Team Performance and Adaptability in Crisis Management: A comparison of cross-functional and functional teams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crisis management (CM) is a facet of command and control (C2) characterized by complexity and uncertainty, in addition to high time pressure. In order to meet the challenges of this kind of unpredictable crisis situations, teams must be able to adapt and coordinate in an effective way. The functional structure (i.e., each team member is allocated a unique functional role) is the most common in CM, but it is not necessarily the most efficient one. Structures that encourage independence and flexibility, like the cross-functional structure (i.e., team functions are shared across all team members), could promote much better performance in this kind of situations. We compared these two structures, functional and cross-functional, in a dynamic situation of CM. C 3 Fire, a forest firefighting simulation, was used to compare team structure on the basis of performance (process gain), communication, coordination and adaptability. Cross-functional team structures presented a better process gain, a more efficient coordination, and less communication. Surprisingly, no differences were seen regarding adaptability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".