Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “teaming”

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

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 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↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

“Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda”: Conceptualizing the Differences in Trust Between Human-Human Teaming and Human-Machine Teaming

Intelligent decision support systems (IDSSs) are machine teammates designed to facilitate better human decision-making in high-consequence domains such as health care, power grid operations, and fraud detection. IDSSs identify patterns in datasets and provide intelligent decision-making recommendations to human teammates. However, previous research indicates that humans often trust IDSS recommendations less than the recommendations from their human teammates, even when the machine teammate is more accurate. To conceptualize why trust differs, we review the literature surrounding trust, error, and predictability. Then, we compile and compare participant trust ratings and decision-making in an abridged systematic review of previous studies manipulating teammate type, error rate, and error type. Finally, we conduct a content analysis of participants’ qualitative responses to trust queries from a survey on generative language models. Results suggest that humans may trust IDSS teammates less than other human teammates because of differences in (1) interaction complexity, (2) blame attribution, and (3) swift trust. We conclude that human factors practitioners should collaborate with data scientists and domain experts to build and maintain trust in IDSSs by anthropomorphizing algorithms, matching mental models, and considering individual differences.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

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.↗