Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “team”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2025

Navigating Team Dynamics: Automated Detection of Micro-Behaviors Between Team Members Through Longitudinal Interaction Data

The success in future long term space exploration missions will depend on the cooperation, coordination, and mutual understanding among the crew members. Micro-behaviors are momentary, subtle linguistic and paralinguistic indicators of thinking and feeling toward another member of the team (Cortina et al., 2001; Smith & Griffiths, 2022) that can significantly impact team dynamics and influence the overall team performance (Paromita & Chaspari, 2024). Due to their interactive nature, micro-behaviors have a sender (i.e., the team member expressing the micro-behavior) and a target (the team member impacted by the micro-behavior). Detection of these behaviors can assist in avoiding possible conflict among crew members and promoting the overall team success. Our prior research focused on an initial proof of concept of machine learning (ML) models and natural language processing (NLP) techniques that were used for automatically detect micro-behaviors among crew members of the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) Campaigns 4 and 5 missions (Paromita et al., 2023). Results underscored the importance of incorporating contextual information in the ML models in the form of sentiment analysis, type of task, and dyadic interaction among team members. Here, we expand the scope of our prior work in two ways. First, we assess ML/NLP methods on new behavioral annotations coded using an adapted version of Smith & Griffins (2022) theoretical framework in terms of Violation (i.e., presence of valenced behavior, uplifting/positive or discouraging/negative), Intensity (i.e., force of behavior in terms of how uplifting or discouraging is the behavior), and Intent (i.e., motive of the behavior in terms of whether it was deliberate or unintentional). Second, we expand the design of the ML model to preserve information about the role of each team member within the occurrence of the micro-behavior (in contrast to the previous model that only considered the sender and the target without determining the team member role). This allows to consider all team members' contributions in the conversation and model long-term dependencies in the dialogue. Our experiments for this study are conducted on data from 5 teams of the NASA HERA C4 (NASA grant NNX16AQ48G (PI: Bell)). Conversations were extracted from the 1.5 hour Team Interaction Battery (TIB) task that occurred 5 times in-mission per crew. This resulted in a total of 13,058 conversational turns (i.e., 17.8% uplifting, 3.3% discouraging, 75.76% neutral, 3.14% nulls). Our findings with the revised behavioral coding and ML/NLP models indicate a 43.66% macro F1-score (i.e., 38.29% precision (P), 50.8% recall (R)) for a dialog state-tracking model that includes information from the sender only, and a 40.9% F1-score (i.e., 38.7% P, 43.36% R) for the same model that includes information from both the sender and the target of the micro-behavior. These are significantly higher compared to simple random forest models that classify behaviors strictly based on speech content and do not consider iterative team dynamics, achieving a 36.07% F1-score (i.e., 39.04% R, 33.53% P). Our findings demonstrate potential ways to leverage large conversational datasets to better capture complex team dynamics. We will discuss future directions including proposed models that can incorporate additional mission days and tasks beyond the TIB for objectively quantifying team behavior at high temporal resolution in space exploration missions.

Projna Paromita↗
NASA NTRS2003

NASA Team Collaboration Pilot: Enabling NASA's Virtual Teams

Most NASA projects and work activities are accomplished by teams of people. These teams are often geographically distributed - across NASA centers and NASA external partners, both domestic and international. NASA "virtual" teams are stressed by the challenge of getting team work done - across geographic boundaries and time zones. To get distributed work done, teams rely on established methods - travel, telephones, Video Teleconferencing (NASA VITS), and email. Time is our most critical resource - and team members are hindered by the overhead of travel and the difficulties of coordinating work across their virtual teams. Modern, Internet based team collaboration tools offer the potential to dramatically improve the ability of virtual teams to get distributed work done.

Prahst, Steve↗
NASA NTRS2001

Team Expo: A State-of-the-Art JSC Advanced Design Team

In concert with the NASA-wide Intelligent Synthesis Environment Program, the Exploration Office at the Johnson Space Center has assembled an Advanced Design Team. The purpose of this team is two-fold. The first is to identify, use, and develop software applications, tools, and design processes that streamline and enhance a collaborative engineering environment. The second is to use this collaborative engineering environment to produce conceptual, system-level-of-detail designs in a relatively short turnaround time, using a standing team of systems and integration experts. This includes running rapid trade studies on varying mission architectures, as well as producing vehicle and/or subsystem designs. The standing core team is made up of experts from all of the relevant engineering divisions (e.g. Power, Thermal, Structures, etc.) as well as representatives from Risk and Safety, Mission Operations, and Crew Life Sciences among others. The Team works together during 2- hour sessions in the same specially enhanced room to ensure real-time integration/identification of cross-disciplinary issues and solutions. All subsystem designs are collectively reviewed and approved during these same sessions. In addition there is an Information sub-team that captures and formats all data and makes it accessible for use by the following day. The result is Team Expo: an Advanced Design Team that is leading the change from a philosophy of "over the fence" design to one of collaborative engineering that pushes the envelope to achieve the next-generation analysis and design environment.

Tripathi, Abhishek↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Composing Teams with TEAMSTaR Tool for Evaluating and Mitigating Space Team Risk

As NASA sets its sights on more Earth-independent missions, the mission to Mars as a prime example, a team’s composition becomes a critical issue for mitigating the risks of such endeavors. The purpose of this project is to develop and validate TEAMSTaR (Tool for Evaluating And Mitigating Space Team Risks), a team composition decision support system that can be used by mission stakeholders (e.g., mission schedulers, crew members) to predict how a hypothetical team’s social relationships are likely to evolve and influence crew performance over the course of a mission. TEAMSTaR will enable decision makers to evaluate composition scenarios for a set of teams, for single-member replacements, and/or for subsets of teams.

N S Contractor↗
NASA NTRS2011

Characterizing Distributed Concurrent Engineering Teams: A Descriptive Framework for Aerospace Concurrent Engineering Design Teams

As aerospace missions grow larger and more technically complex in the face of ever tighter budgets, it will become increasingly important to use concurrent engineering methods in the development of early conceptual designs because of their ability to facilitate rapid assessments and trades in a cost-efficient manner. To successfully accomplish these complex missions with limited funding, it is also essential to effectively leverage the strengths of individuals and teams across government, industry, academia, and international agencies by increased cooperation between organizations. As a result, the existing concurrent engineering teams will need to increasingly engage in distributed collaborative concurrent design. This paper is an extension of a recent white paper written by the Concurrent Engineering Working Group, which details the unique challenges of distributed collaborative concurrent engineering. This paper includes a short history of aerospace concurrent engineering, and defines the terms 'concurrent', 'collaborative' and 'distributed' in the context of aerospace concurrent engineering. In addition, a model for the levels of complexity of concurrent engineering teams is presented to provide a way to conceptualize information and data flow within these types of teams.

Concept Design↗
NASA NTRS1975

Reconciling the requirements of the science team and the spacecraft engineering team with a realizable optical system

Problems in the development of a suitable optical system for the imaging science payload of an interplanetary space probe are considered, taking into account the characteristics of the three categories of optical systems from which the engineer selects his system. These categories include the Catoptric or all mirror optical system, the Dioptric or all refracting optical system, and the Catadioptric system which combines elements of the other two categories. Examples of equipment selection and development in the preparation of a number of interplanetary space missions are discussed.

Larks, L.↗
NASA NTRS2022

Risk of Performance and Behavioral Health Decrements Due to Inadequate Cooperation, Coordination, and Psychosocial Adaptions within a Team

The Risk of Performance and Behavioral Health Decrements Due to Inadequate Cooperation, Coordination, Communication, and Psychosocial Adaptation within a Team (the Team Risk) is primarily performance-focused, with a secondary emphasis on behavioral health outcomes resulting from team performance and interpersonal interactions. Monitoring tools, measures, and countermeasures are aimed at enhancing team processes and team composition configurations to optimize team performance and functioning. Long-duration exploration missions (LDEMs) will include major challenges that could affect team performance, including social isolation, physical confinement, a small and diverse crew, communication delays between crew and ground, limited or no crew rotation or evacuation options, limited or no resupply, and a high-consequence environment. Each of these conditions will affect the crew’s coordination, cooperation, psychological well-being, and performance. Although the International Space Station (ISS) remains important for studies that require spaceflight testing and validation, the current conditions on the ISS do not adequately mimic the exploration environment that is required for National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) teams research, and thus access to terrestrial or ground-based analogs of LDEM conditions is paramount. The emphasis on analogs for research is reflected in this updated evidence review of the Team Risk, and includes data from studies conducted at isolated, confined, extreme (ICE) environments (e.g., Antarctic stations), and from several mission simulation analogs such as the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) (HERA Experiment Information Package, 2014), also known as isolated, confined, controlled (ICC) environments. These studies have characterized many team factors regarding LDEMs, and the Team Risk has now matured from risk characterization to focusing more on countermeasure development. Because spaceflight evidence for team-level research is lacking, no reliable data is available to quantify the impact of team-level variables on individual and team-level outcomes during spaceflight missions. Until recently, no systematic attempt had been undertaken to measure the performance effects of team cohesion, team composition, team training, or team-related psychosocial adaptation during spaceflight. The Team Risk is a relatively young research area for NASA, with substantial growth only since the 2000s, and with limited access to spaceflight performance data. As a result, spaceflight evidence is lacking to identify specifically what team composition, level of training, amount of cohesion, or quality of psychosocial adaptation is necessary to reduce the risk of performance errors in space. However, astronaut journals and interviews and reports from spaceflight subject matter experts (SMEs) provide testimonies that team performance during spaceflight is important for mission success and to maintain crew health. Team spaceflight data is now being collected as part of the Spaceflight Standard Measures task (Clement, 2021)—a set of core measurements related to many human spaceflight risks that are collected from astronauts before, during, and after long-duration missions. The team-related standard measures focus on team cohesion, team performance, group living, team climate, and team processes. Collection of standard measures data is ongoing and published data is not yet available. Finally, although spaceflight evidence is lacking, evidence gleaned from ground studies and spaceflight analog studies will help close the gaps outlined in the Team Risk. Ground-based studies provide quantitative evidence for team functioning in ICE environments. Academic research on teams has produced dozens of meta-analyses that can be used to understand the general relationships among team inputs (e.g., team member characteristics and skills, job context), team processes, and emergent states (e.g., coordination, communication, cooperation, cohesion, trust, shared cognition), and team outcomes (e.g., effectiveness, errors, adaptation). Teams are complex, incorporating individual characteristics of team members, but also existing at a level that is greater than the sum of its parts. Therefore, the Team Risk must be integrated with other individual-focused NASA Human Research Program (HRP) risks, including Behavioral Medicine (BMed), Sleep, and Human-Systems Integration Architecture (HSIA), and emerging research indicates more integration may needed between the Team Risk and the physiologically oriented risks. Much of this integration occurs through the Human Systems Risk Board (HSRB). A lack of team functioning may be a stressor in some circumstances, but the team often acts as a countermeasure. For example, support for team leaders and teammates can facilitate individual functioning and encourage psychological and physically healthy behaviors and attitudes. However, more research is needed regarding teams during LDEMs and the remaining gaps in the research are described in the current report.

Lauren Blackwell Landon↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures Harmonized Across HERA, NEK, and ISS: Teams Risk

BACKGROUNDThe Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Exploration Measures (HFBP-EM) suite is a set of standardized measures to assess behavioral health and performance risk related to future exploration class missions, and to support reduction of the Human Research Program’s (HRP) Behavioral Medicine (BMed), Team, Sleep, and Human Systems Integration Architecture risks. HFBP-EM were collected during Human Exploration Research Analogs (HERA) campaigns 4 (C4) and 5 (C5), and during SIRIUS 17 and 19 missions in the Russian Ground Based Experiment Complex, NEK, to document the feasibility, flexibility, and acceptability of these measures in analogsof the spaceflight environment. A subset of the HFBP-EM suite was collected during spaceflight as part HRP’s Standard Measures in Spaceflight Project. Whenever possible, the HFBP-EM protocol and measures are kept the same across studies, however, differences across research settings (e.g., experimental manipulations, mission scenarios, mission length) and implementation of the measures require the data are harmonized to ensure comparable views across missions. The purpose of our project is to develop a harmonized database of HFBP-EM data from different settings, and to summarize the trajectory of behavioral health and performance within and between research settings. In this presentation, we will summarize the harmonized dataset and the trajectory of measures related to the Team Risk, including team performance, team cohesion, team processes, and psychological safety, over time and between and within settings.METHODSWe followed best practices for data harmonization. Characteristics of each research setting were assessed for harmonization potential, and we deemed NEK-SIRIUS 17 as inappropriate due to study aims, length, and data quality. Common variables of interest were identified. Study characteristics and key variables with which datafiles could be merged were defined as “meta-data.” HFBP-EM data from all settings were processed under a common format. We then created a harmonized team-level database designed to facilitate analyses that address HRP research gaps related to HRP’s Team risk. In this database, team cohesion, processes, performance, psychological safety, and group living were operationalized as the team mean of the crew responses for each data collection (e.g., on mission day 7). Data collected on the International Space Station (ISS) included a subset of scale items administered to participants. Data collected from ISS team members within +/- 7 days of the first data collection and every following 30 +/-4 days were aggregated to the team level. We generated figures that display the mean and variability of team constructs across research settings. We also generated plots of changes in team constructs with mission day and with percentage of the mission completed. Where possible, we compared data from spaceflight analogs with data from astronauts aboard the ISS. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONThe team-level harmonized database was structured such that each row represents data for a team on a specific mission day. Team constructs (e.g., team cohesion) were included as columns (i.e., wide format) with repeated measures across mission days given in rows (i.e., long format). The database included data from 18 crews: five, 4-person American crews in HERA C4, four 4-person American crews in HERA C5, one 6-person multinational crew in NEK-SIRIUS 19, and eight, 2–11-person multinational crews aboard the ISS. Results provide insights into mission and campaign differences in team functioning and performance. For example, between campaign differences were observed for team processes—the interdependent team actions that orchestrate taskwork in pursuit of the team’s goals [1]. Greater between-team variability on team processes was detected during HERA C4 than during C5, and a downward trend was observed over the duration of C4, but not C5 or SIRIUS 19. This may be due to the campaign-level differences such as the sleep deprivation implemented during C4. Responses on the subset of team process items administered on the ISS indicate between-crew variability more like those observed in C4 than C5 and NEK, with some, but not all ISS crews demonstrating a downward trend over time. Additional findings will be presented. REFERENCESMarks, M. A., et al (2001) Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356-376.

S T Bell↗
NASA NTRS1994

Teams and teamwork at NASA Langley Research Center

The recent reorganization and shift to managing total quality at the NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC) has placed an increasing emphasis on teams and teamwork in accomplishing day-to-day work activities and long-term projects. The purpose of this research was to review the nature of teams and teamwork at LaRC. Models of team performance and teamwork guided the gathering of information. Current and former team members served as participants; their collective experience reflected membership in over 200 teams at LaRC. The participants responded to a survey of open-ended questions which assessed various aspects of teams and teamwork. The participants also met in a workshop to clarify and elaborate on their responses. The work accomplished by the teams ranged from high-level managerial decision making (e.g., developing plans for LaRC reorganization) to creating scientific proposals (e.g., describing spaceflight projects to be designed, sold, and built). Teams typically had nine members who remained together for six months. Member turnover was around 20 percent; this turnover was attributed to heavy loads of other work assignments and little formal recognition and reward for team membership. Team members usually shared a common and valued goal, but there was not a clear standard (except delivery of a document) for knowing when the goal was achieved. However, members viewed their teams as successful. A major factor in team success was the setting of explicit a priori rules for communication. Task interdependencies between members were not complex (e.g., sharing of meeting notes and ideas about issues), except between members of scientific teams (i.e., reliance on the expertise of others). Thus, coordination of activities usually involved scheduling and attendance of team meetings. The team leader was designated by the team's sponsor. This leader usually shared power and responsibilities with other members, such that team members established their own operating procedures for decision making. Sponsors followed a hands-off policy during team operations, but they approved and reviewed team products. Most teams, particularly high-level decision-making teams, had little or no authority to carry out their decisions. Team members had few interpersonal conflicts. They monitored each other respectfully about meeting deadlines. Feedback and backup behaviors were seen as desirable aspects of teamwork, wanted by the members, and done appropriately.

Dickinson, Terry L.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Critical Team Composition Issues for Long-Distance and Long-Duration Space Exploration: A Literature Review, an Operational Assessment, and Recommendations for Practice and Research

Prevailing team effectiveness models suggest that teams are best positioned for success when certain enabling conditions are in place (Hackman, 1987; Hackman, 2012; Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008; Wageman, Hackman, & Lehman, 2005). Team composition, or the configuration of member attributes, is an enabling structure key to fostering competent teamwork (Hackman, 2002; Wageman et al., 2005). A vast body of research supports the importance of team composition in team design (Bell, 2007). For example, team composition is empirically linked to outcomes such as cooperation (Eby & Dobbins, 1997), social integration (Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002), shared cognition (Fisher, Bell, Dierdorff, & Belohlav, 2012), information sharing (Randall, Resick, & DeChurch, 2011), adaptability (LePine, 2005), and team performance (e.g., Bell, 2007). As such, NASA has identified team composition as a potentially powerful means for mitigating the risk of performance decrements due to inadequate crew cooperation, coordination, communication, and psychosocial adaptation in future space exploration missions. Much of what is known about effective team composition is drawn from research conducted in conventional workplaces (e.g., corporate offices, production plants). Quantitative reviews of the team composition literature (e.g., Bell, 2007; Bell, Villado, Lukasik, Belau, & Briggs, 2011) are based primarily on traditional teams. Less is known about how composition affects teams operating in extreme environments such as those that will be experienced by crews of future space exploration missions. For example, long-distance and long-duration space exploration (LDSE) crews are expected to live and work in isolated and confined environments (ICEs) for up to 30 months. Crews will also experience communication time delays from mission control, which will require crews to work more autonomously (see Appendix A for more detailed information regarding the LDSE context). Given the unique context within which LDSE crews will operate, NASA identified both a gap in knowledge related to the effective composition of autonomous, LDSE crews, and the need to identify psychological and psychosocial factors, measures, and combinations thereof that can be used to compose highly effective crews (Team Gap 8). As an initial step to address Team Gap 8, we conducted a focused literature review and operational assessment related to team composition issues for LDSE. The objectives of our research were to: (1) identify critical team composition issues and their effects on team functioning in LDSE-analogous environments with a focus on key composition factors that will most likely have the strongest influence on team performance and well-being, and 1 Astronaut diary entry in regards to group interaction aboard the ISS (p.22; Stuster, 2010) 2 (2) identify and evaluate methods used to compose teams with a focus on methods used in analogous environments. The remainder of the report includes the following components: (a) literature review methodology, (b) review of team composition theory and research, (c) methods for composing teams, (d) operational assessment results, and (e) recommendations.

Bell, Suzanne T.↗