The article "Trust within AEC virtual teams, Application to architectural design based on different-place collaboration" has been presented at the eCAADe conference held in September 2014 in Newcastle, UK.

1. Northumbria University, New Castle, UK
Trust within AEC virtual teams
Application 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/.

2. 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
11/09/2014 Trust within AEC virtual teams
2

3. Northumbria University, New Castle, UK
Introductio01 n

4. 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]
11/09/2014 Trust within AEC virtual teams
4

5. 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
11/09/2014 Trust within AEC virtual teams
5
VIRTUAL TEAM

6. Northumbria University, New Castle, UK
Trust in AEC virtual 02 teams and performance

7. 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]
Trusts
11/09/2014 Trust within AEC virtual teams
7
Context C
A B
Why?

8. 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.).
11/09/2014 Trust within AEC virtual teams
8

9. 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
11/09/2014 Trust within AEC virtual teams
9

10. 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
11/09/2014 Trust within AEC virtual teams
10

11. Swift trust
• 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
11
Swift trust History-based trust
Category-based trust
Dispositional trust
Beginning
Collaboration duration
End

12. Northumbria University, New Castle, UK
Case study : Cooperative 03 Digital Studio

13. 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
11/09/2014 Trust within AEC virtual teams
13

14. 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
11/09/2014 Trust within AEC virtual teams
14

15. Results
11/09/2014 Trust within AEC virtual teams
15
!
The highest trust level
> The best appreciation
The lowest trust level
> The poorest appreciation

16. Results
11/09/2014 Trust within AEC virtual teams
The highest reflexivity level
> The best appreciation
The lowest reflexivity level
> The poorest appreciation
16
!

17. Results
11/09/2014 Trust within AEC virtual teams
!
17
The highest
trust level
The highest
reflexivity level
The lowest
trust and
reflexivity level

18. Northumbria University, New Castle, UK
0 4 Conclusion

19. 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
11/09/2014 Trust within AEC virtual teams
19

20. Northumbria University, New Castle, UK
Thank you for your attention
annie.guerriero@tudor.lu