Interpersonal trust in cross-functional, geographically distributed work: A longitudinal study

Zolin, Roxanne; Hinds, Pamela; Fruchter, Renate; Levitt, Raymond E.

doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2003.09.002

Cited by 174 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies in design collaboration (Cross and Cross 1995;Gabriel 2000;Olson and Olson 2000;Oslon et al 1992;Zolin et al 2004) had shown that there is a multiplicity of factors that contribute or affect the process and product of the collaboration. Some of the factors are: role and relationship, trust, social We selected linkography as a tool to re-represent the communication content and then abstract information out of the linkograph.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

International workshop

Necula

2012

Biologicals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

International workshop

Necula

2012

Biologicals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…When an individual is going to undertake a particular task, in their mind they consider the personal risk and reward from undertaking the task. The perceived risk and reward also influences the level of trust between members in a virtual team (Zolin et al, 2004). This perception determines their behaviour and commitment, and ultimately the performance of a virtual team.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Key Success Factors and Guidance for International Collaborative Design Projects

Soetanto¹,

Childs²,

Poh³

et al. 2015

ArchNet-IJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They typically solve extremely complicated problems which require them to work together every day for extended period. In addition, studies (Cross & Cross, 1995;Olson & Olson, 2000;Zolin, Hinds, Fruchter, & Levitt, 2004) have shown that factors such as trust, social skills, and common ground, affect behaviors of group design. The performance of group design is a complex result of the above factors, and is more than the sum of performances from each group member .…”

Section: Discussion Of Findings From Qualitative Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Expert vs. novice: Problem decomposition/recomposition in engineering design

Song

Becker

2014

2014 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this research was to investigate the differences of using problem decomposition and problem recomposition among dyads of engineering experts, dyads of engineering seniors, and dyads of engineering freshmen. Fifty participants took part in this study. Ten were engineering design experts, 20 were engineering seniors, and 20 were engineering freshmen. Participants worked in dyads to complete an engineering design challenge within an hour. The entire design process was video and audio recorded.After the design session, members participated in a group interview.This study used protocol analysis as the methodology. Video and audio data were transcribed, segmented, and coded. Two coding systems including the FBS ontology and "levels of the problem" were used in this study. A series of statistical techniques were iv used to analyze data. Interview data and participants' design sketches also worked as supplemental data to help answer the research questions.By analyzing the quantitative and qualitative data, it was found that students used less problem decomposition and problem recomposoition than engineer experts in engineering design. This result implies that engineering education should place more importance on teaching problem decomposition and problem recomposition. Students were found to spend less cognitive effort when considering the problem as a whole and interactions between subsystems than engineer experts. In addition, students were also found to spend more cognitive effort when considering details of subsystems. These results showed that students tended to use dept-first decomposition and experts tended to use breadth-first decomposition in engineering design. The use of Function (F), Behavior (B), and Structure (S) among engineering experts, engineering seniors, and engineering freshmen was compared on three levels. Level 1 represents designers consider the problem as an integral whole, Level 2 represents designers consider interactions between subsystems, and Level 3 represents designers consider details of subsystems. The results showed that students used more S on Level 1 and 3 but they used less The purpose of this research was to investigate the design behavior. A commonly used design strategy called "problem decomposition and recomposition" was the focus of the study. Dyads of engineering experts, dyads of engineering seniors, and dyads of engineering freshmen completed an engineering design challenge within an hour. The entire design process was video and audio recorded. After the design session, participants participated in a group interview.The conversation and behavior from the design were transcribed, segmented, and coded. Two coding systems including the FBS ontology and "levels of the problem" were used in this study. A series of statistical techniques were used to analyze data. Interview data and participants' design sketches also worked as supplemental data to help answer the research questions.There were a series of interesting findings that emerged from analyzing the quantitat...

show abstract

Interpersonal trust in cross-functional, geographically distributed work: A longitudinal study

Cited by 174 publications

References 50 publications

International workshop

International workshop

Key Success Factors and Guidance for International Collaborative Design Projects

Expert vs. novice: Problem decomposition/recomposition in engineering design

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About