Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T14:44:39.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

20 - TINT

A Technique for Visualizing Team Processes

from Part IV - Data Analysis and Data Presentation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2018

By
Julia Koch ,
Frank Ritz ,
Cornelia Kleindienst  and
Jonas Brüngger
Edited by
Elisabeth Brauner ,
Margarete Boos  and
Michaela Kolbe
Elisabeth Brauner
Affiliation:
Brooklyn College, City University of New York
Margarete Boos
Affiliation:
University of Göttingen
Michaela Kolbe
Affiliation:
ETH Zürich
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis , pp. 405 - 418
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boos, M. (1992). A typology of case studies. In Súilleabháin, M. Ó., Stuhler, E. A., & de Tombe, D. J. (Eds.), Research on cases and theories, Vol. 1 (pp. 5–16). Mering: Hampp.Google Scholar
Bratman, M. E. (1992). Shared cooperative activity. The Philosophical Review, 101(2), 327–341. doi:10.2307/2185537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., Pierce, L., & Kendall, D. (2006). Understanding team adaption: A conceptual analysis and model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1189–1297. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1189CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cacciabue, P. C., & Hollnagel, E. (1994). Simulation of cognition: Applications. In Hoc, J.-M., Cacciabue, P. C., & Hollnagel, E. (Eds.), Expertise and technology. Cognition & human-computer cooperation (pp. 55–74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cooke, N. J., Gorman, J. C., Myers, C. W., & Duran, J. L. (2013). Interactive team cognition. Cognitive Science, 37, 255–285. doi:255-285.10.1111/cogs.12009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooke, N. J., Salas, E., Kiekel, P. A., & Bell, B. (2004). Advances in measuring team cognition. In Salas, E. & Fiore, S. M. (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance (pp. 83–106). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10690-005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1419–1452. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiore, S., Rosen, M., Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Salas, E., Letsky, M., & Warner, N. (2010). Toward an understanding of macrocognition in teams: Predicting processes in complex collaborative contexts. Human Factors, 52(2), 203–224. doi:10.1177/0018720810369807CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fruhen, L. S., Flin, R., & McLeod, R. (2014). Chronic unease for safety in managers: A conceptualisation. Journal of Risk Research, 17(8), 869–979. doi:10.1080/13669877.2013.822924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grote, G., Weichbrodt, J.C., Günter, H., Zala-Mezö, E., & Künzle, B. (2009). Coordination in high-risk organizations: The need for flexible routines. Cognition, Technology & Work, 11, 17–27. doi:10.1007/s10111-008-0119-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, G., Ross, K. G., Moon, B. M., Klein, D. E., Hoffman, R. R., & Hollnagel, E. (2003). Macrocognition. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 18(3), 81–85. doi:10.1109/MIS.2003.1200735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Künzle, B., Zala-Mezö, E., Wacker, J., Kolbe, M., Spahn, D. R., & Grote, G. (2010). Leadership in anaesthesia teams: The most effective leadership is shared. Quality & Safety in Healthcare, 19, 1–6. doi:10.1136/qshc.2008.030262Google ScholarPubMed
Letsky, M., Warner, N., Fiore, S. M., Rosen, M. A., & Salas, E. (2007). Macrocognition in complex team problem solving. Proceedings of the 12th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (12th ICCRTS), Newport, RI, June 2007. Washington, DC: US Department of Defense Command and Control Research Program.Google Scholar
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, 14–37. doi:10.1287/orsc.5.1.14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, E. S., Miller, J. E., Roth, E. M., & Woods, D. D. (2010). Macrocognition: Where do we stand? In Patterson, E. S. & Miller, J. E. (Eds.), Macrocognition metrics and scenarios: Design and evaluation for real-world teams (pp. xxiii–xxxi). Hampshire, UK: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
Perrow, C. (1999). Normal accidents. Living with high-risk technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ritz, F. (2012). Organizational trust and trust in automated systems as predictors for safety related team performance: Results from a cross-cultural study. In Salvendy, G. & Karwowski, W. (Eds.), Advances in human factors and ergonomics 2012, 14 Volume Set: Proceedings of the 4th AHFE Conference 21–25 July 2012 (pp. 7249–7258). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Ritz, F., Kleindienst, C., Brüngger, J., & Koch, J. (2015). Coping with unexpected safety-critical situations through adaptation: A concept for resilient (simulator) team training. 6th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, AHFE 2015, Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 1865–1871.Google Scholar
Ritz, F., & Koch, J. (2015). Die Entwicklung sicherheitsgerichteten Führungsverhaltens zur Bewältigung von kritischen Systemzuständen durch Leitwarten-Teams in der Kerntechnik [The development of safety-oriented leadership behavior to handle critical system conditions by control room teams in nuclear power engineering]. In Grandt, M. & Schmerwitz, S. (Eds.), Kooperation und kooperative Systeme in der Fahrzeug- und Prozessführung [Cooperation and cooperative systems in vehicle and process management] (pp. 171–186). Bonn, DE: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Luft- und Raumfahrt.Google Scholar
Rosen, M. A., Fiore, S. M., Salas, E., Letsky, M., & Warner, N. (2008). Tightly coupling cognition: Understanding how communication and awareness drive coordination in teams. The International C2 Journal, 2(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Savioja, P., Norros, L., Salo, L., & Aaltonen, I. (2014). Identifying resilience in proceduralised accident management activity of NPP operating crews. Safety Science, 68, 258–274. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2014.04.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stachowski, A., Kaplan, S. A., & Waller, M. J. (2009). The benefits of flexible team interaction during crises. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1536–1543. doi:10.1037/a0016903CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 675–735. doi:10.1017/S0140525X05000129CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vidal, M. C. R., Carvalho, P. V. R., Santos, M. S., & dos Santos, I. J. L. (2009). Collective work and resilience of complex systems. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 22, 516–527. doi:10.1016/j.jlp.2009.04.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waller, M. J. (1999). The timing of adaptive group responses to nonroutine events. Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 127–137. doi:10.2307/257088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waller, M. J., Gupta, N., & Giambatista, R. C. (2004). Effects of adaptive behaviors and shared mental models on control crew performance. Management Science, 50(11), 1534–1544. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1040.0210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th edn.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Zala-Mezö, E., Wacker, J., Künzle, B., Brüesch, M., & Grote, G. (2009). The influence of standardisation and task load on team coordination patterns during anaesthesia inductions. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 18(2), 127–130. doi:10.1136/qshc.2007.025973CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×