Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:55:51.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of trust in distributed design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2005

NIEK J.E. WIJNGAARDS ,
HIDDE M. BOONSTRA  and
FRANCES M.T. BRAZIER
NIEK J.E. WIJNGAARDS
Affiliation:
Intelligent Interactive Distributed Systems Group, Faculty of Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
HIDDE M. BOONSTRA
Affiliation:
Intelligent Interactive Distributed Systems Group, Faculty of Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
FRANCES M.T. BRAZIER
Affiliation:
Intelligent Interactive Distributed Systems Group, Faculty of Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Automated support of design teams, consisting of both human and automated systems, requires an understanding of the role of trust in distributed design processes. By explicating trust, an individual designer's decisions become better understood and may be better supported. Each individual designer has his or her private goals in a cooperative design setting, in which requirement conflicts and resource competitions abound. However, there are group goals that also need to be reached. This paper presents an overview of research related to trust in the context of agents and design, a computational knowledge-level model of trust based on the seven beliefs distinguished by Castelfranchi and Falcone, and an example of the use of the trust model in a specific design process, namely, Website design from the perspective of a single designer. The results are discussed in the context of distributed design in open systems.

Keywords

AgentsDistributed DesignKnowledge LevelTrust Model
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , May 2004 , pp. 199 - 209
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abdul-Rahman, A. & Hailes, S. (2000). Supporting trust in virtual communities. Proc. 33rd Hawaii Int. Conf. System Sciences, Vol. 6, pp. 6007. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press.
Aberer, K. & Despotovic, Z. (2001). Managing trust in a peer-2-peer information system. Proc. 10th Int. Conf. Information and Knowledge Management, pp. 310–317. New York: ACM Press.
Adams, R.S., Turns, J., & Atman, F.J. (2003). Educating effective engineering designers: The role of reflective practice. Design Studies 24(3), 275–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anumba, C.J., Ugwu, O.O., Newnham, L., & Thorpe, A. (2002). Collaborative design of structures using intelligent agents. Automation in Construction 11(1), 89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atman, C.J., Chimka, J.R., Bursic, K.M., & Nachtmann, H.L. (1999). A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes. Design Studies 20(2), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, K.S. & Kim, J. (2001). Belief revision process based on trust: Agents evaluating reputation of information sources. Trust in Cyber-Societies, Integrating the Human and Artificial Perspectives (Falcone, R., Singh, M.P. & Tan, Y.-H., Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2246, pp. 73–82. Berlin: Springer.CrossRef
Baya, V. & Leifer, L.J. (1996). Understanding information management in conceptual design. In Analysing Design Activity (Cross, N., Christiaans, H. & Dorst, K., Eds.), pp. 151–168. Chichester: Wiley.
Bell, D.E. & LaPadula, L.J. (1973). Secure Computer Systems: Mathematical Foundations and Model (Report No. MTR 2547 v2). Bedford, MA: MITRE Corporation.
Beth, T., Borcherding, M., & Klein, B. (1994). Valuation of trust in open networks. Proc. 3rd European Symp. Research in Computer Security, pp. 3–18.CrossRef
Birk, A. (2000). A boosting cooperation by evolving trust. Applied AI 14, 769–784.Google Scholar
Birk, A. (2001). Learning to trust. Trust in Cyber-Societies: Integrating the Human and Artificial Perspectives (R. Falcone, R., Singh, M. & Tan, Y.-H., Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2246, pp. 133–144. Berlin: Springer.CrossRef
Boujut, J.-F. & Laureillard, P. (2002). A co-operation framework for product–process integration in engineering design. Design Studies 23(6), 497–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brazier, F.M.T., Jonker, C.M., Treur, J., & Wijngaards, N.J.E. (2001b). Compositional design of a generic design agent. Design Studies 22(5), 439–471.Google Scholar
Brazier, F.M.T., Moshkina, L.V., & Wijngaards, N.J.E. (2001a). Knowledge level model of an individual designer agent in collaborative distributed design. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Engineering 15, 137–152.Google Scholar
Brazier, F.M.T. & Wijngaards, N.J.E. (2002). The role of trust in automated distributed design. Proc. Workshop on Agents in Design (Gero, J.S. & Brazier, F.M.T., Eds.), pp. 71–84, University of Sydney.
Busby, J.S. (2001). Error and distributed cognition in design. Design Studies 22(3), 233–254.Google Scholar
Campbell, M.I., Cagan, J., & Kotovsky, K. (1998). A-design: Theory and implementation of an adaptive, agent-based method of conceptual design. Artificial Intelligence in Design '98 (Gero, J.S. & Sudweeks, F., Eds.), pp. 579–598. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Castelfranchi, C. & Falcone, R. (1998). Principles of trust for MAS: Cognitive anatomy, social importance, and quantification. Third Int. Conf. Multi Agent Systems, pp. 72–80.CrossRef
Castelfranchi, C. & Falcone, R. (2000). Trust is much more than subjective probability: Mental components and sources of trust. Proc. 33rd Hawaii Int. Conf. System Sciences, Vol. 6, p. 6008. New York: IEEE Press.
Chao, K.-M., Norman, P., Anana, R., & James, A. (2002). An agent-based approach to engineering design. Computers in Industry 48, 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, G., Duffy, A.H.B., Hills, W., & Whitfield, R.I. (2000). A Generic coordination approach applied to a manufacturing environment. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 107, 404–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, D.L. & Zimring, C. (2000). Supporting collaborative design groups as design communities. Design Studies 21(2), 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, N., Christiaans, H., & Dorst, K. (1996). Analysing Design Activity. Chichester: Wiley.
Denton, H.G. (1996). Developing design teamworking capability: Some planning factors emerging from a survey of engineering design courses. Proc. Int. Conf. Design and Technology Educational Research and Curriculum Development (Smith, J.S., Ed.), pp. 112–117, IDATER 96, Loughborough University.
Dwarakanath, S. & Blessing, L. (1996). Ingredients of the design process: A comparison between group and individual work. In Analysing Design Activity (Cross, N., Christiaans, H. & Dros, K., Eds.), pp. 93–116. Chichester: Wiley.
Falcone, R. & Castelfranchi, C. (2001). The socio-cognitive dynamics of trust: Does trust create trust? In Trust in Cyber-Societies, Integrating the Human and Artificial Perspectives (Falcone, R., Singh, M.P. & Tan, Y.-H., Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2246, pp. 55–72. Berlin: Springer.
Falcone, R., Singh, M.P., & Tan, Y.-H. (2001). Introduction: Bringing together humans and artificial agents in cyber-societies: A New field of trust research. In Trust in Cyber-Societies, Integrating the Human and Artificial Perspectives (Falcone, R., Singh, M.P. & Tan, Y.-H., Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2246, pp. 1–8. Berlin: Springer.
Gambetta, D. (2000). Can we trust trust. In Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations (Gambetta, D., Ed.), pp. 213–237. Oxford: University of Oxford, Department of Sociology.
Gero, J.S. (1998). Conceptual designing as a sequence of situated acts. In Artificial Intelligence in Structural Engineering (Smith, I., Ed.), pp. 165–177. Berlin: Springer.CrossRef
Gero, J.S. & Kannengiesser, U. (2002). The situated function–behaviour–structure framework. In Artificial Intelligence in Design '02 (Gero, J.S., Ed.), pp. 89–104. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Grecu, D.L. & Brown, D.C. (1996). Learning by single function agents during spring design. In Artificial Intelligence in Design '96 (Gero, J.S. & Sudweeks, F., Eds.), pp. 409–428. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRef
Griffiths, N. & Luck, M. (1999). Cooperative plan selection through trust. In Multi-Agent System Engineering—Proc. Ninth European Workshop on Modelling Autonomous Agents in a Multi-Agent World (Garijo, F.J. & Boman, M., Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1647, pp. 162–174. Berlin: Springer.CrossRef
Hertzum, M. (2002). The importance of trust in software engineers' assessment and choice of information sources. Information and Organization 12, 1–18.Google Scholar
Hertzum, M. & Mark Pejtersen, A. (2000). The information-seeking practices of engineers: Searching for documents as well as for people. Information Processing & Management 36(5), 761–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, A.W., Dong, A., & Agogino, A.M. (2002). Towards computational tools for supporting the reflective team. Artificial Intelligence in Design '02 (Gero, J.S., Ed.), pp. 305–325. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRef
Holt, J.E. (1997). The designer's judgement. Design Studies 18(1), 113–123.Google Scholar
Jensen, D., Feland, J., Bowe, M., & Self, B. (2000). A 6-hats based team formation strategy: Development and comparison with an MBTI based approach. In Proc. American Society for Engineering Education ASEE Annual Conf. [CD], session 2425, St. Louis, MO.
Jurca, R. & Faltings, B. (2002). Towards incentive-compatible reputation management. Proc. Workshop “Deception, Fraud and Trust” of the Autonomous Agents Conf. (Falcone, R., Barber, S., Korba, L. & Singh, M., Eds.), pp. 92–100. New York: ACM Press.
Lang, S.Y.T., Dickinson, J., & Buchal, R.O. (2002). Cognitive factors in distributed design. Computers in Industry 48(1), 89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, B. (1997). How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified, 3rd ed. Oxford: Architectural Press.
Lees, B., Branki, C., & Aird, I. (2001). A framework for distributed agent-based engineering design support. Automation in Construction 10(5), 631–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, W.P. & Bonollo, E. (2002). An analysis of professional skills in design: Implications for education and research. Design Studies 23(4), 385–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Likert, R. (1932). A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. New York: Archives of Psychology.
Liu, H. & Frazer, J.H. (2002). Supporting evolution in a multi-agent cooperative design environment. Advances in Engineering Software 33(6), 319–328.Google Scholar
Luhmann, N. (2000). Familiarity, confidence, trust: Problems and alternatives. In Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations (Gambetta, D., Ed.), Chap. 6, pp. 94–107. Oxford: University of Oxford, Department of Sociology.
Maher, M.L., Simoff, S., & Cicognani, A. (2000). Understanding Virtual Design Studios. London: Springer.CrossRef
Marsh, S.P. (1994). Formalising Trust as a Computational Concept. Stirling: University of Stirling, Department of Computing Science and Mathematics.
Mass, Y. & Shehory, O. (2001). Distributed trust in open multi-agent system. In Trust in Cyber-Societies, Integrating the Human and Artificial Perspectives (Falcone, R., Singh, M.P. & Tan, Y.-H., Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2246, pp. 111–132. Berlin: Springer.
McAlinden, L.P., Florida-James, B.O., Chao, K.-M, Norman, P.W., Hills, W., & Smith, P. (1998). Information and knowledge sharing for distributed design agents. Artificial Intelligence in Design '98 (Gero, J.S. & Sudweeks, F., Eds.), pp. 537–556. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
McKnight, D.H. & Chervany, N.L. (2001). Trust and distrust definitions: One bite at a time. In Trust in Cyber-Societies: Integrating the Human and Artificial Perspectives (Falcone, R., Singh, M.P. & Tan, Y.-H., Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2246, pp. 27–54. Berlin: Springer.CrossRef
McKnight, D.H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research 13(3), 334–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKnight, D.H., Cummings, L.L., & Chervany, N.L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review 23(3), 473–490.Google Scholar
Milewski, A.E. & Lewis, S.H. (1997). Delegating to software agents. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 46(4), 485–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mui, L., Mohtashemi, M., & Halberstadt, A. (2002). Notions of reputation in multi-agents systems: A review. Proc. First Int. Joint Conf. Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 280–287. New York: ACM Press.
Pynadath, D.V. & Tambe, M. (2002). Multiagent teamwork: Analyzing the optimality and complexity of key theories and models. First Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems Conf. (AAMAS02), pp. 873–880.CrossRef
Ramchurn, S.D., Sierra, C., Godo, L., & Jennings, N.R. (2003). A computational trust model for multi-agent interactions based on confidence and reputation. Proc. 6th Int. Workshop of Deception, Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies, pp. 69–75, Melbourne, Australia.
Schillo, M., Funk, P., & Rovatsos, M. (1999). Who can you trust: Dealing with deception. Proc. Workshop “Deception, Fraud and Trust” of the Autonomous Agents Conf. (Castelfranchi, C., Tan, Y., Falcone, R. & Firozabad, B.S., Eds.), pp. 95–160. New York: ACM Press.
Schön, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books (Perseus Books Group).
Simoff, S.J. & Maher, M.L. (2000). Analysing participation in collaborative design environments. Design Studies 21(2), 119–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonnenwald, D.H. (1996). Communication roles that support collaboration during the design process. Design Studies 17(3), 277–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tambe, M. (1997). Towards flexible teamwork. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 7, 83–124.Google Scholar
Valkenburg, R. & Dorst, K. (1998). The reflective practice of design teams. Design Studies 19(3), 249–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, L., Shen, W., Xie, H., Neelamkavil, J., & Pardasani, A. (2002). Collaborative conceptual design—State of the art and future trends. Computer Aided Design 34(13), 981–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wijngaards, N.J.E., Overeinder, B.J., van Steen, M., & Brazier, F.M.T. (2002). Supporting Internet-scale multi-agent systems. Data and Knowledge Engineering 41(2–3), 229–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J.L. & Shi, C. (1996). Co-ordination mechanisms for cooperative design. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 9(4), 453–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winslett, M., Yu, T., Seamons, K.E., Hess, A., Jacobson, J., Jarvis, R., Smith, B., & Yu, L. (2002). Negotiating trust on the Web. IEEE Internet Computing 6(6), 30–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witkowski, M., Artikis, A., & Pitt, J. (2001). Experiments in building experiential trust in a society of objective-trust based agents. In Trust in Cyber-Societies, Integrating the Human and Artificial Perspectives (Falcone, R., Singh, M.P. & Tan, Y.-H., Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2246, pp. 111–132. Berlin: Springer.
Wong, H.C. & Sycara, K.P. (2000). Adding security and trust to multiagent systems. Applied Artificial Intelligence 14(9), 927–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wooldridge, M.J. & Jennings, N.R. (1995). Intelligent agents: theory and practice. The Knowledge Engineering Review 10(2), 115–152.Google Scholar
Zha, X.F. (2002). A knowledge intensive multi-agent framework for cooperative/collaborative design modeling and decision support of assemblies. Knowledge-Based Systems 15(8), 493–506.Google Scholar