Skip to main content
Log in

The strengths and limitations of teams for detecting problems

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Layers exist in deep water in which there is a drastic temperature change from one layer to the next. When this occurs sound bounces off the interface between the two layers rather than propagating through it.

References

  • Cooper HSF Jr (1973) Thirteen: The flight that failed. Dial Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Crandall B, Calderwood R (1989) Clinical assessment skills of experienced neonatal intensive care nurses (contract no. 1-R43-NR0191101 for The National Center for Nursing, NIH). Klein Associates, Inc., Fairborn

  • Hoffman RR, Crandall BW, Shadbolt NR (1998) Use of the critical decision method to elicit expert knowledge: a case study in cognitive task analysis methodology. Hum Factors 40(2):254–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaempf GL, Wolf S, Thordsen ML, Klein G (1992) Decision making in the AEGIS combat information center (contract no. N66001-90-C-6023 for the Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center). Klein Associates, Inc., Fairborn

  • Kaempf GL, Klein G, Thordsen ML, Wolf S (1996) Decision making in complex command-and-control environments. Hum Factors 38:220–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein G (1997) Implications of the naturalistic decision making framework for information dominance (interim technical report no. AL/CF-TR-1997-0155). U.S. Air Force Armstrong Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (also published as DTIC no. ADA341758)

  • Klein G (1998) Sources of power: how people make decisions. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein G (2004) The power of intuition. A Currency Book/Doubleday, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein GA, Calderwood R, Clinton-Cirocco A (1988) Rapid decision making on the fireground (technical report no. DTIC no. AD-A199492, http://www.dtic.mil). U.S. Army Research Institute, Alexander

  • Klein GA, Calderwood R, MacGregor D (1989) Critical decision method for eliciting knowledge. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 19(3):462–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein G, Armstrong A, Woods D, Gokulachandra M, Klein HA (2000) Cognitive wavelength: the role of common ground in distributed replanning (final report under contract no. F33615-99-P-H562, AFRL-HE-WP-TR-2001-0029). Klein Associates, Inc., Fairborn (also published as DTIC no. ADB282561, http://www.dtic.mil)

  • Klein G, Feltovich PJ, Bradshaw JM, Woods DD (2005) Common ground and coordination in joint activity. In: Rouse WB, Boff KR (eds) Organizational simulation. Wiley, New York (in press)

  • Klinger DW, Gomes MG (1993) A cognitive systems engineering application for interface design. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 37th annual meeting, pp 16–20

  • Klinger DW, Klein G (1999) Emergency response organizations: an accident waiting to happen. Ergon Des 7(3):20–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovell J, Kluger J (1994) Apollo 13. Simon & Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrow C (1984) Normal accidents: living with high-risk technologies. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Prange GW (1991) At dawn we slept: the untold story of Pearl Harbor (Reprint ed.). Penguin, New York (afterword by Goldstein DM, Dillon KV)

  • Roberts KH (1986) Bishop Rock dead ahead: the grounding of the U.S.S. Enterprise. University of California, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Routley JG, Jennings C, Chubb M (1991) High-rise office building fire, One Meridian Plaza, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (February 23, 1991) (No. 049). Federal Emergency Management Agency, United States Fire Administration, National Fire Data Center, Emmitsburg

  • Sefton A (1992) Introduction to the first offshore installation management conference. Emergency Command, Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen

  • Smith-Jentsch KA, Johnston JH, Payne SC (1998) Measuring team-related expertise in complex environments. In: Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E (eds) Making decisions under stress: implications for individual and team training. American Psychological Association, Washington, pp 61–87

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn D (1996) The Challenger launch decision: risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE (1995) Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Westrum R (1982) Social intelligence about hidden events. Knowledge 3:381–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Wohlstetter R (1962) Pearl Harbor: warning and decision. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gary Klein.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Klein, G. The strengths and limitations of teams for detecting problems. Cogn Tech Work 8, 227–236 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-005-0024-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-005-0024-6

Keywords

Navigation