Call Girls Alandi Call Me 7737669865 Budget Friendly No Advance Booking
The Interplay among Trust, Risk, and Reliance in Global Systems Engineering Teams (ICGSE'14)
1. The Interplay among Trust, Risk,
and Reliance in Global Systems
Engineering Teams
University of California, Irvine
Ban Al-Ani
David Redmiles
PUCRS University, Brazil
Sabrina Marczak
Rafael Prikladnicki
International Conference on Global Software Engineering
August 18-21, 2014
Shanghai, China
2. S. Marczak, B. Al-Ani, D. Redmiles, and R. Prikladnicki
Trust
It is about many things
• Risk
• Reliance
• Expectations
More importantly it is about managing those
expectations
2
3. An example 3
S. Marczak, B. Al-Ani, D. Redmiles, and R. Prikladnicki
Y have a tendency to talk
longer
“you don’t need to know this part
of the code you wouldn’t
understand it”
4. Why is trust important?
Think about collaboration without trust:
• Double checking
• Working on isolation
• Re-doing work
• Reluctance to share information
S. Marczak, B. Al-Ani, D. Redmiles, and R. Prikladnicki
4
5. Our investigatory history
• Factors that affect trust (ICGSE’09 and ’13)
• Trust and knowledge seeking (ICGSE ‘11)
• Expectations and trust processes (ICIC ’12, CSCW ’12)
• Trust and Web 2.0 technologies (ICGSE ’12)
• Trust and tool support (CHASE ’11, AVI ’12, CSCW ’12 and ’13, IST ‘14)
S. Marczak, B. Al-Ani, D. Redmiles, and R. Prikladnicki
5
6. What and why?
• Our goal in this present study:
To investigate the interplay among trust, risk, and
reliance within the context of Global Systems
Engineering Teams
• Objectives:
To identify gaps in the understanding of decision-making
S. Marczak, B. Al-Ani, D. Redmiles, and R. Prikladnicki
processes
To establish a benchmark for future studies
6
7. Our empirical study
• 57 participants
• 5 multinational organizations
• Participants located in 10 countries
S. Marczak, B. Al-Ani, D. Redmiles, and R. Prikladnicki
7
8. Interview script
• Participants’ background
• Benchmark project description
• Antecedents of trust: storytelling and
hypothetical scenarios
S. Marczak, B. Al-Ani, D. Redmiles, and R. Prikladnicki
8
12. Perceived risk vs. Reliance 12
Scenario 1
S. Marczak, B. Al-Ani, D. Redmiles, and R. Prikladnicki
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
13. Main findings
• Invite those they have higher trust levels to
work on an extension of the project (Sc. #1)
• Go to their peers and those higher in the
organization hierarchy for an honest critique of
their innovative idea (Sc. #2)
• Chose their manager to present their idea (Sc. #3)
• Location of remote team members does not
influence participants’ choices
S. Marczak, B. Al-Ani, D. Redmiles, and R. Prikladnicki
13
14. To pick a team (Sc. #1)
“great ideas outweigh the pain of working with
people (emotionally)” (P4)
S. Marczak, B. Al-Ani, D. Redmiles, and R. Prikladnicki
14
To invite those the participants trust the most
because they felt that they had established a
kind of rapport or familiarity
“these are very dedicated people and it is great
working with them” (P44)
15. To pick a team (Sc. #1)
S. Marczak, B. Al-Ani, D. Redmiles, and R. Prikladnicki
“I would bring those experts in terms of
processes” (P33)
15
To invite those who the participants considered
experts or that have a certain skill set
“the selection is dependent on the skills
needed, even if people are at the lower end of
the trust spectrum” (P3)
16. To pick a team (Sc. #1)
“the country does not matter as long as the person
can meet the agreed commitments” (P37)
S. Marczak, B. Al-Ani, D. Redmiles, and R. Prikladnicki
16
Team member’s location is not relevant in the
decision-making process of selecting a member
“... whether it is face-to-face or not, it probably
doesn’t matter” (P7)
17. To discuss an idea (Sc. #2)
“any time I need an advice or I have an issue I go to
‘James’. I also go to him when I have a new idea in
mind... He is the most experienced guy in the
company; he is here since day 1” (P57)
S. Marczak, B. Al-Ani, D. Redmiles, and R. Prikladnicki
17
To discuss with a peer because participants
often have a sense of closeness that led them to
trust their peers’ judgment of new ideas
18. To discuss an idea (Sc. #2)
“I would feel comfortable taking criticism from
those who are close” (P56)
S. Marczak, B. Al-Ani, D. Redmiles, and R. Prikladnicki
18
To discuss with those the participants know
they would provide an honest feedback and
positive criticism
“I know they will react positively despite how they
feel about the idea” (P46)
19. To present the idea (Sc. #3) 19
To invite those the participants have respect for
and they know are capable of doing it
“doing the right thing is more important than getting
credit for it, that those who are capable of making it
happen” (P4)
S. Marczak, B. Al-Ani, D. Redmiles, and R. Prikladnicki
20. To present the idea (Sc. #3) 20
Those who have good presentation and
communication skills to push the idea further
“I would invite the architect, he is clear and sharp when
presenting his ideas” (P49)
“he has this ability to explain very well ideas using
technical details that are often clear to anyone in the
team” (P55)
S. Marczak, B. Al-Ani, D. Redmiles, and R. Prikladnicki
21. To present the idea (Sc. #3) 21
To invite managers since they have the power to
push ideas forward and to discuss equally with
senior management
“I would send my manager so he can discuss and
negotiate with upper management” (P49)
S. Marczak, B. Al-Ani, D. Redmiles, and R. Prikladnicki
22. S. Marczak, B. Al-Ani, D. Redmiles, and R. Prikladnicki
Contributions
• GSE team formation and management
Gap between decision-making processes in forming teams
and individuals’ personal choices
• Research community building
Benchmark for future studies
22
23. Thank you for your attention!
Questions?
Comments?
Suggestions?
Presented by
Rafael Prikladnicki
PUCRS
rafaelp@pucrs.br
Main contact for this work
Sabrina Marczak
PUCRS
sabrina.marczak@pucrs.br
International Conference on Global Software Engineering
August 18-21, 2014
Shanghai, China
Ban Al-Ani
UCI
balani@ics.uci.edu
David Redmiles
UCI
redmiles@ics.uci.edu