Table 1
Relationship Between HITL Simulation Purpose, Computer Support and Organizational Change.
| YEAR | PURPOSE OF THE SIMULATION WORKSHOP | COMPUTER-SUPPORT CONFIGURATION | IMPLICATIONS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AS RATED BY PARTICIPANTS |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | How can the F-35 fighter aircraft coordinate with other services to deal with novel threats? | Perceived fidelity: 5. Some interface-functionality not yet supported by computer. Breadth: High. Airforce, Navy and Army units. | Prescribed: Rated above 6 Constructive: Rated to 3.5 |
| 2018 | How can the Air Force repel attacks against air bases and delegate authority to Air Force units? | Perceived fidelity: 5. Specialized interfaces used. Several different vignettes played. Breadth: Low. Air Force units. | Prescribed: Rated 7 Constructive: Rated 6 |
| 2019 | How can the F-35 fighter aircraft coordinate with other Air Force entities and with the Army in order to deal with novel threats? | Perceived fidelity: 4. Some interface-functionality not yet supported by computer. Breadth: Medium. Air force units and one Army unit. | Prescribed: Rated 5 Constructive: Rated 5 |
| 2022 | How can the F-35 fighter aircraft and the P-8 Maritime Patrol Aircraft coordinate with other Navy and Army services to deal with novel threats? | Perceived fidelity: 4.8. Some interface-functionality not yet supported by computer. Breadth: Very High. Multiple Air force, Navy and Army units. | Prescribed: Rated 5 Constructive: Rated 5.8 |
| 2024 | How can the F-35 fighter aircraft and the P-8 Maritime Patrol Aircraft coordinate with other Navy units to deal with novel threats, and how can multiple roles take on leadership functions? | Perceived fidelity: 4.8. Some interface-functionality not yet supported by computer. Breadth: Very High. Multiple Air force, and Navy units. | Prescribed: Rated 6.3 Constructive: Rated 6.7 |
Figure 1
User Reactions to the HITL Simulation and Breadth of HITL Simulation.
Table 2
Correlations and Descriptive Statistics.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Year | ||||||
| 2. Prescribed Change | –.19 | |||||
| 3. Constructive Change | .73 ** | .01 | ||||
| 4. Relevance | .13 | .25 | .12 | |||
| 5. Fidelity | –.08 | .13 | .21 | .27 | ||
| 6. Breadth | .93 ** | –.29 | .58 ** | .07 | –.09 | |
| M | 2020.33 | 5.68 | 5.11 | 6.19 | 4.89 | 6.59 |
| SD | 2.94 | 1.60 | 1.67 | 1.04 | 1.15 | 1.62 |
| Range | 2017–2024 | 1–7 | 1–7 | 1–7 | 1–7 | 1–8 |
[i] N = 27. *p < .05, **p < .01, *** p < .001.