A key contribution of human factors engineering is the concept of workload: a construct that represents the relationship between an operator’s cognitive resources, the demands of their task, and performance. Understanding workload can lead to improvements in safety and performance for people working in critical environments, particularly within action teams. Recently, there has been interest in considering how the workload of a team as a whole may differ from that of an individual, prompting investigation into team workload as a distinct team-level construct. In empirical research, team-level workload is often considered as the sum or average of individual team members' workloads. However, the intrinsic characteristics of action teams—such as interdependence and heterogeneity—challenge this assumption, and traditional methods of measuring team workload might be unsuitable. This dissertation delves into this issue with a review of empirical work in action teams, pinpointing several gaps. Next, the development of a testbed is described and used to address two pressing gaps regarding the impact of interdependence and how team communications relate to team workload states and performance. An experiment was conducted with forty 3-person teams collaborating in an action team task. Results of this experiment suggest that the traditional way of measuring workload in action teams via subjective questionnaires averaged at the team level has some major shortcomings, particularly when demands are elevated, and action teams are highly interdependent. The results also suggested that several communication measures are associated with increases in demands, laying the groundwork for team-level communication-based measures of team workload. The results are synthesized with findings from the literature to provide a way forward for conceptualizing and measuring team workload in action teams.

Despite the prevalence of teams in complex sociotechnical systems, current approaches to understanding workload tend to focus on the individual operator. However, research suggests that team workload has emergent properties and is not necessarily equivalent to the aggregate of individual workload. Assessment of communications provides a means of examining aspects of team workload in highly interdependent teams. This thesis set out to explore how communications are associated with team workload and performance under high task demand in all-human and human–autonomy teams in a command and control task. A social network analysis approach was used to analyze the communications of 30 different teams, each with three members operating in a command and control task environment of over a series of five missions. Teams were assigned to conditions differentiated by their composition with either a naïve participant, a trained confederate, or a synthetic agent in the pilot role. Social network analysis measures of centralization and intensity were used to assess differences in communications between team types and under different levels of demand, and relationships between communication measures, performance, and workload distributions were also examined. Results indicated that indegree centralization was greater in the all-human control teams than in the other team types, but degree centrality standard deviation and intensity were greatest in teams with a highly trained experimenter pilot. In all three team types, the intensity of communications and degree centrality standard deviation appeared to decrease during the high demand mission, but indegree and outdegree centralization did not. Higher communication intensity was associated with more efficient target processing and more successful target photos per mission, but a clear relationship between measures of performance and decentralization of communications was not found.