JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
A Preliminary Study on the Communication Effect on Team Performance in Main Control Room of SMART
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
A Preliminary Study on the Communication Effect on Team Performance in Main Control Room of SMART
Heo, Eun Mee; Byun, Seong Nam;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study is to investigate the attributing factors influencing team performance. Background: Technically, it is necessary that operators adapt themselves to computerized and advanced techniques to operate the main control rooms safely in nuclear power plant in Korea. The more main control rooms are digitalized, the more important for operators to have high team performance it is. Method: This paper analyzes team process through literatures review and elicits team performance shaping factor. Especially, the objective of this research is to elicit communication using common team performance shaping factors. Results: This study has found communication through team performance shaping factors in Main Control Room of the SMART. Conclusion: This paper can offer a starting point for team communication, which can use team performance shaping factor framework that are emerging in these new nuclear power plant. Application: As a result, I expect that the evaluation communication for MCR operator's team performance will lead the operating techniques in nuclear power industry internationally.
 Keywords
Communication;Team performance;Team process;Main control room;SMART;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
1.
The use of a process mining technique to characterize the work process of main control room crews: A feasibility study, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2016, 154, 31  crossref(new windwow)
 References
1.
Baik, K.B., Jung, D.I. and Shin, J.G., A longitudinal study on the effects of group competence and collective efficacy on performance: Measurement, level of analysis, and the importance of performance feedback, Journal of Human Resource Development, 2(1), 115-140, 2000. crossref(new window)

2.
Barker, L.L., Wahlers, K.J. and Watson, K.W., Groups in process: An introduction to small group communication, 5th ed., Allyn and Bacon, 1995.

3.
Bowers, C., Jentsch, F., Salas, E. and Braun, C., Analyzing communication sequences for team training needs assessment, Human Factors, 40(4), 672-679, 1989.

4.
Bowers, C.A., Salas, E. and Braun, C.C., Analyzing communication sequence for team training needs assessment. Human Factors, 40(4) 672-679, 1998. crossref(new window)

5.
Bowers, C., Deato, J., Oser, R., Prince, C. and Kolb, M., Impact of automation on aircrew communication and decisionmaking performance, The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 145-167, 1995. crossref(new window)

6.
Bradach, J.L. and Eccles, R.G., Markets vs hierarchies: From ideal types to plural forms, Annual Review of Sociology, No. 15, pp. 97-118, 1989. crossref(new window)

7.
Byun, S.N. and Lee, D.H., Preliminary Safety Review on the Design of Korea Next Generation Reactor: A Human Factors Evaluation of Advanced Control Facilities in Korea Next Generation Reactor, Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety, KINS/HR-404, 2001.

8.
Campion, M.A., Medsker, G.J. and Higgs, A.C., Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups, Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850, 1993. crossref(new window)

9.
Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Tannenbaum, S.I., Salas, E. and Volpe, C.E., Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements. In R. A. Guzzo, E. Salas, & Associates (Eds.), Team eflectiveness and decision making in organizations; 333-380. San Francisco: 1995.

10.
Chidester, T.R., Helmreich, R.L., Gregorich, S.E. and Geis, C.E., Pilot personality and crew coordination: Implications for training and selection, The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1(1), 25 -44, 1991. crossref(new window)

11.
Coblentz, A. and Mollard, R., Human efficiency variability in monotonous conditions effects on safety, Human decision making and manual control, 76-86, 1989.

12.
Cummings, J.N. and Cross, R., Structural properties of work groups and their consequences for performance, Social Networks, No. 25, pp. 197-210, 2003.

13.
Dennis, A.R. and Kinney, S.T., Testing media richness theory in the new media: The effects of cues, feedback, and task equivocality, Information Systems Research, No. 9, pp. 256-274, 1998. crossref(new window)

14.
DeSantis, G. and Monge, P., Introduction to the special issue: Communication processes for virtual organizations, Organization Science, Vol. 10, No. 6.

15.
Dwyer, D.J., Fowlkes, J., Oser, R.L., Salas, E. and Lane, N.E., Team performance measurement in distributed environments: The TARGETs methodology. In M. T. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications, pp. 137-153. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 1997.

16.
Ericsson, K.A. and Simon, H.A., Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data, MIT Press, 1984.

17.
Federico, P., Expert and novice recognition of similar situations. Human Factors, 37(1), 105-122, 1995. crossref(new window)

18.
Flin, R. and Martin, L., Behavioral markers for crew resource management, Civil Aviation Authority Paper 98005. London: University of Aberdeen, 1998.

19.
Ford, J.D. and Ford, L.W., The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 541-570, 1995.

20.
Fowlkes, J.E., Lane, N.E., Dwyer, D.J., Willis, R.P. and Oser, R., Team performance measurement issues in DIS-based training environments. In Proceedings of the 14th Interservice/Industry Training Systems and Education Conference (pp. 272-280). Arlington, VA: American Defense Preparedness Association, 1995.

21.
Gaddy, C. and Wachtel, J., Team skills training in nuclear power plant operations, in Swezey, R. and Salas, E. (Eds), Teams: Their Training and Performance, Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1992.

22.
Goldstein, I.L., Training in work organizations, Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 229-272, 1980. crossref(new window)

23.
Goldstein, I.L., Training in work organizations, Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 229-272, 1980. crossref(new window)

24.
Griffin, A. and Hauser, J.R., Patterns of communication among marketing, engineering, and manufacturing-A comparison between two new product teams, Management Science, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 360-373, 1992. crossref(new window)

25.
Guo, Z. and Uhrig, R.E., Nuclear power plant performance study by using neural networks, IEEE transaction on nuclear science, 39(4), 915-918, 1992. crossref(new window)

26.
Ha, J.S., Seong, P.H, Lee, M.S. and Hong, J.H., Development of human performance measure for human factors validation in the advanced MCR of APR-1400, IEEE Transaction on Nuclear Science, Vol. 54, No. 6, pp. 2687-2700, 2007. crossref(new window)

27.
Hackman, J.R. and Morris, C.G., Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration, In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 8, pp. 45-99, New York: Academic Press, 1975.

28.
Hackman, J.R. and Walton, R.E., Leading groups in organizations, In P.S. Goodman, & Associates (Eds.), Designing effective work groups, pp. 72-119, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1986.

29.
Hackman, J.R., Effects of task characteristics on group products, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 162-187, 1968. crossref(new window)

30.
Hackman, J.R., A normative model of work team effectiveness (Tech. Rep. No. 2), New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1983.

31.
Hackman, J.R., Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances, Boston: HBS Press, 2002.

32.
Handy, C., Trust and the virtual organization, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 73, No. 3, pp. 40-50, 1995.

33.
Hauptman, O. and Hirji, K.K., The influence of process concurrency on project outcomes in product development: An empirical study of cross-functional teams, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp.153-164, 1996. crossref(new window)

34.
Helmreich, R.L., Fifteen years of the CRM wars: A report form the trenches, IN B.J. Hayward & A.R. Lowe (Eds.), Proceedings of the Australian Aviation Psychology Symposium, 73-87, Melbourne: The Australian Aviation Psychology Association, 1993.

35.
Helmreich, R.L. and Foushee, H.C., Why Crew Resource Management? Empirical and theoretical bases of human factors training in aviation. In e. Wiener, B. Kanki, & R. Helmreich (Eds.), Cockpit Resource Management, pp.3-45. SanDiego, CA: Academic Press, 1993.

36.
Helmreich, R.L. and Wilhelm, J.A., Outcomes of Crew Resource Management training, International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1(4), 287 -300, 1991. crossref(new window)

37.
Helmreich, R.L., Butler, R.E., Taggart, W.R. and Wilhelm, J.A., Behavioral markers in accidents and incidents: Reference list. NASA/UT/FAA Technical Report 95-1. Austin, TX: The University of Texas, 1995.

38.
Helmreich, R.L. et al., The evolution of crew resource management training in commercial aviation, The international journal of aviation psychology, 9(1), 19-32, 1999. crossref(new window)

39.
Helmreich, R.L., Merritt, A.C. and Wilhelm, J.A., The evolution of Crew Resource Management training in commercial aviation, International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9(1), 19-32, 1999. crossref(new window)

40.
Helmreich, R.L., Wilhelm, J.A., Klinect, J.R. and Merritt, A.C., (In press), Culture, error, and Crew Resource Management. In E. Salas, C.A. Bowers, & E. Edens (Eds.), Applying resource management in organizations: A guide for professionals. Hill sdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

41.
Hinds, P. and Kiesler, S., Communications across boundaries: Work, structures, and use of communications technologies in a large organization, Organization Science, Vol. 6l, No. 4, pp. 373-393, 1995. crossref(new window)

42.
Hines, W.E., Teams and technology: Flight crew performance in standard and automated aircraft. The University of Texas at Austin: Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, 1998.

43.
Hoegl, M. and Gemuenden, H.G., Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence, Organization Science, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 435-449, 2001. crossref(new window)

44.
Holt, R.W., Meiman, E. and Seamster, T.L., Evaluation of aircraft pilot team performance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 40th Annual Meeting (p. 44-48), 1996.

45.
INPO, Control Room Teamwork Development Training: Course Administration and Facilitation Guide, National Academy for Nuclear Training, Atlanta, GA, 1993.

46.
INSAG, International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group (1986), Summary report on the Post-Accident Review Meeting on Chernobyl Accident. Vienna, Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency. instructorbased training, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 27(4), 141-157, 2001.

47.
Jossey-Bass. Cohen, S.G. and Bailey, D.E., What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite, Journal of Management, 23, 239-290, 1997. crossref(new window)

48.
Jarvenpaa, S.L. and Leidner, D.E., Communication and trust in global virtual teams, Organization Science, Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 791-815, 1999. crossref(new window)

49.
Jarvenpaa, S.L., Rao, V.S. and Huber. G.P., Computer support for meetings of groups working on unstructured problems: A field experiment, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 645-666, 1988. crossref(new window)

50.
Jeffrey S, Kane, Behavioral Observation Scales and The Evaluation of Performance Appraisal Effectiveness, 1982.

51.
Kanki, B.G. and Foushee. H.C., Communication as group process mediator of aircrew performance. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 60, pp. 402-410, 1989.

52.
Kanki, B.G. and Lozito, S., Communication indices of crew communication, Aviation space and environmental medicine, 1989

53.
Corradini P, Cacciari C, The effect of workload and work shift on air traffic control: taxonomy of communication problem, Cognition Techno Work, 4(4), 229-239, 2002. crossref(new window)

54.
Kettunen, J. and Pyy, P., Assessing communication practices and crew performance in a NPP control room environment - A prestudy, TAU-001/00, 2000.

55.
Kim, S.K., Development and Evaluation of Crew Resource Management Training for Improving Team Performance of Operators in the APR-1400 Nuclear Power Plant, Graduate School of Kyung Hee University, Dissertation of Industrial Engineering, 2008.

56.
KINS, Development of Evaluation Technique for MCR Operator's Team Performance., KINS/RR-555, KINS, 2008.

57.
Lee, D.H., Byun, S.N. and Lee, Y.H., Short-Term Human Factors Engineering Measures for Minimizing Human Error in Nuclear Power Facilities, Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea, 26(4), 121-125, 2007. crossref(new window)

58.
Leonard, M., Graham, S. and Bonacum, D. The human factor: The critical importance of effective teamwork and communication in providing safe care, Quality and Safety in Health Care, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. i85-i90, 2004. crossref(new window)

59.
Mann, W. C., http://www.sfu.ca/rst/, 2007.

60.
Mathieu, J.E. and Button, S.B., An examination of the relative impact of normative information and selfefficacy on personal goals and performance over time, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22: 1758 -1775, 1992. crossref(new window)

61.
Mathieu, J.E. and Zaccaro, S.J., A temporally based framework and taxnomy of team process,Academy oi Management Review 2001, Vol. 26, No. 3, 356-376, 2001.

62.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D., An integrative model of organizationrust, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 709-734, 1995.

63.
Min, D.W., A Survey on Methods for Analyzing Team Communication, Journal of Information Technology Application & Management, 14(2), 169-187, 2007.

64.
Montgomery, J. Gaddy, C. and Toquam, J., Team interaction skills evaluation criteria for nuclear power plant control room operators, Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting, 2-6 September, 918-22, Santa Monica, CA: HFS, 1991.

65.
Moreno, J.L., Sociometry, experimental method and science of society, Beacon, NY: Beacon House, 1951.

66.
Mumaw, R., Swatzler, D., Roth, E. and Thomas, W., Cognitive skill training for nuclear power plant operational decision making (NUREG/ CR-6126), Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1994.

67.
Ngwenyama, O.K. and Lee. A.S., Communication richness in electronic mail: Critical social theory and the contextuality of meaning, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 145-167, 1997. crossref(new window)

68.
O'Hara, J.M. and Hall, R.E., Advanced control rooms and crew performance issues: implications for human reliability, Brookhaven National Laboratory, NewYork 11973, 1405-1409, 1990.

69.
Oh, Y.J., Yun, J.H. and Lee, Y.H., An Evaluation of the Communication Efficiency of the Main Control Room Operators in Nuclear Power Plants, Ergonomics Society of Korea, 2010.

70.
Paul O'Connor, Angela O'Dea, Rhona Flin, Steve Belton, Identifying the team skills required by nuclear power plant operations personnel, Industrial Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 38, 1028-1037, 2008. crossref(new window)

71.
Pinto, M.B. and Pinto, J.K., Project team communication and cross functional cooperation in new program development, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 7, pp. 200-212, 1990. crossref(new window)

72.
Prinzo, O. and Morrow, D., Improving pilot/air traffic control voice communication in general aviation, Int J Aviat Psychol, 12(4), 341 -357, 2002. crossref(new window)

73.
Prinzo O., Pilot's visual acquisition of traffic: operational communication from an in-flight evaluation of a cockpit display of traffic information, Int J Aviat Psychol, 13(3), 211-231, 2002.

74.
Reason, J., The Chernobyl errors. Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 40, 201-206, 1987.

75.
Rogovin, M. and Frampton, G.T., Three Mile Island: A report to the Commission and the public (NUREG/CR-1250, Vol. 1). Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Special Inquiry Group, Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1980.

76.
Roth, E.M. et al., An empirical investigation of operator performance in cognitively demanding simulated emergencies, NUREG/CR-6208. Washington, DC: USNRC, 1994.

77.
Salas, E., Gerlad F. Goodwin, and C. Shawn Bueke. Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disiplinary perspective and approches. Psychology press Taylor & Francis group, 2009.

78.
Salas, E. and Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Methods, tools, and strategies for team training. In M.A. Quiiiones & A. Ehrenstein (Eds.), Training for a rapidly changing workplace: Applications of psychological research (pp. 249-279). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1997.

79.
Schraagen, J.M. and Rasker, P.C., Communication in command and control teams, TNO human factors, The Netherlands.

80.
Seamster, T.L. et al., Developing Advanced Crew Resource Management (ACRM) Training: A Taining Manual, 1998.

81.
Seamster, T.L., Edens, E.S. and Holt, R.W., Scenario event sets and the reliability of CRM assessment. Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, 1995.

82.
Seamster, T.L., Hamman, W.R. and Edens, E.S., Specification of observable behaviors within LOE/LOFT event sets. Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, 1995.

83.
Sebok, A., Team performance in process control: influences of interface design and staffing levels, Ergonomics, 43(8), 1210-1236, 2000. crossref(new window)

84.
Smith, P.C. and Kendall, L.M., Retranslation of expectations: An approach to the construction on unambiguous anchors for rating scales, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 47, pp. 149-155, 1963. crossref(new window)

85.
Stout, R.J., Salas, E. and Fowkes, J.E., Enhancing teamwork in complex environments through team training, group dynamics: Theory, research and practice, 1(2), 169-182, 1997. crossref(new window)

86.
Stout, R.J., Salas, E. and Fowlkes, J., Enhancing teamwork in complex environments through team training. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, & Practice, I, 169-182, 1997.

87.
Straus, S.G., Technology, group process, and group outcomes: Testing the connection in computer-mediated and face-to-face groups, Human-Computer Interaction, No. 12, pp. 227-266, 1997. crossref(new window)

88.
Taboada, M., Modeling task-oriented dialogue, Computers and the Humanities. Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 431-454, 2003. crossref(new window)

89.
Taggart, W.R., The NASA/UT/FAA Line/LOS checklist: Assessing system safety and crew performance. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, 1995.

90.
Te'eni, D., Review: A cognitive-affective model of organizational communication for designing IT, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 251-312, 2001. crossref(new window)

91.
USNRC, NRC action plan developed as a result of the TMI-2 Accident (NUREG-0660), Washington DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1980.

92.
USNRC, Operator licensing examiner standards (NUREG-1021), Washington DC: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1989.

93.
Valacich, J.S. and Schwenk. C., Devil's advocacy and dialectical inquiry effects on face-to-face and computer-mediated group decision making, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 158-173, 1995. crossref(new window)

94.
Visciola, M. and Armando, A., Communication patterns and error in flight simulation, Reliability engineering and system safety, 36, 252-259, 1992.

95.
Walther, J.B., Relationship aspects of computer-mediated communication : Experimental observations over time, Organization Science, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.186-203, 1995. crossref(new window)

96.
Wickens, C.D., Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. New York, NY; Harper Collins, 1992.

97.
Wickens, C.D., Gordon, S.E. and Liu, Y., An Introduction to Human Factors Engineering. New York, NY: Longman, 1998.

98.
Wigdor, A.K. and Green, B.F., Jr., Performance assessment for the workplace. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1991.

99.
Williams, S.M., Putting case-based instruction into context: Examples from legal and medical education. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 367-427, 1992. crossref(new window)