karkkainen, 1995). Therefore, it is hoped that a better understanding of how effective shared mental models enhances collaboration in these environments will provide valuable insights for a range of other work environments where similar collectives come together to do high-performance work and disperse within very short time frames.
Research design The purpose of this paper is to report on a component of a three year study examining within and between team communications in the aviation industry1. The study aims to: Identify, map and model the nature of team based and collaborative activities currently occurring within and between aviation teams with particular reference to factors which enhance or inhibit continuous inquiry at individual and team levels.
ARC SPIRT Grant No C00002539 “Team-based and collaborative work in high technology, high intensity, high reliability workplaces: individual and team learning in the aviation industry” 1
Investigate the impacts of technological change on the nature of team based and collaborative activity within and across aviation teams. Evaluate current training approaches to team based and collaborative competencies as they relate to the work activities under study. The focus of the study has been on communication and interaction within and between air traffic control teams and on the collaborative activities between controllers and pilots. To date, An analysis has been conducted of 200 publicly available air safety incident reports (compiled by the Australian Air Transportation Safety Bureau) to investigate the presence or absence of team based and collaborative behaviours (defined in the next section). Detailed observation of 50 hours of ATC work activity has also been conducted. This has involved both high and low workload activity across all main groups of ATC (tower, approach enroute) in both Melbourne and Brisbane Centres. Interviews (N=50) have been undertaken with controllers working in all ATC sectors (i.e., tower, approach, arrivals, enroute) and in two main centres (Melbourne and Brisbane). Training approaches used to enhance teamwork and human factors awareness have been reviewed. This paper will report on one component discussed in the interviews, notably, controller perceptions about the relevance of teamwork related behaviours in an ATC environment. The interviews ran in parallel to the observations, usually following one of the observation sessions and involving one of the controllers observed. The interviews enabled closer discussions of the activities observed and further probing of the controller’s thinking and reasoning, often not possible at the console.
A note on the method The approach described in this component of the study is based on a qualitative research paradigm. The word “qualitative” implies an emphasis on processes and meanings that are not “measured” in a way indicated in quantitative statistical analysis. Qualitative research stresses “the socially constructed nature of reality, …[and ] seek answers to questions that stress how social experience is created and given meaning” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2001, p. 4). Such an approach is therefore exploratory and forms part of a theory-building strategy that might later be tested through a quantitative design. A critic might claim that asking operators for their perceptions on particular teamrelated behaviours is introducing bias into the study. However, qualitative research methodologists (e.g., Denzin & Lincoln, 2001) contend that an important focus of such research design should be to recognise the validity of the perspectives of the participants and to involve participants in a mutual examination of their situations. The focus adopted in this research has been on developing an understanding of the participants’ perspectives, because, as Gillett (1995) concluded “once one sees the tasks of understanding human behaviour as involving interpretation and empathy rather than prediction or control, the self-reports of the subject become very important” (p. 111). Although the epistemological position taken in qualitative research differs from that found in quantitative approaches, establishing the veracity and trustworthiness of the data is still very important. However, different constructs are used to do so. Qualitative researchers look for “trustworthiness”, “credibility”, “confirmability”, as equivalents for
“internal validity” “external validity” “reliability” and “objectivity” (for more information see Denzin & Lincoln, 2001). “Trustworthiness” is enhanced by use of multiple and different sources, methods and theories (Patton 1990). “Credibility” of the findings is strengthened by prolonged engagement in the field and building trust with participants (Yin 1994), something that requires reciprocity (Lather 1991). The credibility of the study also rests on the strength of the theoretical argument advanced and the degree to which there is evidence that negative cases are analysed and used to improve the theoretical fit between the data and the theory development process (Miles & Huberman 1985). Confirmability comes from the degree to which respondents are confirming similar themes that are identified and tested in an iterative analysis of the data and subsequent interviews.
Results Does any of the literature that has been previously described have any utility in this environment? Herein lies the paradox. In the first twelve of the interviews controllers were asked generic questions about their perception of teamwork. Almost without exception controllers reported they were in teams “in name only” and for rostering purposes. However, what became evident in the data from the observations was that many of the teamwork dimensions described in high reliability studies (Cannon-Bowers and Salas. 1998; SmithJentsch et al, 2001) were being employed by controllers at the console, despite their almost universal rejection that they were engaged in teamwork. A decision was then taken to shift focus in the subsequent interviews (n=38) and provide respondents with a card outlining the behaviourally anchored teamwork dimensions used in other studies (e.g., Cannon-Bowers
and Salas, 1998; Smith-Jentsch et al., 2001), and their opinions sought as to the utility of these behaviours in an Australian ATC environment. There was one slight modification to the descriptions: they were introduced as “dimensions of collaborative work” rather than teamwork. The dimensions are summarised in Table 1, and have been modified following the work of Smith-Jentsch et al (2001) who examined teamwork specifically in ATC in the USA. In summary, according to Smith-Jentsch et al (2001) to work effectively as a team, operators need four teamwork skills, three areas of teamwork knowledge, and to hold two related attitudes supportive of teamwork. The four teamwork skills identified by Smith-Jentsch et al (2001) as being important for ATC team performance are: information exchange, supporting behaviour, team feedback skills and flexibility. The teamwork knowledge areas included two that are generic competencies (interpositional knowledge and knowledge about teamwork) and one that is team-mate specific. Team-related knowledge helps controllers know when and how to apply the four teamwork skills described above. Team-mate-specific knowledge was also identified as an important variable as this understanding assists controllers to know in what ways individuals may require assistance and what kinds of assistance individuals prefer. Finally, according to Smith-Jentsch et al (2001), two team-related attitudes were also identified as these affect team members’ willingness to employ the above skills and knowledge. They included belief in the importance of teamwork and collective orientation.
TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
Controllers were shown a list of these items which included detailed indicators for each dimension. An example is provided in Table 2 for the first dimension “information exchange”. Controllers were asked if they thought that any of these dimensions were relevant to their work or not, and if so, could they provide any examples of the ways in which these elements were present in their work. All controllers asked about these behaviours recognised their relevance in their own practice and could provide examples, however, this was not uniform for all dimensions. In some respects controllers indicated only moderate or weak support for the item, in other cases, strong support. Relevance in the interview talk was indicated to be high when two conditions were present. First, the controllers stated the item was important in work and secondly, when the examples provided were detailed and elaborate. A summary of results is presented in the last three columns of Table 1. The findings presented include an analysis of the data using conversation analysis (ten Have, 1999). Conversation analysis (CA) examines, in part, the number of respondents who contributed to the topic, as well as the amount of discussion (e.g., lines of text units) given over to a topic and the degree of intensity in the talk. The rationale in CA is that people who are passionate (whether in agreement or disagreement) about a particular item will talk about it at length and be quite elaborate in their arguments. In contrast, people who are ambivalent may offer support with caveats and will not provide the same level of detail and elaboration. Therefore it is possible to get an overview, not just of the number of times an item might have been mentioned, but how much talk was devoted to its discussion in the interview and the quality of the discussion. In Table 1, column three shows the quantity- the number of respondents included in the sample who thought the item was relevant and could give an example. The fourth column provides a summary of the amount of talk given over in the
interview to the item and the proportion this represented of the entire interview. In the case of the attitudes, these were not discussed specifically but gleaned from the kinds of statements and beliefs the controller was expressing. The final column shows the intensity present in the conversation. This was indicated by the strength of the comments made by controllers. The findings will be discussed in reverse order to that presented in Table 1, as the later, more generic, items provide a useful context for further discussion of the particulars. That is, attitudes will be discussed first, then knowledge items and finally the work process and skill dimensions.
Teamwork attitudes. Given that most of the training that has been undertaken in AirServices Australia (ASA) has been based on traditional team-structure models and yet this is not reflected in the way ATC’s work, it was not surprising in the interviews where controllers discussed teamwork, that almost all rejected the notion of the importance of teamwork in their activity. Paradoxically, what was universally acknowledged in every interview was the importance of viewing one’s work in relation to the collective involved in ATC activity. This is because there is strong recognition and acceptance of interdependence in ATC work and especially of the ways in which controllers can help or hinder each other. This was also reflected in other items discussed below.
Team-mate specific knowledge. While having team-mate specific knowledge, for example, was regarded as important to respondents (20 controllers or 53% provided examples in the interviews), whether
knowledge about specific team-mates was available to the controller was largely due to chance (especially in enroute sectors) and on other sectors was an artefact of the controller’s length of experience in the system (e.g., approach, tower).
Team-mate generic knowledge. These two items reflect the attitudes mentioned earlier. Not surprisingly, there was strong support for the value of interpositional knowledge (25 controllers or 66% of respondents could give an example) and weak support for the value of team feedback knowledge with only one person (2.6%) able to give an example of when it had occurred in practice. Interpositional knowledge involves understanding the tasks performed by the others with whom a controller must cooperate. This includes understanding the impact of actions taken on the ability of others to meet their goals and requirements. According to Smith-Jentsch et al (2001), having inter-positional knowledge allows controllers to anticipate the information needs of others, work effectively together during high-workload periods, and avoid frustration and conflicts. In the teamwork literature, the role of interpositional knowledge is a crucial one. Research by Baker, Salas, Cannon-Bowers, and Spector (1992, cited in Stout et al, 1999) defined a construct labelled “interpositional uncertainty”, which refers to the extent to which team members hold accurate knowledge about the roles and responsibilities of others. In their review high interpersonal uncertainty among team members was associated with
ineffective or degraded performance. The role of interpositional knowledge in ATC collaboration will be discussed later. What is interesting to also consider here are the implications for the absence of examples of team feedback knowledge (only one controller could give an example). According to the Smith-Jentsch et al (2001), knowledge about how to give feedback to others assists controllers to diagnose and correct coordination breakdowns. Such knowledge aids controllers in adjusting their performance strategies ‘on the fly’ and to critique themselves. Finally knowledge about ATC teamwork improves controllers’ ability to provide effective onthe-job training. It is possible, therefore, that if team feedback knowledge is lacking, then individuals are not as able to critique themselves or others in a constructive way such that the group and organisation may learn from these experiences. Under these circumstances, it is reasonable, to assume that there are many opportunities lost to the organisation and to ATC work groups to constructively critique and improve their performance.
Teamwork process skills. The four teamwork process skills identified by Smith-Jentsch et al (2001) as being important for ATC team performance were: information exchange, supportive behaviour, team feedback skills and flexibility (see Table 1). Information exchange involves passing relevant data to other controllers who need it, before they need it, and ensuring that the messages sent are understood as intended. This is core ATC business and 66% (n=25) of all respondents could provide an example and discuss its role in collaborative work. What is critical, and perhaps not fully appreciated, is that
collective effectiveness appears to be enhanced when one or both parties provide information before they are requested to do so (Stout et al, 1999 p. 62). In the data collected in this study there was strong support for the notion that successful coordination was enhanced when information was passed on before it was required. This is because doing so is reported to assist ATCs to build up and maintain not just their own situation awareness but to also contribute to the shared understanding of the “big picture” for those involved. Clearly timeliness is also an issue here, as passing information too early will detract from situation awareness. However, what was also evident in the observations was that passing on information before being requested was in tension with some rules of coordination and their practice will need to be evaluated to ensure that other opportunities for error are not created. The second skill, supportive behaviour, involves offering and requesting assistance in an effective manner both within and across teams in the ATC system. According to SmithJentsch et al (2001) when controllers demonstrate effective supportive behaviour, others can maintain a high level of performance in complex high-workload environments. Supportive behaviour has two primary components: (a) requesting and accepting assistance and (b) providing assistance. Providing assistance effectively begins with monitoring one’s teammates for signs and symptoms of stress. Once such signs have been noted, a controller should offer assistance without having to be asked. This is critical, as many controllers find it difficult to admit they could use some help. Moreover, when a controller is busy, he or she might not have time to stop and ask for help. It is important to be clear also on what kind of assistance is needed; otherwise a well-meaning controller may actually make a situation more confusing for the person he or she is trying to help. Requesting assistance effectively means monitoring oneself for signs and symptoms of stress and requesting assistance before it is too late.
The skill of supportive behaviour was the item controllers talked about at considerable length and in detailed and elaborate ways. Of all the respondents 79% (n=30) could give an example and many gave multiple ones as they talked about what helped or hindered them in their work (this is evidenced by the large number of text units for this item). Table 3 summarises some of the main forms of supportive behaviour described by controllers in the interviews and there were also evident in the observations conducted. These included strategies that were quite passive (e.g., distant monitoring) through to ones that required direct intervention even if a controller had not asked for or had rejected help. What is important to note here is that rarely are the strategies listed in Tables 1 and 3 formally taught or even discussed in on-the-job training situations (with the exception of local procedures describing, for example, the conditions for when a sector might be split). It is also important to observe the range of operators involved. In these examples, what the strategies show is that supportive behaviour is distributed across the collective and that different operators will be involved in different ways (team members, team leaders other colleagues who may or may not be co-located). This finding reveals a need to explicate the ways in which respective ATC roles and tasks have an element of supportive behaviour in them in order to enhance safety and effectiveness. Such work is necessary in order to develop a framework for understanding, if not teamwork as traditionally defined, then collaboration as it is distributed across operators in the system. That is, cooperative activity as it occurs across members of teams, as well as members of airspace sector groups, and other colleagues involved in communication.
TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE
Of the remaining skills, the third skill, described earlier in Table 1, “flexibility”, involves the ability and willingness to adapt performance strategies quickly and appropriately to changing task demands. Once again, this is a key feature of ATC work, though the collaborative dimension emphasises what strategies controllers might use to be flexible when working in and around one another (n=11 or 29% of respondents could give an example). Finally group feedback skills allow team members to communicate their observations, concerns, suggestions and requests in a clear and direct manner. Group feedback skills were identified by 12 or 32% of respondents. The argument reported in the research literature (see for example Cannon-Bowers et al 1993; Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 1998; Smith-Jentsch et al, 2001) is that when controllers use effective feedback skills they are better able to correct and prevent errors, resolve conflicts and continuously enhance their performance.
Connecting supportive behaviour with interpositional knowledge. In the interviews and observations, not surprisingly, supportive behaviour was connected to the level of interpositional knowledge the controller had available. In addition it also seemed related to the attitude of orienting oneself to the collective where controllers would use their interpositional knowledge to engage in supportive behaviour. That is, interpositional knowledge involves the technical awareness of the elements mentioned earlier in terms of the multiple mental models that need to be shared when engaged in complex work (technology, roles, information flow and team-mates). First, it relates to having an understanding of how technologies-in-use are influenced by others and how input by one operator influences another’s use of the technology. Second, controllers with
interpositional knowledge understand the ways in which the respective roles and job tasks of controllers are interdependent upon on one another. Third, they need to understand the interaction patterns expected between the respective roles, as well as having an appreciation of the expected information flow and communication channels used. And finally, they may understand the attributes of the person with whom they are co-ordinating, their respective preferences and limits. However, what emerged in the observations and in the interviews is that technical knowledge of these aspects is not enough. What are also needed are supportive behaviours where controllers use their knowledge to enhance mutual effectiveness.
Implications for training Once the concepts presented have been further developed and tested in terms of their validity in this environment, they then could be embedded in a range of training opportunities for ATCs. The literature (Cannon-Bowers & Salas, 1998) describes three phases of training that serve different purposes: (i) awareness, (ii) practice and feedback and (iii) continual reinforcement. Awareness typically occurs in the work of seminars and workshops and can be included in Abinitio College training, as well as seminars that may occur on team-training days for controllers. Smith-Jentsch et al, (2001) found that in such seminars it is important that there be plenty of opportunity for group discussion, as this helps challenge existing attitudes and increase understanding. The review of team-training materials conducted as part of this study has revealed that, not surprisingly, the focus in the past has typically been on knowledge about teamwork and this needs to shift to include training on inter-positional knowledge and knowledge about performance-related signs of
stress (Smith-Jentsch et al, 2001). This latter kind of awareness provides controllers with context-specific cues they can look for to determine how and when to offer assistance and pass information to others in the ATC system. According to Smith-Jentsch et al (2001), many workshops focussing on stress emphasise personal issues (e.g., sleeplessness) rather than on work related symptoms, such as identifying the kinds of behaviours controllers notice in themselves and in others (e.g., talking faster, standing up). Whatever information is imparted, it must be followed up by other strategies for skill building. According to Smith-Jentsch et al (2001) computer-based training presents an ideal opportunity to develop information about teamwork concepts and demonstrations of those concepts in a standardised format. CBT might be particularly useful, for example, for developing controller’s inter-positional knowledge. It can be developed in such a way as to be flexible enough to enable the controller to fill in the gaps of their own inter-positional knowledge. CBT can be used to show the physical layouts of other working environments (e.g., tower, cockpits) and present information about the requirements of each position. In addition, CBT may include videos of work as it occurs in these environments and communication sequences. Research cited by Smith-Jentsch et al (2001) demonstrated that teams whose members had access to this training displayed more effective communication patterns in terms of inter-positional knowledge than their no-treatment controls. The second stage of CRM training, practice and feedback, involves developing skills necessary to apply the concepts previously introduced. The best practice for these skills would be in the simulator and embedded within exercises for ATC purposes (e.g., IFER training). However, simulation can only be an effective training tool for the knowledge and skills described here if the consoles used in the simulator are dynamically and interdependently linked (that is able to simulate traffic moving between sectors and thus
collaboration between controllers operating those sectors. That is currently not the case. That said other researchers have found good results with simulations that are based on high psychological fidelity (i.e., real-life scenarios) rather than physical fidelity. These simulations can involve problem-based learning case studies. Continual reinforcement can occur in team-development days and in team leader training. This may include collective review of performance during the past week or so, or discussion about how a particular incident/complex situation was managed. Team leader training needs to contain specific training on how to give feedback in ways that are clear and direct without being hostile.
Conclusion The dimensions of teamwork developed in other studies investigating high reliability environments provide a useful departure point for thinking about collaborative work in ATC, but they cannot be used as a substitute for establishing standards for team training in this environment. A fine-grained analysis of work practice in ATC shows how these dimensions are present but emphasise subtly though importantly different elements. The two dimensions indicated that are most pertinent in enhancing collaboration in ATC are supportive behaviour coupled with interpositional knowledge. A quantitative analysis of the observational data will be used in further analysis to explicate the elements important in an ATC environment. What this study has reveal thus far is that collaborative dimensions are distributed across actors involved in the activity system and are not limited to members of a traditional team based structure. This yields important insights into a range of collaborative work activities where operators who are not familiar with one another, join together to collectively achieve a goal and just as quickly disperse. A multi-dimensional view of
collaboration that moves beyond a teamwork approach is needed to account for, and support through training, a range of “distributed interlocking participation frameworks” (Engestrom et al, 1995, p. 320), involving actors engaged in complex work. Such a framework can be used to increase relevance of teamwork dimensions to the ATC environment. References Bowers, C. A., Blickensderfer, E. L and Morgan, B. B. Jr. (1998). Air traffic control specialist team coordination. In M. W. Smolensky, and E. S. Stein, (Eds.), Human Factors in Air Traffic Control, San Diego: Academic Press.
Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Salas, E. & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In N. J. Castellan (Ed), Individual and group decision making: Current issues, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., and Salas, E. (Eds.), (1998). Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E. and Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In N. J. Castellan, Jr. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making: Current issues. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Engestrom, Y., Engestrom, R., and Karkkainen.A. (1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction, Vol 5, pp. 319-336.
Mathieu, J. E., Goodwin, G. F., Heffner, T. S., Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 85(2) pp. 273-283.
Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Baker, D. P., Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). Uncovering differences in team competency requirements: The case of air traffic control teams. In E., Salas, C. A. Bowers, and E. Edens, (Eds.), Improving Teamwork in Organizations. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stout, R. J., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E. and Milanovich, D. M. (1999). Planning, shared mental models, and coordinated performance: an empirical link is established. Human Factors, Vol 41(1), pp. 61-77.
ten Have, P. (1999). Doing conversation analysis. London: Sage Publications.
Table 1
Dimension
Dimensions of collaborative work discussed in the interviews
Description
% of retrievals in data (n=38)
Lines of text units in docs retrieved (%)*
Intensity
1: Teamwork process measures 1.1 Information exchange
Involves passing relevant data to team members who need it. Includes transmitting and receiving
66
1,739 (13%)
Strong support
1.2 Supporting behaviour
Offering and requesting assistance in an effective manner both within and across teams in the ATC.
79
1,229 (16.7%)
Strong positive support
1.3 Flexibility
The ability and willingness to adapt performance strategies quickly and appropriately to changing task demands
29
543 (10.1%)
Moderate
1.4 Group feedback skills
The ability to enable group members to communicate their observations, concerns, suggestions and requests in a clear and direct manner without becoming hostile and defensive
32
296
Weak
(5.4%)
2: Teamwork knowledge measures 2.1 Generic Inter-positional knowledge
Involves understanding the tasks performed by the other groups and team members with whom a controller must coordinate. Allows controllers to anticipate the information needs of others
66
2.2 GenericKnowledge about collaboration
Those knowledge areas that a controller can generalise to any group of controllers with whom he or she works. The knowledge a controller needs diagnose and correct coordination breakdowns.
2.6
2.3 Teammate specific knowledge
Information controllers learn about their individual teammates
53
695 (6.7%)
28
Strongpositive support
Weakambivalent
(0.18%)
440 (5.2%)
Support with qual.-often not known
3: Teamwork attitudes 3.1 Importance of teamwork
Refers to the opinion that teamwork skills are necessary to achieve the most effective and efficient performance as a controller
71
Strong negative
3.2 Collective orientation
Refers to the tendency to view oneself as part of a larger system
100
Strong positive
* of all text-units (lines) in all retrievals
Table 2
Example of the indicators shown to controllers
Information exchange. Definition: Involves passing relevant data to team members who need it. Includes transmitting and receiving
Transmitting: Timeliness and anticipation: before they need it Transmittal accuracy- transmitting information: - ensuring that the messages sent are understood as intended. Transmitting situation awareness: providing to others relevant current and projected states of events as well as the controller's plans and intentions.
Receiving: When receiving information, effectively listening and seeking clarification when needed. .
Rationale: Effective information exchange helps controllers to build and maintain their own situation awareness as well as to contribute to the team's shared understanding of the 'big picture'.
Table 3
Type
Extended transitions
Strategic monitoring
Types of supporting behaviour, their actions and applications
Level of intervention to support
Actions
Passive
Passive to moderately active
Active
Load mediating
Moderately active
Load supporting
Load dividing
Load reciprocity
Who
uses
Direct assistance
Applications/
Extended overlap time around handover/takeover . Continued observation following expanding focus, “third ear” over shoulder observation plugging in
Protective
complex/high workload Incoming controller inexperienced/und er confident Protective and Developmental
Team or group colleague
Team or group colleague ATC, Team Leader
Inexperienced C. Stressed C. high traffic load
High density and complex traffic
Team or group colleague Team leader
Approaching an adjoining sector and moving traffic away from a particular area
complex traffic stress indicated and/or C nearing limits
Team leader, Aisle supervisor; sometimes Team mate
Active
Cueing situation awareness; direct questioning; sharing observations to alert
stress indicated; SA confirmation SA cueing
Team or group colleague; other adjoining ATC
Active
Splitting up a sector whether controller asks or not
Increases in traffic volume/complexity Inexperienced
Team Leader, Aisle Supervisor
Offering solutions before being asked; offering to take responsibility for traffic
High/complex traffic
Active
coordinating on behalf of controller doing calculations
Team, group colleague; other adjoining ATC
Further comments on Author 12 (Owen)
On Pg.8, the author finally got around to it: stating the aim of the paper. This belongs early on, in the intro, not in research design. That said, the stated aim is to report on “the relevance of teamwork measures in an ATC environment”. The paper doesn’t do this. The words “team” and “teamwork” are bandied about without formal definition of what they mean in this context, and it appears that the meanings implied are variable. Notwithstanding Humpty Dumpty’s maxim that “a word means exactly what I intend it to mean”, this isn’t much help if the reader doesn’t know the intended meaning. What the reported research actually does is to see whether US research ‘fits’ in Australia. This is a sound aim, but I have reservations about the methodology. The interview method, with pre-set questions, amounts to leading the witnesses. Contradictory information is unlikely to be elicited; witnesses know what sort of response the interviewer is seeking and it is a natural tendency to try to please the interviewer. It would have been much better to have asked neutral questions, in effect seeking to replicate the US research ab initio. As a general point, a journal article shouldn’t say “literature shows that..” without a reference or two. The aim of the research is praiseworthy, but the deficiencies noted need to be addressed to produce usable research, never mind a journal article.
