Cognition, Technology & Work

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 607–618 | Cite as

An evaluation method of team communication based on a task flow analysis

  • Kohei NonoseEmail author
  • Taro Kanno
  • Kazuo Furuta
Original Article


Effective communication is essential for positive teamwork irrespective of task types, and thus, team communication analysis methods have received much attention. Many methods for analyzing the relationships between team performance and team communication have been proposed; however, they have often only dealt with correlations between performance and communication in some specific contexts and have not directly identified problem parts of team task processes that require shared cognition in team. It is necessary therefore to develop such a method for evaluating team communication that is both task-independent and able to analyze problem parts of team task processes. This study aims to propose an evaluation method of team communication based on a task flow analysis and to verify the method by team experiments. The results implied that the new evaluation index named SCF can be applied to other team tasks and can identify problem parts of team task processes in terms of task steps. The characteristics of the index are also discussed using case studies.


Teamwork Team communication analysis Task flow analysis 


  1. Blickensderfer E, Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E (1998) Cross training and team performance. In: Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E (eds) Making decisions under stress: Implication for individual and team training. American Psychological Association, Washington, pp 299–311. doi: 10.1037/10278-011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bowers CA, Jentsch F, Salas E, Braun CC (1998) Analyzing communication sequences for team training needs assessment. Hum Fact J Hum Fact Ergon 40(4):672–679. doi: 10.1518/001872098779649265 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bunt H (2000) Dialogue pragmatics and context specification: studies in computational pragmatics. In: Bunt H, Black W (eds) Abduction, belief and context in dialogue. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 81–150. doi: 10.1075/nlp.1.03bun CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cooke NJ, Kiekel PA, Salas E, Stout R, Bowers C, Cannon-Bowers J (2003) Measuring team knowledge: a window to the cognitive underpinnings of team performance. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract 7(3):179–199. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.7.3.179 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cox G, Sharples S, Stedmon A, Wilson J (2007) An observation tool to study air traffic control and flightdeck collaboration. Appl Ergo 38(4):425–435. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2007.01.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Devine DJ (2002) A review and integration of classification systems relevant to teams in organizations. Group Dyn Theory Res Pract 6(4):291–310. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.6.4.291 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ekman P, Friesen WV (1975) Unmasking the face: a guide to recognizing emotions from facial clues. Prentice Hall, Englewood Clifls, NJGoogle Scholar
  8. Foltz PW, Martin MJ, Abdelali A, Rosenstein M, Oberbreckling R (2006) Automated team discourse modeling: test of performance and generalization. In: Proceedings of the cognitive science annual meeting, pp 1317–1321Google Scholar
  9. Gorman JC, Cooke NJ, Amazeen PG, Fouse S (2012) Measuring patterns in team interaction sequences using a discrete recurrence approach. Hum Fact J Hum Fact Ergon Soc 54(4):503–517. doi: 10.1177/0018720811426140 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Houghton RJ, Baber C, Cowton M, Walker GH, Stanton NA (2008) WESTT (workload, error, situational awareness, time and teamwork): an analytical prototyping system for command and control. Cogn Technol Work 10(3):199–207. doi: 10.1007/s10111-007-0098-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kanno T, Furuta K, Kitahara Y (2013) A model of team cognition based on mutual beliefs. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 14(1):38–52. doi: 10.1080/1464536X.2011.573010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kiekel PA, Cooke NJ, Foltz PW, Gorman JC, Martin MJ (2002) Some promising results of communication-based automatic measures of team cognition. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society’s annual meeting, USA, 46:298–302Google Scholar
  13. Kim AR, Lee SW, Park J, Kang HG, Seong PH (2013) Correlation analysis between team communication characteristics and frequency of inappropriate communications. Ann Nucl Energy 58:80–89. doi: 10.1016/j.anucene.2013.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. MacMillan J, Entin EE, Serfaty D (2004) Communication overhead: the hidden cost of team cognition. In: Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E (eds) Team cognition: Process and performance at the inter and intra-individual level. American Psychological Association, Washington, pp 61–82. doi: 10.1037/10690-004 Google Scholar
  15. McGrath JE (1984) Group interaction and performance. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  16. McIntyre RM, Salas E (1995) Measuring and managing for team performance: emerging principles from complex environments. In: Guzzo RA, Salas E (eds) Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 9–45. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00566.x Google Scholar
  17. Mesmer-Magnus JR, DeChurch LA (2009) Information sharing and team performance: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol 94(2):535–546. doi: 10.1037/a0013773 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Morris D (1977) Manwatching: a field guide to human behavior. Jonathan Cape, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Muniz E, Stout R, Bowers C, Salas E (1998) A methodology for measuring team situational awareness: situational awareness linked indicators adapted to novel tasks (SALIENT). NATO human factors and medicine panel on collaborative crew performance in complex systems, Edinburgh, North Atlantic Treaties Organisation, Neuilly-sur-Seine, pp 20–24Google Scholar
  20. Nonose K, Kanno T, Furuta K (2010) An evaluation method of team situation awareness based on mutual belief. Cogn Technol Work 12(1):31–40. doi: 10.1007/s10111-008-0127-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Paris CR, Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA (2000) Teamwork in multi-person systems: a review and analysis. Ergonomics 43(8):1052–1075. doi: 10.1080/00140130050084879 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Parush A, Kramer C, Foster-Hunt T, McMullan A, Momtahan K (2014) Exploring similarities and differences in teamwork across diverse healthcare contexts using communication analysis. Cogn Technol Work 16(1):47–57. doi: 10.1007/s10111-012-0242-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rosen MA, Salas E, Wilson KA, King HB, Salisbury M, Augenstein JS, Robinson DW, Birnbach DJ (2008) Measuring team performance in simulation-based training: adopting best practices for healthcare. Simul Healthc 3(1):33–41. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0b013e3181626276 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rousseau V, Aubé C, Savoie A (2006) Teamwork behaviors a review and an integration of frameworks. Small Group Res 37(5):540–570. doi: 10.1177/1046496406293125 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Salas E, Sims DE, Burke CS (2005) Is there a “big five” in teamwork? Small Group Res 36(5):555–599. doi: 10.1177/1046496405277134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Salas E, DiazGranados D, Klein C, Burke CS, Stagl KC, Goodwin GF, Halpin SM (2008a) Does team training improve team performance? A meta-analysis. Hum Fact J Hum Fact Ergon Soc 50(6):903–933. doi: 10.1518/001872008X375009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Salas E, Wilson KA, Murphy CE, King H, Salisbury M (2008b) Communicating, coordinating, and cooperating when lives depend on it: tips for teamwork. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 34(6):333–341Google Scholar
  28. Schmidt K (1990) Analysis of cooperative work: a conceptual framework. Risø Technical Report, Risø-M-2890, JuneGoogle Scholar
  29. Serfaty D, Entin EE, Johnston J (1998) Team coordination training. In: Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E (eds) Making decisions under stress. American Psychological Association, Washington, pp 221–245Google Scholar
  30. Sperling BK (2006) Information distribution and team situational awareness: an experimental study. Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 50th annual meeting. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, pp 477–481. doi: 10.1177/154193120605000356 Google Scholar
  31. Steiner ID (1972) Group process and productivity. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Svensson J, Andersson J (2006) Speech acts, communication problems, and fighter pilot team performance. Ergonomics 49(12–13):1226–1237. doi: 10.1080/00140130600612671 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Urban JM, Bowers CA, Monday SD, Morgan BB Jr (1995) Workload, team structure, and communication in team performance. Military Psychology 7(2):123–139. doi: 10.1207/s15327876mp0702_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of EngineeringThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations