NOTE: End date changed to 3/31/2022 per NSSC information and A. Beitman/HFBP (Ed., 10/20/21)

NOTE: End date changed to 2/11/2022 per NSSC information via L. Barnes-Moten/JSC (Ed., 4/7/21)

"Project FUSION: Facilitating Unified Systems of Interdependent Organizational Networks” aims to provide an evidence-based countermeasure toolkit to NASA to help facilitate the patterns of psychological relationships (e.g., shared understanding, influence) and behavioral interactions (e.g., coordination, information sharing) across Spaceflight Multiteam Systems (SFMTSs) that are needed to support long-duration/long-distance exploration missions. The Project FUSION research program is focused on establishing an understanding of the key drivers of relational state networks in SFMTSs as well as the patterns of relational state networks that are likely to support Long-duration Exploration Mission (LDEM) success. In turn, the overarching practical goal of Project FUSION is to provide an empirically-derived countermeasure toolkit designed to facilitate the relational state networks needed to support LDEM success.

We are conducting a programmatic stream of research that aims to identify: (Aim #1) the key factors affecting the networks of relational states within and between teams that support SFMTS coordination and performance (Team Gap 1); (Aim #2) the key developmental factors that trigger shifts in networks of relational states in SFMTSs over time (Team Gap 1); (Aim #3) the ways in which networks of relational states affect team and system coordination and performance (Team Gap 1); and (Aim #4) validated proactive and/or reactive countermeasures targeting relational states in order to support SFMTS coordination and mission success that are multicultural and able to be implemented into existing systems (Team Gaps 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, MPTASK-01 and -02).

To achieve these aims, we are connecting findings from three research foci:

Research Foci #1 comprises field research involving analyses of archival documents, interviews, and observations with NASA personnel and personnel in analog environments (e.g., hospital systems). The goal of Research Foci #1 is to provide contextually rich, in-depth information gathered from relevant academic literature and archival resources as well as NASA, analog, and international spaceflight personnel in order to (1) define the key characteristics, potential triggers, and performance outcomes for SFMTSs; (2) better understand existing countermeasures (e.g., training/debriefing); (3) evaluate how best to incorporate FUSION countermeasures into existing protocols; and (4) develop and refine our recommendations for two of our countermeasures (i.e., Countermeasure #1 FUSION SFMTS Task Analysis and Countermeasure #4 FUSION Multiteam Debriefing).

Research Foci #2 aims to supplement findings from Research Foci #1 in order to build Agent-Based Models (ABMs) of SFMTS dynamics that can be used to make predictions about the functioning of SFMTSs and, in particular, when and among whom mission-critical breakdowns in collaboration and coordination are likely to occur. In our FUSION SFMTS ABM, the people or "agents" in the model interact with one another in accordance with rules derived from our theoretical framework of multiteam functioning. The agents’ interactions will generate networks of important psycho-social relationships, like trust, influence, communication, or information sharing, within and between teams. The key goal of our FUSION SFMTS is to better understand the patterns of psycho-social relationships that are likely to arise in SFMTSs under different circumstances. We will compare the patterns of psycho-social relationships that are likely to occur to the patterns that are likely to be effective. We aim to help NASA identify situations in which the patterns of relationships that are likely to occur are unlikely to be effective and, therefore, help determine when certain countermeasures (e.g., training, debriefing) need to be implemented in order to facilitate multiteam coordination and performance. The human-subjects data collected in Research Foci #3 serves as the basis for the models developed in Research Foci #2.

In Research Foci #3, we are conducting laboratory and analog environment experiments with human subjects, which are designed to better understand the drivers and outcomes of relational state networks in SFMTSs. Research Foci #3 consists of a series of experiments with human subjects located in university laboratories and/or the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) environment. These experiments are intended to: (1) collect data from human subjects needed to refine and validate the model parameters in our SFMTS ABM (Foci #2); (2) test hypotheses about the drivers of psycho-social relationships in SFMTSs; (3) test hypotheses about the antecedents of SFMTS coordination and performance; and (4) evaluate the validity of our third countermeasure (i.e., Countermeasure #3 Project Red FUSION Multiteam Systems/MTS Training).

We are leveraging findings from the three research foci to develop, evaluate, and deliver a countermeasure toolkit aimed at steering patterns of relational states within and across SFMTS component teams to support LDEMs. Our toolkit will include four countermeasures:

Countermeasure #1: FUSION SFMTS Task Analysis Procedure: A structured procedure for understanding the characteristics and requirements of SFMTSs.

Countermeasure #2: Project RED FUSION MTS Training: A training tool designed to enhance understanding of the communication, leadership, coordination, and risk assessment demands of working in MTS contexts.

Countermeasure #3: FUSION Multiteam Pre-Brief/Debrief Recommendations: Recommendations for multiteam pre-briefing/debriefing procedures that reinforce lessons learned related to multiteam collaboration.

Countermeasure #4: FUSION Communication & Coordination Recommendations: Based on our series of archival studies, interviews, observations, experiments with human subjects, and virtual experiments using agent-based models (ABMs) of SFMTS dynamics, we will provide a series of recommendations regarding MTS communication and coordination protocols.

2.1. Analyses of NASA Archival Documents to Understand Effects of Spaceflight Multiteam Differentiation on MTS Adaptive Performance (Research Foci #1 and Countermeasure #4)

As part of Research Foci #1, we conducted a series of archival studies of NASA documents. In Y5, we continued to refine the results of these archival studies to identify key insights which can be presented to NASA to inform preparations for LDEMs. The results of the following study have implications for all four of our countermeasure toolkit recommendations.

Citation: Pendergraft JG, Carter DR, Pearman J, Shuffler M. 2022 Jul. Project FUSION: NASA critical incidents reveal the nature of multiteam system adaptation [Paper presentation]. The Interdisciplinary Network for Groups Research (INGRoup) Conference, Hamburg, Germany.

Background. High-reliability organizations (HROs; Weick, Sutcliffe, and Obstfeld, 1999), such as National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), rely on multiteam system work structures to tackle complex goals under uncertain, and often dangerous, circumstances that require members and teams to adapt to dynamically changing task demands. For obvious reasons, the stakes and circumstances which characterize these operations are difficult to simulate convincingly in a laboratory setting. However, by leveraging retrospective accounts of real-world operations within such environments, we can gain crucial insights into the characteristics of challenges experienced by organizations and MTSs operating under those circumstances and the attributes of MTSs which are able to successfully contend with these uncertain environments. Given the unique potential of this type of data source, we asked, "What MTS attributes and actions support (vs. detract from) adaptation in complex dynamic environments?"

Methods. To evaluate our research questions, we used a historiometric approach drawing on a large pool of 1,299 publicly available archived interviews. Our historiometric approach consisted of two phases. In Phase I, research assistants identified and extracted a body of critical incidents for analysis. In Phase II, five research assistants coded these incidents on 21 initial dimensions. These included attributes of the MTS itself (i.e., compositional, developmental, differentiation, and dynamism attributes) as well as those of the operational circumstances (e.g., the type of challenge encountered by the system, the outcome of the episode, etc.).

Results. The results of this study pointed towards three major insights. These insights provide important indications of major needs and risks in advance of planned LDEMs. In the following section, we discuss these insights in greater detail, as well as their projected implications for LDEM planning and execution. Insight #1: Unsuccessful adaptive performance appears to be more associated with social challenges than technical challenges. Insight #2: Effective adaptive performance was less likely when SFMTSs had high levels of norm/policy diversity between teams and took longer to resolve when they were successful. Insight #3: MTSs incorporating a dedicated integration team leading decision-making were more likely to adapt successfully to challenging situations.

Implications. During LDEMs, crews will face missions of unprecedented duration and distance, as well as an accompanying increased level of isolation and prolonged confinement within a relatively small space. These factors are likely to increase interpersonal strain and exacerbate social challenges above and beyond the level currently present in spaceflight missions. Given that social challenges have been shown to present the greatest challenges to NASA SFMTSs under current conditions, the increased level of social strain likely to be caused by LDEM conditions bears special consideration.

There is likely to be a substantial degree of norm and cultural diversity present within the systems executing LDEMs. Systems exhibiting a strong degree of norm diversity struggled to adapt to unforeseen challenges to a greater degree than norm-unified systems, as well as taking longer to adapt. The impacts of social challenges present in LDEMs may be mitigated through the use of targeted countermeasures focusing specifically on improving multiteam processes.

Finally, the vast distances traveled in LDEMs will impose the novel challenge of extended communication delays between the crew and Earth-bound teams at some points of the mission timeline. This lack of instantaneous communication will mean that the crew must operate with a greater degree of autonomy compared to previous missions, without immediate access to a dedicated integrative team which has proven so useful to NASA SFMTSs in the past. Lanaj and colleagues (2013) demonstrated that decentralized planning and related autonomous activities among component teams of an MTS could sometimes result in lower efficiency and performance, particularly due to the strong negative effects of excessive risk-seeking and coordination failures. Both of these factors (i.e., greater risk-seeking and lower coordination) have the potential to result in devastating consequences for SFMTSs. Organizations must be cautious when implementing training to equip MTS component teams to act independently of the larger organizational unit. While such independent action is one of the inherent benefits of the MTS structure, permitting or incentivizing too much independent action may have severe consequences. In the context of LDEMs, targeted preparatory training for more autonomous operations will be necessary but must be accompanied by training which mitigates its anticipated negative consequences.

2.2. Evaluation of Prebriefing/Debriefing Procedures within Healthcare Multiteam Systems (Research Foci #1 and Countermeasure #3)

Citation: Wolf AV, Hedrick KN, Begerowski SR, Wiper DW 3rd, Carter DR, Shuffler M. L. Making every meeting count: A qualitative investigation of multiteam meeting events and their role in supporting coordinated cancer care delivery. Online ahead of print. JCO oncology practice. DOI: 10.1200/OP.22.00388.

As part of Research Foci #1, we conducted a series of interviews and observations with subject matter experts in hospital multiteam systems. The results of this work were published in The Journal of Oncology Practice.

Purpose and Background. This research considers how cross-disciplinary cancer care meetings can facilitate coordination within the multiteam systems (MTSs) that provide inpatient hospital care. We conducted a series of interviews and observations with members of a single cancer care MTS to address the following research questions: (1) what are the key characteristics of MTS cancer care meetings (with regard to composition, focus, and structure)? and (2) how is cross-team coordination acknowledged and addressed during these meetings?

Methods. In this single-site case study of a MTS operating to provide gynecologic oncology care within a teaching hospital, two types of meetings, called rounds and huddles, were held consistently. We used qualitative methods, including interviews with healthcare professional subject matter experts and 30 hours of observations of cancer care meetings, and analyzed the data in three stages of qualitative coding.

Results. Our analyses resulted in a thematic framework detailing key processes and subprocesses identified as central to the activities of observed cancer care meetings. Key processes include information sharing, gaining clarity, strategizing, and pedagogy. Discussions and explanations of this framework showcase the ways in which MTS meetings can bolster cross-team coordination and facilitate MTS activities.

Conclusion. Inpatient cancer care meetings provide opportunities to facilitate MTS coordination in several ways, yet doing so does not come without challenges. Considering these results, together with insights from meeting science and MTS research, this article concludes by putting forward practical recommendations for leveraging opportunities and overcoming challenges to use cancer care meetings as tools to support cross-team coordination.

2.3. HERA C6 Data Collection (Research Foci #2 and #3 and Countermeasure #4)

Research Foci #3 consists of a series of experiments with human subjects located in university laboratories and/or the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) environment. Research Foci #2 is focused on building ABMs based on the data collected in Research Foci #3. Continuing into HERA C6, data collection was completed for Missions 2 and 3 during Y5.

Methods. The HERA/laboratory studies in Y2-Y5 leveraged the Project RED (Red planet Exploration & Development) computerized SFMTS simulation. In a Project RED simulation, four interdisciplinary teams work interdependently as a 12-person SFMTS to solve a complex task: designing a well to support a human colony on Mars. The Project RED simulation has been implemented in other NASA-funded projects and has demonstrated utility in examining the teamwork risks present in LDEMs. The simulation provides metrics of individual, team, and system performance. In a Project RED experimental session, four 3-member interdisciplinary teams work interdependently to solve a complex task: the design of a well to support a human colony on Mars. The Project RED software provides metrics of individual, team, and system performance. Participants complete a series of self-report surveys which provide information about individual differences and affective, cognitive, and instrumental states and relationships within and across teams throughout the simulation. The software interface provides digital traces to index information sharing and utilization, team attention allocation, and problem-solving unobtrusively. Chat, video, and audio data can also be used to examine intra- and inter-team interaction as it unfolds over time and in response to dynamic environments and triggers during subsequent analyses. Experience sampling surveys complement digital trace and coded data. Additionally, so as to better inform an eventual report on the individual differences related to inter-team processes, we are collecting an extensive battery of cognitive and non-cognitive individual differences and are evaluating the impact of these individual differences on relational states within and between teams and individual performance markers.

2.4. The Effects of Increasing Communication Delay on Multiteam Network Connectivity (Research Foci #3 and Countermeasure #4)

Citation: Carter D, Schecter A, Pendergraft JG, Pearman J, Dechurch L, Contractor N. 2022 August. Increasing communication delay decreases team network connectivity [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Seattle, Washington.

Background/Hypotheses. The success of an organizational team can hinge on whether team members develop and maintain dense patterns of connectivity in expressive (e.g., liking, trust) as well as instrumental (e.g., leadership, workflow) networks within multiteam systems. Unfortunately, developing and maintaining high levels of connectivity in multiteam systems may be extremely difficult for experiencing disruptions to synchronous (i.e., real-time) team communication. Asynchronous communication can be particularly problematic for highly interdependent multiteam systems where team members may depend on real-time interactions with one another to accomplish their own tasks (Rico and Cohen, 2005), such as the disruptions to communication that spaceflight crews are expected to face during long-duration exploration missions to deep-space destinations like Mars (den Otter and Emmitt, 2007; Fischer and Mosier, 2014, 2015; Kintz et al., 2016; Love and Reagan, 2013).

At present, crew members on the International Space Station (ISS) are able to communicate nearly instantaneously with fellow teammates who are located on the ground at Mission Control. However, long-duration missions will present major disruptions to these "normal" operations. As the crew travels further from Earth, the time it takes for radio waves to travel the distance (for messages to be sent and received) will increase dramatically—from about 2.5 seconds each way at the distance of the Moon to about 14 minutes each way at the distance of Mars itself (Love and Reagan, 2013). Potentially, these delays will wreak havoc on the expressive and instrumental interpersonal intrateam relationships that are needed to accomplish the mission (Maynard and Kennedy, 2016; Landon, Slack, and Barrett, 2018).

This research explores the impact of increasing delays in communication (i.e., decreasing synchrony) on expressive and instrumental multiteam systems over time in the spaceflight context. Building on prior research on virtual teams, which suggests that asynchronous communication can have negative effects on collaboration and coordination (Fischer and Mosier, 2014; Kintz et al., 2016), we expect communication delays to be negatively associated with network connectivity (H1). However, we also propose that multiteam members may recognize the potential negative effects of communication delays on their interpersonal relationships and may modify their communication styles in order to mitigate those negative effects. That is, whereas multiteam members who are able to communicate with one another in real-time may use complex, task-focused language and not feel the need to "sugar-coat" their messages, multiteam members communicating asynchronously may rely more heavily on positive and less complex language in order to maintain positive relationships with their fellow teammates (H2).

Hypothesis 1: Communication delay is negatively associated with connectivity in instrumental (H1a) and expressive (H1b) networks. Hypothesis 2: Communication delay is positively associated with positive sentiment (H2a) but negatively associated with language complexity (H2b).

Methods. We tested our hypotheses using data collected during six 45-day missions conducted in collaboration with NASA’s Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA). In each mission, 4 HERA participants (the "crew") collaborated four times on a simulation called "Project RED" with a group of 8 participants (i.e., the "ground"). Participants at different data collection sites or different rooms communicated using a text-based chat portal. Across the four sessions of each study, the degree of communication delay between the crew and ground was manipulated in each experimental session. At three time points during the course of each Project RED experimental session, participants responded to two sociometric items assessing instrumental network ties and expressive network ties, respectively. Participants were presented with a list of all 11 other team members and asked to select all other individuals to whom the item applied.

Analytic Approach. We analyzed the text of the messages sent from each participant A to each other participant B by calculating two metrics. The first metric, a "positivity" score, was calculated by counting the number of positive words in messages from A to B (based on Young and Soroka, 2012), subtracting the number of negative words, and dividing by the total number of words in the corpus. The second metric, "complexity," was calculated using the Flesch readability ease score (Flesch, 1948). We then examined the effects of time delay on network connectivity and communication using mixed-effects regression models in R (Bates et al., 2015). For the network-dependent variables, we used a logistic model due to the binary nature of the data, and for the communication variables we used a linear model. The communication variables were standardized for ease of comparison. In all models, we include the time delay as an independent variable. We also controlled for whether or not participants were in the HERA environment, what functional team in the multiteam system they were members of, and what mission phase they were in. We also controlled for the number of messages exchanged between participants. To account for the nested nature of the data (observations over time and within participants), we used mixed effects models, with a random intercept term included for each participant.

Results/Implications. Our analysis of network connectivity indicated that a greater time delay negatively impacts the formation of both instrumental and expressive ties. Specifically, the coefficient for delay in the regression model predicting leadership was negative and significant (b=-0.121, p<0.05). Interpreting this value as an odds ratio, we predict that an additional communication delay of one minute corresponds to an 11.4% reduction in the likelihood of an instrumental tie being reported, all else equal. The coefficient for delay in the regression model predicting enjoyment was also negative and significant (b=-0.203, p<0.01), corresponding to an 18.4% reduction in the likelihood of a tie for every additional minute of communication delay. Thus, we find support for Hypothesis 1.

Our analysis of communication patterns also revealed significant changes as a result of greater time delay. The relationship between delay and sentiment was positive and significant (b=0.084, p<0.001), indicating that individuals used more positive language (i.e., a greater rate of words with a positive connotation) when the time delay increased. We also found that a greater time delay was associated with significantly higher readability (b=0.115, p<0.001), indicating a lower level of linguistic complexity. Thus, we find support for Hypothesis 2. This study suggests a two-fold effect of communication delay for collaboration processes in LDEM multiteam systems. First, we find that communication delay is associated with diminished connectivity in the system-wide network. This suggests that although the crew might need to rely on the ground (and vice versa) in these extreme circumstances, the necessary leadership relationships might not form and/or might decay if they existed previously. Second, we find that people often make attempts to compensate for communication disruptions by using more positive and simpler (less complex) language. Potentially, although these changes to communication content might support the re-activation of social relationships between ground and crew, they might also pose problems for problem-solving in extreme circumstances.

2.5. The Impact of Team Membership Changes on Team Affect and Functioning (Research Foci #3 and Countermeasure #4)

Citation: Liu Y, Song Y, Trainer H, Carter D, Zhou L, Wang Z, Chiang, JT-J. 2022. Feeling negative or positive about fresh blood? Understanding veterans’ affective reactions toward newcomer entry in teams from an affective events perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online publication.

Throughout long-duration/long-distance space exploration missions, the membership and composition of teams and multiteam systems are likely to shift over time, creating potential challenges for maintaining positive psycho-social relationships and coordination. However, the majority of published research on team and multiteam collaboration has assumed there will be stable memberships throughout the duration of the team/multiteam lifecycle. Building on our prior review of extant literature relevant to understanding team memberships changes (Trainer et al., 2020), this year, we published empirical research (Liu et al., 2022) that helps to reveal the impact of team membership changes on the effect and subsequent teamwork processes of existing teams.

Abstract. New employees are often placed into existing work teams to meet the ever-changing work demands in today's organizations. Although research on organizational socialization has advanced our understanding of how newcomers adjust after joining a team, it remains largely unclear how team veterans navigate the same period of adjustment. Drawing upon affective events theory, we conceptualize newcomer entry into a team as a salient affective event that can trigger multiplex affective reactions among team veterans and ultimately shape team functioning (i.e., team processes and team performance). We propose that when a newcomer differs more from veterans in relational characteristics, such as trait likeability, veterans will have stronger negative affective reactions (i.e., stronger negative affect and weaker positive affect), whereas when the newcomer differs more from veterans in task-related characteristics, such as educational background, veterans will have stronger positive affective reactions (i.e., weaker negative affect and stronger positive affect) after newcomer entry. In addition, we propose that team performance prior to newcomer entry attenuates the strength of the relationships between newcomer-veteran dissimilarities and veteran affective reactions. We tested our hypotheses in a laboratory simulation (Study 1) and a field survey study (Study 2). The results provided support for our theoretical model that the entry of a newcomer can bring multiplex affective consequences for veterans, depending on the type of newcomer dissimilarity to the team and the team's prior performance. Theoretical and practical implications of our findings are discussed.

2.6. Evaluation of Project RED FUSION MTS Training (Research Foci #3 and Countermeasure #2)

Citation: Gerkin E, Carter D, DeChurch LA. (Defended 2022 June). Thesis: Project RED: Learning to lead multiteam systems. University of Georgia (Advisor: Carter, D).

Background. Our research team conducted an additional validation effort of the Project RED Training over two weeks with a sample of n=120 undergraduate students at the University of Georgia. Project RED Training is designed to develop trainees’ declarative knowledge of multiteam definitional features, challenges–particularly those associated with component team differentiation (Luciano et al., 2018)–and strategies associated with working within a MTS context. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree to which Project RED training enhanced trainees’ understanding of such MTS concepts, unique collaboration challenges, and cross-team interaction strategies in comparison to a similar single team-training activity called “Interstellar.”

Methods. Project RED is a paper-and-pencil-based training simulation involving up to 6 trainees per MTS. The simulation progresses in a series of three phases. During Phase I, each participant is assigned one of six roles and given a briefing document outlining their expertise and goals. Participants use their brief when choosing a landing site from among four possible locations. After each phase, trainees complete a "preference form" in which they specify their top landing site choices. The simulation is designed such that trainees’ preferences are likely to evolve after working within their teams (Phase II) and then again after working as a member of the multiteam system (Phase III). During Phase II, participants are assembled into two 3-person teams with differing goals. Participants then had 10 minutes to meet with their teams, discuss which Mars landing site they think is optimal, and fill out a team preference survey. In Phase III, the teams form a MTS or task force. Without knowing that teams had different goals, participants are informed that the teams in the training set are divided on the ideal landing site. Participants are then informed that the two teams must then work together to complete the same goal of choosing a landing site. Taskforces are given a new brief, which can be customized to teach how component teams’ differing goals impact multiteam system performance. Trainers can manipulate the extent to which teams focus on their team-level goals versus the broader system-level superordinate goal. Participants had 15 minutes to discuss which landing site the task force thinks were best. The task force then filled out a new preference survey.

Within Project RED, we also explored the use of a team-priority manipulation that is a customizable aspect of the Project RED multiteam training simulation. Each team within a task force was assigned to one of three different priorities: Team-, Compromise-, or Collaboration-focus. The Team-Focus asked participants to focus only on their team goals and not make any compromises. Under the Compromise-Focus, participants were told they would have to make concessions to achieve the superordinate goal. Lastly, the Collaboration-Focus had participants work collaboratively while still maintaining their team goals. Different combinations of science team priorities were used to create 4 conditions. Participants were debriefed during the third day of class and then took the multiteam system declarative knowledge measure for a second time (n = 136).

In order to evaluate the cognitive learning benefits of Project RED FUSION training simulation for teaching key lessons about multiteam collaboration (Kraiger et al.,1993), we compared knowledge scores of the same set of participants completing a team simulation and a multiteam simulation. Specifically, participants completed a 17-item, multiple-choice measure of MTS declarative knowledge. The test contained three subscales assessing general knowledge of MTS features, understanding of common MTS collaboration challenges, and awareness of effective strategies for working in MTSs. Participants’ declarative knowledge regarding MTS features and challenges was compared after trainees completed a comparable team-based training simulation ("Interstellar") to their performance on the same knowledge test after completing Project RED.

Interstellar is similar to Project RED FUSION in storyline–participants are tasked with choosing the best of three planets for a future human colony. Interstellar was completed in two phases. During Phase I, participants were assigned a role: A, B, C, or D and given a short brief outlining the activity’s goal and information on each planet option. Each role corresponded to a hidden profile (Stasser and Titus, 1985). Thus, each participant's brief contained unique information about the planets. Participants then filled out an individual preference survey. Afterward, participants formed “elite planetary science teams” (Phase II). Each team consisted of one participant from each role (4-person teams). Teams were given a new brief and 20 minutes to discuss which planet would be best. Teams then filled out a team preference survey with their planetary choice.

Results/Implications. Results demonstrate trainees’ knowledge of multiteam system concepts is greater after completing Project RED than after completing Interstellar. Specifically, knowledge of multiteam system definitional features was higher after Project RED than after Interstellar. Knowledge of multiteam system challenges was higher following Project RED than following Interstellar. Lastly, knowledge of multiteam system working strategies was higher after trainees completed Project RED than after completing Interstellar.

Further, the comparison of different priority conditions within Project RED suggests that trainees pursue their assigned priorities and that the systems may be less likely to succeed overall when one of the teams behaved competitively and the other was willing to make compromises. Project RED is designed such that Argyre is the best location for the Habitation team, Casius is the best location for the Discovery team, Eridania represents a neutral compromise, and Diacria is the most optimal location for the whole MTS. Findings indicated that MTSs with a competitive goal structure were split on choosing optimal and non-optimal landing sites. However, MTSs with an asymmetric goal structure chose more suboptimal landing sites if one component team was focused on their team-level goals while the other was instructed to make compromises. If the other component team had a more collaborative goal structure, the MTS chose less non-optimal landing sites. Asymmetric goal-structured MTSs with one team-focused and the other collaboration-focused, in fact, showed the same response frequencies as MTSs in the symmetric goal structure. Overall, these results provide evidence supporting the benefits of Project RED for training multiteam system lessons.

NOTE: End date changed to 3/31/2022 per NSSC information and A. Beitman/HFBP (Ed., 10/20/21)

NOTE: End date changed to 2/11/2022 per NSSC information via L. Barnes-Moten/JSC (Ed., 4/7/21)

We are conducting a programmatic stream of research that aims to identify: (Aim #1) the key factors affecting the networks of relational states within and between teams that support SFMTS coordination and performance (Team Gap 1); (Aim #2) the key developmental factors that trigger shifts in networks of relational states in SFMTSs over time (Team Gap 1); (Aim #3) the ways in which networks of relational states affect team and system coordination and performance (Team Gap 1); and (Aim #4) validated proactive and/or reactive countermeasures targeting relational states in order to support SFMTS coordination and mission success that are multicultural and able to be implemented into existing systems (Team Gaps 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, MPTASK-01 and -02). [Ed. note 2/8/2022: Human Research Program gaps have changed since the preceding referenced gaps--see Human Research Roadmap for updated information: https://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/ ]

To achieve these aims, we are connecting findings from three research foci:

Research Foci #1 comprises field research involving analyses of archival documents, interviews, and observations with NASA personnel and personnel in analog environments (e.g., hospital systems). The goal of Research Foci 1 is to provide contextually rich, in-depth information gathered from relevant academic literature and archival resources as well as NASA, analog, and international spaceflight personnel in order to (1) define the key characteristics, potential triggers, and performance outcomes for SFMTSs; (2) better understand existing countermeasures (e.g., training/debriefing); (3) evaluate how best to incorporate FUSION countermeasures into existing protocols; and (4) develop and refine our recommendations for two of our countermeasures (i.e., Countermeasure #1 FUSION SFMTS Task Analysis and Countermeasure #4 FUSION Multiteam Debriefing)

Research Foci 2 aims to supplement findings from Research Foci 1 in order to build Agent-Based Models (ABMs) of SFMTS dynamics that can be used to make predictions about the functioning of SFMTSs and, in particular, when and among whom mission-critical breakdowns in collaboration and coordination are likely to occur. In our FUSION SFMTS ABM, the people or ‘agents’ in the model interact with one another in accordance with rules derived from our theoretical framework of multiteam functioning. The agents’ interactions will generate networks of important psycho-social relationships, like trust, influence, communication, or information sharing, within and between teams. The key goal of our FUSION SFMTS is to better understand the patterns of psycho-social relationships that are likely to arise in SFMTSs under different circumstances. We will compare the patterns of psycho-social relationships that are likely to occur to the patterns that are likely to be effective. We aim to help NASA identify situations in which the patterns of relationships that are likely to occur are unlikely to be effective and, therefore, help determine when certain countermeasures (e.g., training, debriefing) need to be implemented in order to facilitate multiteam coordination and performance. The human-subjects data collected in Research Foci #3 serves as the basis for the models developed in Research Foci #2.

In Research Foci #3, we are conducting laboratory and analog environment experiments with human subjects, which are designed to better understand the drivers and outcomes of relational state networks in SFMTSs. Research Foci 3 consists of a series of experiments with human subjects located in university laboratories and/or the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) environment. These experiments are intended to: (1) collect data from human subjects needed to refine and validate the model parameters in our SFMTS ABM (Foci 2); (2) test hypotheses about the drivers of psycho-social relationships in SFMTSs; (3) test hypotheses about the antecedents of SFMTS coordination and performance; and (4) evaluate the validity of our third countermeasure (i.e., Countermeasure #3 Project Red FUSION MTS Training). We are leveraging findings from the three research foci to develop, evaluate, and deliver a countermeasure toolkit aimed at steering patterns of relational states within and across SFMTS component teams to support LDEMs. Our toolkit will include four countermeasures:

Countermeasure #1: FUSION SFMTS Task Analysis Procedure: A structured procedure for understanding the characteristics and requirements of SFMTSs.

Countermeasure #2: FUSION ABM: Agent-Based Models (ABMs) of SFMTS dynamics and recommendations based on the results of ‘virtual experiments’ addressing key questions related to MTS coordination throughout LDEMs.

Countermeasure #3: Project RED FUSION MTS Training: A training tool designed to enhance understanding of the communication, leadership, coordination, and risk assessment demands of working in MTS contexts.

Countermeasure #4: FUSION Multiteam Debrief: Recommendations for a multiteam debriefing protocol that expands on existing Space Flight Resource Management (SFRM) systems to reinforce lessons learned related to multiteam collaboration.

We have completed four major activities in Y4. First, as part of Research Foci 1, we completed a detailed study of MTS adaptation in spaceflight contexts using NASA archival documents (Pendergraft et al., 2021, Master’s thesis). Second, as part of Research Foci #1 and Countermeasure #4, we completed a study of the effects of structured prebriefing/debriefing procedures on team performance in an analogous MTS context, specifically within an interconnected system of healthcare teams (Wolf et al., 2021, Master’s thesis). Third, as part of Research Foci #2 and Foci #3, we completed data collection in collaboration with HERA Campaign 6, Mission 1. Fourth, as part of Research Foci #3 and Countermeasure #3, we completed an evaluation study of our Project RED FUSION MTS Training (Gerkin et al., in progress, Master’s thesis).

SFMTS Critical Incident Study (Research Foci #1): Pendergraft, J. G., Carter, D. R., Shuffler, M., Pearman, J., & Lofgren, R. (Master's thesis project defended Fall 2021). Master’s Thesis: NASA Critical Incidents Reveal the Nature of Spaceflight Multiteam System Adaptation. The University of Georgia (Advisor: Carter, D. R.).

Background. High-reliability organizations (HROs), such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), rely on multiteam system work structures to tackle complex goals under uncertain, and often dangerous, circumstances that require members and teams to adapt to dynamically changing task demands. However, little is known currently about the nature of multiteam adaptation, given that most empirical studies of multiteam system functioning have been conducted within controlled laboratory contexts with relatively short-term and stable task demands and most research on adaptation in organizations has focused on either individuals, small stand-alone teams, or entire organizations. This study broadened the understanding of multiteam adaptation by leveraging archival documents from NASA’s Johnson Space Center Oral History Project (OHP) to identify key elements of multiteam adaptation in HRO contexts. We conducted a three-phase historiometric study where Phase I involved the identification of 159 critical incidents pertaining to adaptation within a NASA spaceflight MTS. Phase II involved coding these incidents on an array of attributes pertaining to the central challenges, the circumstances and the attributes of the MTS involved. Phase III involved coding the specific adaptation behaviors engaged in by the MTS. Findings clarify the nature of the critical challenges NASA’s MTSs have faced in previous eras of spaceflight and the ways in which the systems have overcome those challenges.

Major Findings and Implications. In particular, this study revealed three key insights into the challenges facing spaceflight MTSs. (1) Unsuccessful adaptive performance appears to be more associated with social challenges than technical challenges, (2) effective adaptive performance was less likely when spaceflight MTSs had high levels of norm/policy diversity between their component teams, and took longer to resolve challenges even when they were successful in doing so, and (3) the great majority of challenging incidents (CIs) with successful outcomes involved a dedicated integration team leading decision making. These insights are further likely to interact with the context of future Long-Duration Exploration Missions (LDEMs) in ways which heighten the inherent challenges of those missions.

Although NASA has continued to develop an increasing body of experience-backed competencies in these areas, these social challenges nevertheless continue to constitute a substantial challenge to ongoing NASA operations. This trend is likely to continue, given the planned international scope of future LDEMs. Inherent in cross-organizational and cross-cultural operations are increased communication and coordination challenges, which may be further exacerbated by challenging political or operational contexts. Similarly, such operational difficulties are likely to be inherent in LDEMs, given the protracted mission timeframe, isolation of the crew, and technical barriers to communication imposed by the vast distances travelled.

Our second insight, that effective adaptive performance was less likely when SFMTSs had high levels of norm/policy diversity between teams, and took longer when it did occur, reveals further important information about SFMTS operations, particularly as they pertain to factors likely to be present in LDEMs. Norm diversity, a dimension of differentiation within the system, captures the degree to which component teams have differing implicit or explicit expectations about how to respond to situations, tasks, or events. These norms may be outright stated as rules (i.e., prescriptive norms) or may simply be a fact of the way the team tends to operate (i.e., descriptive norms). Regardless of their nature, the consequences of differing norms between the component teams comprising a system appears to be an increased risk of performance decrements. In addition to the increased risk of an overall unsuccessful outcome, high levels of norm diversity also appeared to lead the system to take much longer to resolve challenges as they were encountered. Although the distinction between resolution timeframe and outcome is important, they are more intimately tied in high reliability organization (HRO) operations than in other contexts. As NASA’s experience has shown, rapid resolution of problems as they arise itself represents a critical dimension of spaceflight MTS performance.

The impacts of heightened social challenges present in LDEMs and the likely high norm diversity within the system may be mitigated through the use of targeted countermeasures focusing specifically on improving multiteam processes. While NASA currently employs evidence-based practices for training and debriefing, these countermeasures are currently structured to address team-level factors. Multiteam focused countermeasures of the type being developed by this project specifically address the challenge of operating across team (and often organizational) boundaries, and can reinforce likely points of communication and coordination breakdown within the system.

Finally, our third insight revealed that integration teams play a critical role in facilitating SFMTS adaptation. Most often, this integration team took the form of the Mission Control Center (MCC) front room -- particularly in CIs involving a team actively engaging in spaceflight. However, these integration teams could also include specialized coordination teams developed for the sole purpose of coordinating activities around a single task or mission element (e.g., the EVA-Extravehicular Activity Project Office). Where these teams lead the decision making process within the system, the efforts of the other component teams were better coordinated, more efficient, and more effective -- directly contributing to a higher rate of successful outcomes. However, the vast distances travelled in LDEMs will impose the novel challenge of extended communication delays between the crew and Earth-bound teams at some points of the mission timeline.

This lack of instantaneous communication will mean that the crew must operate with a greater degree of autonomy compared to previous missions, without the immediate access to a dedicated integrative team which has proven so useful to NASA SFMTSs in the past. Lanaj and colleagues (2013) demonstrated that decentralized planning and related autonomous activities among component teams of an MTS can sometimes result in lower efficiency and performance, particularly due to the strong negative effects of excessive risk seeking and coordination failures. Both of these factors (i.e., greater risk seeking and lower coordination) have the potential to result in devastating consequences for SFMTSs. Organizations must be cautious when implementing training to equip MTS component teams to act independently of the larger organizational unit -- while such independent action is one of the inherent benefits of the MTS structure, permitting or incentivizing too much independent action may have severe consequences. In the context of LDEMs, targeted preparatory training for more autonomous operations will be necessary, but must be accompanied by training which mitigates its anticipated negative consequences.

Evaluation of Structured Prebriefing/Debriefing Procedures within Healthcare Multiteam Systems. Citation: Wolf, V. Annamaria, Shuffler, M. & Carter, D. R. (V.A. Wolf, defended October 2021). Master’s Thesis: Coordination In Healthcare Multiteam Systems: A Qualitative Study Of Healthcare Meetings. Clemson University (Advisor: Shuffler, M.).

This study aimed to identify how MTS coordination performance may be supported by pre-brief processes during joint-rounding in an interdisciplinary healthcare setting, and how countermeasures related to these activities may inform pre-brief procedures in MTSs within hospitals and other contexts (e.g., SFMTSs). Within healthcare contexts, specialized professionals work as members of MTSs to deliver care to their mutual patients. Communication and coordination breakdowns in these environments impact the lives of patients and the overall effectiveness and performance of the healthcare institutions. Joint patient rounding, particularly when interdisciplinary and representative of multiple teams, can counter MTS coordination breakdowns. Joint patient rounding involves the coming-together of healthcare professionals to discuss their patients and identify the course of action for their care, and provide the opportunity for inter-team collaboration. Research on interdisciplinary rounding suggests the implementation of rounds garners benefits for healthcare MTS coordination, for example, improved safety climate (O’Leary et al., 2011. Archives of Internal Medicine, 171(7):678-684), faster patient discharge (Southwick et al., 2014. Academic Medicine, 89(7):1018-1023), more efficient cross-provider communication (Riegel, 2018. Medsurge Nursing, 27(3)), and stronger cohesion and trust among providers (e.g., nurses and physicians) (Henkin, et al., 2016. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 9:201-205; O’Leary et al., 2010. Journal of general internal medicine, 25(8):826-832).

Our research team conducted a series of interviews (Study 1) and observations (Study 2) to better understand joint patient rounding (pre-brief/debrief) procedures within the context of a healthcare MTS. We collaborated with healthcare leaders of an inpatient nursing unit for adult oncology within a hospital located in the southeastern United States. The MTS included a physician team, a nursing team; members of these teams strive to engage in joint-rounding on a daily basis to discuss their mutual patients. The rounding practices contain elements of pre-brief, MTS planning for patient care, and de-brief of previous MTS action phases. Study 1 aimed to clarify the barrier and facilitators of these joint-rounds. Based on Study 1, we gained insight into the focus of composition of joint-rounds, and became aware of a second healthcare meeting ongoing in this environment. Firstly, Joint-rounds include an attending and resident physicians, and a nurse navigator (and ideally a registered nurse), and are focused on patients’ clinical and medical needs with a secondary focus on education for the physicians in training. The second healthcare meeting is composed of members of the nursing and case management team, and focused on what patients would need for a safe and timely hospital discharge. Study 2 was conducted to gain a deeper understanding of the procedures and processes within both of these healthcare meetings, and how they impact the MTS.

Study 1 Analyses/Results: Interviews with subject matter experts (SMEs). Using a qualitative research approach, transcripts were initially coded for behaviours, procedures, and activities that were either beneficial or detrimental to joint-rounding and MTS outcomes. Additional iterations of analysis revealed common sentiments across interviewees, and codes were condensed into descriptive themes and sub-themes related to facilitators of, and barriers to, effective joint-rounding. We identified procedures that were important to consider before, during, and after joint-round episodes. This suggests that pre- and de-brief episodes are impacted by preparatory and follow-up work, as well as activities occurring during the episodes themselves. Our results suggest countermeasures aiming to facilitate effective pre-brief and debrief during join-rounding. Based on the themes we identified, countermeasures may insure that: pre-round preparation & coordination occurs; that nurses and physicians engage in information sharing & planning during rounds and hold attitudes that indicate readiness to collaborate; that joint-rounding members involve & closing information loops with relevant others who did not attend the round, post-rounding.

Study 2 Analyses/Results: Observations of Hospital System MTSs. Our qualitative analysis revealed four key processes and sub-processes that capture how meetings within this researched environment facilitates patient care within the MTS. Namely, members used these meetings for the purposes of informing and gaining clarity about the patients, other teams, and upcoming plans. This illustrates how the central purpose of the MTS (patient care) is addressed, but also inter-team interdependencies (other teams). Within these themes, we see elements of de-briefing procedures that allow members to discuss previous events and establish shared awareness of the current situation prior to taking, or planning, further action. We found that the latter activities fell under strategizing processes wherein care plans were developed and adjusted, at times with the understanding that they would be enacted contingent upon other factors. Within the strategizing process, we also see the intention to coordinate with other teams in pursuit of shared goals. Elements of pre-briefing are evident within this process, where members establish and orient themselves to upcoming objectives. The final process identified, i.e., pedagogy, was only present within the meeting among physicians and nurse navigators, while the former processes occurred across meetings. This process captures activities related to learning, teaching, lecturing, and quizzing for the benefit of resident physician’s medical education.

This research begins to identify and deconstruct the processes that occur during joint rounds and healthcare meetings, and how these facilitate inter-team coordination. Understanding how such meetings facilitate coordination at the system-level can inform NASA. In consideration of countermeasure #4, NASA may draw from these findings to structure meetings and develop protocols to support integration across multiple meetings occurring within SFMTSs. In particular, our findings support pre-briefing and debriefing as useful strategies for orienting meeting members to previous and upcoming events, which, in combination with cross-team considerations, can enhance the multiteam focus and thereby support cross-team coordination. Future research is needed to understand how the focus of multi-team, interdisciplinary meetings ought to be prioritized depending on the needs of the MTS. In the case of our research, we beg the question of under what circumstances rounding meetings should emphasize pedagogy that supports resident learning over patient-care focused strategizing for patient care planning. This question is relevant for SFMTSs, which are also dynamic environments where priorities shift, and where focusing one's attention on the most pertinent objectives can be the difference between life or death.

HERA Campaign 6 Mission 1 Data Collection, Fall 2021

Research Foci 3 consists of a series of experiments with human subjects located in university laboratories and/or the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) environment. Research Foci 2 is focused on building ABMs based on the data collected in Research Foci 2. In Y2-Y3 we completed a first round of data collection in the HERA analog environment, successfully completing Project RED (Red planet Exploration & Development) experimental sessions during the four missions of HERA Campaign 5. During Y4, we completed data collection during HERA Campaign 6 Mission 1, following the resumption of HERA operations after COVID-related delays during 2020. Continuing into HERA C6, data collection will be used for the testing of specific hypotheses regarding MTS composition, development, communication and coordination. Additionally, HERA C6 data will be used to bolster and further validate our ABMs.

Methods. The HERA/laboratory studies in Y2-Y4 leveraged the Project RED (Red planet Exploration & Development) computerized SFMTS simulation. In a Project RED simulation, four interdisciplinary teams work interdependently as a 12-person SFMTS to solve a complex task: designing a well to support a human colony on Mars. The Project RED simulation has been implemented in other NASA-funded projects and has demonstrated utility in examining the teamwork risks present in LDEMs. The simulation provides metrics of individual, team, and system performance. The Project RED software provides metrics of individual, team, and system performance. System performance is indexed in terms of both efficiency and ingenuity, both important aspects of space mission team success. Participants complete a series of self-report surveys which provide information about individual differences, and affective, cognitive, and instrumental states and relationships within and across teams throughout the simulation. The software interface provides digital traces to index information sharing and utilization, team attention allocation, and problem solving unobtrusively. Chat, video, and audio data can also be used to examine intra- and inter-team interaction as it unfolds over time and in response to dynamic environments and triggers during subsequent analyses.

Evaluation of Countermeasure #3 (Project RED FUSION MTS Training). Citation: Gerkin, E., Carter, D., & DeChurch, L.A. (Expected Defense Date: Spring 2022). Thesis: Project RED: A multiteam system training simulation. University of Georgia (Advisor: Carter, D.).

Background. Our research team conducted an additional validation effort of the Project RED Training over the course of two weeks (4 class periods) with a sample of n = 120 undergraduate students enrolled in a Social Psychology course at the University of Georgia. Project RED Training is designed to develop trainees’ declarative knowledge of multiteam definitional features, challenges – particularly those associated with component team differentiation (Luciano et al., 2018) – and strategies associated with working within a MTS context. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the degree to which Project RED training enhanced trainees’ understanding of such MTS concepts, unique collaboration challenges, and cross-team interaction strategies in comparison to a similar single team-training activity called “Interstellar.” Project RED emphasizes team and multiteam collaboration; as such, we hypothesized that trainees’ scores on a declarative knowledge measure assessing understanding of multiteam system issues would be higher after completing Project RED than after Interstellar.

Within Project RED, we also explored the use of a team-priority manipulation that is a customizable aspect of the Project RED multiteam training simulation. Each team within a MTS was assigned to one of three different priorities – Team-, Compromise-, or Collaboration-focus. The Team-Focus asked participants to focus only on their team goals and not make any compromises. Under the Compromise-Focus, participants were told they would have to make concessions to achieve the overall goal of the MTS. Lastly, the Collaboration-Focus had participants work collaboratively while still maintaining their team goals. Different combinations of team priorities were used to create 4 manipulation conditions.

Results/Implications. Results of preliminary analyses support the notion that trainees’ knowledge of multiteam system concepts is greater after completing Project RED than after completing Interstellar. Specifically, knowledge of multiteam system definitional features was higher after Project RED than after Interstellar. Lastly, knowledge of multiteam system working strategies was higher after trainees’ completed Project RED than after completing Interstellar. Further, the comparison of different priority conditions within Project RED suggest that trainees did, in fact, pursue their assigned priorities and that the systems might be less likely to succeed overall when one or more teams behaved competitively. Overall, these results provide preliminary evidence supporting the benefits of Project RED for training multiteam system lessons.

NOTE: End date changed to 2/11/2022 per NSSC information via L. Barnes-Moten/JSC (Ed., 4/7/21)

In Y3, we have built on our previous Foci 1 efforts from Y1 and Y2 in three major ways. First, we finalized three publications which synthesized different aspects of the academic literature (i.e., MTSs; leadership in interteam contexts, dynamic team memberships) in order to better understand SFMTS functioning, and we began a fourth review of the academic literature on team debriefing. The first literature review project synthesized the MTS literature as it relates to the context of LDEM. The resulting published book chapter clarifies the key characteristics of SFMTSs, delineates anticipated teamwork challenges during LDEM, and advances an overarching framework for a countermeasure toolkit that allows NASA personnel to systematically understand, anticipate, diagnose, and facilitate SFMTS functioning throughout the mission. The second literature review project within Research Foci 1 was a review and synthesis of relevant literature related to leadership in interteam contexts (such as SFMTS contexts involving multiple interdependent teams). The resulting published annual review revealed that in comparison to leadership targeted within teams in support of team-level goals, defining ‘what’ constitutes functionally effective leadership in interteam contexts requires greater precision with regard to ‘where’ (i.e., within teams, across teams) and ‘why’ (i.e., in support of team goals, system goals, etc.) leadership processes are enacted, as well as greater consideration of ‘when’ (i.e., under what circumstances) and among ‘whom’ (i.e., which people) leadership processes arise. The third literature review project within Research Foci 1 was a review and synthesis of academic research related to changes in team memberships over time. Our published literature review demonstrates the importance of characteristics across the individual-, team-, and organizational-levels for improving teams’ adaptability to membership changes. Our review also demonstrates that changes in team membership can trigger a series of other events and outcomes for individuals, teams, and the embedding organization. For NASA personnel, changes in the mission control team membership may have ramifications for spaceflight team functioning. In Y3, we conducted an extensive literature review to better understand the current state of the literature on team debriefing. Team debriefs are especially necessary within dynamic, high-stakes environments that require team members to continuously adapt to changing circumstances. An SFMTS context presents additional challenges related to communication, cohesion, and situational/risk awareness. Our goal is to leverage the extant literature on team debriefing in order to provide NASA recommendations for expanded debriefing protocols in multiteam contexts.

Second, we are conducting three projects leveraging archival sources to better understand SFMTS functioning. Alongside reviews of academic research, interviews, and observations, these studies provide a foundation for the other two research research foci by providing a grounded and inductive examination of NASA SFMTS processes. Archival examinations of these processes are particularly useful for capturing long-term trends which can be difficult to access through alternate forms of data. In our first publication based on an analysis of archival documentation, we documented how the lessons learned during these prior eras of spaceflight will combine to inform decisions in preparation for a forthcoming fourth era of spaceflight focusing on LDEMs. The second of these publications utilized a critical incident (CI) technique to identify specific events that have occurred in prior SFMTSs, the outcomes of which are clearly tied to behaviors demonstrated by the individuals and teams involved. This study serves to begin to break apart the specifics of how shifting inter-team autonomy is exhibited within teams (i.e., crew claiming, mission control granting) in space and what team boundary work (i.e., buffering) looks like in SFMTSs. Further, this study may serve as a springboard for further research to continue to investigate the specifics of these processes as well as continue to examine them through other, varied methods. Our final ongoing publication in this area seeks to develop a practical understanding of MTS adaptation within the high-stakes environment of spaceflight by leveraging a historiometric approach.

Third, we continued to refine our interview and observational protocols, and we conducted a pilot observational study session. These projects are designed to support a deeper understanding of the SFMTS context, evaluate our first countermeasure (i.e., the FUSION SFMTS Task Analysis Procedure), and provide the basis of our fourth countermeasure (i.e., FUSION Debriefing). In preparation for the larger interview study, we conducted a series of preliminary interviews with NASA personnel focusing on developing our understanding of key aspects of SFMTS functioning, and NASA operations more generally. These initial interviews consisted of a joint field trial of our preliminary interview protocol, and an information gathering focus regarding key linkages within NASA aimed at improving our sampling during future interviews. In preparation for further observations, we are coordinating with the Flight Operations Directorate (FOD) and seeking further approval for subsequent observations of training and other activities of NASA personnel in 2021. Thus far, we have successfully completed one virtual observation of an extravehicular activity (EVA) training activity with FOD personnel via Microsoft Teams in April 2020. During this observation, we piloted our proposed observational data collection format, successfully collecting information on a number of areas of interest. We also conducted interviews and observations of MTSs in analogous circumstances, including healthcare and emergency response settings.

Given that SFMTSs are highly complex and dynamic, it is often difficult for personnel involved in mission planning and support to project the combined effects of all possible internal and external factors that may impact SFMTS functioning throughout the duration of a LDEM. To help address these challenges, Research Foci 2 aims to supplement findings from Research Foci 1 in order to build an Agent-Based Model (ABM) of SFMTS dynamics that can be used to make predictions about the functioning of SFMTSs and, in particular, when and among whom mission-critical breakdowns in collaboration and coordination are likely to occur.

Currently members of our research team are working to formalize a complete version of our ABM of MTS dynamics. Our research team will refine the model using data collected in the Project RED Laboratory studies during Y1-Y3 (Foci 3). To fit an ABM to an empirical setting, the parameters are trained on empirical data by matching the emergent phenomena of the model with observed outcomes. The data needed for this verification is being collected in the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) environment. As stated in the project proposal, all code and documentation associated with the expanded, docked, and refined FUSION SFMTS ABM will be delivered to NASA by the end of the project.

Research Foci 3 consists of a series of experiments with human subjects located in university laboratories and/or the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) environment. In Y2-Y3 we completed a first round of data collection in the HERA analog environment, successfully completing Project RED experimental sessions during the four missions of HERA Campaign 5. We executed the first of our planned Project RED studies in accordance with the goals articulated in our initial proposal and definitional phase documents. This first round of data collection, upon completion, will form the basis for the generation and estimation of our initial ABM. Our studies in C5 evaluate the antecedents of relational state networks in SFMTSs, and in particular, consider the role of team differentiation factors such as geographic distance and differences in expertise priorities. Data collected as part of HERA C5 is being used to create the SFMTS ABM (Foci 2) and additionally, as primary data used to test specific hypotheses about SFMTS functioning.

Our third countermeasure is the Project RED FUSION Training program which leverages a simplified table-top (paper-and-pencil) version of the Project RED computerized simulation being implemented in the laboratory and analog environment experiments. The Project RED FUSION Training is designed to teach trainees about the interteam collaboration and communication demands of working in a MTS. The training builds on the foundation of team skills learned during Spaceflight Resource Management (SFRM) training by emphasizing additional inter-team collaboration demands associated with working in a larger system.

In Y3, we conducted two validations of our Project RED FUSION Training program. First our research team conducted an initial validation effort of the Project RED FUSION Training with a sample of 128 professional masters students enrolled in a Collaborative Leadership course at Northwestern University. One of the key lessons that the MTS activity is designed to reinforce is that it is important to consider and integrate multiple goals when working in a larger system and to understand that other individuals from other teams may hold different priorities. In order for a MTS to perform effectively, constituent members and teams may need to value and work toward the superordinate goal of the system, which requires collaborative interaction across multiple teams. This validation effort provided encouraging early indications of the viability of directed multiteam training to improve collaborative processes among teams in a SFMTS. Awareness and commitment to the overarching superordinate goal of the system is often a precursor to effective inter-team collaboration. Our research team is currently in the process of collecting additional validation evidence using a second masters level course on leading teams.

Second, our research team conducted an additional validation effort of the Project RED FUSION Training over the course of two weeks (4 class periods) with a sample of n = 120 undergraduate students enrolled in a Social Psychology course at the University of Georgia. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the degree to which Project RED FUSION training enhanced trainees’ understanding of MTS concepts and unique collaboration challenges in comparison to a team-training activity. Compared to a standalone team activity, participants’ knowledge of MTSs significantly increased after the Project RED FUSION multiteam activity. Therefore, the present study provides support for Project RED FUSION as an effective training approach to teach MTS concepts and unique collaboration issues.

RESEARCH FOCI 1: The goal of Research Foci 1 is to provide contextually rich, in-depth information gathered from relevant academic literature and archival resources as well as NASA, analog, and international spaceflight personnel in order to define the key characteristics, potential triggers, and performance outcomes for SFMTSs and better understand and evaluate existing interventions and advance new countermeasures for SFMTS coordination and performance. Given the unique characteristics of LDEM SFMTSs, such detailed information is necessary to both understand current multiteam systems (MTSs) involved in spaceflight as well as begin to predict the critical challenges of future LDEMs. By capturing this rich information, our research team will be able to better tailor our eventual countermeasures to the unique challenges facing MTSs operating in spaceflight contexts, and in particular those tasked with completing LDEMs.

During the current reporting period, our research team completed extensive reviews of several areas of academic literature relevant to the focus of Project FUSION. These included reviews of research on MTSs and interventions to support MTS functioning, the literature pertaining to team membership change events (i.e., members joining or departing from work teams), and research on leadership in interteam contexts. Additionally, we completed a synthesis archival documents tracking the development and adaptation of Mission Control Center (MCC) over the course of NASA’s 60 year operational history. Further, we began two archival document-based studies of adaptation in NASA’s SFMTSs more broadly, expected to conclude during the first half of Y3. Finally, we laid the groundwork for observational and interview studies to take place in Y3 by conducting a series of pilot interviews with NASA personnel and formalizing procedures and documentation needed for the forthcoming data collection. The results of these and subsequent efforts in Y3 will be used to guide our investigations in the remaining two research foci, as well as our eventual recommendations regarding the application of our countermeasure toolkit.

As part of Research Foci 1, we are developing and evaluating a “FUSION Multiteam Task Analysis Procedure” (i.e., Countermeasure #1). The FUSION SFMTS Task Analysis Procedure is intended to be used by researchers and NASA personnel to help clarify the projected goals and tasks of SFMTSs, the patterns of intra-team and inter-team relationships and interactions that are necessary to achieve projected goals, and key performance indicators reflective of goal achievement. To create the prototype of this countermeasure, we expanded and combined existing team task analysis procedures, as well as interview and observational protocols which have been used by members of our research team in other multiteam system contexts. Whereas a team task analysis is a structured approach used to understand the task-related and interpersonal competencies and conditions necessary for the success of a single team, a multiteam task analysis is used to understand both the intra-team as well as the inter-team task-related and interpersonal competencies and conditions necessary for the success of a larger interdependent system. We are leveraging key elements of the FUSION SFMTS task analysis procedure (e.g., archival analyses, interviews, observations) within Research Foci 1 to better understand the demands facing the types of SFMTSs that are likely to be involved in future LDEMs.

RESEARCH FOCI 2: Given that SFMTSs are highly complex and dynamic, it is often difficult for personnel involved in mission planning and support to project the combined effects of all possible internal and external factors that may impact SFMTS functioning throughout the duration of a LDEM. To help address these challenges, Research Foci 2 aims to supplement findings from Research Foci 1 in order to build an agent-based model (ABM) of SFMTS dynamics that can be used to make predictions about the functioning of SFMTSs and, in particular, when and among whom mission-critical breakdowns in collaboration and coordination are likely to occur. Broadly, ABMs are computer simulations that provide insights into patterns of emergent behavior resulting from actions and interactions within complex systems. In an ABM, a set of agents, for example, crew and MCC members in a SFMTS, are seeded with a set of characteristics (e.g., demographics, personality, team memberships, training experience) which replicate the composition of actual SFMTS component teams, as well as a set of theoretically-derived rules guiding their actions and interactions with other agents. In our FUSION SFMTS ABM, the agents in the model (i.e., SFMTS members) will interact with one another in accordance with rules derived from our theoretical framework of multiteam functioning. The agents’ interactions will generate networks of important psycho-social relationships, like trust, influence, communication, or information sharing, within and between teams.

The key goal of the FUSION SFMTS ABM is to better understand the patterns of psycho-social relationships that are likely to arise in SFMTSs under different circumstances. We will compare the patterns of psycho-social relationships that are likely to occur to the patterns that are likely to be effective. We aim to help NASA identify situations in which the patterns of relationships that are likely to occur are unlikely to be effective, and therefore, help determine when certain countermeasures (e.g., training, debriefing) need to be implemented in order to facilitate multiteam coordination and performance. At the conclusion of the project, all code and documentation associated with the FUSION SFMTS ABM will be delivered to NASA. In addition to the computer code and associated documentation, we will use the results of virtual experiments to develop and deliver a FUSION Decision-Making Guidebook Countermeasure (Countermeasure #2) for use by NASA personnel involved in mission planning and support. The guidebook will be designed to be used by Behavioral Health and Performance (BHP) personnel to provide recommendations for the strategic application of other countermeasures (e.g., training, debriefing, mission planning, etc.) to best support mission success. To build the guidebook, Project FUSION researchers will begin by working closely with BHP personnel to identify approximately 20-30 core research questions related to multiteam collaboration in future missions that will be tested using ABM virtual experimentation.

During Y2, we constructed a detailed plan for building this computer model which will involve combining and expanding two other ABMs being developed in two other NASA-funded research projects. Early in Y3, at the conclusion of the current Human Experimentation Research Analog (HERA) Campaign 5, our research team will complete the construction of our model using data collected with human subjects during Y1 and Y2. During this process, the model is ‘trained’ using data collected from human subjects (as part of Research Foci 3).

RESEARCH FOCI 3: Research Foci 3 consists of a series of MTS laboratory and analog study experiments with human subjects located in university laboratories and/or the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) environment in Houston, Texas. These experiments are intended to: (1) collect data from human subjects needed to refine and validate our SFMTS ABM (Foci 2); (2) test hypotheses about the motivations and behaviors involved in interactions within SFMTSs; (3) test hypotheses about the conditions that lead to effective coordination and performance in SFMTSs; and (4) evaluate two of our countermeasures: expanded training and debriefing procedures for use in SFMTSs. The experiments in Foci 3, are designed to reflect key attributes of SFMTSs, including teams that are very different from one another in a number of ways (e.g., expertise, physical location), as well as environmental limitations that are likely to be in place during future LDEMs (e.g., communication delays).

In Y2, we collected data in conjunction with HERA Campaign 5. Our experiments in Y2 evaluated the factors contributing to patterns of relationships within SFMTSs, and in particular, on the role that differences between the teams comprising the system might play in these patterns. This round of laboratory and analog environment data collection is expected to conclude successfully during the final mission of Campaign 5 during the early portion of Y3. Data from Foci 3 Y2 will form the basis for the generation and estimation of our SFMTS ABM (Foci 2). We also conducted several evaluations of our countermeasure materials during Y2, including a classroom evaluation of our expanded multiteam training procedure. The Project RED FUSION Training teaches trainees about the communication, leadership/coordination, and situational awareness/risk assessment demands of working in a SFMTS. The training leverages a simplified table-top (paper-and-pencil) version of the Project RED computerized simulation being implemented in the laboratory and analog environment experiments. The training intervention is designed to facilitate trainees’ understanding of the potential breakdowns in interteam communication, collaboration, and coordination that might arise during LDEMs. Project RED FUSION Training builds on team training programs that are currently implemented by NASA. Project RED FUSION expands current training focused within teams to emphasize the additional between-team collaboration demands associated with working in a larger system. Initial validations of our training procedure conducted within two samples of MBA students indicate that it is effective in orienting participants towards a shared-system level goal, leading them to prioritize this higher-order goal over their individual or team-level goals.

Project FUSION is combining findings from analyses of archival documents, interviews, and observations with NASA personnel (i.e., Research Foci 1), computational ‘agent-based’ models (i.e., Research Foci 2), and laboratory and analog environment experimental studies with human subjects (i.e., Research Foci 3), to better understand the functioning of the spaceflight multiteam systems or “SFMTSs” (i.e., interdependent systems comprised of multiple distinct teams; e.g., the Spaceflight Crew and the Mission Control Center teams) that will be involved in future long-duration space exploration missions (LDEMs). Project FUSION is an applied research project with the ultimate goal of translating findings gleaned through our three research foci in order to provide NASA with a countermeasure toolkit comprised of validated interventions that can be used to facilitate effective teamwork in SFMTSs.

In Year 1, our research team made substantial progress toward achieving the research goals of each foci and the development of our countermeasure toolkit. The first 6 months of Y1 constituted a “definitional” phase for this project. During the definitional phase, our research team addressed suggestions and concerns raised by NASA personnel related to our proposed project. We formalized our proposed approaches and completed a series of tasks related to each of our three research foci and our proposed countermeasure toolkit. The tasks completed during the definitional phase are now serving as the foundation of our research program and the development of our countermeasure toolkit.

Research Foci 1 and Countermeasure 1:

Research Foci 1 in Project FUSION is focused on understanding the specific demands, characteristics, constraints, and challenges facing the SFMTSs that will be involved in future LDEMs. In Research Foci 1, we plan to conduct a series of interviews and observational studies with NASA personnel as well as analyses of archival documentation related to SFMTS collaboration.

During the definitional phase, we laid the groundwork for this research foci in multiple ways. For example, we expanded existing “team” task analysis procedures to create a prototype of our “FUSION Multiteam Task Analysis Procedure” (i.e., Countermeasure 1). The FUSION Multiteam Task Analysis Procedure is intended to be used by researchers and NASA personnel to help clarify the projected goals and tasks of SFMTSs, the patterns of intra-team and inter-team relationships and interactions that are necessary to achieve projected goals, and key performance indicators reflective of goal achievement. To create the prototype of this countermeasure, we expanded and combined existing team task analysis procedures, as well as interview and observational protocols which have been used by members of our research team in other multiteam system contexts. Whereas a team task analysis is a structured approach used to understand the task-related and interpersonal competencies and conditions necessary for the success of a single team, a multiteam task analysis is used to understand both the intra-team as well as the inter-team task-related and interpersonal competencies and conditions necessary for the success of a larger interdependent system.

The FUSION research team is leveraging our multiteam task analysis procedure within Research Foci 1 in Project Years 1 and 2 to better understand the demands facing the types of SFMTSs that are likely to be involved in future LDEMs. Findings from the SFMTS Task Analysis are providing a foundation for the entire Project FUSION research program – informing the research activities in other Foci and the development of all countermeasures. Our approach to complete the multiteam task analysis draws information from multiple sources, such as archival documentation, interviews, and observations, to build a coherent depiction of the focal SFMTSs.

During the definitional phase, our team generated a detailed description of the steps we are taking to leverage the multiteam task analysis procedure as the basis of our research program. We specified our interview and observational protocols and procedures. Additionally, we (1) compiled archival documents related to SFMTS functioning, (2) categorized these documents based on their relevance to different SFMTS structures that are likely to be involved in LDEM, and (3) evaluated their viability for inclusion in our analyses. To meet the criteria for inclusion, each identified resource contained information pertaining to a substantial challenge in multiteam collaboration and coordination in a spaceflight or analogous context.

After exiting the definitional phase, we have continued to refine our multiteam task analysis procedures by further articulating our interview protocols and continuing discussions with NASA personnel related to the collection of interview and observational data. Further, we have conducted an extensive analysis of identified documents pertaining to NASA’s Mission Control Center (MCC). Our analysis of these documents reveals key details about the history and evolution of the multiteam collaboration processes within MCC since the inception of the space program and has resulted resulted in a journal submission completed this Fall.

Research Foci 2 and Countermeasure 2:

Given that SFMTSs are highly complex and dynamic, it is often difficult for personnel involved in mission planning and support to project the combined effects of all possible internal and external factors that may impact SFMTS functioning throughout the duration of a LDEM. To help address these challenges, Research Foci 2 aims to supplement findings from Research Foci 1 in order to build an Agent-Based Model (ABM) of SFMTS dynamics that can be used to make predictions about the functioning of SFMTSs, and in particular, when and among whom mission-critical breakdowns in collaboration and coordination are likely to occur.

Broadly, ABMs are computer simulations that provide insights into patterns of emergent behavior resulting from actions and interactions within complex systems. In an ABM, a set of agents, for example, crew and MCC members in a SFMTS, are seeded with a set of characteristics (e.g., demographics, personality, team memberships, training experience) which replicate the composition of actual SFMTS component teams, as well as a set of theoretically-derived rules guiding their actions and interactions with other agents.

In our FUSION SFMTS ABM, the agents in the model (i.e., SFMTS members) will interact with one another in accordance with rules derived from our theoretical framework of multiteam functioning. The agents’ interactions will generate networks of important psycho-social relationships, like trust, influence, communication, or information sharing, within and between teams. The key goal of our FUSION SFMTS is to better understand the patterns of psycho-social relationships that are likely to arise in SFMTSs under different circumstances. We will compare the patterns of psycho-social relationships that are likely to occur to the patterns that are likely to be effective. We aim to help NASA identify situations in which the patterns of relationships that are likely to occur are unlikely to be effective, and therefore, help determine when certain countermeasures (e.g., training, debriefing) need to be implemented in order to facilitate multiteam coordination and performance.

At the conclusion of the project, all code and documentation associated with the FUSION SFMTS ABM will be delivered to NASA. In addition to the computer code and associated documentation, we will use the results of virtual experiments to develop and deliver a FUSION Decision-Making Guidebook Countermeasure (Countermeasure 2) for use by NASA personnel involved in mission planning and support. The guidebook will be designed to be used by Behavioral Health and Performance (BHP) personnel to provide recommendations for the strategic application of other countermeasures (e.g., training, debriefing, mission planning) to best support mission success. To build the guidebook, Project FUSION researchers will begin by working closely with BHP personnel to identify approximately 20-30 core research questions related to multiteam collaboration in future missions that will be tested using ABM virtual experimentation.

During the definitional phase, we began by expanding our proposed theoretical framework for the FUSION SFMTS ABM. Additionally, we produced documentation clarifying how ABMs being produced in three other NASA-funded projects will be expanded, leveraged, and combined to produce the FUSION SFMTS ABM in this project. Further, we produced documentation detailing our plan for meeting NASA’s established standards for modeling and simulation studies. Finally, we established and articulated our plans for utilizing human data gathered from the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) environment in Johnson Space Center (JSC) to inform the creation of our models. We clarified the conceptual criteria that will be included in our model by establishing their formal definition, their corresponding indicators in data collected during the lab and analog studies, and the anticipated relationships among these criteria. After the definitional phase, we have continued to refine our theoretical model and finalize our plans for collecting the human subjects data that will be used to refine and validate the model parameters.

Research Foci 3 and Countermeasures 3 and 4:

Research Foci 3 consists of a series of experiments with human subjects located in university laboratories and/or the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) environment. These experiments are intended to: (1) collect the human subjects data needed to refine and validate the model parameters in our SFMTS ABM (Foci 2); (2) test our hypotheses about the drivers of psycho-social relationships in SFMTSs; (3) test our hypotheses about the antecedents of SFMTS coordination and performance; and (4) evaluate the validity of our third and fourth countermeasures (i.e., training, and debriefing, respectively).

The experiments in Foci 3 are designed to reflect key attributes of the Spaceflight MTSs, such as high levels of differentiation between teams based on differences in geographic location, functional areas of expertise, communications delays, goals, and teamwork norms. The experiments leverage the Project RED (Red planet Exploration & Development) computerized SFMTS simulation. In a Project RED simulation, four interdisciplinary teams work interdependently as a 12-person SFMTS to solve a complex task: designing a well to support a human colony on Mars. The Project RED simulation has been implemented in other NASA-funded projects and has demonstrated utility in examining the teamwork risks present in LDEMs. The simulation provides metrics of individual, team, and system performance.

During the definitional phase, our research team delivered documentation to NASA containing: (1) experimental protocols for the first set of experimental studies which will be implemented in HERA Campaign 5 beginning January 2019; (2) institutional review board approval documents; (3) data collection and evaluation plans; and (4) participant training materials. Since the conclusion of the definitional phase, we have continued to refine our protocols and experimental materials. To support this process, we conducted several successful pilot sessions of the laboratory experiments. Further, we have continued to refine practices and protocols in advance of the start of Campaign 5 data collection.

Additionally, as part of Research Foci 3, we created initial prototypes of the third and fourth countermeasures in our proposed toolkit: The Project RED FUSION Training Procedure (i.e., Countermeasure 3) and the FUSION Multiteam Debrief Procedure (i.e., Countermeasure 4). The Project RED FUSION Training teaches trainees about the communication, leadership/coordination, and situational awareness/risk assessment demands of working in a SFMTS. The training leverages a simplified table-top (paper-and-pencil) version of the Project RED computerized simulation being implemented in the laboratory and analog environment experiments. The training intervention is designed to facilitate trainees’ understanding of the potential breakdowns in inter-team communication, collaboration, and coordination that might arise due to differences between teams and environmental uncertainty. Project RED FUSION Training builds on the foundation of team skills learned within team training programs that are currently implemented, such as Spaceflight Resource Management (SFRM). However, Project RED FUSION expands current “intra-team-focused” training to emphasize the additional inter-team collaboration demands associated with working in a larger system. Preliminary analyses from an initial evaluation study of the Project RED FUSION Training implemented in a master's-level university course suggest that the training program produces desired effects. For example, findings suggest that over the course of the training, members of all teams come to better understand and assign greater priority to the overall superordinate goal of the system, relative to their more proximal team- or individual-level goals.

The FUSION Multiteam Debrief Procedure (Countermeasure 4) is a structured ‘after-action review’ procedure designed for use in situations where multiple teams work together on shared goals. Team debriefing protocols are often designed to reinforce team members’ understanding and development teamwork skills taught during team training and to prepare teams for subsequent phases of team performance. For example, SFRM materials implemented currently in NASA provide substantial guidance for team leaders or debrief facilitators with regard to structuring debriefs to most effectively reinforce SFRM concepts and ensure that teams learn to “self correct.” The FUSION Debrief Protocol is being designed to expand on NASA’s current SFRM Debriefing protocols in two key ways. First, the FUSION Debrief will retain the valuable teamwork lessons emphasized within previous SFRM debriefing protocols while also adding additional content intended to reinforce lessons learned within Project RED FUSION Training about the inter-team collaboration demands of SFMTSs. Second, the FUSION Debrief Protocol will expand current SFRM Debriefing protocols, which are meant to be used within a single team, to support debriefing of multiple MTS component teams, and/or representatives from multiple teams, simultaneously.