2003 IMTA Proceedings - International Military Testing Association

The application of new information technologies to the battlefield allows widely
dispersed combatants to work together in new ways, altering the traditional conduct of warfare.
Such network-centric operations have been described as “based upon a new model of command
and control, one that features sharing information (synchronization in the information domain)
and the collaborative processes to achieve a high degree of shared situational awareness” (p. 60,
Alberts, 2003). Successful employment of these new technologies, which join personnel from
diverse military jobs into interactive networks, relies on the Soldiers' tendency to engage in --
and their skill at accomplishing -- collaborative interaction. But Alberts cautions that, without
appropriate training and practice, the network-centric environment might actually increase the
fog of war rather than provide superior situational understanding. To insure the latter result and
avoid the former, the training side of the Army, in particular, needs to understand the dynamics
of this new environment, where Soldiers interact with their peers and leaders electronically. The
purpose of this paper is to describe the preliminary results of our research team's attempts to
identify training issues that arise when unacquainted Soldiers must collaborate at a distance,
rather than face-to-face.
Research on collaboration. The Army defines collaboration as, “people actively sharing
information, knowledge, perceptions, or concepts when working together toward a common
purpose." It is well established that the basis for collaboration is a shared understanding of the
situation (Clark, & Brennan, 1991). But this understanding is more than shared information or
even what is sometimes called a Common Relevant Operating Picture (CROP). Establishing a
CROP should be seen as the beginning, not the endpoint, in establishing situational awareness.
As Hevel (2002) has said, each person’s interpretation of the CROP depends on that individual's
training, experience, and values.
To gain further insights into such issues involving collaboration and training, we first
conducted observations and interviews of Army personnel in units that were in the process of
incorporating digital systems (Schaab & Dressel, 2003). It soon became clear that classroom
training on how to use digital systems is not enough. Even inexperienced Soldiers know that
their digital jobs require an understanding of how the system they are learning to operate
interacts with other systems. But they may need to experience multiple training exercises,
incorporating numerous scenarios, in order to develop both a clear sense of how to collaborate
with the people operating those other systems and an appreciation of how important such
collaboration is in achieving and maintaining situational understanding. In one command center,
we saw Soldiers actually place two different systems side-by-side and cross train each other in
order to promote face-to-face collaboration. They already grasped the need to understand the
interrelationship between their roles. Such opportunities to foster mutual understanding become
more difficult, of course, when members are dispersed.
Successful collaboration in distributed environments requires the same abilities as
collaboration when co-located, but the means of training must differ when groups are distributed
(Klein, Pliske, Wiggins, Thordsen, Green, Klinger, & Serfaty, 1999). Challenges with
distributed groups include the loss of visual/verbal cues, added effort in working together, and
difficulty in knowing when goals need to be adjusted. In short, good communication is an
141
45 th Annual Conference of the International Military Testing Association
Pensacola, Florida, 3-6 November 2003