Training Adaptive Teams

Abstract

We report an experiment in which three training approaches are compared with the goal of training adaptive teams. Cross-training is an established method in which team members are trained with the goal of building shared knowledge. Perturbation training is a new method in which team interactions are constrained to provide new coordination experiences during task acquisition. These two approaches, and a more traditional procedural approach, are compared. Assigned to three training conditions were 26 teams. Teams flew nine simulated uninhabited air vehicle missions; three were critical tests of the team's ability to adapt to novel situations. Team performance, response time to novel events, and shared knowledge were measured. Perturbation-trained teams significantly outperformed teams in the other conditions in two out of three critical test missions. Cross-training resulted in significant increases in shared teamwork knowledge and highest mean performance in one critical test. Procedural training led to the least adaptive teams. Perturbation training allows teams to match coordination variability during training to demands for coordination variability during posttraining performance. Although cross-training has adaptive benefits, it is suggested that process-oriented approaches, such as perturbation training, can lead to more adaptive teams. Perturbation training is amenable to simulation-based training, where perturbations provide interaction experiences that teams can transfer to novel, real-world situations.