{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019787985865724382, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.321428571428571, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Investigating information-processing performance of different command team structures in the NATO Problem Space

The structure of command teams is a significant factor on their communications and ability to process, and act upon, information. The NATO Problem Space was used in this study to represent three of the main dimensions in the battle-space environment: familiarity, rate of change, and strength of information position. Results show that the five common team structures (chain, Y, circle, wheel and all-connected) did not generally perform as predicted in team literature. Findings suggest that under dynamic and highly variable conditions, high levels of synchronisation and trust should be present. On the other hand, synchronisation and trust are less important in hierarchical, highly centralised structures, because team members are more willing to accept the authority of a single leader and this tight control ensures that these teams can perform well as long as the Problem Space is familiar, information is explicit and the environment does not change. Practitioner Summary: Some types of team structures are better suited to particular constraints of the battle-space than others. This research has shown that the much touted all-connected structure is often the worst performing structure and that the traditional hierarchy of command and control has much merit in the digital information age.