Team task analysis: Differentiating between tasks using team relatedness and team workflow as metrics of team task interdependence

16Citations
Citations of this article
40Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objective: As a constructive replication and extension of Arthur, Edwards, Bell, Villado, and Bennett (2005), the objective of the current study was to further investigate the efficacy of team relatedness and team workflow ratings (along with their composite) as metrics of interdependence.Background: Although an analysis of task and job interdependence has important implications and uses in domains such as job design, selection, and training, the job analysis literature has been slow to develop an effective method to identify team-based tasks and jobs.Method: To achieve the study's objectives, 140 F-16 fighter pilots (35 four-person teams) rated 34 task and activity statements in terms of their team relatedness and team workflow.Results: The results indicated that team relatedness and team workflow effectively differentiated between tasks with varying levels of interdependency (as identified by instructor pilots who served as subject matter experts) within the same job. In addition, teams that accurately perceived the level of interdependency performed better on a four-ship F-16 flight-training program than those that did not.Conclusion: Team relatedness and team workflow ratings can effectively differentiate between tasks with varying levels of interdependency.Application: Like traditional individual task or job analysis, this information can serve as the basis for specified human resource functions and interventions, and as diagnostic indicators as well. © 2012 Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Arthur, W., Glaze, R. M., Bhupatkar, A., Villado, A. J., Bennett, W., & Rowe, L. J. (2012). Team task analysis: Differentiating between tasks using team relatedness and team workflow as metrics of team task interdependence. Human Factors, 54(2), 277–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811435234

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free