Sample Research on Human Factors and Ergonomics

1. Research Portfolio
Md. Hasan Shahriar Simanto
1
Project 1
Ergonomic Assessment of a thermal manufacturing company’s HUV line
Project 2
Evaluating Behavior Change Program for Energy Conservation
Project 3
Attitudes and Behavior for Sustainable Team Performance

2. Ergonomic Assessment
2
a thermal management manufacturing
company’s HUV line
of

3. Project Summary
3
Ergonomic assessment of a manufacturing company (work station no. 3 and
4) was conducted.
Recommendations for reduced cognitive load, musculoskeletal strain,
cumulative trauma disorder risk, and on process time improvement were
made.
Research Methods: Observations and Contextual Inquiries
Analyses: Video Coding (flow process chart) and NIOSH Lifting Equation

4. Ergonomic Assessment
4
HUV Station 4 - Wiring
Pretty great!
Adjustable height conveyer belt
Bins for tools/parts on belt
Rubber floor mats

5. Recommendations
5
HUV Station 4 - Wiring
Recommendation 1: Arrange tools closer to workstation
- Walked away 5 times to retrieve tools
Recommendation 2: Designate space to place wiring diagram
- Putting down, picking up, looking for diagram
Recommendation 3: Pre-stripped, pre-bundled wires
- Reduces fine motor movements which could lead to CTD

6. Ergonomic Assessment
6
HUV Station 3 - Coils
Cognitive load
Walking back and forth
Hunching over assembly
Repeated movements
Lifting heavy components

7. Approach/Analysis
7
Video Coding: Flow Process Chart
Method Study

8. Recommendations
8
HUV Station 3 - Coils
Recommendation 1: Reduce Cognitive Load
Recommendation 2: Install Overhead Crane
Recommendation 3: Employ Wider Tool
Recommendation 4: Utilize Adjustable Support
Recommendation 5: Install Turntable Workstation

9. 1: Reduce Cognitive Load
9
Task: Assemble units that change regularly/based on orders
Factors: Frequently reference instructions (Duration: 4m31s - 8%)
Check correct assembly (Duration: 4m40s - 8%)
Recommendations: Designate place for instructions (magnetic board),
Label components/sockets

10. 2: Overhead Crane
10
Task: Lift heavy coils
NIOSH lifting equation: RWL = 4.469 kg, actual weight = 13.6 kg
Lifting Index: LI = actual weight/RWL = 3.04 (should be <1)
Factors: Risk of musculoskeletal strain, injury
Recommendations: Overhead crane
image source: http://instylersaustralia.com/toy-story-claw.html

11. 3: Wider tool
11
Task: Straighten bent fins
Total Duration: 8m16s - 14%
Factors: CTD risk, Inefficiency
Recommendations: Wider tool
- less movement
- more efficient

12. 4: Utilize Supports
12
Task: Align heavy coils with holes in frame to attach
Total Duration: 10m24s - 18%
Factors: Risk of strain & injury, inefficiency
Recommendations: Adjustable supports

13. 5: Turntable workstation
13
Task: Attach coil(s) to frame
Factors: Walk back & forth (Duration: 3m27s - 6%)
Hunch over coil
Risk of back strain, injury
Recommendations: Custom turntable workstation

14. Proposed Turntable Workstation
14
CAD Design: Proposed Turntable Workstation designed in SolidWorks
YouTube Link: https://youtu.be/8fXTd_nPf_A

15. Recommendations: Summary
15
HUV Station 3 - Coils
1: Reduce Cognitive Load
2: Install Overhead Crane
3: Employ Wider Tool
4: Utilize Adjustable Support
5: Install Turntable Workstation
1: Arrange tools closer to workstation
2: Designate space for diagram
3: Pre-stripped, Pre-bundled wires
HUV Station 4 - Wiring

16. Recommendations: Benefits
16
HUV Station 3 - Coils
• 54% of assembly time spent on
processes that can be improved
• Reduced risk of CTD
• Reduced risk of injury
• Reduced risk of CTD
• Reduced cognitive load
HUV Station 4 - Wiring

17. Evaluating Behavior Change Program
for
Energy Conservation
17

18. Behavior Change Program
18
The goal of this project was to design a study for the students living in the
dorm in order to understand students’ attitude toward campus, knowledge
related to conservation measures, general environmental behaviors, and also
to evaluate the impact of different programs (taking classes related to
sustainability or talking to RA, etc.) to conserve energy on campus.
Online survey data was collected and analyzed to evaluate and recommend
specific programs for energy conservation
Research Methods: Online Survey
Analyses: Descriptive statistics, test of proportion, t-test, non-parametric tests
Tools Used: R programming, Excel, Tableau

19. Survey Design
Knowledge Metric
Behavior Metric
Attitude Metric
Personal Behavior
Behaviors on Campus
Behaviors related to Transportation
Timeline
Pre Survey – Fall 2017
Post Survey – Spring 2018
Additional Capability
Individual Identification
19

20. Behavior Change Program Survey Design
Attitude Metric
Please indicate your level of agreement
Low(1) High(4)
20

21. Behavior Change Program Survey Design
Did you know?
Knowledge Metric
21

22. Behavior Change Program Survey Design
Please indicate how often you take each action
Behavior Metric (personal)
Low(1) High(4)
22

23. Behavior Change Program Survey Design
Please indicate how often you take each action
Behavior Metric (on campus)
Low(1) High(4)
23

24. Behavior Change Program Survey Design
Please indicate how often you take each action
Behavior Metric (transportation)
Low(1) High(4)
24

25. Survey Participants
25

26. Item-level Change
When I leave my unoccupied bedroom, I turn off my fan
26

27. Item-level Change
When I leave my unoccupied bedroom, I turn off my fan
Test and CI for Two Proportions
X= no. of student(s) responded either always or often
N= total no. of student(s) answered that question
Sample X N Sample p
Pre-Survey 256 558 0.458781
Post-Survey 410 624 0.657051
Estimate for difference: -0.198270
95% CI for difference: (-0.253917, -0.142623)
Test for difference = 0 (vs ≠ 0): Z = -6.86 P-Value = 0.000
Fisher’s exact test: P-Value = 0.000
Percent increase in the number of students
showing positive
behavior is statistically significant
Null Hypothesis: Difference = p (1) - p (2) = 0
27

28. Matched Dataset
28
121
students participated in both pre and post survey
(identified using email address)
This Matched Dataset would be more reliable to track
behavior change

29. Item-level Change
When I leave my unoccupied bedroom, I turn off my fan
29

30. Group-level Change
Behavior Metric – Single Score
Attitude Metric – Single Score (average of the items of question no. 3)
Personal Behaviors (average of the items of question no. 1)
Behaviors on Campus (average of the items of question no. 4)
Behaviors related to Transportation (average of the items of question no. 9)
30

31. Single Score Conversion
Please indicate how often you take each action
Behavior Metric (transportation)
Low(1) High (4)
31
1
4
1
4
Average = 2.5

32. Behaviors on Campus
Pre Survey
M= 2.95
Shapiro–Wilk test: Normal
SD = 0.42
Post Survey
M= 2.97 SD = 0.46
Shapiro–Wilk test: Normal
Test of two variance : variance is equal
t-test : Behavior on Campus is not significantly different
P-value > 0.10 32

33. Transportation Behavior
Pre Survey
M= 2.81 SD = 0.56
Post Survey
M= 2.75 SD = 0.57
Transportation behavior did not change over the academic year since students’
who have taken both the pre and post survey did not have a statistically different
score on transportation behavior
33

34. Personal Behavior
Pre Survey
M= 2.04 SD = 0.45
Post Survey
M= 2.07 SD = 0.47
34
Personal behavior did not change over the academic year since students’ who
have taken both the pre and post survey did not have a statistically different
score on personal behavior

35. Attitude toward Campus
Pre Survey
M= 3.01 SD = 0.36
Post Survey
M= 2.98 SD = 0.36
35
Attitude toward campus did not change over the academic year since students’
who have taken both the pre and post survey did not have a statistically different
score on attitude toward campus

36. Program Questions – Post Survey
36
Program Evaluation
Regular Dataset – Post Survey
Four (04) new questions related to program participation were asked in the post survey
(spring 2018). Apart from being informed by RA about energy and learning sustainability
in class(es), other questions had very low positive response

37. Item-level Evaluation
Did your RA inform you of an energy conservation program?
37

38. Group-level Evaluation
Regular Dataset – Post Survey
Behavior Metric – Single Score
Attitude Metric – Single Score (average of the items of question no. 3)
Personal Behavior (average of the items of question no. 1)
Behaviors on Campus (average of the items of question no. 4)
Behaviors related to Transportation (average of the items of question no. 9)
38

39. Behaviors on Campus
Without RA
M= 2.88 SD = 0.48
With RA
M= 3.03 SD = 0.44
39
Students who were informed about energy conservation by their RA showed
different behavior on campus compared to those who were not

40. Transportation Behaviors
Without RA
M= 2.69 SD = 0.57
With RA
M= 2.79 SD = 0.56
40
Students who were informed about energy conservation by their RA did not show
different transportation behavior compared to those who were not

41. Behaviors on Campus
Without CLASS
M= 2.91 SD = 0.47
With CLASS
M= 2.95 SD = 0.49
41
Students who studied sustainability in their class(es) did not show different
behavior on campus compared to those who did not

42. Transportation Behavior
Without CLASS
M= 2.69
Shapiro–Wilk test: Not Normal
SD = 0.57
With CLASS
M= 2.76 SD = 0.49
Shapiro–Wilk test: Not Normal
Non-parametric Test
Mann-Whitney U test : Transportation Behavior is not significantly different
P-value > 0.10 42

43. Evaluation Summary
Studied Sustainability in Class(es) Informed by RA on Conservation
43
Behaviors on Campus
Transportation Behaviors
Personal Behaviors
Attitude toward Campus
Behaviors on Campus
Transportation Behaviors
Personal Behaviors
Attitude toward Campus

44. Program Recommendations
Resident Advisor (RA)
Sustainability Class(es)
44
Limitations and Improvements
Factorial Design
Qualitative Analysis
Program Research
Persona

45. Attitudes & Behavior For Sustainable
Team Performance
Md. Hasan Shahriar Simanto
07.02.2018

46. Project Description
46
A study to answer the broader research question that whether environmental attitude
and identity relate to the team performance on a sustainability-related project was
conducted. The composition of teams performing sustainability related task (actual
performance) with respect to the individuals’ pro-environmental attitude (measured by
NEP scale; self-reported), individuals’ pro-environmental behavior (measured by PEB
scale; self-reported), individuals’ pro-environmental identity (measured by PESID scale;
self reported), and team cohesion (measured by TC scale; self-reported) were
explored. Data was collected on real-world teams at the 2017 U.S. Department of
Energy Solar Decathlon. Established psychometric scales were used. An interesting
difference in team composition (with respect to team cohesion) between sustainability
related project performance and overall team performance was found.
Research Methods: Surveys, Interviews, and Observations
Analyses: Descriptive statistics, Both parametric and non-parametric tests,
correlations, factor analysis, regression
Tools Used: R programming

47. Research Project
How does team composition relate to team performance on
a sustainability-related project?
Aim – to explore the team composition with respect to the pro-environmental
attitude, behavior, self-identity, and team cohesion
47
New Ecological Paradigm (NEP)
Pro-environmental Behavior (PEB)
Pro-environmental Self Identity (PESID)
Team Cohesion (TC)

48. Research Questions
How does team composition relate to team performance on
a sustainability-related project?
Individual level Hypotheses:
• “Individual pro-environmental attitude is not related to individual self-reported
pro-environmental behavior”
• “Individual pro-environmental self-identity is related to individual self-reported
pro-environmental behavior”

49. Research Questions
How does team composition relate to team performance on
a sustainability-related project?
Team level Hypotheses:
• “Individual pro-environmental attitude is not related with individual self-reported
pro-environmental behavior, both aggregated at the team-level”
• “Individual pro-environmental attitude, aggregated to the team-level, is not
related to the team-level’s actual performance on a sustainability-related
project”
• “Individual pro-environmental self-identity is related to individual self-reported
pro-environmental behavior, both aggregated at the team-level”
• “Individual pro-environmental self-identity, aggregated to the team-level, is
related to the team-level’s actual performance on a sustainability-related
project”
• “The individual self-reported cohesion, aggregated to the team-level, is related
with the team-level’s actual performance on a sustainability-related project”

50. NEP items
New Ecological Paradigm (NEP)
How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
NEP1: We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support
NEP2: Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs (R)
NEP3: When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences
NEP4: Human ingenuity will ensure that we do not make the earth unlivable (R)
NEP5: Humans are severely abusing the environment
NEP6: The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them (R)
NEP7: Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist
NEP8: The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations (R)
NEP9: Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature
NEP10: The so-called "ecological crisis" facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated (R)
NEP11: The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources
NEP12: Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature (R)
NEP13: The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset
NEP14: Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it (R)
NEP15: If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe
5-Likert agreement scale
Strongly Agree (5)
Agree (4)
Neutral (3)
Disagree (2)
Strongly Disagree (1)
NEP overall score is the average of the
15 items. Therefore, highest possible
NEP overall score is 5 and lowest is 1
Individual Measure
Cronbach alpha 0.76
531
Low High
50

51. New Ecological Paradigm (NEP)
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
NEP3: When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences 0.53
NEP4: Human ingenuity will ensure that we do not make the earth unlivable (R) 0.50
NEP5: Humans are severely abusing the environment 0.57
NEP6: The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them (R)
0.60
NEP7: Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist 0.50
NEP8: The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial
nations (R)
0.49
NEP9: Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature 0.51
NEP10: The so-called "ecological crisis" facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated (R)
0.50
NEP12: Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature (R) 0.57
NEP14: Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it (R) 0.43
NEP15: If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological
catastrophe
0.94
Alpha Coefficients 0.75 0.65 0.59
Note: R=reverse coded. Factor loadings less than 0.40 were removed
Factor Names
Factor 1:
the perception of
repercussions of
actions
Factor 2:
the order (or the
tension) between
human verses nature
Factor 3:
the resilience (both
from the humans and
natures perspective)
Exploratory factor analysis loading on NEP three factor model
51

52. Pro-environmental Behavior (PEB)
Please indicate how often you take each action
PEB1: Turn off lights you are not using
PEB2: Drive economically (e.g., braking or accelerating gently)
PEB3: Walk, cycle or take public transport for short journeys (i.e., trips of less than 3 miles)
PEB4: Use an alternative to traveling (e.g., shopping online)
PEB5: Share a car journey with someone else
PEB6: Cut down on the amount you fly
PEB7: Buy environmentally-friendly products
PEB8: Eat food which is organic, locally-grown or in season
PEB9: Avoid eating meat
PEB10: Buy products with less packaging
PEB11: Recycle
PEB12: Reuse or repair items instead of throwing them away
PEB13: Compost your kitchen waste
PEB14: Save water by taking shorter showers
PEB15: Turn off the tap while you brush your teeth
PEB16: Write to your MP about an environmental issue
PEB17: Take part in a protest about an environmental issue
Low High
1 4
4-Likert scale
Never (1)
Occasionally (2)
Often (3)
Always (4)
PEB score is the sum of all 17 items.
Therefore, highest possible PEB
score is 68 and lowest is 17
Individual Measure
Cronbach alpha 0.84
PEB items
52

53. Pro-environmental Self Identity (PESID)
5-Likert agreement scale
Strongly Agree (5)
Agree (4)
Neutral (3)
Disagree (2)
Strongly Disagree (1)
PESID overall score is the average of the
4 items. Therefore, highest possible
PESID overall score is 5 and lowest is 1
Individual Measure
Cronbach alpha 0.61
How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
PESID1: I think of myself as an environmentally-friendly consumer
PESID2: I think of myself as someone who is very concerned with environmental issues
PESID3: I would be embarrassed to be seen as having an environmentally-friendly lifestyle (R)
PESID4: I would not want my family or friends to think of me as someone who is concerned about
environmental issues (R)
31 5
Low High
Positively asked questions, PESID1 and PESID2, had a statistically
significant (p < 0.001) higher correlation (r = 0.45) with each
other.
Conversely, negatively asked questions, PESID3 and PESID4, had a
statistically significant (p < 0.001) higher correlation (r = 0.69)
with each other
PESID items
53

54. PESID items
Pro-environmental Self Identity (PESID)
5-Likert agreement scale
Strongly Agree (5)
Agree (4)
Neutral (3)
Disagree (2)
Strongly Disagree (1)
Both PESIDP and PESIDR score are
the average of the 2 respective items.
Therefore, the highest possible
PESIDP and PESIDR score is 5, and
lowest 1.
Individual Measure
How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
PESID1: I think of myself as an environmentally-friendly consumer
PESID2: I think of myself as someone who is very concerned with environmental issues
PESID3: I would be embarrassed to be seen as having an environmentally-friendly lifestyle (R)
PESID4: I would not want my family or friends to think of me as someone who is concerned about
environmental issues (R)
How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
PESID1: I think of myself as an environmentally-friendly consumer
PESID2: I think of myself as someone who is very concerned with environmental issues
PESIDP items
PESIDR items
How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
PESID3: I would be embarrassed to be seen as having an environmentally-friendly lifestyle (R)
PESID4: I would not want my family or friends to think of me as someone who is concerned about
environmental issues (R)
31 5
Low High
54

55. Team Cohesion (TC)
5-Likert agreement scale
Strongly Agree (5)
Agree (4)
Neutral (3)
Disagree (2)
Strongly Disagree (1)
TC overall score is the average of the
10 items. Therefore, highest possible
TC overall score is 5 and lowest is 1
How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
TC1: Our team is united in trying to reach its goals for performance
TC2: I'm unhappy with my team's level of commitment to the task (R)
TC3: Our team members have conflicting aspirations for the team's performance (R)
TC4: This team does not give me enough opportunities to improve my personal performance (R)
TC5: Our team would like to spend time together outside of work hours
TC6: Members of our team do not stick together outside of work time (R)
TC7: Our team members rarely party together (R)
TC8: Members of our team would rather go out on their own than get together as a team (R)
TC9: For me this team is one of the most important social groups to which I belong (R)
TC10: Some of my best friends are in this team (R)
31 5
Low High
Cronbach alpha 0.76
Team Measure
TC items
55

56. Team Cohesion (TC)
Task
Cohesion
(TKC)
Social
Cohesion
(SLC)
Individual
Attraction to
the group (IAG)
TC1: Our team is united in trying to reach its goals for performance 0.59
TC2: I’m unhappy with my team’s level of commitment to the task (R) 0.58
TC3: Our team members have conflicting aspirations for the team’s performance (R) 0.66
TC4: This team does not give me enough opportunities to improve my personal
performance (R)
0.38
TC5: Our team would like to spend time together outside of work hours 0.29 0.42
TC6: Members of our team do not stick together outside of work time (R) 0.84
TC7: Our team members rarely party together (R) 0.61
TC8: Members of our team would rather go out on their own than get together as a
team (R)
0.63
TC9: For me this team is one of the most important social groups to which I belong 0.72
TC10: Some of my best friends are in this team 0.81
Alpha coefficients 0.64 0.74 0.74
Note: R=reverse coded. Factor loadings less than 0.40 were removed.
Exploratory factor analysis loading on TC three factor model
56

57. Aggregation Method
57
4
Average = 4
53
4
Standard Deviation = 0.81

58. Solar Decathlon 2017
58

59. Solar Decathlon 2017
59
Total 11 Teams
Two (02) International Teams
Nine (09) US Teams
Actual Performance
Ten (10) combined contest to measure final score
One (01) contest to measure sustainability

60. Design of Experiment
Surveys
Observations
Interveiws
Methodology
60

61. Solar Decathlon
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics
AttitudeCohesionIdentity

62. NEP distributions
NEP overall
Repercussions of actions Tension between human vs nature NEP Factor 3

63. PESID distributions
PESID positive
PESID overall
PESID negative

64. TC distributions
TC overall
Task Cohesion Social Cohesion Individual Attraction to the Group

65. Individual-level Correlation Matrix
Behavior Attitude Identity Cohesion

66. Team Level Correlation Matrix
Attitude Behavior Identity
Identity Cohesion
66

67. Regression
ANOVA table for regression analysis to predict SUS
The regression model (see Table 11) to predict SUS shows that the model is significant (p < 0.01) having
negative TCO_STD coefficient (-34.26, p < 0.01) with a y-intercept of 26.03 (p < 0.01)
a higher predictive power (R2 = 0.732; Radj
2 = 0.687) where 68.8% variation in the model is due to the
predictor variable.
Hypothesis: “The individual self-reported cohesion, aggregated to the team-level, is
related to the team-level actual performance on a sustainability-related project”
Supported @ unidimensional cohesion
67

68. Individual level Summary
Individual level Hypotheses:
“Individual pro-environmental attitude is not related to individual self-reported pro-
environmental behavior”
Not Supported @ multidimensional attitude
Supported @ unidimensional attitude
Attitude that represents perception of repercussions of actions was related to individual self-
reported pro-environmental behavior

69. Individual level Summary
Individual level Hypotheses:
“Individual pro-environmental self-identity is related to individual self-reported pro-
environmental behavior”
Supported @ multidimensional self-identity
Not Supported @ unidimensional self-identity
Combined with positive and reversed coded score, self-identity represented only over 10%
of pro-environmental behavior

70. Team level Summary
Team level Hypotheses:
“Individual pro-environmental attitude is not related with individual self-reported
pro-environmental behavior, both aggregated at the team-level”
Not Supported @ multidimensional attitude
Supported @ unidimensional attitude
Attitude representing the order (or tension) between human vs. nature was related to self-
reported aggregated pro-environmental behavior and tension between human vs. nature
represented over 40% of behavior

71. Team level Summary
Team level Hypotheses:
“Individual pro-environmental attitude, aggregated to the team-level, is not related
to the team-level’s actual performance on a sustainability-related project”
Supported @ multidimensional attitude
Supported @ unidimensional attitude
None of the aggregated attitude (both unidimensional and multidimensional) variables were
significantly related to sustainability score (SUS)

72. Team level Summary
Team level Hypotheses:
“Individual pro-environmental self-identity is related to individual self-reported pro-
environmental behavior, both aggregated at the team-level”
Not Supported @ multidimensional self-identity
Not Supported @ unidimensional self-identity
None of the aggregated self-identity (both unidimensional and multidimensional) variables
were significantly related to self-reported pro-environmental behavior

73. Team level Summary
Team level Hypotheses:
“Individual pro-environmental self-identity, aggregated to the team-level, is
related to the team-level actual performance on a sustainability-related project”
Not Supported @ multidimensional self-identity
Not Supported @ unidimensional self-identity
None of the aggregated self-identity (both unidimensional and multidimensional) variables
were significantly related to the team-level actual performance on a sustainability-related
project

74. Team level Summary
Team level Hypotheses:
“The individual self-reported cohesion, aggregated to the team-level, is related
with the team-level’s actual performance on a sustainability-related project”
Supported @ multidimensional cohesion
Supported @ unidimensional cohesion
Unidimensional aggregated cohesion variable, overall team cohesion standard deviation,
was negatively related to actual performance and also responsible for 68.8% variation in the
model
Multidimensional aggregated cohesion variable, individual attraction to the group average,
was positively related to actual performance and also responsible 69.04% variation in the
model

75. A Posteriori
The regression model (see Table 13) shows that the model is significant (p < 0.01)
Positive TCO_AVG coefficient (+271.1, p < 0.01), with a y-intercept of -294.5 (p < 0.05)
A high predictive power (R2 = 0.754; Radj
2 = 0.719) where 71.9% variation in the model is due to the
predictor variable.
ANOVA table for regression analysis to predict Final Score
75

76. Summary – Overall Team Cohesion
76
4
53
4
2
22
2
M = 4
SD = 0.81
FINAL SCORE
M
M = 2
SD = 0
SUSTAINABILITY SCORE
SD
The most interesting finding (apart from the hypotheses) of the research was that while predicting
overall team performance (measured by Final Score of the Solar Decathlon competition), the
higher the average score of overall team cohesion of the teams the higher the performance. On
the other hand, while predicting team performance on a sustainability-related project (measured by
Sustainability Score), the lower the standard deviation of overall team cohesion within the teams
the higher the sustainability score. The numbers presented here are just for examples.

77. Research Portfolio
Md. Hasan Shahriar Simanto
77
hs.simanto@gmail.com
401-999-4514
@hs_simanto
linkedin.com/in/hssimanto