Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

“Where’s Farah?”: Knowledge silos and information fusion by distributed collaborating teams

  • Published:
Information Systems Frontiers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Cognitively-Based Rapid Assessment Methodology (C-RAM) system manages multiple-user interactions as users work with multiple information sources. Further, it allows users to view, exchange, organize, and combine the information available and it facilitates group decision-making. Three-member teams, randomly assigned in either the (a) view others’ whiteboards or (b) cannot view others’ whiteboards conditions, completed an intelligence analysis and mission planning task. Each team member was given access to a virtual whiteboard populated with decision cards (DCards) containing intelligence information constrained to a specific area of expertise. DCards can be assessed (rated) for decision impact and importance and team members have access to all DCards regardless of experimental condition. Team members who can view their teammates’ whiteboards during collaborative activities achieve significantly higher performance. When compared to teams unable to view others’ whiteboards, they move their own DCards less frequently, add fewer additional DCards to their own whiteboards, and rate others’ DCards less frequently. Additionally, rating one’s own DCards is the only process positively related team performance.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. (1998). Recent developments in working memory. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 8(2), 234–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. L. (1974). Working memory. In G. A. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: advances in research and theory, vol. 8 (pp. 47–89). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A., Chincotta, D., & Adlam, A. (2001). Working memory and the control of action: evidence from task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 641–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandon, D., & Hollingshead, A. (2004). Transactive memory systems in organizations: matching tasks, expertise, and people. Organization Science, 15(6), 633–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and communication. London: Pergammon.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. (2001). Reflections on shared cognition. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 195–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4(1), 55–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H., Reid, E., Sinai, J., Silke, A., & Ganor, B. (2008). Terrorism informatics: knowledge management and data mining for homeland security. New York, NY: Springer Science, p. xv.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, A. (1996). Information exchange and use in group decision making: you can lead a group to information but you can’t make it think. MIS Quarterly, 20(4), 433–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis, G., & Gallupe, B. (1987). A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Science, 33(5), 589–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doclos, F., & McCarthy, G. (2006). Brain systems mediating cognitive interference by emotional distraction. Journal of Neuroscience, 26(7), 2072–2079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, J. (2009). Countering terrorism with knowledge. In H. Chen, E. Reid, J. Sinai, A. Silke, B. Ganor (eds) Terrorism informatics. Springer.

  • Ellis, S., Gibbs, J., & Rein, G. (1991). GroupWare: some issues and experiences. Communications of the ACM, 34(1), 38–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, R. A. (2003). Information exchange and display in asynchronous C2 group decision making? SPAWAR Systems Center, San Diego; The 8th Intl C2 Research and Tech Symposium (ICCRTS).

  • Fleming, R. A. (2008). DCODE: A tool for knowledge transfer, conflict resolution and consensus-building in teams. In M. Letsky et al. (Eds.), Macrocognition in teams: theories and methodologies. UK: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gobet, F., & Clarkson, G. (2004). Chunks in expert memory: evidence for the magical number four... or is it two? Memory, 12, 732–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gobet, F., & Simon, H. (1998). Expert chess memory: revisiting the chunking hypothesis. Memory, 6, 225–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gobet, F., & Simon, H. A. (2000). Five seconds or sixty? Presentation time in expert memory. Cognitive Science, 24(4), 651–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grassé, P. (1959). La reconstruction du nid et les coordinations inter-individuelles chez bellicositermes natalensis et cubitermes sp. la théorie de la stigmergie: Essai d’interprétation du comportement des termites constructeurs. Insectes Sociaux, 6(1), 41–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayne, S., & Pendergast, M. (1995). Experiences with object oriented group support software development. IBM Systems Journal, 34(1), 96–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayne, S., & Ram, S. (1995). Group database design: addressing the view modeling problem. Journal of Systems and Software, 28(2), 97–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayne, S., & Smith, C. A. P. (2007). Cognitively-based rapid assessment methodology (C-RAM) final report. Office of Naval Research, Arlington, VA, Tech. Rep. N00014-06-M-0223.

  • Hayne, S., Smith, C. A. P., & Turk, D. (2002). The effectiveness of groups recognizing patterns. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 59(5), 523–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayne, S., Smith, C. A. P., & Vijayasarathy, L. (2005). The use of pattern-communication tools and team pattern recognition. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(4), 377–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, E. (1991). The social organization of distributed cognition. In L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasdale (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 283–307). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins, E. (1995). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19(3), 265–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishii, H., & Miyake, N. (1991). Toward an open shared workspace: computer and video fusion approach of team workstation. Communications of the ACM, 34(12), 36–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jessup, L., & Valacich, J. (1993). Group support systems: A new frontier. New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Lenz, P., & Johnson-Lenz, T. (1982). Groupware: the process and impacts of design choices. In E. Kerr & S. Hiltz (Eds.), Computer-mediated communication systems. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaempf, G., Klein, G., Thordsen, M., & Wolf, S. (1996). Decision making in complex naval command-and-control environments. Human Factors, 38, 220–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keel, P. E. (2007). EWall: a visual analytics environment for collaborative sense-making. Information Visualization, 6(1), 48–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, G. (1993). A recognition-primed decision (RPD) model of rapid decision making. In G. A. Klein, J. Orasanu, R. Calderwood, & C. E. Zsambok (Eds.), Decision making in action: models and methods. Norwood: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, G., Moon, B., & Hoffman, R. F. (2006a). Making sense of sensemaking I: alternative perspectives. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(4), 70–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, G., Moon, B., & Hoffman, R. F. (2006b). Making sense of sensemaking Ii: a macrocognitive model. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(5), 88–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kobayashi, M., & Ishii, H. (1993). ClearBoard: a novel shared drawing medium that supports gaze awareness in remote collaboration. IEICE Transactions on Communications, 76(6), 609–624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Experimental Psychology: Perception and Performance, 21(3), 451–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mickolus, E. F. (2002). How do we know we’re winning the war against terrorists? Issues in measurement. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 25(3), 151–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. The Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohammed, S., & Dumville, B. C. (2001). Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: expanding theory and measurement across disciplinary boundaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 89–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pendergast, M., & Hayne, S. (1999). Groupware and social networks: will life ever be the same again. Journal of Information and Software Technology, 41(6), 311–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirolli, P. (2005). Rational analyses of information foraging on the web. Cognitive Science, 29(3), 343–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roseman, M., & Greenberg, S. (1996). Teamrooms: network places for collaboration. Proceedings of the ACM CSCW Conference, pp 325–333.

  • Salas, E., & Fiore, S. M. (2004). Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance. Washington, DC: APA.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, A. (2004). Statistics on terrorism: the challenge of measuring trends in global terrorism. Forum on Crime and Society, 4(1/2), 49–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegal, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. (1986). Group processes in computer mediated communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 37, 157–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silke, A. (2004). An introduction to terrorism research. In A. Silke (Ed.), Research on terrorism: trends, achievements and failures (pp. 1–29). London: Frank Cass.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1974). How big is a chunk? Science, 183, 482–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stasser, G., Stewart, D. D., & Wittenbaum, G. M. (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: the importance of knowing who know knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 244–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stasser, G., Vaughan, S., & Stewart, D. (2000). Pooling unshared information: the benefits of knowing how access to information is distributed among group members. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 102–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • St. John, M., Smallman, H. S., & Voigt, B. D. (2006). SLATE scenario one: Taliban headquarters. Unclassified technical report. San Diego: Pacific Science & Engineering Group, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stefik, M., Foster, G., Bobrow, D. G., Kahn, K., Lanning, S., & Suchman, L. (1987). Beyond the chalkboard: computer support for collaboration and problem solving in meetings. Communications of the ACM, 30(1), 32–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Susi, T., & Ziemke, T. (2001). Social cognition, artefacts, and stigmergy: a cooperative analysis of theoretical frameworks for the understanding of artefact-mediated collaborative activity. Journal of Cognitive Systems Research, 2(4), 273–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theraulaz, G., & Bonabeau, E. (1999). A brief history of stigmergy. Artificial Life, 5(2), 97–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treisman, A. M. (1969). Strategies and models of selective attention. Psychological Review, 76, 282–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trujillo, H., & Jackson, B. (2008). Terrorism informatics: knowledge management and data mining for homeland security. In H. Chen, E. Reid, J. Sinai, A. Silke, & B. Ganor (Eds.). New York, NY: Springer Science, Chapter 9.

  • Varian, H. (1995). The information economy: how much will two bits be worth in the digital marketplace? Scientific American, 273(3), 200–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, N., Burkman, L., & Biron, C, (2008). Special Operations Reconnaissance (SOR) scenario: intelligence analysis and mission planning. Office of Naval Research, Arlington, VA, Tech. Rep. NAWCADPAX/TM-2008/184.

  • Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: a contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegner, D. M., Erber, R., & Raymond, P. (1991). Transactive memory in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(6), 923–929.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman & R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63–101). Orlando: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, C. D., & Liu, Y. (1988). Codes and modalities in multiple resources: a success and qualification. Human Factors, 30, 599–616.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittenbaum, G., & Stasser, G. (1996). Management of information in small groups. In J. Nye & A. Brower (Eds.), What’s social about social cognition: research on socially shared cognition in small groups (pp. 3–28). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yen, J., Fan, X., Sun, S., Hanratty, T., & Dumer, J. (2006). Agents with shared mental models for enhancing team decision makings. Decision Support Systems, 41(3), 634–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, G., & Simon, H. A. (1985). STM capacity for chinese works and idioms: chunking and acoustical loop hypotheses. Memory and Cognition, 13, 193–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is partially supported by Dr. Mike Letsky at the Office of Naval Research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    Stephen C. Hayne

  2. Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA

    Lucy J. Troup

  3. Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA

    Sara A. McComb

Authors
  1. Stephen C. Hayne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lucy J. Troup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sara A. McComb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen C. Hayne.

Appendix 1: The following text was taken from Warner et al. (2008) and describes the SOR

Appendix 1: The following text was taken from Warner et al. (2008) and describes the SOR

“In developing the SOR scenario an assessment was made of the types of cognitive tasks and decisions that were involved in intelligence analysis and mission planning. The assessment started with using Pirolli’s (2005) unclassified cognitive task analysis for intelligence analyst together with the advice Pirolli obtained from intelligence analysts at the Naval Postgraduate School. The results of this analysis were integrated with results from St. John et al. (2006) unclassified SLATE scenario. All this information was reviewed by Lt. Ford, an intelligence officer at the Mission Support Center, Naval Amphibious Base, Coronado. Updates were made to the types of tasks, information and decisions required by intelligence analyst and mission planners, which served as the foundation for the SOR scenario.” (page 8, ibid)

“All the information used for storyboarding was taken from unclassified open sources. In addition, all names were changed to reflect fictitious names along with dates. All photos were also changed, using photoshop, so that all pictures are fictitious. … The text of the SOR scenario was written around a story of “Denkapsa Farah”. The story starts May 26, 2006 where local intelligence indicates that an al-Qaeda element is reforming in the town of Disisabad in Eastern Afghanistan. This group may be attempting to strike a deal with a local, coalition-supported warlord, Denkapsa Farah. The overall instructions to the scenario problem solving team was: “Based on the intelligence provided, work together as quickly and accurately as possible as a team to:

  1. (1)

    Determine if Farah has an association with al-Qaeda (Task 1—1.5 hour)

  2. (2)

    Determine Farah location at a specific time (Task 2—30 minutes)” (page 9, ibid)

“The mission statement above provides the team members with the tasks they are to complete. The general background is a brief history of both the characters in the scenario and real events (such as the September 11 attacks) and people (Bin Laden). The other three sections of the scenario are Human Intelligence, Satellite Intelligence, and Additional Intelligence. Team members are required to share their information with their teammates to accomplish the task.

Human intelligence information

One member of the team is assigned the Human Intelligence portion of the scenario. The information provided to this team member involves such intelligence as hand drawn maps, written notes, banking transactions, phone records, and informant information. There are 15 individual pieces of human intelligence.

Satellite intelligence information

Another team member is responsible for the Satellite imagery in the scenario and has the satellite photos associated with each task. The photos depict buildings from a bird’s eye view as well as close-up with heavier detail and geographical information. There are 25 satellite images.

Additional intelligence information

The third team member will receive additional intelligence from the scenario. All other pieces of information not included in the first two categories have been placed into the “additional intelligence” group (i.e., maps, photographs, open source information, and tapped phone conversations). There are 10 additional pieces of information.” (pages 10–11, ibid)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hayne, S.C., Troup, L.J. & McComb, S.A. “Where’s Farah?”: Knowledge silos and information fusion by distributed collaborating teams. Inf Syst Front 13, 89–100 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-010-9274-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-010-9274-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation