Northumbria University, New Castle, UK
Trust within AEC virtual teamsApplication to architectural design based on different-place collaboration
Dr. Arch. Annie Guerriero, Dr. Guillaume Gronier
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/.
11/09/2014 Trust within AEC virtual teams
Summary of the presentation
• 01- Introduction
• 02 - Trust in AEC virtual teams and performance▸ Sources of trust▸ Swift trust
• 03 - Case study▸ Pedagogical experiment “Cooperative Digital Studio”▸ Survey, analysis and results
• 04 - Conclusion
2
Northumbria University, New Castle, UK
Introduction01
11/09/2014 Trust within AEC virtual teams
Introduction
• Virtual team▸ New form of organization due to :
▸ Technology evolution▸ Nature of the work more complex and dynamic▸ Need of competitiveness
• These work units are composed of members who “are geographically dispersed and coordinate their work predominantly with electronic information and communication technologies (e-mail, video-conferencing, etc.)”. [Hertel et al., 2005]
4
11/09/2014 Trust within AEC virtual teams
Virtual team
• Advantages [Nader Ale et al., 2009]
▸ Reduction of time of production▸ Reduction of the travel costs▸ Decisions more rapid and effective▸ Reduction of the informal exchange and
focus on the task to be performed
• In AEC virtual team▸ Task complex▸ Numerous actors with multiple and
heterogeneous roles▸ Short-lived team composed for the duration
of the construction project
• Context AEC is not the most favorable for virtual team
5
VIRTUAL TEAM
Northumbria University, New Castle, UK
Trust in AEC virtual teams and performance02
11/09/2014 Trust within AEC virtual teams
Notion of trust
• Trust ▸ A device for overstepping the complexity of the environment [Luhmann, 1988]▸ Positive expectations about the behavior or intentions of another person
[Deutsch, 1962]
7
A B
Trusts
Why?
Context C
11/09/2014 Trust within AEC virtual teams
Trust-based construction management
• Traditionally trust is studied between people or organizations.• In our anterior research works, we considered “trust in the
good progress of the activity” (Guerriero, 2009, Guerriero et al., 2010). ▸ This approach suggests that trust can be evaluated in each elements of an AEC
cooperation context: ▸ (1) Actors▸ (2) Activities ▸ (3) Building elements▸ (4) Documents
▸ Based on trust criteria related to each of these four categories, a multi-views prototype (Bat’iTrust) has been developed.
▸ This prototype dedicated to the construction management suggests a representation of trust level for guiding the navigation of the manager inside all the types of visualization (i.e. meeting report, weather forecast, list of plans, etc.).
8
11/09/2014 Trust within AEC virtual teams
Sources of trust [Kramer, 1999]
• “Dispositional trust”▸ Predisposition of the individual to trust or distrust
• “Category-based trust”▸ Internal characteristics of the individual, such as culture and the group which he
is involved in, etc.
• “Third party as conduits of trust”▸ Notion of reputation
• “History-based trust”▸ Past successful references
• “Role-based trust”▸ Performance of an actor according to the role that he plays within an
organization
• “Rule-based trust”▸ Contractual mechanisms, rules, certifications or norms
9
11/09/2014 Trust within AEC virtual teams
Swift trust
• In virtual team▸ Risk is high ▸ Relationship built without the benefit of traditional rules of communication in face
to face▸ No anterior experience in common▸ Distance between the team’s members makes more difficult the application of
control mechanisms
• “Swift trust”▸ Notion introduced by Meyerson (Meyerson et al., 1996) ▸ Qualifying trust emerging in temporary groups ▸ People have to combined their skill in order to perform a specific task in a tight
deadline ▸ People have a limited history working together and will never work again together
in the future
10
• Device allowing to overcome risk and to initiate collaboration• BUT
▸ Swift trust is relatively fragile [Robert et al., 2009]
▸ Evolution towards an history-based trust, more stable and readjusted all along the collaborative relationship
• Swift trust is essential in AEC virtual teams [Robert et al., 2009]
▸ Dispositional trust and category-based trust are predominant elements ▸ No personal information available about the members of the group > consideration of
people as members of a category▸ Behavior of the members is deduced from the practices generally associated to the
categories
11/09/2014 Trust within AEC virtual teams
Swift trust
11
Swift trust History-based trust
Category-based trustDispositional trust
Beginning
Collaboration duration
End
Northumbria University, New Castle, UK
Case study : Cooperative Digital Studio03
11/09/2014 Trust within AEC virtual teams
Case study
• Cooperative digital studio (2012-2013)▸ Distance collaboration between students from the University of Liège (Belgium)
and the architecture school of Nancy (France)▸ Duration: +/- 3 months
13
!
11/09/2014 Trust within AEC virtual teams
Survey questionnaire and data collection
• Questionnaire▸ Part 1
▸ 15 questions based on (Mayer et al., 1999) and (Zolin, 2003) enabling to measure trust between team’s members.
▸ Submission of the questionnaire: 5 times during the period of collaboration▸ Part 2
▸ “Reflexivity analysis”▸ Task reflexivity “is believed to enable teams to develop optimal performance strategies, to
detect deviation from expected results, and to adapt team functioning to changing demands”,▸ Social reflexivity, which “enables teams to integrate divergent opinions and constructively deal
with conflict”▸ Questionnaire based on the Carter and West scale (Carter and West, 1998) in this
French version (Facchin, 2008, Facchin et al., 2006)▸ 16 items (8 for task reflexivity and 8 for social reflexivity)
• Data collection▸ Questionnaire available on line (based on the software LIMESURVEY)▸ In total 27 students divided in 6 groups have contributed to this survey
14
11/09/2014 Trust within AEC virtual teams
Results
15
!
The highest trust level> The best appreciation
The lowest trust level> The poorest appreciation
11/09/2014 Trust within AEC virtual teams
Results
16
!
The highest reflexivity level> The best appreciation
The lowest reflexivity level> The poorest appreciation
11/09/2014 Trust within AEC virtual teams
Results
17
!
The highesttrust level
The highestreflexivity level
The lowesttrust and
reflexivity level
Northumbria University, New Castle, UK
Conclusion04
11/09/2014 Trust within AEC virtual teams
Conclusion
• We can observe that :▸ Trust and reflexivity are directly linked to the group’s performance.▸ When trust and reflexivity increase, the performance is high.
• Some limits▸ Only one case study, and 27 students ▸ Sometimes, only partial answers▸ Appreciation of an architectural project as value reflecting the group’s
performance can be questionable
• Prospects▸ New edition of the Cooperative Digital Studio 2014-2015▸ Submission of the questionnaire (6 times during the collaboration)▸ +/- 45 students organized in 8 groups▸ Confrontation of the students to their individual trust and reflexivity curves
19
Northumbria University, New Castle, UK
Thank you for your attention