4.1.2.1. Tactical transportation missions and crew

The collective aspect of the transportation professions is crucial to the fulfillment of the different types of missions that are carried out. The crew members refer to a crew “synergy”: every member possesses specific skills, all the while sharing a common language, common knowledge and common values. The transportation crew thus capitalizes on the individuals’ technical and human skills and expertise, while developing a collective skill set (the “synergy”, which is highly valued by the crew).

The missions they accomplish directly condition the nature and diversity of the Transall flight crews’ skills. These can be of essentially two different types, and can be accomplished during the same trip:

• – Logistical missions concern the transportation of materials or men to and from sites where risk is insignificant. The preparation of logistical missions is linked to the optimization of the load (freight or staff) relative to the airlift’s capacity and to the traveling distance. It is a question of seeking a balance between the fuel charge, the airlift’s load capacity, the traveling distance, the mission’s duration, the aviation regulations and the load’s composition standards.
• – Tactical missions are based primarily on the crew’s ability to handle the unexpected. They concern the transportation of materials or men to and from hostile sites. The flight profile’s creation is an important part of any tactical mission’s preparation, and is determined by the risks involved (ground-to-air and air-to-air). Tactical missions are at the heart of the C160 Transall flight crews’ career.

A Transall aircraft’s crew consists of four individuals, each possessing areas of expertise in a particular area of specialty (Figure 4.1).

The crew is made up of two pilots, one weapons system navigational officer (WSNO) specializing in navigation and the use of the defensive aid system (both of which are fundamental tasks during the tactical stages of the mission) and other a flight engineer specializing in the mechanics of the aircraft.

The four crew members complement each other with respect to the tasks that need to be carried out and the manner in which they apprehend events, particularly in temporal terms (the pilots focusing mainly on the short term and the navigational officer more on the mid and long term). The crew’s work, therefore, rests on a combination of skills’ both specialized and shared, distributed collaboratively. Transportation missions require good management of the interdependencies between each member’s area of specialty and a good coordination of each of their action and responsibility areas.

4.1.2.2. Transportation crews’ individual skills: technical, relational and situational

What is the nature and quality of the knowledge and skills developed by crews in their continuous search for coordination? The observation of the practices of coordination in real situations (that is during real flights) and a number of interviews with navigational personnel have allowed us to distinguish three different categories of individual skills [BAR 10b] held by each member of the Air Force’s Transall transportation crews (Table 4.1).

The technical, relational and situational skills rest on solid knowledge. They are acquired and perfected through experience, from a process of learning through action, interaction (learning through “doing”) and by trial and error. Beyond its military application, this classification can be thought of in the following way:

• – First, the players develop “technical” skills. These relate to a “know-how” specific to an area of expertise and the use of resources and technologies for said area. They constitute the core of the activity. The knowledge of rules, procedures and action–reaction sequences (behaviors) that frame the activities represents, for instance, the necessary technical skills leading to the good coordination of activities and men. The actors appropriate these skills and internalize them throughout their experiences. They become automatisms, allowing them to efficiently manage routine situations and save time, which will then be used for other urgent tasks during unforeseen situations.
• – Subsequently, the relational skills [PER 02] or savoir-être, appear as key. They are articulated through the management of social interactions and the actors’ ability to integrate the others’ needs and demands relating to the decision process. In this respect, relational skills are linked to the individual’s emotional and social skills [RIG 07]. The former enable the management of emotionalism and stress related to unexpected situations. In particular, they enable the management of body language, of knowing how to send (encode) non-verbal messages, as well as receive them (decode). As for the latter, social skills are mainly directed toward the individuals’ ability to communicate verbally with others, to relate a situation (sequence, respect the order of events and give it meaning) in a suitable way in the eyes of the interlocutor.

It is also a question of knowing how to listen to others and encouraging discussion. Relational skills, therefore, appeal to the crew members’ social intelligence, their knowledge of social conventions and their ability to build relationships based on trust.

• – Finally, favoring adaptation during action, situational skills or “knowing what to do” (or “savoir quoi faire”) translate an individual’s ability to adapt to the demands and constraints of the environment in order to make appropriate decisions.

They refer to managing the switch between routine and unexpected situations, resting primarily on the actor’s ability to analyze information, interpret the situation, managing ambiguity and quickly finding solutions to apply to a situation which has upset the initial plans as a whole. This type of skill refers to the understanding of the action’s context and logic, to intuition and common sense. Situational skills also refer to the crew members’ reflexive skills [COL 06, TSO 05, YAN 09], that is their ability to think about their actions retrospectively (taking a step back) in order for the elements of the action that have not yet been uncovered to emerge and adapt, and evolve their behavior accordingly. In this respect, reflexive skills are the foundation for the practices bearing the same name that crews develop during debriefing sessions (as seen in Chapter 3).

In extreme environments, the actors’ ability to coordinate themselves rests on a sequence of know-how, savoir-être and knowing what to do, that they weigh in relation to the management of situations they must face and the aims they pursue.

For instance, in the case of the coordination between fighter pilots and Special Forces in Afghanistan, described in the Chapters 1 and 3, the procedures, standard modes of communication (code words) and other automatisms acquire a key significance when crews manage routine situations. These coordination elements are principally exploited – acted upon – from technical know-how internalized by the actors during their training and operational experience. When an unforeseen situation arises, frequently provoking surprise and necessitating an adjustment to usual baselines, the savoir-faire becomes background to social skills and knowing what to do.

The actors communicate in order to give meaning to the new situation that they are experiencing: they talk about what they are going through, debate and agree on a solution in order to coordinate themselves. By doing so, they rely on their relational skills, in order to be as critical and open in the discussion as possible, and about their “savoir quoi faire”: what decision to take? How to achieve the objectives when the initial plans are no longer adapted to them? What analogies can they make with previous experiences?

The team mates also employ their technical, relational and situational skills when interacting with technology, revealing uses that were not initially conceptualized by the maker. The case of text-chat, used by NATO military teams in Afghanistan (as seen in Chapter 3), can be seen in terms of skills. Indeed, the virtuous effects associated with combinatory uses can only be fully effective if the players are capable of engaging in multiple opportunities for vertical/horizontal and individual/collective communication. In this context, the users’ technical skills, namely their mastery of the system’s properties, are insufficient. They must know how to communicate with the teams scattered around the mission area, as well as knowing how to best exploit the information they have gathered in order to make the relevant decisions.

4.1.2.3. Collective skills and intelligence in tactical transportation crews

Technical, relational and situational skills are only fully developed within a collective: the coordination within the teams in extreme environments rests on a prominently collective aspect, which cannot be reduced to the simple combination of individual skills.

Collective skills can be defined as the “set of the participants’ individual skills in addition to an indefinable component, specific to the group, stemming from its own synergy and dynamics” [DEJ 98]. Representing certain “shared and complementary knowledge and implicit savoir-faire (…) that participate in a collective’s repeated and accepted ability to produce common results or co-construct solutions” [MIC 05], the collective skills provide teams with a greater capacity to solve problems that they would not be able to treat individually [WIT 00]. They are, by nature, established, namely tied to a context and anchored within a collective. Thus, if collective skills do not exist without individual skills, the former transcend the latter and participate in the team’s performance [RET 09]. The notion of collective skills poses the question of a recursive relationship between the individual and the collective inside the learning loop, as well as that of social (relational, cultural, social identification, etc.), cognitive [RET 05] and sensory processes implemented during their development.

Furthermore, the extreme nature of the environment puts the collective at the heart of the coordination, highlighting the crucial role played by synergy and mutual trust specific to the team and essential for suitable decision making. The ability to solve a problem and coordinate actions in a diffused work environment calls for a minimal versatility on the part of the team’s members. This versatility favors the self-control of actions undertaken by others (pledge of security) and calls for a certain number of shared operational models and common values.

With the Transall C-160 experts, the crew’s composition and the distribution of skills within the crew play an essential role in coordination [BAR 10b]. These two aspects touch upon the determining factors of collective skills development. Furthermore, a crew’s collective skills involve a multicultural aspect that is all at once interdepartmental, international and interarmy. The ability to work with other armies and other organizations (for example, non-governmental organizations), or even with other countries, constitutes a skill in its own right. Finally, the collective skills that emerge from the complementarity and synergy of individual knowledge distributed within the crew involve the implementation of appropriate methods and processes and are notably different from individual-learning methods. The crew members receive a common theoretical and practical education that allows them to develop a shared knowledge. They also belong to squadrons marked by common work values and traditions that transcend the individual aspects in order to cultivate the “collective meaning” and synergy. This common knowledge base is considered to be a prerequisite for crew work, as outlined when interviewing the members that comprise it.

Individual and collective skills therefore allow the teams to coordinate with each other in extreme environments: they acquire the technical, relational and situational savoir faire, as well as the essential component the Air Force teams refer to as “synergy”, that collective skill that allows them to work together, in the same direction. The management of the sudden switches between routine and unexpected situations is determined by the teams’ ability to distribute individual skills, and to then exploit them “together”, in order to find solutions and take the decisions best suited to the events at hand.

The question of the notion of skills operationalization, mainly the notion of collective skills, thus comes forward: how can the manager, and, more generally, the organization act? What conditions can managers implement in order to favor the acquisition of individual and collective skills necessary to coordination in extreme environments? How to encourage the team members to get involved in collaborative work?

Such a questioning points us back to the questions raised by the collective intelligence literature (for example, [ZAR 06, OLF 07, LEN 09]). Collective intelligence represents a tool that allows the development of emulation, adaptability and creativity within a team, in order to guarantee the implementation of its decisions [ZAR 06]. The following sections will describe three avenues for managerial action, aiming to generate and sustain this so-called collective intelligence within the teams: the first two (feedback and professional community) have an impact on the process of learning and the creation of collective knowledge, and the third avenue examines the effect of information systems and the technologies that comprise them (DSS) on the teams’ creativity and adaptability.

4.2.1.1. The “immediate” feedback process

The “immediate” feedback process can be defined as the systematic and repeated evaluation of the actions that contribute (or have contributed) to the completion of a collaborative project, as well as that of the team members’ observations and interpretations.

From formal and informal discussions, the team members are encouraged to discover independently what is happening (or what has happened), why it is happening (or has happened) and to see what lessons can be learned in terms of individual progress and collective performance.

The “immediate” feedback process, occurring during or right after the action, helps the actors reconstruct the live situations step by step, be they routine or unforeseen, as well as the management modes that were applied to them. They can thus easily identify the individual and/or collective mistakes that were made, discuss the different options they could have chosen, focus on the lessons learned and implement them during the next stage. The learning loop, therefore, rests on the ability to learn together, during and from the action. It feeds the collective skills and helps teams progress in the completion of their missions by revealing complementarities and synergies taken from the analysis of errors [RON 06].

The military environment is familiar with the short-loop feedback process. Indeed, armed forces have been practicing it for decades, only considering the mission finished once it has been debriefed. This is indeed the case of the Air Force’s Aerobatic Team, on which we will now focus.

4.2.1.2. Air Force’s Aerobatic Team: who is it?

The AFAT is located on air base 701 in Salon-de-Provence, France. It consists of six pilots, six mechanics, two operations agents and two cameramen. Apart from the fact that the pilots benefited from aerobatic flights during their initial training, every team member has a background in fighter aviation and has solid operational experience from his or her original career. Nowadays, the team consists of newly-arrived pilots, possessing experience in national and/or international aerobatic flight competitions, as well as older pilots, who have earned their experience throughout the years spent in the AFAT. The aircraft commander is one of the six pilots. The rest are likely to take over “supplementary” activities (for example, external communication and events planning), undertaking these in addition to their piloting tasks. Working closely with the pilots, the mechanics’ responsibilities include the implementation and maintenance of the AFAT’s three Extra 300 aircraft.

As briefly mentioned in Chapter 3, the Aerobatic Team must carry out two missions. First, it intervenes in military and civilian aerial meetings. The meetings mainly take place during the summer season, the winter season being set aside for training. The meetings allow the general public to be introduced to the field of aerobatic flight and to convey a positive image of the French Air Force. As explained by a pilot: “During an aerial meeting, we are putting on a show. We need to act as artists, trying to arouse emotions”. Moreover, the excellent quality of the maneuvers being presented guarantees to leave a good impression, which then benefits the aerobatic flight community at large. These performances, therefore, involve the team as an entity, each flight crystallizing a collective know-how.

The AFAT also participates in national and international competitions. In the last few years, the team has achieved the best possible results. It has in fact won the gold medal in the Unlimited World Championships (the highest category) in 2009, 2013 and 2015. In the individual categories, the first place was also awarded to AFAT pilots. The results for the 2010 and 2014 European Championships confirm once again the high level of excellence, as the team won a gold medal. During the competitions, the pilots execute mandatory programs (known to the pilots, made available to them several months before the competitions, and unknown, where the requested maneuvers are unveiled a few hours before the flight) and freestyle, judged by a panel of 10 judges. The different programs are executed in a space of 1 km³ called the box, and symbolized on the ground by marks (Figure 4.2). The judges rate the execution of maneuvers and sequences with marks out of 10, the applied coefficients being directly correlated to the proposed level of difficulty. The pilot’s ability to develop inside his box (without leaving its limits and respecting the flight safety regulations) is also rated. The competition is also marked by individual dynamics, as pointed out by a pilot: “Aerobatics is an individual sport. People are not selected for their ability to be nice, but for their competitor skills. That means everyone is fighting for the top spot”. The selection and training of military pilots is carried out by the federal trainer, under the authority of the French Aeronautical Federation’s National Technical Director (the AFAT’s aircraft commander also participates in the pilot’s selection). The federal trainer himself is a former military and world champion.

Good coordination within the AFAT rests on its members’ ability to collectively generate meaning from the two types of missions they must carry out. As pointed out by Alsène and Pichault [ALS 07], this collective construction (the authors refer to this as the search for coherence) highlights both the importance of the orchestration of activities (organizing resources and individual efforts) and their harmonization (each team member shares the same representation of his environment and agrees on the means necessary to accomplish the objective). At the AFAT’s level, it becomes a question of managing the logistical aspects of the presentation and competition activities (personnel allocation, aircraft availability, pilots’ and mechanics’ workload management, time schedule planning, etc.) and a question of integrating its members’ knowledge and skills so that each one develops in the same direction and contributes to the excellence of meetings and competition results.

4.2.1.3. “Immediate” feedback in order to build and cement the collective

When answering the question: “What does the feedback process naturally mean for you?”, the AFAT’s members being interviewed all converge toward the same answer: the transfer of savoir-être and “savoir quoi faire” (knowing what to do). A pilot states: “We do not talk about theoretical knowledge here. We discuss sensations, ‘steering buttocks’ as we’re used to saying”. Another specifies: “This is pure piloting, where sensations are essential. For instance, if you want to know where to put your foot to trigger a figure, you won’t find the answer in a database! Theoretical knowledge is good, but has no value if it is not put into practice”.

Marked by the experiential nature of the knowledge it can transmit, the feedback process in the AFAT rests on specific practices. First, the transfer of knowledge is mainly accomplished from informal discussions and dialogues, one-to-one and as a group: “You cannot find experience in a textbook, it is transmitted orally and it is lived”. These exchanges involve the pilot and the trainer in all the competition flights, the pilots and mechanics when it concerns flight meetings. A pilot explains: “The feedback process is mainly word-of-mouth amongst ourselves. I sincerely think the most efficient feedback process is done between men. Paper, video,… those only represent tools that allow for only a partial transmission of the knowledge we acquire year after year”.

The feedback process’s “oral tradition” is made possible first due to the use of common languages, as previously discussed. Whether it be the Aresti code (diagrammatic transcription of aerobatic maneuvers) or body language or expressions, these shared languages, far from hindering informal discussion between members, facilitate it by allowing them to get straight to the point without needing long introductory descriptions. A pilot states: “Within the team we all talk the same language, certainly because we share aerobatic’s language and knowledge (military and civilian). I believe that is the reason why giving feedback is done naturally and quickly between members”.

It also appears that the sharing spaces, such as the squadron bar, favor this informal feedback process more than others. The AFAT members meet there in order to continue sharing their experiences, recent or otherwise. A mechanic recounts: “We always meet here in the same space, in the morning or in the evening. And a lot of things are said in the café. For example, when we come back from a meeting, us mechanics who have gone with the pilots start talking to the other ones (the ones that stayed) in an informal way: you need to use this setting for this pilot in order to avoid aggravating his tendonitis, etc.”. Pilots, mechanics and administrative personnel know they will meet daily at the squadron bar and take advantage of the opportunity to chat. The mechanic continues: “In the squadron break room, a lot of problems are solved. It allows us to communicate with the right people, while discussing with them. Which is why having spaces where people meet and communicate freely is essential!”.

The feedback process within the AFAT is particularly “immediate”. One of the interviewed pilots explains: “The transmission is fairly immediate. We perform short flights, of about 15 min, and give feedback either during or right after the flight.” In the first instance, a second aerobat (either one of the pilots or the trainer), located in a central position, that is a place where he will have a good field of vision of the maneuver taking place. A cameraman routinely accompanies him in order to film the flight. The person in the central position has radio contact with the flying pilot, and is thus able to offer his comments (and criticism) as it happens.

Another pilot explains: “Aerobatic pilots need to hear their trainer’s voice punctuating the maneuvers, severely criticizing what they are doing, all in real time. It allows us to immediately put the feedback into practice, to repeat the maneuvers, over and over…”.

The person in central position can also record his comments as voice-over, which will accompany the flight’s video. This is the second type of immediate feedback: right after landing, the pilot enters a small projection room where he inspects his flight along with his colleagues. As made clear by the trainer, the pilot is no longer in the action phase, he is in a reflexivity phase: “I record my comments as a voice-over, which the pilot will only hear once the flight has finished and is watching the video of his flight. He will scrutinize his performance, observing any errors he will have made, as well as recognizing what he has done right. Why he succeeded this maneuver and why he failed that one are answers he must obtain, with my help or that of a colleague if necessary. He must take a step back in order to apprehend his state of mind during the flight’s key moments; he must learn to know himself in order to progress. It involves self-criticism and the acceptance of the others’ (constructive!) criticism”.

These informal and “immediate” feedback processes constitute a key source of cohesion within a team, torn between its objective of demonstrating a collective savoir-faire during meetings, and collective and individual results during competitions. Under these circumstances, it is in the interest of the pilots to invest in the feedback process, in order to benefit, and have others benefit, from their own knowledge in order to progress. However, the competitions are naturally marked by more individual dynamics: “People are not selected for their ability to be nice, but for their competitor skills. That means everyone is fighting for the top spot. Even if nowadays we are world champions in the team rankings, we all focus on individual rankings. The team rankings are a consequence of our individual know-how, not an end in itself”.

Military pilots are now among the best aerobat in the world and directly compete against each other. They could consequently perceive the feedback process as a potential danger, as it encourages the spreading of knowledge that is crucial in order to win. One of the pilots rejects this idea: “A flying pilot who keeps all the information for himself, that could be conceived if he is in the running for first place. In my case, I am currently in the leading position, and of course I feel threatened! It is an unstable balance. But withholding information, hiding stuff… That’s not how we want to win. I want to keep giving and receiving feedback”. In consequence, beyond just a process of knowledge transmission, the feedback process is seen as a way of raising the contestants’ level, a source of emulation and a way of always facing people better than themselves.

Thus, between meetings and competitions, the members of the aerobatic team constantly alternate between collaborative and near competitive interactions. The coexistence of supposedly opposite attitudes seems to be made possible due to the experience of giving and receiving feedback. Indeed, the practice of sharing experiences evokes a process of intermediation, a sort of bridge between the competitor attitude on one hand and the presenter on the other hand: “The collective is actually built around a quite unusual balance: the competitive spirit, very individualistic, that leads us to want to defeat everyone. Then there is the team spirit, which is essential to the survival of the AFAT, which must show its know-how and communicate in order to continue to exist. By broadcasting the videos of the flights, the way in which we succeeded this or that maneuver, the mistakes to avoid, the feedback process helps us measure all that out” (from an interview).

Furthermore, by facilitating social interactions, the feedback process creates cohesion, bonds a team. One of the pilots explains: “The feedback process plays a part in the team’s cohesion. First because we see the way in which others work, their level of expertise, and that builds confidence. Also, because it allows us to get to know the others beyond their technical abilities and expertise. The feedback process allows us to approach them differently, better understand their personality, their attitudes”.

The trainer explains: “The human environment is paramount and the team is interesting when the members get along and complement each other. Members must be united and they build this cohesion mainly by sharing their professional experiences. For example the pilots meet often to watch their colleagues’ videos. This is a group debriefing of an individual’s performance. Sometimes the criticism is harsh, but they must also know how to encourage themselves. Everything must be done in a constructive spirit. It is pointless otherwise, the collective will be poor and so will the results”.

4.3.1.2. Network-centric decision-support systems

In the last 20 years or so, the work in information systems management has questioned the contribution of DSS to decisional creativity, be it individual or collective [FOR 07]. Such systems permit us to see the bigger picture regarding the problems to be solved, exploring new points of view and implementing original decisions, adapted to different situations.

This is the case for a particular type of DSS, the network-centric DSS. These provide users with the precise visualization of a situation while (1) integrating geographical data, (2) manipulating data in the form of layers (each layer gathering a particular type of player) and (3) allowing the drilldown (possibility of zooming into a particular element’s characteristics and zooming out to a global view). Resting on a structured network, the networkcentric DSSs regularly and closely collect and spread available data, updated in near real time. They retrieve, organize and analyze the data in order to provide decision-makers with a representation of the problem they need to solve, namely (1) a graphical visualization of the elements of interest associated with the problem and (2) links between these elements.

Network-centric DSSs are particularly well adapted to (individual and collective) decision-making in extreme environments. They provide a global view of the action’s environment all the while allowing for a manipulation of the data. These technical characteristics allow the decision-makers to access a situational awareness [END 00], to devote their attention to construct meaning, and then develop and stabilize their understanding of what must be done. In this way, network-centric DSSs support the so-called naturalist or intuitive decision-making [KLE 98]: inscribed in an initial reconnaissance process, the intuitive decision is taken by the experts mobilizing their past experiences in order to manage the situations they experience. Far from comparing various options with each other (analytical and satisfying decision process), they work analogically in order to adjust their decisions to the uniqueness of the problems they must solve. In this context, the “intuitive” decision-makers do not need a system capable of generating options from which they can choose (model-oriented DSS), rather, they need access to a rigorous representation of their environment of action (data-oriented DSS), which allows them to give meaning to the situation [LEB 06].

Where does creativity come into play in the naturalist decisional processes supported by network-centric DSSs? The following section aims to suggest answers while describing the creative uses of a military system that equips the French Air Force Rafale fighter planes: LINK 16.

4.3.2.1. LINK 16: a description

From 2006, France has progressively equipped its Air Force with American Joint Tactical Information Distribution System (JTIDS) technology. Also known as LINK 16, this system has been implemented on board the versatile fighter plane Rafale, the command and control aircraft Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) and several Mirage 2000Ds. We will focus mainly on LINK 16 equipping Rafale.

Resting on a highly secure reticulated structure (encryption system), LINK 16 supports the tactical data exchange necessary to (aerial, terrestrial and marine) military teams’ coordination, particularly fighter crews consisting of a pilot and a navigator. The data collected by the various sensors spread over the combat zone (human and technological) are fused by LINK 16, which elaborates a coherent graphical and updated representation of the field situation. This representation is broadcast to the different players involved in the operation, such as the high command and Reachback (the Pentagon in the United States or the Operation Planning and Command Center in France), the tactical command centers located on base (that is the terrestrial, aerial or marine zones where the military operations take place) or the teams involved in the missions. A staff officer explains: “Tactical information can be relayed thanks to the linking of data, which allows us to communicate in digital form any flight information, to the ground, to another vector such as AWACS or to other Rafales”. Teams can be both LINK 16 users and “sensors” (as they also collect information), to the extent where the data collected during their missions contribute to the tactical representation’s update.

The tactical data being exchanged and exploited by the pilots using LINK 16 can include enemy and friendly forces’ positions, fuel levels, available weapons, meteorological conditions, target coordinates, emergency airfields and tanker aircraft positions (Figure 4.3). LINK 16 also provides them with communication capabilities via a common language (code words and J-series data) that facilitates their coordination in any situation.

All of these services allow users to improve their grasp of the situation. As they specify during interviews, LINK 16 facilitates simultaneous acquisitions:

• 1) The perception of environmental elements in a volume of space and time: “The first thing we share is each participant’s position and that of enemy forces, because when you know where each player is at any point in time, coordination becomes easier” (a Rafale pilot).
• 2) An understanding of their significance: “With LINK 16, we permanently know where friends are, where enemies are, and we get a global view of the situation” (a Rafale pilot).
• 3) The ability to anticipate their own evolution: “For example, LINK 16 shows us tankers, which allows us to graphically see in our zone if a tanker is about to go back because it is already supplying another patrol, so we adapt ourselves. We are always one step ahead” (a Rafale navigator).

LINK 16 offers an unprecedented serenity and comfort, both in terms of apprehension of the environment surrounding the action and reactivity in the face of threats. In order to illustrate this, a pilot explains: “LINK 16 provides information updated by various sensors. This results in increased comfort, as the friendly and enemy positions are known and the tactical situation thus easily and instantaneously shared between members”. These general observations naturally lead us to question ourselves about the creative implications of such a system. What are the effects of LINK 16 on the user crews’ creativity?

4.3.2.2. During flight: creativity in the process of elaborating aerial tactics

LINK 16 improves crews’ abilities to detect and implement using available opportunities during flight. By providing pilots and navigators with tactical information in near real time, LINK 16 allows them to gain an unprecedented grasp of the situation. A pilot uses the following metaphor: “Imagine you are in total darkness, in an area you don’t know, and are made to run and all you have is a torch to see what’s in front of you. With LINK 16, it’s as if someone turned on the light inside the room before you started running. All of a sudden you understand what you need to do and how to do it”. Regarding any unforeseen situations of a tactical nature (for example, unexpectedly detecting an enemy aircraft, a commando unit suddenly being trapped and needing assistance, etc), crews can manage them in real time. A navigator specifies: “Between what was planned and what you actually live during flight, things can be potentially very different. The unexpected is discovered in the moment, and we need to know how to adapt in real time”. Without LINK 16, these situations become more difficult to manage, as the crews do not benefit from as fine and updated a tactical representation. A Rafale pilot recounts: “Data-linking is a huge revolution. In big COMAO [Composite Air Operation – a set of devices having different capabilities and missions but needing to work together], those that had LINK 16 didn’t talk, they didn’t need to: they saw everything, while the ones that didn’t were constantly requesting information: ‘request picture, request picture!’”.

Furthermore, without LINK 16, crews would take off with a potentially very imprecise representation of the action’s environment and of the problems they would be facing. It all depends on the quantity and reliability of the information collected beforehand. On a base such as Afghanistan, for example, where the theater’s physical characteristics and the presence of combatants among the civilian population made the acquisition of information particularly difficult, it was not unusual for pilots to take off with a rough knowledge of threats and upcoming enemy tactics. A Mirage 2000D navigator assigned in Afghanistan, unequipped with LINK 16, explains the conditions under which his bombardment missions were carried out: “During CAS [Close Air Support] we don’t always have an objective. You need to take your own side’s position, the collateral positions and the environment into account. You have drones, FAC [Forward Air Controllers – ground-based personnel indicating targets to aircrafts] if it’s dark or if you need to create a show of force or if you’re in the mountains or under layers… And none of that is planned”. Without LINK 16, crews thus devote a big part of their cognitive resources to tracking and identifying risk, as well as anticipating enemy maneuvers, on the ground or in the air. All piloting tasks, as well as environment management and rapid three-dimensional evolution, are of course added to this mental burden. As explained by a Rafale pilot: “Those without LINK 16 are constantly mentally calculating. You need to understand them. They calculate, they calculate… That takes time!”.

With LINK 16, the cognitive load dedicated to treating information is considerably lightened: “With LINK 16, you can use more of your mental abilities, you are significantly less overloaded”. The visual representation offered on screens relieves crews of cumbersome calculations: symbols and colors are unambiguous and facilitate the situation’s understanding. A patrol leader explains: “For instance, I will look at the symbols and quickly see if my crewmen targeting correctly”. Furthermore, the fact that the data about the theater are updated in real time saves the crews from a laborious mental construction regarding the action’s environment. A pilot states: “With LINK 16, you no longer need to construct a mental representation of the tactical situation. The system does that for you! As such, you can focus a lot of your mental abilities on the tactical plan, and are not as overloaded”. The Mission Commander on AWACS insists: “With Rafale and LINK 16, information management tasks have significantly diminished, a few of them now being carried out by the system. Because of this, AWACS crews can be more focused on the actual aerial space control missions”.

It is in this context that an improvement on flexibility supported by the system can be observed. This comes to light in the adjustment of tactics during action in relation to the environment’s characteristics. A pilot explains: “When situations are complex, human judgment becomes paramount and is what allows good decisions to be taken. LINK 16 helps us understand what is happening and adapt to that”. In this case, tactical opportunities are more numerous: choreography as was imagined during the briefing stage can be readjusted in situ by the crews, and more specifically by the formation leader in charge of mission management. One of them explains: “We have the possibility of using radio to a much lesser degree […], we have the possibility of using our weapons thanks to LINK 16 […], information can be filtered during transmission/reception. You can also type things in by hand with LINK 16’s free text [on the Mirage aircrafts], which means we can now give indications or whatever else”. The time saved due to the system is allocated to analyzing the situation and adjusting tactics.

This does not mean that the actors find themselves in a situation of complete improvisation, in the sense that they have considered a set of scenarios during the preparation phase and the appropriate responses to implement. A pilot explains: “We are not reinventing the wheel. The basic tactics are always the same. Where we are going further with Rafale, is with the linking of tactical data and all the possibilities for tactical refinement it offers!”. In addition, crews evolve in a highly regulated and constrained environment. When they find themselves on an outdoors operation base, for instance, the rules of engagement, determined by the political sphere, precisely stipulate how much flexibility they have. Finally, readjustment is done under the supervision of a leader, who continually updates the symbols and colors on the pilots’ screens. A crew member explains: “I shot and it suits him [his leader] somewhat… and if it suits him and I haven’t he’ll place a pointer on the target”. In other terms, each pilot and navigator is creative in relation to his level of responsibility (which is directly correlated with his level of qualification), of which he is aware and accepts without condition. Under these circumstances, a synergetic and harmonious in situ reorganization of the formation is observed.

4.3.2.3. On the ground: creativity during scenarios’ preparation

Mission preparation is primarily developed during briefing, right before flight. The crews are informed of the theater’s characteristics and potential danger, and tackle tactical questioning, the method of progression as well as each of their roles. They also agree on the elements of communication (code words), and the frequency at which they will be used. It is a question of organizing the mission’s progress, with the leader as an orchestra conductor. The leader makes sure that everyone knows what to expect, what to do and under what conditions.

As suggested by the data collected from Mirage 2000D pilots and navigators who are not equipped with LINK 16, any unexpected situations are only evoked from a technical point of view. With LINK 16, due to the acquisition of a precise and updated representation of the tactical situation, the process of anticipating unforeseen situations during the mission’s preparation stage improves, particularly from the implementation of increasingly sophisticated scenarios. A pilot illustrates: “The problem with aerial combat is that if you can see an enemy aircraft, they can see you too. With LINK 16, you don’t always need a visual. You can send a plane that will lure the target while another, who will have turned everything off and become undetectable, waits for it in an ambush. Obviously these new possibilities are taken into account during briefing!”.

The leader can thus afford to imagine critical and complex situations (larger enemy numbers than previously expected, failing ground defense systems, etc.) and prepare his crews to face them by considering the appropriate response. The actors project themselves into these situations even more easily if the risk of friendly fire, collateral damage, collision, etc., is considerably reduced, if it has been discussed during the briefing: LINK 16 allows a better sharing of the tactical situation, thus contributing to limiting the risk of firing errors, collateral damage and friendly fire. This way, pilots are no longer compelled to limit themselves to technical problems during a briefing, in the sense that they know they can rely on a system that will provide them with reliable and appropriate information for dealing with the criticality of the situations.

A pilot insists: “LINK 16 opens up a lot of doors, in the sense of what can be done with it! It has revolutionized the way in which you use a fighter plane”. Another emphasizes: “LINK 16 offers new opportunities for the aerial tactics that need to be implemented […] it impacts the game plan, that is, the way in which the mission will be carried out in relation to the situation’s evolution. And LINK 16 gives us a lot of new possibilities. If I turn off my radar, for instance, my enemy can no longer detect me. I become inconspicuous, whereas I can see everything on a 360-degree radius. I could come up from behind for example. In fact, it opens up huge doors, and this is only the beginning!”.

By coming up with original tactical scenarios, crews also heighten their vigilance before a mission. They mentally construct the way in which the planned scenarios will be visually presented by the system (generic symbols showing positions, colors, etc). A pilot explains: “With LINK 16, I know I’ll get a global view, but what is most important is that I will build a mental diagram of what we are going to do and what the others (the enemy) will do”. As a result, the stress load associated with the management of unexpected situations is diminished. In order to explain the decrease in stress, a navigator describes the following: “We go on a planned mission and, all at once, our chain of command considers that we need to make an urgent strike on a certain spot. Once it has the coordinates, it sends them to C2 [Command and Control], which sends them back by LINK 16 and, bam! A target will appear visually on the screen!”.

Likewise, after a mission, during debriefing, LINK 16 is used in addition to other mission progress playback systems. A navigator outlines: “During the debriefing, because we have recorded all our displays, we can see exactly what our shooting times were, as well as distances, for example. We report all the data on conventional debriefing systems and get a very clear vision of what happened.” Thus, the pilots analyze all the opportunities taken during the mission, the tactics implemented, and the potential errors that were made. These discussions contribute to and enrich the common knowledge base.

LINK 16 thus offers its users the possibility of expressing their creativity in the construction of mission scenarios by improving the representation of events that can happen during flight, and by growing the field of responses that must be implemented in order to face them. In this case, the briefing’s orchestration is built from a more open and complete script than ever before.

4.4.2.1. AFKN’s goals

The AFKN was born from the willingness to centralize the lessons learned from the multiple experiences of teams of all specialties. Its two main goals can be summarized as follows:

• – On the one hand, capitalize on the experts’ “field” knowledge. Firstly, it is a question of reducing the time spent on searching for solutions, which will already have been implemented by other practitioners faced with similar problems. Secondly, it is about avoiding the same mistakes that have been made in the past, by spreading lessons learned during the feedback process.

For example, a US Air Force gunsmith assigned in Africa may find himself facing logistical difficulties that he has never faced before. Through the AFKN platform, he can (virtually) meet other gunsmiths who have already found themselves in his situation and will be able to quickly provide concrete response elements that answer his problems [MAY 09]. The AFKN developers have in fact quickly identified the platform’s opportunities for capitalization, notably regarding to good practices resulting from feedback processes [AIR 07].

• – On the other hand, reinforce a general strategy for knowledge management, notably centered on knowledge creation. From their sharing of experiences, the professional communities’ members discuss certain complex problems they may have faced or that they expect may occur, and together work toward their resolution. In this context, the confrontation of “set” experiences and good practices favors the production of new knowledge and feeds the dynamics of innovation: from the explanation of individual and collective experiences and contradictory debates, individuals bring forward aspects that are not explicit to the problem and together construct innovative resolution processes.

The AFKN thus finds itself at the center of mechanisms for (1) identifying potential problems, (2) partial or total resolution of these problems, (3) capitalization and spreading of the best practices arising from experience, and (4) principally the innovation of processes. As Randy Adkins, who is at the head of the AFKN project, explains: “no matter what situation you find yourself in, you can bet someone, somewhere has been in similar situations”.

4.4.2.2. AFKN’s technological architecture: the importance of collaborative tools

From the beginning of 2002, the AFKN platform has taken advantage of the opportunities offered by 2.0 web tools. These have been introduced in order to foster horizontal interactions between players and encourage the contributors to build a common base of experiential knowledge [LAW 08]. The main collaborative technologies at their disposal are:

• – Blogs and forums that facilitate involvement in group discussions; built around specific subjects, project ideas, innovations, etc. Social media, such as Twitter, Youtube and Facebook, as well as social business networks, such as Microsoft SharePoint, are also suggested to the contributors and largely used by them.
• – A Wiki that puts at each AFKN community’s disposal an experiential knowledge base, as well as online help, built from contributions to the platform and composed around articles, glossaries, forum exchanges, etc.
• – A system allowing for the depositing of documents relating to ongoing projects, the tracking of their evolution and progress, and intervention through the possibility of adding items and knowledge updates relating to any field.
• – Questionnaires, which help inform about a set of quantitative investigations and studies, which are useful to both the managers and contributors.

Thus, AFKN’s architecture is built to not only encourage the exchange of experiences and good practices between experts with the same “career”, but also to allow them to be spread more broadly. Indeed, these collaborative technologies are meant to favor the horizontal flow of knowledge and allow the contributors to transcend the frontiers of their own areas of expertise and the teams that comprise them. This willingness to extend the capitalization on and the sharing of experiential knowledge to the whole of the US Air Force feeds the continuous expansion of a database of good practices, the spreading of the organization’s cultural values and mainly stimulates the innovation of processes (particularly in terms of problem resolution).

Beyond its web 2.0 architecture, AFKN’s success can be explained by the respect of the internal operating modes of the communities that make it up. In no way do the platform’s administrators and developers intervene on the nature of the relationships entertained by the different communities’ members or on the constitution of said communities. It is more a question of putting a set of technologies at the members’ disposal, which favor the establishment of relationships between communities, teams and their members. In fact, in this context, we call them virtual professional communities, in the sense that the relationships and potential collaborations between members are only expressed in a mediated way.