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

annie.guerriero@tudor.lu