February 22nd, 2021

• Plan for outline for Tech in MTSs review make-public

  • motivation_section

    • Hook
      • From the earliest days of computing, humans have been fascinated by the affordances of computers. The ability of computers to instantly compute calculations that would take humans days or weeks was instrumental in war efforts, and their ability to autonomously carry out increasingly complex sets of instructions echoed dreams of computers that were genuinely intelligent. Yet, while visions of a future rich in computing generally see computers and humans as teammates working together and building upon each other's capabilities, the conceptualizing in the psychological literature of how this process should unfold has been limited and scattered. *
        • There are opportunities -
          using tech already, and will increase, and we have the potential to shape how those technologies are built if we can articulate our needs
        • Technology use will only increase with time, and we can influence how these technologies are built if we can articulate what we need from them.
    • Why psych lit missing perspective -
      • Psychology of team processes is a known thing - but limited efforts yet to understand how tech can build upon them, and presents unique challenges to them
      • Psych world - looks at tech as richness, sometimes as affordances/scaffolds. No one has pulled all together, given way to plug principles of tech into principles of teamwork
      • Teamwork in psych currently limited in how integrate thinking about technology. Communication richness lit, isolated external cognition pieces - no integrative framework for how to integrate thinking about tech into what we already know about team processes.
        • (e.g., @Kirkman.Mathieu2005, @Fiore.Wiltshire2016, and related papers)
      • Much of the discussion of technology published in psychological journals to date has centered around the idea of communication richness, the extent to which technology allows for rich virtual means of communication such that parties can communicate in real-time [e.g., @Kirkman.Mathieu2005]. Such a focus details how communication in teams is richer for its ability to bridge distances and space, but is necessarily generic in looking at communication broadly rather than a close examination of the processes through which teams are given leverage by complex technologies. Others have examined how to understand cognition when it merges both the human mind and the technological scaffolds it can build on [@Fiore.Wiltshire2016], integrating broad theoretical perspectives and breaking ground upon which this paper seeks to build.
        • Yet, even these efforts together do not fully describe the pathways by which technology can aid teams in their work, nor do they consider how technology interplays with existing taxonomies of team processes.
          • Efforts to try other wordings:
            • There is need for a framework to delineate the dimensions of present and future technologies these pathways or dimensions, and to consider how they interplay with existing taxonomies of team processes.
              • to delineate a framework of technologies, articulating the different pathways through which technology complements the work of teams, and to consider how these dimensions interplay with existing taxonomies of team processes.
            • There is need for a framework which delineates the pathways or dimensions by which technology aids teams in their work, and considers how these dimensions interplay with existing taxonomies of team processes.
              • "interplay" - there's room here for a colorful word, something that connotes dancing synergistically
            • Yet, even the integration of these efforts does not fully describe the pathways by which technology can aid teams in their work.
              • There is need for a framework that delineates the ways technology complements human teams, and considers how
              • There is need for a framework that delineates these pathways, and considers how they interplay with existing taxonomies of team processes.
    • How tech lit also has not had this yet -
      • No taxonomy of the dimensions of tech, understanding the foundational avenues by which technology and humans work synergistically. Breaking down the key mediums through which technology channels its capabilities. Important step in integrating theorizing literatures in psych and computer science.
      • Tech world - lack of grounding in psych principles, no one pulled into team processes yet
      • In another arena, the computer science and related literatures have long understood that there are various ways in which computers can help us, with distinct research streams taking different foci (CITE). However, these other literatures do not give due consideration to the specific processes by which teams operate, consideration which has received extensive attention in the literature on teams [e.g., @Fleishman.Zaccaro1992; @Grossman.Friedman.ea2017TeamworkProcessesEmergent; @Ilgen.Hollenbeck.ea2005; @Marks.Mathieu.ea2001TeamProcesses; @Mathieu.Maynard.ea2008; @Prince.Salas1993].
        • ~~ This paper will draw heavily on these efforts in articulating how technology can aid in teamwork processes specifically.~~
    • Plan to integrate tech dimensions, and articulate/present/theorize about how they inform specific team processes - for which we will draw on existing taxonomies
      • The goal of this paper is twofold. First, it aims to present a taxonomy that isolates the elements present in technology, articulating the key dimensions that underlie the affordances that every technology seeks to present. needs major rewording - see below Second, this paper will review the psychological processes present in teamwork, and will theorize on the affordances and challenges that tech introduces for each team process.
        • Trying rewording:
          • The goal of this paper is twofold. First, it aims to present a taxonomy of the elements present in technology, articulating the distinct mediums through which technology can be complement the work of teams. Second, this paper will utilize reviews of team processes to examine how mediums of technology introduce affordances and challenges for each team process.
      • The outcome of these efforts will be a framework that can guide future efforts with a more complete perspective on how to consider integrating technology into a future where machines and humans work synergistically. This framework will also present those working with a computer science perspective an understanding of the processes of human teamwork, and a consideration of how technology can complement or interfere with those processes; as well as identifying some promising next steps where future development of technology can be particularly helpful. *

    • dimensions of technology

      • Have a decent draft of this already in Scribbles on dimensions of technology
        • although missing the intro to transition into talking about each dimension, setting up what the section is all about
        • and will still need to put together a table

    • team processes

      • Build on previous taxonomies:
        • @Marks.Mathieu.ea2001TeamProcesses
        • add team learning (from where? is this adaptation)
        • Elisa's breakdown of sub-stages
        • Maybe some MTS work?

      • Structure:

        • Each process
          • how tech can help
            • Specifically - tech high in each dimension!!!
          • how tech can hinder/present challenges
          • examples of existing tech
          • opportunities? (maybe later instead, in own section)
          • Can I find research that talks about this???? That would make this so much more powerful... Otherwise I'm talking out of my hat for half the paper.
        • ❓Separate section of empirical from tech lit? Or integrate?
          • Would want to integrate dimensions and processes both conceptually, but also with a base from empirical literature *
        • Add section on MTSs? * **
      • table for Dimensions of Tech x Team Processes (this is a test, that is not working out well)
        • {{table}}
          • Process
            • Source
              • Definition
                • Communication Richness
                  • AI
                    • IA

          • f17PUyeVq

            • EfHbsHs3p
              • In which case, the challenge I put for y3_Y0wHEE would then move to that process.

            • MNS6d6VwA

              • Helps:
                • Clearer understanding of shared vision, through use of other mediums (i.e., collaborative virtual diagramming)
                • Makes visual diagrams more accessible to individuals who do not possess the skill to draw ideas on their own
              • Opportunities:
              • Challenges:

            • yTi0aYPpg

              • Helps:
                • Feed information to team, find potentially similar situations or missions from a huge database of previous similar situations that this or similar teams have faced, using algorithms to find similarities. What have past successes looked like, in a similar space?
                  • (Medical teams - think finding similar potential diagnoses or potential hazards before a surgery (this is being developed - need to find citations). Army teams, such as finding similar patterns of terrain from previous missions. Key for where AI more helpful, is where there is a) a huge amount of data to comb through, and/or b) very limited time to find relevant data and make decision.)
              • Opportunities:
                • (don't think this exists yet): Help with overlapping lexicons and unfamiliar languages. See here or here.
              • Challenges:
                • y3_Y0wHEE
                • Difficulty for humans to understand the capabilities of AI that may work with the team during a mission.

            • b19ipOqmp

              • Helps:
                • External scaffold to store and retrieve rich data about resource parameters that team must operate within, and team abilities
                • Project Management tools to help plan the timeline and scope of the mission (more specific breakdown is more relevant for strategy formulation, see later).
                • FhrmpqCVR
              • Opportunities:
              • Challenges:
            • @Marks.Mathieu.ea2001TeamProcesses
              • "Interpretation and evaluation of the team's mission, including identification of its main tasks as well as the operative environmental conditions and team resources available for mission execution" (p. 363 table, 365 text) definition

                • Would happen during staff meetings, retreats, AARs
                • Each team member thinks about their charge within the parameters of "team abilities, resources, and time constraints" (p. 365)
                • Verbal discussions to get shared vision of purpose and objectives
                • Includes both backward evaluation (AAR) and forward visioning
                  • Backward, we know that better they understand causes of previous performance, better can plan for future (Blickensderfer, Cannon-Bowers, & Salas, 1997)
                  • Forwards, interpreting future mission in context of environment
                • If don't do this step, will work totally reactively, and will be undermined by changing circumstances; and their efforts may be misguided until too late (Gersick, 1988)
                • me This sounds like a stage where teams would build shared interaction mental models and strategic models? Also, including AARs here means this includes the process of adaptation
                  • Edit - Not really. Seems to be more an overall first step - what are we dealing with, what have past successes looked like in a similar space (note, AI can inform this), how does that inform our plans for this. And the very specifics of how we'll get there are more part of strategy formulation.
                • Helps:

                  • Clearer understanding of shared vision, through use of other mediums (i.e., collaborative virtual diagramming)
                  • Makes visual diagrams more accessible to individuals who do not possess the skill to draw ideas on their own
                  Ease and enrich communication, especially across distances - enabling non-verbals

                  • Note - @Kirkman.Mathieu2005 suggest that all transition stage processes, are better handled in person *. Aspects of communication richness that allow a virtually distributed team to talk as if they were in the same room helps with this.
                  Clearer understanding of shared vision, through use of other mediums (i.e., collaborative virtual diagramming)
                  Opportunities:
                  (don't think this exists yet): Help with overlapping lexicons and unfamiliar languages. See here or here.
                  Challenges:
                  • Helps:

                    • Feed information to team, find potentially similar situations or missions from a huge database of previous similar situations that this or similar teams have faced, using algorithms to find similarities. What have past successes looked like, in a similar space?
                      • (Medical teams - think finding similar potential diagnoses or potential hazards before a surgery (this is being developed - need to find citations). Army teams, such as finding similar patterns of terrain from previous missions. Key for where AI more helpful, is where there is a) a huge amount of data to comb through, and/or b) very limited time to find relevant data and make decision.)
                    Feed information to team, find potentially similar situations or missions from a huge database of previous similar situations that this or similar teams have faced, using algorithms to find similarities. What have past successes looked like, in a similar space?

                    • (Medical teams - think finding similar potential diagnoses or potential hazards before a surgery (this is being developed - need to find citations). Army teams, such as finding similar patterns of terrain from previous missions. Key for where AI more helpful, is where there is a) a huge amount of data to comb through, and/or b) very limited time to find relevant data and make decision.)
                    (Medical teams - think finding similar potential diagnoses or potential hazards before a surgery (this is being developed - need to find citations). Army teams, such as finding similar patterns of terrain from previous missions. Key for where AI more helpful, is where there is a) a huge amount of data to comb through, and/or b) very limited time to find relevant data and make decision.)
                    Opportunities:

                    • (don't think this exists yet): Help with overlapping lexicons and unfamiliar languages. See here or here.
                    Challenges:

                    • y3_Y0wHEE
                    • Difficulty for humans to understand the capabilities of AI that may work with the team during a mission.
                    y3_Y0wHEE
                    Difficulty for humans to understand the capabilities of AI that may work with the team during a mission.

  • Implications

    • for psych researchers
    • for tech space?
      • Presumably, get to a place that machines for teamwork need to be tailored more specifically with these processes in mind

  • Opportunities for tech development

  • Previous thoughts that don't have a place for yet:
    • Tech world has short-term focus that's linked to money making in the short term; needs more academic work to help with long-term perspective. See
      Why is this work important? There's been so many great thinkers in the computer space - what are they missing? Tech in MTSs review motivation_section

      • Long-term focus, that is not linked to a money-making product in the short term *
        • (Not saying this paper solves that, but it seeks to provide a framework to those in psych space to start working on this, and they are the ones that may have contributions to make to the space.) Because...↵
        • Tech space is not necessarily thinking of the cognitive processes discovered in the psych lit to matter. Focus of this paper is on teamwork processes - but there's room for work in cognitive psych as well. future_directions
    • On adaptation being something innate to humans, that machines don't have yet: see here.
      • Also, think about how babies build schemas from single examples, while computers need to be fed millions of images. There's a distinction there that is important for learning.
  • Future directions - questions?
    • How effectively can leaders engage in perspective-taking for machines? How readily can they communicate with machines, and tell them to realign? Would they need boundary-spanners (i.e., programmers who would serve as "translators"), adding a layer between human and machine?
• What Zettels might I want to create for the tech paper?
  • One for each dimension
  • questions about future integration of humans and machines?