SEKE 2012 Proceedings - Knowledge Systems Institute

total= number of participants who are strongly agree or
agree with the state ment of the questionnaire). Then these
scores were again aggregated on the basis of four m easures of
trust and the results obtained are shown in Table1.
TABLE 1: AGGREGATE LEVEL OF TRUST FOR BOTH GROUP A AND
GROUP B AT FIRST STAGE ( WHRE PK :PAKSTANI STUDENTS AND
CN: CHINESE STUDENTS)
Measurement
Factors
Agreement percentage (strongly agree+ agree)
Group A
Group B
PK CN PK CN
Propensity to trust 13 14 11 12
Perceived
13 15 12 12
trustworthiness
Cooperative behavior 14 15 10 12
Monitoring behavior 5 5 7 6
The same procedure was applied for com bining the results
of exercise two and three. T he overall results in allthree stages
of this experiment were obtained and are shown in Table2
Table2 shows that the values of the first three measures namely
propensity to trust, perceived trustworthiness and cooperative
behavior are com paratively high in G roup A as co mpared to
Group B while the monitoring behavior in Group A is low as
compared to Group B. This indicates tha t the level of trust
among team members ofGroup A is c omparatively high as
compared to Group B.
Figure1-4 shows us the val ues of four measures of trus t
during three stages of the projects A a nd B. In these figures
three questionnaire filling exercises are s hown along X-axis
from one to three and the value of trust indicator is shown
along Y-axis. As the total students in eac h group were six
therefore maximum value of Y can be 30 in case if all the
students are strongly agree about some questionnaire statement
and minimum value can be 5 if all the students are disagree on
a point. T herefore the scale range is from 5 to 30 for each
measure of trust.
TABLE 2: OVERALL RESULTS OBTAINED FROM BOTH GROUP A
AND GROUP B (WHERE SA: STRONGLY AGREE, A: AGREE, PK:
PAKISTANI STUDENTS, CN: CHINESE STUDENT & GRP: GROUP)
Measurement
Factors
Agreemen GRP
t %age of
Trust
A
(SA+A) GRP
Stage 1 B
Agreemen
t %age of
Trust
(SA+A)
Stage 2
Agreemen
t %age of
Trust
(SA+A)
Stage 3
GRP
A
GRP
B
GRP
A
GRP
B
Propensity
to trust
Perceived
trustwort
hiness
Cooperat
ive
behavior
Monitorin
g
behavior
PK 13 13 14 5
CN 14 15 15 5
PK 11 12 10 7
CN 12 12 12 6
PK 14 15 16 5
CN 15 16 15 4
PK 12 13 12 6
CN 12 14 13 6
PK 16 16 17 4
CN 17 16 16 3
PK 13 14 14 6
CN 14 12 13 5
Results displayed in Fig.1-4 reflect the positive impact of
KMR in building trust among GSD team members. We further
validated our r esults by conduc ting an open ende d discussion
with both Groups after the end of the project. Team members
from Group A were asked that how m uch this KMR was
helpful for them. Reply of alm ost 67% students waspositive. A
student from Group A said that “ KMR provide us a platform
through which we can discuss everything and even when we
use this KMR it doesn’t seem to us that a huge geographical
distance is involved between our team mates”. Moreover, when
these team mates were asked about the role of KMR in building
trust the answer of almost every participant was positive.
40
30
20
10
1 2 3
GroupA
GroupB
40
30
20
10
1 2 3
GroupA
GroupB
Figure 1: Results o f Propensity to trust for Group A an d Group B du ring
three stages of the projects
30
10
1 2 3
GroupA
GroupB
Figure 3: Results of Cooperative be havior for Group A and Group B
during three stages of the project
Figure 2: Results of Perceived trustworthiness for Group A and
Group B during three stages of the project
20
10
0
1 2 3
GroupA
GroupB
Figure 4: Results of Monitoring Behavior for Group A and Group B
during three stages of the project
133