Design of a trusted shift of Coordination Forms: Supporting Collaboration to handle future non-human intelligent collaborators (NICs)

Abstract

We introduce principles for designing collaboration among special operation forces (SOF) and future non-human intelligent collaborators (NICs), focusing on interdependence and emergent dynamics of workflow. We discuss a dynamic mixed-initiative human-autonomy teaming (HAT) coordination concept, where multiple military SOF teams collaborate together with autonomous capabilities. We argue that effective tactical actions requires shift of coordination forms, i.e. who is enacting coordination functions, which in military command and control (C2) terminology is formalized as coordination authority. Coordination forms could shift according to a set of requirements and we discuss how to elicit experiences of such coordination from simulated missions where human teammates and/or NICs have had to make choices of coordination form. We formulate a set of hypotheses remaining to be empirically analyzed. We draw on collaboration research investigating socio-technical systems where machine teammates collaborate with human teammates to achieve a common goal.

Keywords

Coordination Human-automation interaction Military

Introduction

Military Operations depend on the most capable people (Costa,2018). However, some of the most famous missions in modern military history have depended on the most sophisticated technology as well. (Tucker,2007). SOF are special trained forces that carry out operations aimed at having a strategic impact.(Solli,2021) It is the quality of their training and equipment and mindset that determines their success (Danielsen,2018). To succeed, they rely on modern technology (Danielsen,2012). As an example, a SOF team used all available equipment and tools in the hunt for Bin-Laden in 2011 (Coll,2018), and equally for the hunt on Saddam Hussain in 2006 (Augustyn, 2023). Special Forces teams are often at the forefront of using available technology because of novel and high-risk missions that require novel technology to succeed. Drones will in near future be “trained” to sense, characterize and respond and carry out tasks monitored by Special Observation teams and so-called Human Autonomous Teaming (HAT) may influence form and behavior of Human-machine systems. (Leavitt,2020).

Machine Learning (ML) can function as a powerful catalyst for the “next chapter” within mixed-initiative, multi-team collaboration, specifically coordination of human and future non-human entities in military organizations (Hærem,2014; Lindebaum,2021[p.1]; Stensrud,2023; Alberts(forthcoming), [p.9]). Based on these considerations, we examine the following research question: -Does operating in mixed teams affect human collaboration behavior and require a change in the C2 Approach?

We firstly present some prior theory and prior research on NICs and collaboration between man and NICs (Part II), then,based on historical cases (Part III) we present an experiment design of simulated cases of Air Operations (to be). We briefly discuss principles for design of organizing mixed-initiative for multi-team cooperation with networked Loyal Wingmen as examples of networked (NICs) (Part IV), and then we develop a theoretical framework for a trusted shift of coordination forms (Part V). We then focus on future direction of research of impact of NICs on the C2 Approach in Military Operations (Part VI). Finally, we make a conclusion as to our analysis (Part VII).

Theory and Prior Research

Defining Properties of non-human intelligent collaborators (NICs)

We define a NIC; “as an artificial entity which is able to autonomously engage with its environment in direct interaction, involvement and/or interdependency with humans and other artificial entities in order to meet a certain objective,” Lamballais(2018)[p.7]. Furthermore, the capability of NIC and/or NIC systems to work closely together with humans in a variety of ways and with different emphasis towards solving complex tasks in a demanding environment may vary. We propose to widen the definition to include the evolutionary (development and learning) perspective on “benefiting from each other” as well as the societal view on “harmoniously working together,” (Eikelboom 2020[p.4];Houe et al. 2021). The definition of a NIC leaves several dimensions open along which NICs can vary. In our research, we choose to describe NICs by addressing three dimensions: (1) its appearance, (2) the type of tasks it is developed for, and (3) the manner of its interaction with humans.

The NIC appearance (1) describes its looks, actuators, sensors, and composition of the NIC. It describes how the human perceives the NIC, how the NIC gathers and processes information and what actuators the NIC can use to affect the environment. The NIC can have different looks e.g. big, small, humanoid, animal, on wheels, as hologram and appear physical, only in software or both. Furthermore, NICs can differ in the actuators the NIC can use to affect its environment, like arms, tools or weaponry. A NIC can also differ in its sensors and inputs it can use to gather data or the type and ways of data it can access and use. The NIC Composition describes whether the NIC is only composed of software or is a combination of hard- and software. The NIC can be static, meaning that the appearance of the NIC (and its capabilities) is stable or adaptive. Adaptive NICs can use distributed modular hard- and software to change its configuration during operations. This adaptive NIC can be perceived by the human as a set of different NICs, as the human calls upon another NIC depending on the task or requirements (e.g. an adaptive NIC optimized for protection purposes or for supply purposes).

The task and role related characteristics (2) describe the role the NIC can fulfil and how complex the tasks within that role can be. NIC’s will fulfil one (or maybe a combination of) combat functions. Alberts(forthcoming) [p.8].

A NIC manner of its interaction with humans (3) e.g. method of communication, human awareness, simulation of social skills, team adaptability, and explain-ability may vary according to (1) and (2) above.

These three dimensions (1)-(3), may be divided further in several sub-dimensions. Alberts(forthcoming) [Tables 1 and 2]. In the paper, we are focusing on the manner of its interaction with humans.

Table I.

Trusted cooperation concept – exemplified by historical cases and analysis of coordination forms, behaviors.

Analysis of coordination forms, behaviors exemplified by historical cases
Historical Case	Type of operation	Coordination (form)	Coordination (behavior)	Information context
Operation Gunnerside^a	Sabotage	Local, Small world network (form), a local “imperfect” boundary-spanner.	Mission command e.g. task oriented C2, decentralized behaviors (foci, action)	Radio silent mission
Operation Red Dawn^a	Capture of a high profile person	Semi-centralized C2 form, centralized, co-located in-region boundary-spanner	Mission command e.g. task oriented C2, semi-decentralized behaviors (foci, action)	Communication fully supported
Operation Neptune's Spear^a	Assessment of a high profile person	Highly Centralized C2 form, and out-of-region boundary-spanner	Hierarchical e.g. direct command, centralized behaviors (foci, action)	Stealth tech platforms, drones and satellites in space provided important information to the ground team.

Operation Gunnerside - a Norwegian team supported and trained by the British Special Forces, SOE; who trained Norwegian soldiers during World War II.

Operation Red Dawn -the hunt for Saddam Hussein, by Task Force 121, a US multi-element military force consisting of elite forces, including the US Army Delta Force and the US Navy SEAL.

Operation Neptune's Spear - the hunt for Osama bin Laden, i.e. the former President Barack Obama authorized the CIA and US SEAL Team Six to plan the mission, and it was led by the Joint Special Operations Command.

Table II.

Characterization of Trusted relationships.

Degree of Dynamics	High	Emergent, time-sensitive- trust relationship	Complex-trust- relationship
	Low	Simple-trust-relationship	Complicated-trust- relationship
		Low	High
		Degree of Interdependence

Defining a Trusted cooperation among human and NICs

There are considerable discussion about the terms collaboration, cooperation and trusted shift of coordination forms in various research literatures. The general definition of the term cooperation in the Oxford dictionary is “work or act together in order to bring about a result” underlining that a shared objective is important in a cooperation process. Cooperative intelligence can be formulated as the capability of systems to work closely together with emphasis towards solving a complex task in a demanding environment. In our opinion, the definition is almost entirely task driven and fits a view of cooperation in the fields of human-machine cooperation. Some research have sought to clarify the distinction between collaboration, cooperation and coordination. For example it has been suggested that collaboration can be defined as helping other entities in accomplishing work which again encompasses both cooperation, integrating interests, and coordination, integrating activities (Kretschmer,2008; Kretschmer,2016). In our work, we subscribe to this clarification, and emphasis that the definitions should include a property (a state) of a system that is a prerequisite for defining a relation, that is a relation between human and machine but also between machines, when machines need or acquire more freedom in decision-making. (Parker,1988; Sendhoff,2020).

Providing the willingness to act together in a complementary fashion we see it as important to be able to trust human and NIC components, meaning to relay on the other elements, especially in uncertain situations. trust can be further distinguished. We distinguish for example between types of trust based on competence, benevolence and integrity (Kim,2004; Lee,2010; Mayer,1995).

Competence is the set of skills, competencies, and characteristics that allow the trustee to have influence within some domain.

Benevolence is the perception of a positive attitude of the trustee towards the trustor.

Integrity includes honesty and morality and is defined as the trustor’s perception that a trustee’s actions adhere to a sound set of principles. Mayer(1999).

Influencing these types of trust are particular forming and maintaining a trust bond. Trust tends to be less of influence in stable, well-structured contexts. Nevertheless, as automation becomes more complex and goes beyond a simple tool with sharply defined and easily understood behaviours it can be suggested that the importance of trust increases.

Defining Trusted coordination forms among human NICs

We suggest that the interdependencies among participants relate to the coordination form selected. We discuss at length the relation between coordination function and form in (Luciano,2018). With respect to trusted shift of coordination forms among human and NICs we will here suggest a process model for transition between coordination forms applied to man-machine collaboration specifically, presented in section IV. We specifically define coordination as the integration of knowledge and activities to achieve a common goal (Rico,2018). Coordination needs are influenced by interdependencies between collaborators (Davison,2012). There is considerable research already on the relationship between interdependencies and coordination mechanisms in human-to-human coordination (Van De Ven,1976; Okhuysen,2009; Pentland,2009; Rico,2018; Thompson,1967). The needs for coordination can again be grouped in functions, i.e. coordination behaviors, according to Mathieu(2018)[p. 9] that concerns: (1) interests, (2) understanding, and (3) action. We see here that Mathieu(2018) include interest, which by others have been defined as a property of cooperation, into coordination. Furthermore, Luciano(2018) suggest that different coordination forms, can fulfill the three types of coordination functions: i.e. who in the organization enact. Using these concepts we can discuss whether different coordination forms can be used to achieve the same coordination functions (1),(2) and (3) of Mathieu(2018).

Presenting Historical Cases of Special Forces Operations

In this section, we are presenting historical cases of Special Forces Operations (in different variants of information contexts). Based on this cases we discuss the needs and principles for different concepts for designing multi-team cooperation, specifically coordination, which integrates human and future NICs and implications for C2, focusing on interdependence and emergent dynamics of shift in coordination based on historical incidents of special forces operations.

Special Forces depend on the most capable people. However, some of the most famous missions in modern military history have had to make choices of cooperation mechanisms and handling of so-called Imperfect Partners, and have been dependent on so-called pre-selected schemes such as bespoke C2 mechanisms (C2 modes, coordination forms).(Vught,2020; Srikanth,2011; Alberts,2019) SOF often work in small groups with unconventional tactics, e.g. the idea of patrolling in silence and (surprising) the enemy. Dahl(1999) Today, rangers train in the same way with the same principles. In fact, many of the world's Special Forces use similar tactics in espionage operations, including sabotage missions. Solli(2021). Sabotage is considered an effective action taken by SOF. A good example of such operations is Operation Gunnerside (the Vemork campaign) which was carried out by a Norwegian team supported and trained by the British Special Forces, SOE; who trained Norwegian soldiers during World War II. Hubbard(1971). The daring mission was to prevent Germany (the Nazi regime) from producing ingredients for an atomic bomb. The Germans built a heavy water plant at Rjukan in Norway. Heavy water was used as a crucial element in the development of the type of nuclear weapons that the Germans wanted. Deuterium was produced in a hydropower plant called Vemork at the bottom of a V-valley in Norway. A small group (parachuters) was sent in, to the mountain area nearby (Hardangervidda (Norway)) where they could be deployed (land) safely without being detected (by the Germans). The unit consisting of the nine men came to Vemork unseen and divided into two groups, one was to destroy the facility, the other was to secure the mission (keep watch as lookout). They had to break in, which meant getting past the German guards and placing explosives. The group's goal was a battery with 18 cells, the last stage in the production of heavy water, and detonate the cells. Operation Gunnerside was one of the Second World War’s most successful sabotages. Dahl(1999)

The Cold War drew on these experiences. SOF units must determine where a moving target is going to be, and when that is done, the boundary-spanner unit (or out-of-region partner) coordinates the action part, to capture, or if necessary, kill the target. The elements of deploy, find, fix and finish has been used in several high profile (special operations missions) missions in recent years.

Operation Red Dawn, the hunt for Saddam Hussein, by Task Force 121, a US multi-element military force proved to be more difficult than first thought. They followed the digital footprint to find him. Finally, some very clever analysts put together an early version of a social network, to analyze the people closest to him, looking for phone calls. In addition, by analyzing the information, and finally they were able to find him. He hid in an underground burial chamber. He was arraigned on 30 December 2006. Lawton(2016).

Another high-profile case that the special forces found, determined and completed was the hunt for Osama bin Laden, the founder and leader of the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda, and behind the 9/11 attacks. The CIA used all the spy devices they had access to during the years they hunted for bin Laden. He was on the run for almost ten years before the CIA received information about his whereabouts in a building in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The CIA was never 100% sure that it was Osama bin Laden, but based on satellite images, they knew that it was a man who lived in a relatively large area in Abbottabad in Pakistan. In addition, every day he walked around in a walled area, and because they knew exactly where it was, and they knew the time of day and the angle of the sun from the satellite, they could measure the shadow and calculate its height. The height corresponded almost to the centimeter of the estimated shadow height. They also saw that there were no cell phones nearby. It is unusual not to have telephone contact in a fenced area. For the next few months, the CIA used informants, surveillance and other intelligence measures, including a fake vaccination program, to find and collect biological samples and confirm his identity. Based on intelligence, former President Barack Obama authorized the CIA and US SEAL Team Six to plan the mission. Early in the morning of May 2, 2011, the Joint Special Operations Command launched Operation Neptune's Spear to capture bin Laden, dead or alive. It started in Pakistan. The plan was an operation of 45 to 50 minutes. A team of about 50 men. It is believed that in addition to other air support platforms, two MH-60 Black Hawk helicopters, with stealth tech, were used in the operation. They were to arrive in several helicopters and rappelling down to the third floor. At the same time, another helicopter landed on the ground, and they attacked from below. The plan was to overwhelm the target area and land at the same time. The problem was that the first helicopter crash-landed due to the thin air in the area. So the whole team had to attack the buildings from below. Apparently, drones and satellites in space provided important information to the ground team, which used helmet cameras to send and receive information to the base, and to the situation room in Washington DC, which also helped the team identify its targets, detecting threats and dealing with them quickly. When they entered the complex, one of his sons was killed before they shot bin Laden. None of the wives was injured. They had a data recovery team that retrieved data from all the digital devices they found. Computers, hard drives, written information. It became an important source of further investigation which they called the Osama bin Laden Library. The operation took less than 40 minutes. SEAL Team Six received the credit for the mission and for eliminating one of the world's most wanted terrorists. Lawton(2016)

Sending out Special Forces has been a successful strategy for both intelligence and defense purposes, and have required the use of technology in novel ways. This experience suggest that leveraging technology is key, but the character of this exploitation may change in today’s operational environment. Today there are new threats that SOF teams need to take into account. Examples are situations and complexity of tasks due to information warfare, contested and congested cyberspace, i.e. denied C2. We define Information Warfare as the manipulation of information trusted by a target without the target’s awareness to encourage them to make decisions conducting the manipulation. DARPA (as well as AFL, ARL and NRL) recently announced an initiative to focus on artificial intelligence and unmanned systems that can operate autonomously. Before, there was a man with a gun who went into a tunnel to find the bad people. Now there are robots crawling through the tunnel or to a storage area and communicating with each other. It can save lives, but has our faith in the future technology advancements, made us vulnerable to our robot's ability to perform intelligent tasks i.e. the ability of a digital computer or computer-controlled robot to perform tasks commonly associated with intelligent tasks?

Presenting Experiment Design For A NIC Concept

In the following section we are shortly presenting an experiment design for a NIC concept (i.e. a loyal wingman) testing a trusted shift of coordination forms (in different variants of information contexts). The virtual experiments uses AI technology, which can introduce unpredictable elements (e.g. classification of target) (Frisoni,2020) into the simulation program that resemble future real-life situations with a Loyal Wingman more closely. The virtual experiments will explore abilities related to F-35 operations with and without Loyal Wingmen. Based on this case we discuss the needs and principles for different concepts for designing multi-team cooperation, specifically coordination, which integrates human and NICs and implications for C2, focusing on interdependence and emergent dynamics of shift in coordination.

Developing a theoretical framework for a trusted shift of coordination forms For Coordination of NICs and humans

We claim that trusted collaboration between humans and systems requires both a shared understanding of the situation and a correct prediction of the mutual intention of the human operator and system on how to negotiate it, like in pilot-pilot cooperation (e.g. for a Loyal Wingman concept), in other words it requires both clarification of goals and integration of activities.

Fig. 1 presents a set of trusted relationships (see Appendix). At various points in task resolution change due to differences in situation awareness, capability and costs of coordinating, need to be explored. (Mathieu,2018; UK_MOD(2017) [p.47]; Morlidge,2010;Valaker,2021). In our specific setting of man-machine collaboration, an example is that the human may intervene in the coordination for example to steer when input from both man and machine are to be received. Extending Stensrud(2020), we suggest that the requirement for information necessary to modify collaboration behavior changes with degree of dynamics and interdependence. When there are low dynamics and interdependence one may utilize a “division of labor” type of relation (Miller,2007), whereas when there are high dynamics and high interdependence, more information exchange among the entities may be needed, exemplifying an “appropriation” type of relationship like Tchounikine (2013) illustrated in the upper left and right quadrants. In the upper right quadrant, the NICs may alter the conduct of a task. Mixed-initiative is perhaps the middle ground. While coactive design could be (moving) towards fig. 2(see Appendix).( Johnson,2014; Johnson,2018)

A trusted cooperation concept requires a correct prediction of the mutual intention of the human operator and system on how to negotiate it. In a more complicated cooperative trust relationship (Fig. 1(b)) the prediction, requires investigation and a planning process before shift of authority can be implemented. A time-sensitive cooperative trust relationship, we assume a responsive re-active shift of authority (Fig.1(c)). Followed by a complex cooperative trust relationship with a pre- and re-active, time-sensitive full-integrated chain (Fig.1(d)). Supporting the implementation of mixed-initiative coordination concept development, a synthetic control modelling effort need to be stimulated e.g. planning outputs pre-positioning of effectors ready for dynamic targeting opportunities. (Bain,2020; ONeill,2020; Lawrence,1967). According to (Orton,1990; Weick,1976) the reduction of costs for coordination lead to situations in which teams become dependent on the input of other teams (entities) for the execution of their main tasks Grant(2014) [p.53].

Development of Hypothesis

Hypothesis 1

We may posit that increased interdependence among coordinating elements in a C2 organization leads to increased coordination requirements, the need to process more information increases (cost). Traditional answers: increase unit capacity by providing tools for each entity in isolation and ad hoc coordination. Grant(2014) [p.35] Our idea: increase unit capacity by interacting and sharing resources.

Hypothesis 2a

Our beliefs is that increased interdependence among teams (agents, humans in mixed-groups) will lead to an evolution of a variety of control and coordination mechanisms (functional interdependencies) and synergies in trust-based relationships. Chathoth,2005; Tucker(2007)

Hypothesis 2b

A dominant feedforward (command based) coordination mechanism based on a high degree of pre-programmed and role-based assignment of authority, will promote this type of evolution (formal control). For our context: formal roles must be defined (also for NICs) etc.). At the present, not very precise in doctrine.

Hypothesis 2c

A dominant feedback (threat based model) coordination mechanism based on a high degree of reactive feedback and operator-based assignment of authority, will promote this type of evolution (informal control). For our context: we may need to model how organization identify such gaps. (Centralized or decentralized, small-world network)

Hypothesis 2d

A feedback and feedforward integrated model fully integrating feedforward and feedback will promote this evolution adjusting who coordinates based on both (pre-programmed) role and (individually and situated selection of) operator most suitable to mitigate any gap of authority. (Johnson,2014; Johnson,2018; IJtsma,2019), and at the same time, the selected use case (Loyal Wingman) is a very human-centric process. (Miller,2007; Lanaj,2013;Stensrud,2023).

The further development of our modelling environment will leverage artificial intelligence, which could contribute with additional capacity to identify dynamics and interdependencies and over time utilize their own heuristics for suggesting coordination mechanisms.

Hypothesis 3

As control mechanisms evolve from formal to a combination of formal and informal modes, the marginal costs associated with coordination decrease. (Chathoth,2005)

Future direction of research of impact of NICs on the C2 Approach of military Forces Operations we will investigate on mixed-initiative design of trusted cooperation concepts and on shifts in coordination forms experiments. Since the paper focuses on trusted coordination and cooperation, we are reducing discussion of other characteristics of NICs (appearance, etc.) that are less relevant. Future research we will investigate foundation and specification for the connection between elements of the mission, coordination and cooperation among the agents (human and NIC), and coordination form. To be able to define how a centralized, decentralized, or hybrid coordination form, will be successful, based on which agents have control over what actions.

Drawing upon the The Cynefin framework (UK_MOD,2017) p.47; (Sendhoff,2020) and systems theory (Morlidge,2010): We started out with the research question: Does operating in mixed teams (human and non-human entities) affect human collaboration behavior and require a change in the C2 Approach? How can Mixed-initiative systems allowing for autonomy to share in task completion be constructed to aid the collaboration, and what are implications for C2? Frisoni(2019). There are challenges associated with: (1) Organizing, orchestrating, and leveraging teams comprimising both humans and non-human intelligent entities/systems, (2) using increasingly sophisticated autonomous systems to effectively replace human team members/leaders, and (3) the potential psychological, social, organizational impacts of theses. (Haase,2015) In the theory section we suggested that a supporting C2 approach need to consider several elements: requirements for OPD and for HCI support for coordination. In order to take full advantage of NICs we hypothesized that more complex informational context for collaboration are needed (EncylBr, 2023; IJtsma.2019). Thus, interfaces Rico(2018) need to be refined in parallel to advancements in the capabilities of autonomy. (Frisoni,2019) [p.5-15] Future scenarios will probably exceed current scenarios in terms of speed, number, and density of threats. (Haase,2015; Mullins,2020) Future NICs, from a military perspective, can represent a significant force multiplier. An example in near future, is rescue operation in enemy territory. Flexibility in such training so that it is practiced in different situations where the SOF teams need NIC support, will be simulated in our HITL-environment. Situated Cognitive Engineering (sCE) method (Neerincx & Lindenberg, 2008) (Schematic view of Evaluation method illustrated in Fig.3 appendix). (Frost,2020;Haase,2015; Mullins,2020; Alberts,2000;Vught,2020).

Conclusion

Technology offers military units, including Special Forces and their partners, many opportunities - but also new challenges. Mullins(2020). We may posit that increased interdependence among the human and machine (e.g. NICs) in a C2 organization leads to increased coordination requirements, the need to process more information increases (cost). Our idea is to increase unit capacity by interacting, i.e. focus on the information exchange and relation among entities in a simulated controlled environment. Our beliefs is that increased interdependence among teams will lead to an evolution of a variety of control and coordination mechanisms from formal modes (routines, SOPs) to a combination of formal and informal control and coordination mechanisms due to achievements in task-resource interdependencies. On this background, the purpose of this article is to elucidate the following research question: How do different HAT designs contribute to support the coordination of task under various environmental characteristics? To be studied in our human in the loop (HITL) - synthetic environment.(forthcoming, 2024)

Footnotes

Appendix

This paper include Fig. 1 (lower left (a), lower right (b), upper left (c) and upper right (d), and Fig. 2 below in the appendix illustrating a trusted cooperation concept, and method Fig. 2

Acknowledgements

This paper draws heavily upon the ongoing work and the interim products of the (NATO) (STO) RG-SAS-143 Agile multi-domain. 2023.

References

Alberts

(2015). C2 Agility: (IDA Document NS D-5520 ).

Alberts

(2019). Is a Bespoke Design for Multi-Domain C2 Necessary? 24th, 2019.

Alberts

(2023). STO-TR-SAS-143 (forthcomming) Scientific Report

Alberts

D. S.

(2000). Network Centric Warfare.

Augustyn

(2023). “Saddam Hussein”. Encyclopedia Britannica,.

Bain

(2020). The Future of Command and Control. 25thICCRTS

Chathoth

P. K.

, & B.A.H. (2005). ‘Coordination Costs and Coordination Mechanisms in Alliances: An Evolutionary View.’ International Business and Economy Conference:, Hawaii, USA.

Coll

(2018). Directorate S: the C.I.A. and America’s secret wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Penguin Press.

Costa. (2018). U.S. Spy Museum-2018.

10.

DAHL

P. F.

(2019). HEAVY WATER AND THE WARTIME RACE FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY. CRC PRESS.

11.

Danielsen

Simons

(2018). Making warriors in a global era: An ethnographic study of the Norwegian Naval Special Operations Commando. Lexington Books.

12.

Danielsen

Valaker

(2012). ‘FACNAV’ (FFI-Report 2012/00816).

13.

Davison

R. B.

Hollenbeck

J. R.

Barnes

C. M.

Sleesman

D. J.

Ilgen

D. R.

(2012). Coordinated action in multiteam systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(4), 808–824.

14.

Frisoni

(2019). ‘Potential Impact of Artificial Intelligence to C2 Systems’ (p. 6). Tiberio workshop, organized by Italian MoD,.

15.

Frost

(2019). Creating a Well-Situated Human-Autonomy Team: The Effects of Team Structure. Browse All Theses and Dissertations.

16.

Grant

T. J.

(2014). Network topology in command and control: organization, operation, and evolution. Information Science Reference.

17.

Haase

(2015). ‘Distributed Common Ground System-Future.’JFQ, 109–113.

18.

Hærem

Pentland

B. T.

Miller

K. D.

(2015). Task Complexity: Extending a Core Concept. Academy of Management Review, 40(3), 446–460.

19.

Hou

Dunwoody

(2021). IMPACTS: a trust model for human-autonomy teaming. Human-Intelligent Systems Integration, 3(2), 79–97.

20.

Hubbard

J. T.

(1971). ‘Americans As Guerrilla Fighters:’ Heritage, 22(5).

21.

IJtsma

L. M.

Pritchett

A. R.

Feigh

K. M.

(2019). Computational Methodology for the Allocation of Work and Interaction in Human-Robot Teams. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 13(4), 221–241.

22.

Inga

Ruess

Robens

J. H.

Nelius

Rothfuß

Kille

Dahlinger

Lindenmann

Thomaschke

Neumann

Matthiesen

Hohmann

Kiesel

(2023). Human-machine symbiosis: A multivariate perspective for physically coupled human-machine systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 170, 102926.

23.

Johnson

Bradshaw

J. M.

Feltovich

P. J.

(2018). Tomorrow’s Human–Machine Design Tools: From Levels of Automation to Interdependencies. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 12(1), 77–82.

24.

Johnson

Bradshaw

J. M.

Feltovich

P. J.

Jonker

C. M.

Van Riemsdijk

M. B.

Sierhuis

(2014). Coactive Design: Designing Support for Interdependence in Joint Activity. Journal of Human-Robot Interaction, 3(1), 43.

25.

Kim

P. H.

Ferrin

D. L.

Cooper

C. D.

Dirks

K. T.

(2004). Removing the Shadow of Suspicion: The Effects of Apology Versus Denial for Repairing Competence- Versus Integrity-Based Trust Violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 104–118.

26.

Kretschmer

Puranam

(2008). Integration Through Incentives Within Differentiated Organizations. Organization Science, 19(6), 860–875.

27.

Kretschmer

Vanneste

(2016). Collaboration in Strategic Alliances: Cooperation and Coordination (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 2788087).

28.

Lamballais Tessensohn

van der Vecht

Eikelboom

A. R

. (2018). How to cooperate with Intelligent Machines: lessons for defence operations from the integration of AI and robotics across multiple domains. 23rd International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, ICCRTS, 6-9 November 2018, Pensacola, FL, USA, 2.

29.

Lawrence

P. R.

Lorsch

J. W.

(1967). Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 1–47.

30.

Lawton

(2016). ‘Intelligence Planning and Methods Employed: Operation Red Dawn - The Capture of Saddam Hussein ’,. Small Wars Journal.

31.

Leavitt

Schabram

Hariharan

Barnes

C. M.

(2021). Ghost in the Machine: On Organizational Theory in the Age of Machine Learning. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 750–777.

32.

Lee

A. Y.

Bond

G. D.

Russell

D. C.

Tost

González

Scarbrough

P. S.

(2010). Team Perceived Trustworthiness in a Complex Military Peacekeeping Simulation. Military Psychology, 22(3), 237–261.

33.

Lindebaum

Vesa

Den Hond

(2020). Insights From “The Machine Stops to Better Understand Rational Assumptions in Algorithmic Decision Making and Its Implications for Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 45(1), 247–263.

34.

Luciano

M. M.

DeChurch

L. A.

Mathieu

J. E.

(2018). Multiteam Systems: A Structural Framework and Meso-Theory of System Functioning. Journal of Management, 44(3), 1065–1096.

35.

Luciano

M. M.

Fenters

Park

Bartels

A. L.

Tannenbaum

S. I.

(2021). The Double-Edged Sword of Leadership Task Transitions in Emergency Response Multiteam Systems. Academy of Management Journal, 64(4), 1236–1264.

36.

Mathieu

J. E.

Luciano

M. M.

DeChurch

L. A.

(2018). Multiteam systems: The next chapter. In The SAGE Handbook of Industrial, Work & Organizational Psychology. SAGE Publications Ltd.

37.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

(1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 123–136.

38.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. H.

Schoorman

F. D.

(1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709.

39.

Miller

C. A.

Parasuraman

(2007). Designing for Flexible Interaction Between Humans and Automation: Delegation Interfaces for Supervisory Control. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 49(1), 57–75.

40.

Morlidge

S. P.

(2010). ‘The application of organisational cybernetics’ [Thesis, University of Hull].

41.

Mullins

(2020). Track Chair presentation.

42.

Okhuysen

G. A.

Bechky

B. A.

(2009). 10 Coordination in Organizations: An Integrative Perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 463–502.

43.

ONeill,. (2020). ‘Agile Control_ Distributed Collaborating Deciders.’.

44.

Orton

J. D.

Weick

K. E.

(1990). Loosely Coupled Systems: A Reconceptualization. The Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203.

45.

Pentland

B. T.

Haerem

Hillison

D. W.

(2009). Using Workflow Data to Explore the Structure of an Organizational Routine. In M. Becker & N. Lazaric, Organizational Routines (p. 12662). Edward Elgar Publishing.

46.

Rico

Hinsz

V. B.

Davison

R. B.

Salas

(2018). Structural influences upon coordination and performance in multiteam systems. Human Resource Management Review, 28(4), 332–346.

47.

Sendhoff

Wersing

(2020). Cooperative Intelligence - A Humane Perspective. 2020 IEEE International Conference on Human-Machine Systems (ICHMS), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICHMS49158.2020.9209387

48.

Solli

B. E.

(2021). THE ESSENCE OF SPECIAL OPERATIONS. The Three Swords Magazine, 37.

49.

Srikanth

Puranam

(2008). Integrating Distributed Work: Comparing Task Design, Communication and Tacit Coordination Mechanisms. SSRN Electronic Journal.

50.

Stensrud

Mikkelsen

Valaker

(2020). 5th generation fighter aircraft and future command and control: A note on some possible changes. 25th international command and control research and technology symposium.

51.

Stensrud

Valaker

Haugen

(2020). Interdependence as an Element of the Design of a Federated Work Process. 2020 IEEE International Conference on Human-Machine Systems (ICHMS), 1–6.

52.

Stensrud

Valaker

Mikkelsen

(2023). Orchestrating Humans and Teammates to counter security threats: Human-autonomy teaming in high and low environmental complexity and dynamism. Intelligent Human Systems Integration (IHSI 2023) Integrating People and Intelligent Systems.

53.

Tchounikine

(2013). Clarifying design for orchestration: Orchestration and orchestrable technology, scripting and conducting. Computers & Education, 69, 500–503.

54.

Thompson

J. D.

(2003). Organizations in action: social science bases of administrative theory. Transaction Publishers.

55.

Tucker

Lamb

C. J.

(2007). United States Special Operations Forces. Columbia University Press.

56.

U.K. MoD. (2017). ‘Joint Concept Note 2/17’ (JCN JCN 2/17’). DCDC.

57.

Valaker

Stensrud

Haugen

Mikkelsen

(2021). Possible consequences for command and control of shifting coordination form: Navigating the murky waters of adverse situations and complex missions. International command and control research and technology symposium.

58.

Ven

A. H. V. D.

Delbecq

A. L.

Koenig

(1976). Determinants of Coordination Modes within Organizations. American Sociological Review, 41(2), 322.

59.

Vught. (2020). Future hybrid human-robot teams: Functional requirements for Non-human Intelligent Collaborators(NICs) in an operational context..

60.

Weick

K. E.

(1976). ‘Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems ’,. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1(21), 1–19.