Source avec lien : Ergonomics, (En ligne). 10.1080/00140139.2023.2221418
L’interaction a été reconnue comme un élément essentiel pour comprendre comment la cognition se forme dans une équipe adaptative complexe telle qu’une équipe multidisciplinaire de gestion de crise (CMT). Toutefois, on sait peu de choses sur la manière dont les interactions au sein des équipes de gestion de crise et entre elles donnent lieu au fonctionnement cognitif global du système multi-équipes, qui est essentiel pour éviter les défaillances de la coordination. Pour combler cette lacune, nous caractérisons et comparons le rôle intentionnel (RAI) et le rôle observé (RAO) des CMT dans leur adaptation à la complexité de la gestion des besoins informationnels.
Interaction has been recognised as an essential lens to understand how cognition is formed in a complex adaptive team such as a multidisciplinary crisis management team (CMT). However, little is known about how interactions within and across CMTs give rise to the multi-team system’s overall cognitive functioning, which is essential to avoid breakdowns in coordination. To address this gap, we characterise and compare the component CMTs’ role-as-intended (RAI) and role-as-observed (RAO) in adapting to the complexity of managing informational needs. To characterise RAI, we conducted semi-structured interviews with subject matter experts and then made a qualitative synthesis using a thematic analysis method. To characterise RAO, we observed multiteam interaction networks in real-time at a simulated training environment and then analysed the component CMTs’ relative importance using node centrality measures. The resulting inconsistencies between RAI and RAO imply the need to investigate cognition in multiple CMTs through the lens of interaction.Practitioner summary: When a disaster occurs, multidisciplinary CMTs are expected to serve their roles as described in written or verbal guidelines. However, according to our naturalistic observations of multiteam interaction networks, such descriptions may be (necessary but) insufficient for designing, training, and evaluating CMTs in the complexity of managing informational needs together.