NASA NTRSDate not supplied
The Compass Team at NASA’s Glenn Research Center (GRC) is a concurrent engineering team which specializes in conceptual spacecraft mission designs. Detailed descriptions of the team, its history, and its operating model can be found in [1] and [2]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the team was required to move to remote (virtual) operation from their in-person model for approximately 22 months. As the restrictions began to lift and team members were able to return in-person to the Compass Lab, the team moved into a hybrid mode of operation, with some participants still tying in remotely some or all of the time. This paper discusses many of the lessons learned from these experiences, highlighting improvements, outstanding challenges and the tools and methodologies used to address both. Throughout this discussion the terms “in-person”, “hybrid”, “virtual” and “remote” will be used. For the purposes of this paper, “in-person” will be understood to mean when team members are interacting simultaneously, physically within the Compass Lab. “Remote” or “virtual” will refer to when interactions are happening between people who are not co-located using only technology to interface. “Hybrid” will refer to when two or more participants are physically located in the Compass Lab and one or more participant(s) is participating remotely. Media richness is described as “a medium’s ability to communicate effectively based of four factors. They are the capacity for immediate feedback, the number of cues and channels it utilizes, the degree of personalization it affords, and its ability to communicate using natural language” [3]. This theory will be referenced and discussed in multiple of the following sections due to its relevance when choosing how to operate in remote and hybrid modes, as well as in making tool selections. The key to selecting the best mode of communication lays in how complicated the discussion is and the level of ambiguity involved. Not all conversations or interactions require media rich mediums. For example, providing information about which there is little to no ambiguity can easily be done in less rich methods - such as email. A conversation including high levels of ambiguity and/or complex information is better suited to a richer medium, such as in-person or a video call with shared screens.