Interpretive structural model of trust factors in construction virtual project teams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Organisational dependence on virtual project teams (VPTs) is growing dramatically due to the substantial benefits they offer, such as efficiently achieving objectives and improving organisational performance. One of the major issues that influence the effectiveness of VPTs is trust building. This study aims to determine the key factors of trust in VPTs and design a model by identifying the interrelationships among the trust factors. Design/methodology/approach Focus group discussion was used to gather data on factors affecting trust in VPTs and their interrelationships. Interpretive structural modelling (ISM) was used to establish the relationship among the factors. Cross-impact matrix multiplication applied to classification analysis was conducted to identify the driving power and the dependence power towards effective VPTs in the construction sector. Findings The finding revealed that “characteristics of team members” (such as ability, integrity, benevolence, competence, reliability and professionalism) is the most significant factor for building trust in virtual team members. Some factors were further identified as having high driving power, while others were defined as having high dependence variables. Practical implications The findings will assist construction managers and practitioners dealing with VPTs identify the factors influencing trust among team members. Taking cognisance of the factors that influence trust will enable them to design more effective virtual team arrangements. Originality/value As the first research of its kind using ISM technique, the study offers insights into interrelationships between trust factors in the construction VPTs. It provides guides for construction managers on the effective management of trustworthy VPTs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".