# Team-Communication Modeling Framework for Multi-Unit Nuclear Power Plant Accident Analysis
## 3 Results and Analysis
### Team-Communication Performance-Factor Model  
This model contains the factors influencing the performance of team communication in a certain accident/risk assessment scenario (which is comparable to the performance-influencing factors in [31]). It consists of standard performance factors derived from the model, which we developed by referring to FRAM modeling principles, and it may refer to the complete set of influencing factors from the investigation model when needed.  
Since we decided to aim for resiliency by implementing FRAM, we developed the performance-factor model by following its concept of variability [43]. In FRAM, there are three types of variabilities: internal, external, and the coupling variability resulting from the upstream functions' Output received through Input, Precondition, Resource, Control, and/or Time aspects. (In the FRAM instantiation model, the preceding function is called the upstream function, i.e., the function that provides Output, and the latter function is called the downstream function, i.e., the function that receives the Output from the upstream function as Input, Precondition, Resource, Control, or Time. In the FRAM general/meta-model, there is no sequence. Thus, there is no upstream or downstream function). We applied this variability concept to develop the team-communication performance-factor model by considering each type of variability as the standard set of performance factors, namely the factors that are almost always present to influence the team-communication performance. Thus, we identified the internal, external, and coupling factors, which were defined in terms of input, precondition, resource, control, and time factors, by following the definition of Input, Precondition, Resource, Control, and Time aspects of FRAM. Table 1 listed the 28 performance factors, their categorization, and references to the original FRAM's concept of variability, as described in the FRAM guidelines.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Reference to FRAM’s** & **Category** & **No.** & **Performance Factors** \\
**Variability Concept** & & 1 & Work experience \\  & & 2 & Level of stress \\ Internal variability & Internal factors & 3 & Level of principal knowledge \\  & & 4 & Level of procedural knowledge \\  & & 5 & Level of non-technical skills \\ \hline  & & 6 & Physical work environment \\  & & 7 & Education and training level \\  & & 8 & Member familiarity with the team \\ External variability & External factors & 9 & Leader’s leadership \\  & & 10 & The quality of the human–machine interface of the task support system \\  & & 11 & Guidelines related to communication \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: The performance factors from the team-communication performance-factor model.  
This model is comparable to the reference model (SEIPS) work outcomes, which consist of employee and organizational outcomes and patient outcomes. In our research, the direct outcome of team communication is the communication/information exchanges between team members; however, it is more useful to examine the performance of the communication rather than the exact utterances. The communication performance differs for each occasion. Thus, we decided to identify the factors influencing the performance using a model-based approach. The reference model also listed the performance factors/elements of its work outcomes; however, we developed our performance factors by applying the resilience engineering concepts that were incorporated in the FRAM modeling principles [43].  
The main application scenario of the performance-factor model is the human reliability analysis (HRA), a safety assessment in the nuclear industry. The performance factors in this model can be applied as the performance-influencing factors that are included as contributors to unsafe human actions [31].