U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences- Request for White Papers: Measuring Small Team Cohesion in Isolated and Extreme Environments

This is a request for White Papers only. For complete topic information and submission instructions, click on the 'W911NF-18-S-0005-FY20-06- Measuring Small Team Cohesion in Isolated and Extreme Environments ' link below. There is an additional attachment that includes questions submitted under this notice and the Government responses to these questions. To review the questions and responses, click on the link below 'Responses to Questions Submitted- W911NF-18-S-0005-FY20-06.' You may also review the questions and responses below: Responses to Questions Submitted Under W911NF-18-S-0005-FY20-06 (18 September 2020) 1. Under Section II: Preparation of White Paper, the Government requests - describing details of the proposed research for both the base and option approach. Does a 16-month PoP comprise the base, or the base and the option? Government Response: The 16-month PoP includes both the base and the option (8-month base, 8-month option). Responses to Questions Submitted Under W911NF-18-S-0005-FY20-06 (24 September 2020) 1. Are you interested developing measures for both task and social cohesion? Both are valuable for different research questions. Government Response: We are interested in both (or either) form of cohesion so long as they: 1) are highly predictive of high performing teams operating in isolated and extreme environments, and 2) can be reliably measured in real time (or near real time) by innovative physiological and neurological measures (e.g., wireless EEG, synchronization of heart-rate variability). 2. What is desired time horizon for data collect and frequency of analyses? For example, are you primarily interested in streaming and seeing the data in real time to support decision making during an event, or is your interest in more aggregated or longitudinal, post hoc analyses, to support decision making for the next event? Government Response: We are interested in seeing the output from the data in as close to real time as possible in order to support decision-making during operations and training. However, we also want to be able to use those data for future aggregated/longitudinal post hoc analyses. 3. Within this project are you anticipating that the measure(s) of cohesion will be validated? If yes, are you interested in construct and/or criterion validity (and if so, do you have a targeted construct measure to compare for validation or a performance criteria already of interest) or are you just looking for face valid proxy measures? Government Response: Yes, we anticipate that the measure(s) will be validated against traditional measure of cohesion (e.g., pen and paper) and validated for its ability to predict team performance during a task by that team's cohesion level [as determined by the measure(s)]. 4. It is expected that data collection (and validation if applicable) be taking place during this course of this effort or in follow on work? If so, would that be in a NASA environment like HERA? If so, will access be provided to performers? Government Response: It's expected that both the validation and the data collection will be part of this effort. The data collection will take place in an isolated and extreme environment (e.g., NASA's HERA, U.S. Army's Northern Warfare Training Center). ARI will assist with facilitating access to the selected location and participants. 5. Is ARI primarily looking to leverage COTS sensors? If so, are there specific devices have been used or investigated by the research team? Government Response: No specific sensors or devices have been identified by ARI. 6. With regard to visualizations, is there a particular user that is anticipated to use this? If so, could you please describe the use case you have in mind? Government Response: The user interface (e.g., dashboard) shall display the results in a format easily accessible to Army leaders (e.g., squad leaders, platoon leaders). The user interface shall allow Army leaders to quickly and intuitively assess the cohesion levels of multiple teams simultaneously (e.g., red/amber/green). 7. With regard to system development, are there any particular systems that this would need to integrated with or are there any kind of hardware that the measures should be displayed on in the field? Government Response: Eventually we foresee the measure(s) being integrated into a Heads Up Display (e.g., IVAS). For this effort, displaying the user interface/results of the measure(s) on a tablet or computer will be sufficient. However, the recommended measure(s) should be physically and technically robust enough to be used by small teams of Soldiers operating in isolated and extreme environments. The measure(s) should not require the Soldiers to be physically - tethered to a computer. Moreover, the measure(s) should not impede the Soldiers movement or negatively impact their performance. 8. Are the teams of interest in this program collaborating in an office environment or out in the field? Government Response: The teams will be operating in a field environment. 9. What are some team activities of interest for this program? Government Response: The activities conducted by the teams during this project will largely be determined by the isolated and extreme environment selected by the research team. However, the measure(s) should be robust enough to be used by Army units during normal operations. 10. How big of a team can we assume? Government Response: The measure(s) should at least be able to simultaneously determine the level of cohesion within three teams, with each team made up of four Soldiers. However, the eventual size of the teams will largely be determined by the isolated and extreme environment selected by the research team. 11. Is there any limit the number and type of sensors and data modalities that can be collected (besides non-obtrusive and no social badges)? For example, can audio be collected during the operation? Government Response: There is no limit to the number or type of sensors, as long as they are operationally feasible and don't impede the Soldiers movement or negatively impact their performance. Modalities other than physiological or neurological measures will be considered. However, other measures (e.g., audio) would likely be best served by being combined with physiological or neurological measures to maximize their usefulness. For instance, the measure(s) should still be able to provide leaders with data regarding a team's level of cohesion even when they are practicing noise-discipline (i.e., not talking) while conducting operations. 12. Is human subject experiment expected in the period of performance? If so, is there any choice of preference on where the experiment can be conducted? For example, can it be conducted at Fort Hood Research Unit? Government Response: Yes, both the validation and the experiment are expected to occur during the period of performance. The validation of the measure(s) could be done with Soldiers at Fort Hood (or any other Army post). However, the experiment will need to be conducted in an isolated and extreme environment (e.g., NASA'S HERA, U.S. Army Northern Warfare Training Center.