ASSESSING THE EFFECT OF FEEDBACK ON TEAM INTEGRATION AND
PROJECT PERFORMANCE IN TEACHING SUSTAINABLE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
By
Aditya Singh

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in the partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTERS OF SCIENCE
Construction Management
2012

ABSTRACT
ASSESSING THE EFFECT OF FEEDBACK ON TEAM INTEGRATION AND PROJECT
PERFORMANCE IN TEACHING SUSTAINABLE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

By
Aditya Singh
The existing architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry has a fragmented nature
where each team member works in isolation away from a whole-systems thinking. It is a
challenge to produce sustainable buildings with systems optimization and multi-disciplinary
collaboration among different disciplines. It is therefore crucial to help AEC students, learn how
to exchange information and work in teams for effective design and construction of sustainable
buildings.

This study presents a graduate level course, taught at Michigan State University that utilizes a
teamwork approach to teach sustainable built environment practices. The goal of the study is to
improve the way teams work so that they can produce better sustainable built environment
projects. The study tests the proposition that regular feedback to sensitize students towards
teamwork characteristics can help student teams produce more comprehensive outputs for
sustainable projects. To achieve this, two teams working on a semester long sustainable built
environment project are being observed. One of the teams is receiving the feedback while the
other one is working on its own pace. The results will be based on qualitative and social network
analyses that reports on changes in teamwork mechanics and dynamics over time, and
comparisons of study and control team’s final performances with their projects.

Dedicated To My Father

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are number of people who helped me along the way to write this thesis. Starting right
from the students of class PDC 901, Fall 2011, without their support this research would have
not been possible. I am very thankful to all of you!
I am thankful to Dr. Sinem Korkmaz, for her constant support and guidance, Dr. Ken Frank for
his valuable support and guidance in understanding project networks, and Dr. Tariq Abdelhamid
for his guidance all through my graduate program.
I am thankful to Prof. Tim Mrozowski, for allowing me to conduct a pilot study in his
sustainability class, which became a precursor for this research.
I am thankful to Dr. Matt Syal for being a constant motivator and support all through the
graduate curriculum.
I am thankful to Wenda, who is a good friend and helped whenever I needed it. Thanks to
Kimberly for helping with my thesis at the most crucial time.
I am thankful to my family for everything they provided.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ x

CHAPTER 1 .................................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Need Statement ......................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Research Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................. 4
1.4 Description of the Empirical Study and Study Propositions .................................................... 4
1.5 Research Methodology ............................................................................................................. 6
1.5.1 Team Formation ................................................................................................................. 6
1.5.2 Data Collection ................................................................................................................... 7
1.5.3 Feedbacks ........................................................................................................................... 7
1.5.4 Data Coding and Analysis .................................................................................................. 8
1.5.5 Discussion and Report Results ........................................................................................... 8
1.6 Study Scope .............................................................................................................................. 8
1.7 Results and Deliverables ........................................................................................................... 9
1.8 Reader’s Guide.......................................................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................ 10
Literature Review ....................................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 10
2.2 History, Project Delivery and the Problem of Fragmentation ................................................ 10
2.2.1 History .............................................................................................................................. 10
2.2.2 Industry Fragmentation .................................................................................................... 11
2.2.3 Project Delivery Methods................................................................................................. 11
2.3 Sustainable Project Delivery ................................................................................................... 14
2.4 Integration in Construction Teams versus Student Teams ..................................................... 17
2.5 High Performance Teams and Project Networks .................................................................... 18
v

2.5.1 Social Network Analysis .................................................................................................. 19
2.5.2 Social Network Analysis as a Tool to Analyze Project Networks ................................... 20
2.5.3 Social Networks in the AEC Industry and Research........................................................ 21
2.6 Sustainability and Teamwork’s Place in AEC Higher Education .......................................... 24
2.6.1 Sustainability .................................................................................................................... 24
2.6.2 Teamwork......................................................................................................................... 25
2.6.3 The Use of SNA in Classroom to Improve Student Learning.......................................... 27
2.7 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 288

CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................................ 30
Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 30
3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 30
3.2 Research Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................... 30
3.3 Research Approach ................................................................................................................. 31
3.4 Pilot Study............................................................................................................................... 32
3.5 Study Description.................................................................................................................... 33
3.6 Data Collection Procedure ...................................................................................................... 34
3.6.1 Institutional Review Board Approval .............................................................................. 37
3.6.2 Team Formation ............................................................................................................... 37
3.6.3 Learning Outcome Surveys .............................................................................................. 39
3.6.4 In-class Observations and Recording of Electronic Communication .............................. 39
3.6.5 Survey for identifying team mechanics and dynamics..................................................... 43
3.6.6 Student Team Evaluation ................................................................................................. 43
3.6.7 Student Presentations ....................................................................................................... 44
3.6.8 Feedbacks ......................................................................................................................... 44
3.7 Data Quality ............................................................................................................................ 45
3.8 Data Coding ............................................................................................................................ 45
3.9 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 46
3.9.1 Qualitative analysis .......................................................................................................... 48
3.9.2 Relevant SNA Variables .................................................................................................. 48
3.10 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 50

vi

CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................................ 51
Data Collection, Categorization, and Coding ........................................................................... 51
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 51
4.2 Sample Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 51
4.3 Data Collection Steps .............................................................................................................. 51
4.3.1 Pre and Post Surveys to Evaluate Student Learning Outcomes ....................................... 52
4.3.2 In-class Observations ....................................................................................................... 52
4.3.3 Electronic Communication ............................................................................................... 53
4.3.4 Survey to Evaluate Team Mechanics and Dynamics ....................................................... 53
4.3.5 Presentations..................................................................................................................... 53
4.3.6 Student Team Evaluation ................................................................................................. 54
4.4 Data Recording and Categorization ........................................................................................ 54
4.4.1 Survey Data ...................................................................................................................... 54
4.4.2 Observation Data .............................................................................................................. 55
4.5 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 55
4.5.1 Qualitative Analysis Findings .......................................................................................... 55
4.5.1.1 In-depth Qualitative Analysis of Control Team over the Course of the Project ....... 55
4.5.1.2 In-depth Qualitative Analysis of Experiment Team over the Course of the Project . 63
4.5.2 Feedback Sessions and their Influences on Experiment Team ........................................ 73
4.5.2.1 Session #1 .................................................................................................................. 73
4.5.2.2 Session #2 .................................................................................................................. 74
4.5.2.3 Session #3 .................................................................................................................. 76
4.5.3 Direct Influence of Feedback Sessions on Experiment Team.......................................... 77
4.5.4 Quantitative analysis ........................................................................................................ 79
4.6 Summary ................................................................................................................................. 79

CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................................................ 80
Results .......................................................................................................................................... 80
5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 80
5.1.1 Proposition 1 .................................................................................................................... 80
5.1.2 Proposition 2 .................................................................................................................... 95
5.1.2.1 Revised Proposition 2 .............................................................................................. 101
vii

5.1.3 Proposition 3 .................................................................................................................. 101
5.1.4 Proposition 4 .................................................................................................................. 104
5.1.5 Survey Verification ........................................................................................................ 109

CHAPTER 6 .............................................................................................................................. 111
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 111
6.1 Summary of Findings ............................................................................................................ 111
6.2 Theoretical and Practical Applications ................................................................................. 114
6.3 Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 116
6.4 Recommendation of Future Research ................................................................................... 117

Appendix A: Consent Forms ...................................................................................................... 121
Appendix B: Survey #1 – Experience ......................................................................................... 123
Appendix C: Team Formation Criteria ....................................................................................... 125
Appendix D: Pre – Survey #2 – Learning Outcome ................................................................... 126
Appendix E: Survey #3 ............................................................................................................... 130
Appendix F: Project Assignment Description ............................................................................ 134
Appendix G: Team Feedback Presentation #1, #2, and #3 ......................................................... 137
Appendix H: Field Notes Template ............................................................................................ 188
Appendix I: Data Reduction from Field Notes ........................................................................... 188
Appendix J: Student Evaluation Form ........................................................................................ 189
Appendix K: Calculations related to proposition 1..................................................................... 191
Appendix L: Modified Team Mechanics Survey........................................................................ 192

BIBLIOGRAPHY ....................................................................................................................... 195

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Categorization and definition of mechanics and dynamics (partially adapted from
Chinowsky et al. 2008 and Eclipse Research Consultants, 2004)……………………………….23
Table 2: Study Research Design Showing the Timelines of Data collection and Feedback
Procedure Based on Course Outline……………………………………………………………..35
Table 3: Mechanics and Dynamics Identification Criteria and Analysis Methods……………...41
Table 4: Presentation performance evaluation criteria…………………………………………..44
Table 5: Color coding of sociograms’ nodes according to educational backgrounds…….……..85
Table 6: Average geodesic distance values compared with organizational tenure of team
members……………………………………………………………………………….…………90
Table 7: Centrality-Out values for control team…………………………………….…………...94
Table 8: Centrality-Out values for experiment team…………………………………………….94
Table 9: Delta values for reliance and trust variable for control and experiment teams………...96
Table 10: Change in mechanics and dynamics with change in sustainability score of control and
experiment team………………………………………………………………………………...106
Table 11: Change in mechanics and dynamics with change in teamwork score of control
team………………………………………………………………………………………….….108
Table 12: Change in mechanics and dynamics with change in teamwork score of experiment
team………………………………………………………………………………………….….108
Table 13: Comparison of interaction responses provided by control team members to the
interaction instances recorded…………………………………………………………………..109
Table 14: Comparison of interaction responses provided by experiment team members to the
interaction instances recorded…………………………………………………………………..109
Table 15: Field Notes Sample Template with Team Members Names Coded………………....187
Table 16: Student Self and Team Evaluation Table...………………………………………….190

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Integrative Process depicting interactions between subsystems………………………13
Figure 2: Change in Energy Saving Opportunities According to Phases of Design Process……16

Figure 3: Project Specific Communication frequency change over the weeks for in class working
sessions…………………………………………………………………………………………..81

Figure 4: Project Specific Communication frequency change over the weeks for electronic
communication…………………………………………………………………………………..82

Figure 5: Project Specific Communication frequency change over the weeks for in class and
electronic communication combined……………………………………………………………83

Figure 6: Project specific communication frequency change of control and experiment team
members…………………………………………………………………………………………84

Figure 7: Controls’ teams in class project specific communication…………………….……….86

Figure 8: Experiment’s teams’ in class project specific communication…………………...…...87

Figure 9: Control teams electronic communication…………………..………………….………88

Figure 10: Experiment teams electronic communication………………………………….…….89

Figure 11: Informal communication frequency of control and experiment team………….…….91

Figure 12: Information exchange frequency of control and experiment team…………………...92
x

Figure 13: Density of control and experiment teams for project specific communication………93

Figure 14: Leadership and Management instances of control and experiment teams……….…..97

Figure 15: Engagement of core competencies instances of control and experiment team……..100

Figure 16: Technical communication related to project instances of control and experiment
teams……………………………………………………………………………………………100

Figure 17: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #1…………………………………..137

Figure 18: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #2…………………………………..138

Figure 19: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #3…………………………………..139

Figure 20: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #4…………………………………..140

Figure 21: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #5…………………………………..141

Figure 22: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #6…………………………………..142

Figure 23: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #7…………………………………..143

Figure 24: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #8…………………………………..144

Figure 25: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #9…………………………………..145

xi

Figure 26: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #10……….………………………..146

Figure 27: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #11………….……………………..147

Figure 28: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #12………….……………………..148

Figure 29: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #13………….……………………..149

Figure 30: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #14………….……………………..150

Figure 31: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #15………….……………………..151

Figure 32: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #16………….……………………..152

Figure 33: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #17………….……………………..153

Figure 34: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #18………….……………………..154

Figure 35: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #19………….……………………..155

Figure 36: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #20………….……………………..156

Figure 37: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #21………….……………………..157

Figure 38: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #22………….……………………..158

Figure 39: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #23………….……………………..159
xii

Figure 40: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #24………….……………………..160

Figure 41: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #25………….……………………..161

Figure 42: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #26………….……………………..162

Figure 43: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #27………….……………………..163

Figure 44: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #28………….……………………..164

Figure 45: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #29………….……………………..165

Figure 46: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #30………….……………………..166

Figure 47: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #31………….……………………..167

Figure 48: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #32………….……………………..168

Figure 49: Team feedback session presentation #2 image #1…………………………………..169

Figure 50: Team feedback session presentation #2 image #2…………………………………..170

Figure 51: Team feedback session presentation #2 image #3…………………………………..171

Figure 52: Team feedback session presentation #2 image #4…………………………………..172

xiii

Figure 53: Team feedback session presentation #2 image #5…………………………………..173

Figure 54: Team feedback session presentation #2 image #6…………………………………..174

Figure 55: Team feedback session presentation #2 image #7…………………………………..175

Figure 56: Team feedback session presentation #2 image #8 ……………….………………....176

Figure 57: Team feedback session presentation #2 image #9……………….……………….....177

Figure 58: Team feedback session presentation #2 image #10……………….………………...178

Figure 59: Team feedback session presentation #3 image #1……………….……………….....179

Figure 60: Team feedback session presentation #3 image #2……………….……………….....180

Figure 61: Team feedback session presentation #3 image #3……………….……………….....181

Figure 62: Team feedback session presentation #3 image #4……………….……………….....182

Figure 63: Team feedback session presentation #3 image #5……………….……………….....183

Figure 64: Team feedback session presentation #3 image #6……………….……………….....184

Figure 65: Team feedback session presentation #3 image #7……………….……………….....185

xiv

Figure 66: Team feedback session presentation #3 image #8……………….……………….....186
Figure 67: Sample field notes showing data reduction……...………………………………….188

xv

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
1.1 Overview
Construction industry has come a long way since the master builder system, where a single party
was responsible for planning, design, and construction, to highly specialized experts. As a result
the industry has advanced know how in every trade, but also a fragmented nature (Forbes &
Ahmed, 2010), which can be a deterrent to close coordination and communication between team
members. The levels and methods of communications, and compatibility between project teams
are attributes for generating better project outcomes, especially in green and energy efficient
buildings (Lapinski et al. 2006, Enache-Pommer and Horman 2009, 7 Group and Reed 2009,
Korkmaz et al. 2010), where optimal solutions can be provided with reduced costs, time, and
better quality.

A high performance team is considered to possess these attributes such as continuously
exchanging knowledge and insights, in addition to project information for enhancing the
collective group output (Katzenbach and Smith 1993, Chinowsky et al. 2008). This ability of
high performance teams makes them more integrated than traditional ones. Team characteristics
such as information/knowledge exchange, reliance, trust, value sharing can be mapped and
analyzed mathematically to isolate relationships, and visualize network principles such as
dominance, centrality, and egocentricity (Hanneman and Riddle 2005, Chinowsky et al. 2008). It
is also referred to as Social Network Analysis (SNA). Recent research conducted on architecture,
engineering, and construction (AEC) teams in the industry and educational settings using SNA
1

methodology showed that barriers (e.g., organizational, cultural) among team members lead to
deficiencies in team and project performance. (Chinowsky et al. – I 2010) emphasized the need
for organizations to remove internal barriers and be more collaborative for effectiveness.
Chinowsky et al. - II (2010) developed a modeling approach – Project Network Interdependency
Alignment (PNIA), which illustrated how the lack of appropriate coordination can result in
potential project delays and miscommunication. Similar research in AEC education has shown
the significance of project networks in achieving project goals.

Di Marco et al. (2010), in research involving AEC students showed that how in international
projects, culturally diversified team members help achieve high performance by bridging the gap
between members of different cultural backgrounds. Similarly, Ramalingam & Mahalingam
(2010), in a study involving graduate students of engineering curriculum, established that
fraternization, and intercultural team members helping resolve knowledge system conflicts can
help improve team dynamics, resulting in high student performance. These studies highlighted
the role of a robust project network for high performance, which becomes essential for reaching
sustainable goals in a fragmented AEC industry. A similar analogy can be applied to student
teams learning sustainable built environment practices, where they can be taught to understand
and appreciate the need for team integration.

Talloires Declaration (1990) emphasizes on universities’ importance in the “education, research,
policy formation, and information exchange” being necessary for sustainable development. Due
to the presence of many different definitions and interpretations of the concept of sustainability,
it is not surprising that the strategies of the universities that are beginning to strive for

2

sustainability show some differences (Manoliadis 2009). Recently, there is a rising trend in the
engineering, design, and built environment schools to implement integration for teaching
sustainability in their curriculum. For example, Wolcott et al. (2010) emphasized on the need for
current education institutions to be properly positioned to advocate AEC students,
interdisciplinary teamwork and communication skills. Their study designed and implemented an
integrated design course in sustainability for undergraduate and graduate students, which resulted
in students learning interdisciplinary teamwork and communication skills. Steinemann (2003)
designed and taught a graduate course at Georgia Institute of Technology called “Sustainable
Urban Development”, with the application of Problem Based Learning methodology, where in
the approach did not just developed the students’ problem solving skills but they also learned to
work both independently and collaboratively.

Several previous studies focused on construction teams have shown that a robust project network
can lead to high performance. This makes it important not just for sustainable construction teams
but even for students enrolled in sustainable construction courses to understand and appreciate
the need for team integration, so that they can deliver high performance when they work on real
projects. This research addresses this problem, by analyzing team integration and testing the
effect of feedback through SNA, in a graduate classroom teaching sustainable built environment
practices.

1.2 Need Statement
The fragmented nature of construction industry requires more integration, especially for
sustainable projects. Many projects suffer from the high initial cost perception, in the industry or
they miss many opportunities in planning design and construction due to the fragmented nature
3

of the industry professionals working in silos, and not optimizing systems along the way. There
is a need to create a more collaborative AEC industry and a need to help learn AEC students
team integration, so that they can deliver high performance when they work on real projects. The
main research question this study is attempting to answer is: ‘Can continuous feedback using
SNA, improve team performance specifically - teamwork, collaboration, and communication
among team members and project performance?’

1.3 Research Goals and Objectives
The main goal of this research is to improve the way teams work so that they can produce better
sustainable built environment projects. To achieve this, the study assesses the value of SNA as a
feedback mechanism throughout project processes to improve the ways teams work and perform
on a given project. The specific objectives of this study are to:
1. To assess the value of SNA as a feedback tool to show teams ongoing working processes
and to improve teamwork in the long run;
2. To evaluate if continuous feedback on team mechanics and dynamics can impact project
performance especially in terms of sustainable outcomes;
3. Evaluate if SNA feedbacks can improve student learning of (a) sustainability practices for
built environment (b) teamwork.

1.4 Description of the Empirical Study and Study Propositions
The Fall 2011 offering of graduate level course titled Integrated Approach to Planning Design
and Construction (PDC 901), at School of Planning Design and Construction, Michigan State
University, was used as a platform for this research. The course curriculum included lectures for
student learning of sustainable built environment specially LEED rating system and lessons and
4

case studies on integrated project delivery. It also had a LEED term project where in students
worked on a real world project with a goal of coming up with creative sustainable solutions to
make the project greener. Ten students from varied backgrounds such as civil engineering,
mechanical engineering, construction management, urban and regional planning, architecture,
landscape architecture were enrolled in this course and were divided into two teams of five
students each to work on this project. One of the teams received regular feedback (so called the
experiment team from this point forward) as a feedback to their teamwork, while the other team
(control team) did not receive any feedbacks. This study tests the following propositions:

Proposition 1: Team mechanics (e.g., communication, information exchange) will improve more
in the experiment group compared to the control group as a result of receiving continuous
feedback on their teamwork using SNA.

Proposition 2: If team dynamics (e.g., shared values, reliance, trust) among team members are
high, so will be the team mechanics.

Proposition 3: The experiment team’s project performance will improve more over time
compared to the control group’ performance, mediated through higher improvements in team
mechanics and dynamics.

Proposition 4: Student learning outcomes on teamwork and sustainability will be higher in the
experiment team, due to higher improvements in team mechanics and dynamics.

5

1.5 Research Methodology
This study used mixed methods for data collection and analysis, which not only provided for
testing of different propositions but also triangulated the results. Data collection included preand post- surveys to evaluate student learning, team-meeting observations, and electronic
communication tracking.

Data analysis utilized social network analysis and qualitative analysis. A description of
methodology steps is given next.

1.5.1 Team Formation
A pilot study was conducted prior to this study in which students teams were observed
interviewed and the collected data was analyzed through SNA and it was found that leadership
and previous experience of working together were important variables in shaping the final
project. Also, Korkmaz (2010) has identified lack of core competencies as one the reason for
waste in the design process, which is analogous to the lack of relevant educational background
and experience in student teams. So the variables such as leadership, previous experience of
working together and in industry, educational background formed the basis of team formation.

An observation session of pre-project debate held in class and responses to an online survey
conducted before the project start, helped identify the leaders, educational background and
experience of every student in the subject course. This helped in formation of two teams of 5
students each such that both teams have equal number of students from different educational

6

backgrounds, equal number of leaders, and almost equal amount of previous experience (i.e.,
organizational tenure and previous working experience together).

Since, this study required to provide feedback to one team and not to other, so once equal teams
were formed, the decision to choose the team to receive the feedback was based on ease of
availability of team members to meet for feedback sessions.

1.5.2 Data Collection
Data collection consisted of in-class observations, surveys, and recordings of electronic
communication. In-class observations happened when both the teams worked in the classroom
on their LEED project and when they presented their final projects. Four surveys were
administered. One of them collected information like educational background, experience,
organizational tenure; the other two surveys were pre and post which investigated the lessons
learned by the students through this course with regards to sustainable built environment and
teamwork. The fourth survey questioned individuals about their interactions with other team
members, happening outside the class, and the amount of reliance and trust they have on other
members. The course website was exclusively used by both teams to interact among them. This
interaction was monitored and served as data for electronic communication.

1.5.3 Feedbacks
A total of three feedback sessions happened over the course of the project, with the first two of
them happening before the first project submission and the third one after the first submission.
Students of experiment team were provided feedback through one to two hours of feedback
7

sessions based on their interaction in their team working sessions in class and on the course
website discussion forum.

1.5.4 Data Coding and Analysis
Field notes on student in class working sessions were categorized using data reduction technique
into different team variables. They were then analyzed qualitatively to understand their strengths
and shortcomings in their teamwork. They were also analyzed through SNA to quantify their
frequency and chain of communication. The course website was exclusively used for all kind of
electronic communication, data from which was also analyzed each week in a similar way as
from field notes. The student project presentations were video recorded, to analyze and evaluate
their project performance.

1.5.5 Discussion and Report Results
The results were reported to convey the value of continuous feedback on team mechanics and
dynamics and their utilization in AEC teams and for educators teaching sustainable built
environment practices to AEC students.

1.6 Study Scope
This study focused on assessing the effect of feedback on student teams with regard to their
teamwork using SNA while they are learning sustainable built environment practices. This study
aims to improve AEC students understanding of sustainability as applied to AEC industry. It also
makes the students realize the importance of teamwork and consequently improve their team
working skills. The scope of this study is limited to AEC students, not actual construction teams.
8

Additionally, the number of teams is limited to two for this study which is rather a limited
number for network analysis; therefore, statistical significance was not possible in study results.
However, it is important to mention that valuable lessons learned for both AEC and student
teams were possible as a result of this study which also will inform larger scale empirical studies.

1.7 Results and Deliverables
The following are the expected results and deliverables of this study:
1) A tested tool to analyze communication in student teams;
2) Team building modules for future team building exercises;
3) Establishing the value of SNA as a tool to improve teamwork;
4) Assessment of the importance of continuous feedback in improving project performance;
5) Identification of key team variables such as experience, educational background,
organizational tenure, working together, reliance, trust in determining project
performance;
6) A verified survey evaluating team mechanics and dynamics that can replace actual
observations for future studies.

1.8 Reader’s Guide
Chapter 2 describes the literature review conducted for this study. The methodology is discussed
in Chapter 3; while Chapter 4 discusses data collection, categorization and coding, Chapter 5
discusses data analysis and results, and Chapter 6 provides conclusions.

9

CHAPTER 2

Literature Review

2.1 Introduction
This study investigates a relatively new aspect in improving project performance in sustainable
built environment student teams through feedbacks. This chapter describes project delivery
history, construction industry fragmentation, high performance teams, social network analysis,
teamwork and education.

2.2 History, Project Delivery and the Problem of Fragmentation
Construction teams are continuously changing not only with every different project, but also
while working on a single project. There are inherent problems like overshooting budget and
delay, in almost every job. The construction industry is also the most litigious industries in the
United States (Yates & Epstein 2006). Many problems of this industry are due to its fragmented
nature, where different trades work in isolation, which can result in not achieving the desired
results. The following subsections talks about the history, delivery methods and problem of
fragmentation in construction industry.

2.2.1 History
Construction industry history dates back to early 17th century, where in first projects were
constructed by European settlers through the Master builder concept (Condit 1982, Yates and
Battersby 2003). Master builders were single parties who were solely responsible for planning
design, and construction of a project. The first fragmentation of master builder system into
10

designers and contractors started in early 20th century (Konchar and Sanvido 1998, Yates and
Battersby 2003).

2.2.2 Industry Fragmentation
The fragmentation of master builder system did not stop there; it evolved the industry into highly
specialized experts for different trades, where the first area of fragmentation is caused by
separate design and construction functions and the second is a result of further division of the
designer and constructor into highly specialized experts (Pocock et al. 1996, Yates and Battersby
2003). This is good in a way as it provide a high degree of technical know-how in different
trades, but has a very negative effect on the project as a whole.

2.2.3 Project Delivery Methods
The rise of specialized disciplines in the 1970s resulted in a traditional design process that
isolates disciplines during the design and construction process (Kashyap et al. 2003, Magent et
al. 2009). Design-Bid-Build delivery method is considered the traditional method, where a
project is designed first by an architect, they its goes through competitive bidding for constructor
selection, which then constructs the project. The more integrated systems include Design-Build
(DB), Construction Management (CM), and Integrated Project Delivery (IPD). In DB system a
single party design and constructs the project, with just having a main contract with the owner.
CM system involves a construction project manager who plays pivotal role in bringing the owner
and contractors on a common platform and also plays an advisory role to the owner. IPD system
is highly integrated where every project participant is on a same platform, working together for
project good. The project participants are bounded by an agreement which focuses more on
11

encouraging collaboration and less on assigning liability. “Rewards and risks are shared, so the
route for any one company to succeed is for the whole project to succeed” (Sive, 2009). AIA IPD
guide (2007) defines IPD as “Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) is a project delivery approach
that integrates people, systems, business structures and practices into a process that
collaboratively harnesses the talents and insights of all participants to reduce waste and
optimize efficiency through all phases of design, fabrication and construction”. In the words of
Matthew and Howell (2005), IPD is a relational contracting approach that aligns project
objectives with the interests of participants.

7 Group and Reed (2009), compares integrative process with traditional process along the same
time line, and shows that the overall time from the project inception to the delivery of bidding
documents can remain the same, but the allocation of effort is redistributed. Additionally, it can
also be said that for an integrative process more time is spent on schematic design, then the
traditional process. Regular workshops and charrettes are more prominent after every stage of the
project in integrative process. Figure 1 (7 Group and Reed 2009) further emphasizes the
interactions between subsystems, cost and disciplines and their optimizations necessary for
delivering

a

sustainable

12

project.

Discovery

Design & Construction

Habitat
Water

Occupancy,
Operation
and
Performance
Feedback

Energy
Materials
Budget
Prep.

Eval.

Conceptual
Design

Schematic
Design

Design
Development

Construction
Documents

Bidding and
Construction

Figure 1: Integrative Process depicting interactions between subsystems (7 Group and Reed 2009). For interpretation of the references
to color in this and all other figures, the reader is referred to the electronic version of this thesis

13

2.3 Sustainable Project Delivery
The recent climate change and environmental awareness has greatly increased the demand for
sustainable buildings. Sustainable projects have always been characterized by added complexity
owing to their need for a high level of interdependency and interaction between project
participants (Reed and Gordon 2009, Korkmaz et. al 2010). The delivery process for sustainable,
high performance buildings is more complex than traditional construction and requires superior
planning (Lapinski et al., 2006; Enache-Pommer and Horman, 2009; Korkmaz et al.-I, 2010,
Swarup et al., 2011). Further, the recent globalization, evolving toward a more multi-cultural
project working environment (Di Marco et al. 2010), adds even more complexity in collaboration
between global project networks (Levina & Vaast 2009; Di Marco et al. 2010). The uniqueness
of sustainable projects, the fragmented nature, and the problems which the construction industry
faces call for a more holistic look at its functioning and demands high performance teams to
overcome these challenges.

Project success in energy efficient sustainable buildings has been attributed to interactions
between project participants in different studies (BHKR 2003; Magent et al. 2009). The literature
suggests that delivery attributes such as level of owner commitment evaluated through inclusion
of green strategies to the project contracts (Molenaar et al. 2009), project team characteristics,
team procurement, relationship between team members (contractually and personally), and
timing of entry of participants in a project are important attributes and can have important and
altering effects on the final outcomes (Fortune and White 2006; Korkmaz et al.-I 2010; Swarup
et al. 2011). There are several examples which recognizes that sustainable buildings demand
increased levels of design integration between structural, envelope, mechanical, electrical and
14

architectural systems (e.g. Reed and Gordon 2000; Katzenbach and Smith 2003; Lewis 2004,
Magent et al. 2009). Installation of green roof, where the roofing contractor has to work in
collaboration with different trades is a good example for amount of collaboration required for
green projects. The existing research has also shown the significance of team variables in project
management teams especially for sustainable projects. Therefore, interpersonal skills become
more critical in these projects compared with traditional ones (BHKR 2003, Magent et al. 2009).

There has been a high initial cost perception in the industry, which is not completely true as
research has shown (7 Group and Reed 2009), that integrated teams can achieve sustainable
projects at an equivalent cost or at even a lower cost than traditional buildings, provided the
project participants have a green plan from project inception and work in an integrated manner.

The Macleamy Curve, Sive (2009), illustrates a fundamental precept IPD seeks to address. As
time and design proceed, the opportunity to reduce construction cost decreases, while the cost to
implement the design changes increases. This is exacerbated in traditional delivery, because
participants join the team at different times. For instance, the contractor joins at bid, or the
structural engineer joins at design development. IPD means bringing the whole team onboard
earlier so the best ideas come out sooner and can be more quickly and efficiently incorporated
into the design. The result is more efficient use of design effort, and much greater opportunity to
reduce building cost and/or improve building function. This is also verified by a research
conducted by Swarup et al. (2011), showing that projects with high levels of integration have
high chances to be successful on the sustainable metric (Figure 2), versus projects, that may or
may not be successful, achieving medium or low integration scores. It was also seen that the

15

green design coordinator/LEED® A.P. who did not contract directly with the owner or designbuilder resulted in lower sustainability and success outcomes. Green projects delivered by CMR
and DB have higher chance to produce better outcomes compared to DBB projects, for these
methods require early involvement of constructor.

PD

SD

DD

CD

BC

BO/PO

Intensive high
Involvement
Periodic high
Involvement
Moderate
Involvement
Periodic low
Involvement
Sporadic or no
Involvement

3

6

9

12

15

18

42

Duration (Months)

Figure 2: Change in Energy Saving Opportunities According to Phases of Design Process
(Perkins and Stanton Consulting, 2007)

16

2.4 Integration in Construction Teams versus Student Teams
AEC project teams consist of three major parties, the owner, the architect and the constructor. In
a conventional scenario an owner first decides to build a building, he hires an architect, who
designs the building, then the architect and the owner awards the contract to build the building to
a contractor who finally builds the building. This is the traditional scenario where the constructor
is not able to provide any kind of information like constructability foresight during the design
process, which may result in last moment field changes. In an integrated project delivery
information flows freely between the three parties from the beginning of the project, and thus
late changes in design or scope are minimized due to early involvement of the constructor.
Similarly, the student teams that participated in this research are similar in analogy to the
integrated project teams, where information freely flows between the team members from the
beginning of the project.

Also, integration in construction industry normally refers to collaborative working practices,
methods and behaviors that promote an environment where information is freely exchanged
among the construction parties (Ibrahim et al. 2011, Baiden and Price 2011). Ibrahim et al.
(2011) also defined six key indicators for successful integration in construction projects. These
are: 1) Focusing on goals and objectives; 2) Seamless operation with no organizational defined
boundaries; 3) Trust and Respect; 4) Communication; 5) Sharing Information 6) Integrated ICT
(Information and Communication Technology) systems. This research also examines team
variables which governs integration in student teams as shown in Table 1, which can be seen as
very similar to the ones defined above for construction projects, thus keeping the criteria for
measurement of integration in the construction and student teams same. Based on the literature

17

review, we can say the selected variables in Table 1 are recently practiced and accepted variables
to measure team integration variables in the AEC literature

2.5 High Performance Teams and Project Networks
Members of high performance teams not only have a high degree of connectivity but also they
share values, reliance, and trust (Katzenbach and Smith 1993; Chinowsky et al. 2008). As a
result they share a buoyant atmosphere, appreciation, and encouragement between their members
(Losada, 1999), and work together for common goals and objectives (Chinowsky et al. 2008).
Project success in energy efficient sustainable buildings has also been attributed to interactions
between project participants in other studies (BHKR 2003; Magent et al. 2009). Woodruff (1999)
explains how cohesion is the key issue for collaborative learning and defines four cohesive
factors he called “glue factors”: "1) function, 2) identity, 3) discursive participation, and 4)
shared values. Function is the goal or purpose of the community; identity is the validation of
‘self’ through membership; discursive participation is the means by which the members'
discourse helps to advance the function or goal of the community; and, shared values are the
global beliefs held by members which unite them and help to promote an emerging discourse."
He says that the cohesion of a given group enhances the appreciation of each of its members. The
more people appreciate each other, the more they will interact. Interaction being a glue factor
will reinforce cohesion. "Appreciation", in essence is very close to Woodruff's fourth cohesive
factor, named “shared values” (Reffay & Chanier 2002).

18

2.5.1 Social Network Analysis
Social network analysis (SNA) is a methodology used to identify the conditions of social
structures by analyzing the interactions and interrelationships of a set of actors (Park et al. 2011,
Hu and Rachera 2008, De Nooy et al. 2005).

Sociograms: Sociograms are made up of nodes and links, where nodes represent individuals and
links represents the interaction ties between those individuals. Sociograms are also known by the
name ‘directed graphs’ in mathematics. A sociogram can diagrammatically represent interaction
patters in a team and can be a helpful tool to visualize social networks.

Network Density: Network density is simply the proportion of ties in a network relative to the
total number possible ties. It is the most common indicator of a network’s connectivity; it
represents the extent of how densely and cohesively nodes in a network are interconnected
(Pryke 2004, Park et al. 2011). Density is calculated by dividing the number of existing
relationships by the number of maximum possible relationships, as shown in the following
equation:
Density = l / (n*(n-1)/2)

(1)

“The density of a network may give us insights into such phenomena as the speed at which
information diffuses among the nodes, and the extent to which actors have high levels of social
capital and/or social constraint (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005)”. The value of density ranges from 0
to 1, where 0 represents no ties in the network; while 1 represents that the network has all the
possible ties. Consequently a 0 density will mean no interaction, while a density value of 1 will

19

indicate a robust interaction in the network. In this research for easier interpretation, density
values were converted to percentages, for example 0.5 of density has been shown as 50%.

Degree Centrality: Degree centrality is defined as the number of links incident upon a node (i.e.,
the number of ties that a node has). If the network is directed (meaning that ties have direction),
then

we

usually

define

two

separate

measures

of

degree

centrality,

namely indegree and outdegree. Indegree is the count of the number of ties directed to the node,
and outdegree is the number of ties that the node directs to others.

Betweenness Centrality and Power: Betweenness centrality views an actor as being in a favored
position to the extent that the actor falls on the geodesic paths between other pairs of actors in the
network. That is, the more people depend on someone to make connections with other people,
the more power that person has (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005).

Geodesic Distance: “The geodesic distance is the number of relations in the shortest possible
walk from one actor to another. If two actors are adjacent, the distance between them is one (that
is, it takes one step for a signal to go from the source to the receiver). If A tells B, and B tells C
(and A does not tell C), then actors A and C are at a distance of two”, provided that B falls on the
shortest possible walk from A to C (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005).

2.5.2 Social Network Analysis as a Tool to Analyze Project Networks
The complex nature of a real life sustainability project and the student team members with
different expertise, backgrounds and problem solving styles can have significant difficulty in

20

effectively integrating their unique perspectives. Moreover, research has shown that relationships
are critical for collectively solving cognitively complex tasks (e.g., Weick & Roberts 1993;
Hutchins 1991; Moreland, Argote, Krishnan 1996; Hollingshead 1998, Cross et al. 2002). Social
network analysis (SNA) can be an invaluable tool for systematically assess, understand and then
intervene at critical points (Cross et al. 2002) to make those relationships and as a result teams
more effective.

Through SNA the social networks can be visualized as graphs called sociograms, which
represent the actors as nodes of the graphs and the links among them as lines in the graph
(Wasserman & Faust 1994; Martinez 2003). The assessment of sociograms can reveal critical
information which can be utilized in improving the performance of group. For example, the team
coordinator can craft ways to engage the peripheral individuals of the network, once they are
identified (Cross et al. 2002), also sociograms when shown to the peripheral individuals can
make them realize that they need to be more central in the network, similarly a highly central
individual can distribute their responsibility and encourage other to engage in the task. Network
diagrams can help determine who these people are and what might be done to make the team
more effective (Cross et al. 2002).

2.5.3 Social Networks in the AEC Industry and Research
A study analyzing performance of four project management organizations using SNA
(Chinowsky et al. – I 2010) emphasized the need for organizations to remove internal barriers
and be more collaborative for effectiveness. Chinowsky et al. - II (2010) developed a modeling
approach – Project Network Interdependency Alignment (PNIA), which illustrated how the lack
of appropriate coordination can result in potential project delays and miscommunication. Di
21

Marco et al. (2010), in another research involving AEC students showed that how in
international projects, culturally diversified team members help achieve high performance by
bridging the gap between members of different cultural backgrounds. A similar view has been
portrayed by Ramalingam & Mahalingam (2010) in a study involving graduate students of
engineering curriculum, established that fraternization, and intercultural team members helping
resolve knowledge system conflicts can help improve team dynamics, resulting in high
performance.

Javernick-Will and Levitt (2010), in an exploratory research developed literature that uses
institutional theory to examine differences on global projects and by analyzing the specific
methods firms use to transfer institutional knowledge internally, across projects and divisions.

Taylor et al. (2009) developed a multi-agent simulation model to explore the impact of learning
dynamics on the productive implementation of innovations in project networks comprised of
designers and contractors. It was found that relational instability in project networks slows
learning and task interdependence moderates the impact of increasing relational instability on
network productivity rates.

The existing research has shown the significance of team variables (Table 1) in project
management teams. Chinowsky et al. (2008) utilized SNA to compare categorical performance
with strength of project network which was quantified by team variables, on a team of 35
individuals comprising of architects, engineers, and contractors working on an international
design and construction competition for energy efficient housing.

22

In another study conducted by Cross et al. (2002), communication networks of 23 companies
were studied through surveys, over a period of eighteen months. Their interactions were mapped
using SNA at different stages and results were discussed with these companies. The discussion
helped to make changes for more effective collaboration, which resulted in increasing sales
clearly differentiating their consultancy from their competition.

Table 1: Categorization and definition of mechanics and dynamics (partially adapted from
Chinowsky et al. 2008 and Eclipse Research Consultants, 2004)

Mechanics
Informal
Communication

Description
Communications which do not relate to the project. This variable is
focused on identifying the presence of informal networks, in a team, which
are significant in creating a friendlier environment in the team.

Project Specific Communications which are relevant to the project/problem being working
Communication
on.
Information
Exchange
Project Technical
Information
Dynamics
Reliance
Trust
Value
Leadership

The transfer of information from any kind of source to the team for the
benefit of team and the project.
Team members talking about technical aspects of the project such as how
to achieve a particular LEED credit, how to calculate recycled content
amount or full time equivalent occupants.
Description
The amount a team member can rely on other member, to get the work
done.
The amount a team member can trust on other member, to get the work
done.
Team members sharing the same set of values as openness, integrity,
respect, flexibility, teamwork, responsibility, honesty, and timeliness.
Any team member taking the role of being in the central position for
leading the team members, providing encouragement and motivation.

Project
and Team members taking active roles in project management (e.g., drafting
Assignment
meeting agendas, member roles, sending around updates) and assignment
Management
management (e.g., compiling final report and presentations including
compiling others’ work).
23

Collaboration and Team members helping other team members in their work and actively
Participation
participating in teamwork.
Team Identity
Team members thinking of themselves as a unit with a clear identity,
showing pride and loyalty, and supporting each other (e.g. suggesting a
name for the team)
Engagement
of Team members showing the use of their competencies and expertise in
Core
teamwork.
Competencies
Shared Vision
Team members working towards a clearly defined plan and goal for the
project benefit
Issue Negotiation Team members helped in negotiating and resolving any disputes
and Resolution
Reflection
and Team members reflecting on their contribution to the teamwork and how it
Self Assessment
can be improved.
2.6 Sustainability and Teamwork’s Place in AEC Higher Education
Social networks have been recently recognized in education research wherein they helped
students learn sustainable built environment practices or teamwork. The following sections
discuss literature on sustainability and teamwork in education.

2.6.1 Sustainability
Wolcott et al. (2010) emphasized on the need for current education institutions to be properly
positioned to advocate AEC students, interdisciplinary teamwork and communication skills.
Their study designed and implemented an integrated design course in sustainability for
undergraduate and graduate students, which resulted in students learning interdisciplinary
teamwork and communication skills.

Steinemann (2003) designed and taught a graduate course at Georgia Institute of Technology
called “Sustainable Urban Development”, with the application of Problem Based Learning

24

methodology, where in the approach did not just developed the students’ problem solving skills
but they also learned to work both independently and collaboratively.

Korkmaz (2010) in a multidisciplinary graduate-level sustainable built environment course
showed that the presence of students from different educational backgrounds (e.g., design,
engineering, and construction management) and with varying levels of experience in the
classroom helped foster the learning environment for sustainable-building delivery. Pre- and
post-case study assignment surveys and student self-documentation of role-play and in-class
discussions showed these methods to be effective in teaching sustainable-building delivery. The
results showed that these methods improved student knowledge and interest about delivery of
sustainable buildings.

2.6.2 Teamwork
In a research by Haring and Breen (1992), it was demonstrated that social network feedback for
youths with moderate and severe disabilities was successful in increasing the quantity and
quality of interactions and that the network strategy promoted the development of friendships.
The frequency of interaction, number of opportunities for interaction, and appropriateness of
social interactions were the analysis variables.

Lucio et al. (2003) in a study showed that a capstone course by the name of Collaborative Design
Processes (CDP), where students from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the
University of Florida learn methods of collaborative design enhanced by the use of information
technology, felt better prepared for practice after collaborating with people with different
25

perspectives. The course curriculum was a combination of instruction (lectures and discussions),
action (collaborative design project), and reflection (group process critique). The course required
the students to work in multidisciplinary teams to collaborate from remote locations via the
internet on the design of a facility. Feedback at the conclusion of the class noted that the students
enjoyed the hands-on aspects of the course and also built some useful skills in both applying
computer skills and in teamwork.

Ibrahim et al. (2007) in other research presented a conceptual framework for an architecturalconstruction integration (A-CI) design studio curriculum, which utilized computer-integrated
Project Based Learning Laboratory (PBL) model developed at Stanford University in the context
of an architectural graduate program. The aim was to apply trans-disciplinary principles to
educate competent graduates in sustainable global design-build practice. The proposed
program’s framework covered a four-semester curriculum at graduate level during which,
students from participating universities in developing countries have the opportunity to
participate in a global building project with students from participating universities in developed
countries. It also allowed students from both developing and developed countries to experience
cross-border trans-disciplinary learning and teaching.

Korkmaz (2010) in a multidisciplinary graduate-level sustainable built environment course, used
a case-study assignment and an in-class role-play followed by discussions, which provided
students with: teamwork opportunities with students from various backgrounds (i.e., construction
management, architecture, urban planning, engineering, and interior design) under real-life
scenarios, and a collaborative-learning environment.

26

2.6.3 The Use of SNA in Classroom to Improve Student Learning
Martinez et al. (2003), in a study using mixed evaluation method that combined qualitative data
analysis and social network analysis in an overall interpretative approach to evaluate an
educational and research project in a distance learning curriculum of an open university. It was
found that the SNA indexes and the sociograms were of great value in detecting different
collaborative patterns that emerge from classroom based activities, and the qualitative and
quantitative studies helped to discern these issues from the participants’ perspective. This
combination of sources of data and methods helped also to increase the reliability of the
evaluation processes.

De Laat et al. (2007), in other study explored the advances that Social Network Analysis can
bring, in combination with other methods, when studying Computer-Supported Collaborative
Learning in an online Masters program on e-learning. It was seen that SNA can provide a quick
way to build up a clear understanding of group activities and its cohesion and SNA’s value as
complementary analytical tool for richer understandings of the processes was verified.

A pilot study was conducted by Singh and Korkmaz (2011), to tests the proposition that
integrated student teams produce more comprehensive outputs for sustainable projects. The study
accomplished this through observations and face-to-face interviews, and finally analyzing the
collected data through SNA. This study was conducted at a senior level course titled “Special
Topics in Planning Design and Construction” at School of Planning Design & Construction,
Michigan State University. Graduate and undergraduate students from majors-construction

27

management, urban planning, interior design, landscape architecture were enrolled for this
course. The course focused on teaching sustainable built environment practices through lectures
and a semester-long team project. This team project enabled researchers to analyze level of team
integration through SNA and compare that with team and student performance outcomes. It was
found that Team members who had previous experience working together in other classes,
showed a higher level of project communication than team members without any previous
experience. A strong direct relation between value sharing, reliance, and trust was also observed:
team members sharing same set of values tend to have a high reliance and trust between them.
SNA showed that the team with a high density did better in the final presentation and provided
creative solutions that were cost effective and technically feasible in achieving LEED® credits
than the team which had a low density. The team which had insignificant amount of project
communication happening, and lacked reliance and trust had negligible density values. This
research confirmed the role of team mechanics and dynamics, especially when working on a
sustainable project, through a classroom assignment. The results showed that a high degree of
centrality and density in team communication can lead to better outputs, especially when team
members also share values, rely, and trust on each other.

2.7 Summary
Several previous studies focused on construction teams have shown that a robust project network
can lead to high performance. This makes it important not just for sustainable construction teams
but even for students enrolled in sustainable construction courses to understand and appreciate
the need for team integration, so that they can deliver high performance when they work on real
projects. This research addresses this problem, by analyzing team integration and testing the
effect of feedback through SNA, in a graduate classroom teaching sustainable built environment
28

practices to achieve the research goal to improve the way teams work so that they can produce
better sustainable built environment projects.

29

CHAPTER 3
Methodology
3.1 Introduction
The literature review conducted in the last chapter established that a more robust project network
can result in better project performance outcomes that can benefit sustainable projects. This
chapter contains a description of the research process and specific methodological steps that will
be followed in the investigation of the research questions.

3.2 Research Goals and Objectives
The main goal of this research is to improve the way teams work so that they can produce better
sustainable built environment projects. To achieve this, the study assesses the value of SNA as a
feedback mechanism throughout project processes as a potential tool to improve the ways teams
work and perform on a given project. The specific objectives of this study are to:

1. To assess the value of SNA as a feedback tool to show teams ongoing working processes
and to improve teamwork in the long run;
2. To evaluate if continuous feedback on team mechanics and dynamics can impact project
performance especially in terms of sustainable outcomes;
3. Evaluate if SNA feedbacks can improve student learning of (a) sustainability practices for
built environment (b) team integration.

30

3.3 Research Approach
This study is an empirical research that utilizes an ethnographic approach. The study uses both
qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection and analysis. This research will act as a
pilot study to understand the effect of feedback on a team, which can then be replicated to much
larger teams. The data collected through quantitative and qualitative methods was analyzed
qualitatively and through SNA.

The data collected through qualitative methods helped not only in triangulation of data, but also
to investigate any kind of language change based on sensitization of team members towards
network terminology in feedback sessions. The content of communication also helped in
identifying teamwork matrix variables for example: leadership, team identity, shared vision,
collaboration, issue negotiation and resolution. The complex nature of a real life sustainability
project and the student team members with different expertise, backgrounds and problem solving
styles can have significant difficulty in effectively integrating their unique perspectives.
Moreover, research has shown that relationships are critical for collectively solving cognitively
complex tasks (e.g., Weick & Roberts, 1993; Hutchins, 1991; Moreland, Argote, Krishnan, 1996;
Hollingshead, 1998, Cross et al. 2002). Social network analysis (SNA) can be an invaluable tool
for systematically assess, understand and then intervene at critical points (Cross et al. 2002) to
make those relationships and as a result teams more effective.

This research seeks to assess the effect of feedback on student performance, by qualitatively and
quantitatively measuring the level of integration achieved, when a student team works together.
To achieve the intended objectives this study will follow mixed methods of data collection and

31

analysis. This will include participant observation, surveys, interviews, and social network
analysis.

“SNA has showed to be appropriate for the efficient study of social and participatory aspects of
learning (Wasserman & Faust 1994, Martinez 2003)”. UCINET (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman
2002) software was used to process interaction inputs from MS Excel worksheets. However,
since this study is not just looking on the quantity of interaction, it is also looking to evaluate the
quality of interaction as per teamwork matrix, and student learning of sustainable built
environment and teamwork, it makes necessary to include mixed methods of data collection and
analysis. As a result SNA and surveys will evaluate the quantity of interaction, and student
learning of sustainable built environment and teamwork, while ethnographic sources of data like
field observations, and interviews will help collect data for team mechanics and dynamics both.
So, in this study both quantitative data and qualitative data are used to complement each other
and in a way help in data triangulation also. “This combination of qualitative, quantitative and
social network analysis methods places our proposal within the field of mixed methods of
evaluation (Frechtling & Sharp 1997, Martinez 2003)”.

3.4 Pilot Study
A pilot study was conducted by Singh and Korkmaz (2011), to test the proposition that integrated
student teams produce more comprehensive outputs for sustainable projects. The study
accomplished this through observations and face-to-face interviews, and finally analyzing the
collected data through SNA, conducted at a senior level course titled “Special Topics in Planning
Design and Construction” at School of Planning Design & Construction, Michigan State
University. Graduate and undergraduate students from majors-construction management, urban
32

planning, interior design, landscape architecture were enrolled for this course. The course
focused on teaching sustainable built environment practices through lectures and a semester-long
team project. This team project enabled researchers to analyze level of team integration through
SNA and compare that with team and student performance outcomes. Lessons learned from pilot
study are as follows:
1. Team members who had previous experience working together in other classes, showed a
high level of project communication.
2. Leadership also played an important role in facilitating of improvement of team
communication.
3. Teams having high density values for project communication, information exchange,
reliance, and trust scored high on team performance.
4. Students with high values of centrality-in and out scored higher in presentation content
than team members with low values.
These results from pilot study are used in shaping out this research. The teams were formed
based on leadership, previous experience of working together, experience in AEC industry and
educational backgrounds. Data collection and analysis from a mixed method approach was a
significant take away from the pilot study. We also learned to include all forms of
communication for team interaction; as a result we included electronic communication for this
study, besides in-class interaction sessions.

3.5 Study Description
The Fall 2011 offering of graduate level course titled Integrated Approach to Planning Design
and Construction (PDC 901), at School of Planning Design and Construction, Michigan State

33

University, was used as a platform for this research. The course curriculum included lectures for
student learning of sustainable built environment specially LEED rating system and lessons and
case studies on integrated project delivery. It also had a LEED term project where in students
worked on a real world project with a goal of coming up with creative sustainable solutions to
make the project greener. Ten students from varied backgrounds such as civil engineering,
construction management, planning, architecture, landscape architecture were enrolled in this
course and were divided into two teams of five students each to work on this project. One of the
teams received regular feedback, as a feedback to their teamwork, while the other did not
received any feedback.

3.6 Data Collection Procedure
This section describes the specific steps taken to conduct data collection for this research, from
getting the institutional review board approval to conducting surveys, observations, interviews,
and recording the online information exchange. The methods and timeline of data collection are
summarized in Table 2 below along with the course outline.

34

Table 2: Study Research Design Showing the Timelines of Data collection and Feedback Procedure Based on Course Outline

Topics

Data Collection
In-Class
Observations

09/14
09/21
09/28
10/05

10/12

10/19

10/26

11/02

Module on Sustainable Built Environment Practices

09/07

Introduction / What is sustainability
anyways?
Making the case for Green – Intro
to sustainable built environment.
Sustainable Cities and
neighborhoods / Legislation
LEED- Introduction / Water

Surveys /
Interviews

Feedbacks

Performance
Evaluation

E.C.

PreObservation
Survey-1,
Appendix B
Pre-survey-2,
Appendix D

Sustainable Sites / Energy

60 Minutes

IEQ / ID / Regional Priority

60 Minutes

Materials & Resources +
Construction Perspective (Guest
Speaker)
Synergistic Practices + Student
Presentation

60 Minutes

Discussion on LEED Building
Performance & Delivery Process +
Site Visit

None

None

Survey #3 on
Team Dynamics
and Mechanics,
Appendix E
35

Keep a record of student interaction on student
website

Date

Yes,
Appendix
G
Yes,
Appendix
G

Closed-doors
Presentation +
Report due- Video
Recorded

Module on Sustainable Project Delivery, Team
Integration

Table 2 (cont'd)
11/09
Integrated Approach to Project
Delivery / Design Management –
BIM / Delivery Metrics
11/16
Integrative Design and Practices
11/23
Student Presentations / Research
findings on green project delivery
11/30
IPD / WBDG +Guest Speaker
12/07
Lean and Green / BIM / Green
Building Assessment Systems LCS
– LCC / Revisiting Sustainability
12/15
Final Project Presentations

30 Minutes

Yes,
Appendix
G

45 Minutes
None
None
20 Minutes

None

Post-survey-2 for
student learning,,
Team Work
Evaluation
Sheet, Survey 3
on Team
Mechanics and
Dynamics

*EC - Electronic communication

36

Presentation &
Report +
Individual
Teamwork report :
Video Recorded

3.6.1 Institutional Review Board Approval
The data collection procedures were reviewed and approved by MSU IRB, for its compliance
with the rules of human participant research. Please see the approval letter in Appendix A. Three
separate consent forms were created one for surveys, one for interviews and observations and
one for video recording of student presentations, to inform the participants about research goal,
objectives, assurance of confidentiality, time required for interview, a statement saying that it
will not affect their grades, and their choice to be or not to be the part of this research. The
consent forms can be seen in Appendix A. The consent forms were collected from the
participants before any data collection was started.

3.6.2 Team Formation
The team formation was based on a preliminary observation and responses to a survey as
described below:
a. Preliminary Team Observation
The students were observed before the actual project started, when they were
participating in a friendly debate organized in the class. The debate related to choosing of
a material for a home improvement project that results in a consensus, and a wellinformed team decision. The debate was closely observed by the researcher and the chain
of communication together with its contents was field recorded. The observed data was
analyzed through SNA, to calculate individual values for degree centrality, the objective
being to identify central leaders in the class, so that they can be evenly distributed
between the two teams.

37

b. Survey Application to Determine Students’ Backgrounds: Individual
Characteristics, Background, and Organizational Tenure
An online survey was administered to all the students, which had questions asking about
their educational background, previous work experience, and organizational tenure in
AEC industry.

i. Educational backgrounds: The class had variety of students from construction
management, architecture, landscape design, mechanical engineering, and urban planning
therefore the survey asked students to specify their educational background. This helped
in composing the two teams with a varied and even mix of students from different
backgrounds.

ii. Previous Experience: Students were asked, if they had a previous experience of working
with any other member in their class, or had any previous experience from AEC industry
(organizational tenure)

iii. Interests: Students were also asked to list any particular interests they have in any kind of
educational subjects.

The results from SNA of observations and survey responses helped in creating the teams for this
study as shown in Appendix C. Care was taken to make teams balanced as possible such that
both teams have equal number of leaders, equal mix of varied background, equal amount of AEC
industry experience, and previous experience of working together. The survey is presented in

38

Appendix B. The selection of the team, which will receive feedback from the two balanced
teams were done on the basis of ease of availability of the team members for feedback sessions.

3.6.3 Learning Outcome Surveys
Pre and post surveys were administered to evaluate students learning of sustainable built
environment and teamwork (Appendix D).

3.6.4 In-class Observations and Recording of Electronic Communication
Student’s interactions while they worked in their teams were continuously observed in all of their
working sessions and so was their electronic communication through the course website. The
aim of these observations was to track the chains of communication, their nature, and frequency
among team members and also to note the content of the conversations.

Observation Template: To simultaneously note the chain and content of communication a
specially designed template was used (Appendix H), in which every row had names of team
members and a blank space to note the content. The flow of communication was marked with
lines crossing over names and the content was noted alongside (Appendix I). The content of
communication was also categorized into following categories by circling on them: AI (asks
information), GI (gives information), GS (gives suggestion), GO (gives opinion). Soon after the
team working session the content of the field notes were categorized for different team variables,
i.e., project specific communication, informal communication, information exchange, leadership,
collaboration, team identity, shared vision, information exchange, issue negotiation and
resolution.

39

Data Coding: The data was coded into excel sheets following a basic principle: whoever talks
gets a point and these points are equal to the number of persons he is talking to. The following
two examples explain this.
a. If A talks to B, then A gets a score of 1 in the table. If B responds to A, B also gets the
score of 1 in the table, if B does not responds then B does not gets any points.
b. If A is talking to all, then A gets a score of 4 (as there are 4 other members in the team)
and who ever responds to A will get a score of 1.
To eliminate any bias in taking field notes, two researchers observed the two teams
simultaneously and exchanged observation positions once every observation session. Similarly,
the course website was exclusively used for communicating electronically between team
members. The variables which were identified and extracted through in-class observations and
electronic communication through the course website are described in Table 3, given below.

40

Table 3: Mechanics and Dynamics Identification Criteria and Analysis Methods
Mechanics

Identification Criteria

Informal
Communication

Communications which do not
relate to the project. This
variable
is
focused
on
identifying the presence of
informal networks, in a team,
which are significant in creating
a friendlier environment in the
team.

Analysis
Coding Criteria
Methods
SNA
Frequency
(Sociograms,
communication
Density,
Centrality), Line
Graphs,
and
Qualitative
Analysis

Project Specific Communications which are SNA
Communication relevant to the project/problem (Sociograms,
being working on.
Density,
Centrality), Line
Graphs,
and
Qualitative
Analysis
Information
The transfer of information from Line Graphs, and
Exchange
any kind of source to the team Qualitative
for the benefit of team and the Analysis
project.
Project
Team members talking about Line Graphs, and
Technical
technical aspects of the project Qualitative
Information
such as how to calculate Analysis
recycled content amount or full
time equivalent occupants.
Dynamics
Identification Criteria
Analysis
Methods
Reliance
The amount a team member can Graphical
and
rely on other member, to get the Qualitative
work done.
Analysis
Trust
The amount a team member can Graphical
and
trust on other member, to get the Qualitative
work done.
Analysis
Value Sharing
Team members sharing the same Qualitative
set of values as openness, Analysis
integrity, respect, flexibility,
teamwork,
responsibility,
honesty, and timeliness.
Leadership
Any team member taking the Line Graphs, and
role of being in the central Qualitative
position for leading the team Analysis
members,
and
providing
41

of

Frequency
communication

of

Frequency
communication

of

Frequency
communication

of

Coding Criteria
Likert scale Values

Likert scale Values

No Coding

Noting
down
frequencies
of
conversation
pertaining to planning

Table 3 (cont'd)
encouragement and motivation.

Project
and Team members taking active
Assignment
roles in project management
Management
(e.g., drafting meeting agendas,
member roles, sending around
updates)
and
assignment
management (e.g., compiling
final report and presentations
including compiling others’
work).
Collaboration
Team members helping other
and
team members in their work and
Participation
actively
participating
in
teamwork.

Line Graphs, and
Qualitative
Analysis

Team Identity

Qualitative
Analysis

Team members thinking of
themselves as a unit with a clear
identity, showing pride and
loyalty, and supporting each
other (e.g. suggesting a name for
the team)
Engagement of Team members showing the use
Core
of their competencies and
Competencies
expertise in teamwork.

Shared Vision

Qualitative
Analysis

Line Graphs, and
Qualitative
Analysis

and
leading
for
example - ‘we should
plan and look into this
also’
Noting
down
frequencies
in
conversation
pertaining
to
management such as
‘let’s make a look
ahead schedule, or lets
plan to finish the write
up by tomorrow’
Both
the
teams
displayed
collaboration
and
participation instances
such as sharing notes,
helping each other in
understanding credits,
so data for this
variable
was
not
codified
Both
the
teams
showed team identity
instances such as
suggesting a name for
a team, so the data was
not codified.
Noting
down
frequencies
in
conversation which are
related to individual
core competencies
No coding, as the data
was not analyzed

Team members working towards Not Analyzed, as
a clearly defined plan and goal being a small
for the project benefit
team every team
member worked
towards a clearly
defined plan and
goal
Issue
Team members helped in Not Analyzed as No coding as the data
Negotiation and negotiating and resolving any there were no was not analyzed
Resolution
disputes
issues found in
their interactions
Reflection and Team members reflecting on Qualitative
Noting
down
42

Table 3 (cont'd)
Self Assessment their
contribution
to
the Analysis
teamwork and how it can be
improved.

communication
instances pertaining to
reflection and self
assessment such as
retrospective analysis.

3.6.5 Survey for identifying team mechanics and dynamics
One of the deliverables of this research is to deliver a verified survey which can substitute data
collection through observations for future research. This survey was conducted after the first
stage of the project, and this evaluated team mechanics and dynamics of both the teams. The
survey can be seen in appendix E.
The purpose of this survey was to:
1) Identify any kind of interaction which was not accounted in electronic communication;
2) Help triangulate the findings from other data collection sources;
3) Replace observation as a data collection method for future studies, once it’s verified
through triangulation.

3.6.6 Student Team Evaluation
Students of both the teams were asked to evaluate themselves and their team members at every
stage of the project, by completing a student evaluation form, which can be seen in Appendix J.
The purpose of team evaluation was to provide motivation to students towards teamwork and
data collected from the evaluation was not used in this research.

43

3.6.7 Student Presentations
The final presentations were video recorded to help in analyzing their presentation content which
was used in benchmarking their performance and comparatively analyze their improvement in
delivering creative sustainable solutions for the sustainable project. Table 4 below shows the
presentation performance evaluation criteria.
Table 4: Presentation performance evaluation criteria
Presentation
Performance
Relevance

Evaluation Criteria

Understanding the intent & requirements of credits
Use of supporting data to provide conclusion about a credit
Correctness of conclusion regarding a particular credit
Language and Clarity of oral and Power Point presentation
Style
Professionalism of oral presentation
Answering questions posed by the jury, as a team and showing coherence
while presenting
Teamwork
Answering questions posed by the jury, as a team and showing coherence
while presenting

3.6.8 Feedbacks
Feedback to students of Experiment team was provided in three - two hour of feedback sessions.
The first two sessions happened before the first stage of the project and the third session
happened after the first stage. The feedback sessions presentations can be seen in Appendix G.
The goal of feedback was to sensitize students towards teamwork. The feedback sessions
included teamwork basics emphasized with anecdotes and real world AEC industry examples; it
also included sociograms of their informal and project specific communications and its analysis.
Besides that, students were also told about various team working tools to facilitate interaction
and were encouraged to use them for their team working sessions.

44

3.7 Data Quality
To insure data quality highly structured observations of student interactions were made by two
researchers at the same time, in a previously categorized field observation template. A specially
designed template was used, in which every row had names of team members and a blank space
to note the content. The template also had abbreviations to categorize students’ interaction into
categories like gives information, asks information, gives opinion, asks opinion (Bales 1950).
The flow of communication was marked with lines crossing over names and the content was
noted along side. To eliminate any bias in taking field notes, two researcher observed the two
teams simultaneously and exchanged observation positions once every observation session. The
researchers also discussed their notes soon after their observations and the notes were formally
categorized and entered into computer database (Singleton and Straits 2005) the very same day,
to minimize any chances of misinterpretation of field notes due to loss of memory. Soon after the
observation session the content of the field notes were categorized for different team dynamics
and mechanics variables.

3.8 Data Coding
After data collection, the data was coded so it can be effectively managed. The various
categories of collected data were coded in the following way:
a. Observation Field Notes: The observed field notes were categorized into different team
variables categories. A sample field notes template with names removed can be seen in
appendix H.
b. Survey Responses: Survey responses from pre and post surveys were compiled in
spreadsheets to reflect the comparative changes in a student’s learning.

45

c. Electronic communication: They were coded similarly as observed field notes.

3.9 Data Analysis
The field notes from observation sessions were analyzed through data reduction. “Data reduction
refers to the process of selecting, focusing, simplifying, abstracting, and transforming the data
that appear in written-up field notes or transcriptions (Amaratunga et al. 2002)”. The field notes
were categorized into various teamwork variables such as leadership, collaboration, team
identity, shared vision, information exchange, issue negotiation and resolution, etc. The observed
interactions happening after first feedback sessions were also analyzed for network language
sensitivity i.e. it was seen whether the team uses any kind of network related language, after they
were told about it in feedback.

Sociograms, and other SNA metrics were generated based on their observed interactions, emails,
and data collected from electronic communication. The generated data for the experiment team
together with its inferences was provided to the students of the team three times before the final
project presentation, in two hours of feedback sessions, so that students of this team can
understand their current team integration level and improve their interactions for the next
meeting. Control team did not receive any kind of feedback. Any bias happening in control
team’s class grades due to not receiving the feedback was minimized to be negligible as the final
presentation only carried 5% of their grades, when their feedback effects are supposed to kick-in.
Also the mean difference between the two teams score was given by the instructor of the course
as compensatory grades to the control group to further minimize any bias. Finally the project
presentations of both teams were observed and evaluated against SNA and qualitative analysis
results.
46

To calculate improvement in communication frequency over the course of the project, the
communication frequency for in-class observations and electronic communications was summed
up for the course of the project (six weeks). Next, in order to find the average communication
frequency over the course of the project, the summed up frequency was divided by 6. This gives
the average communication frequency over the course of the project. Now, to calculate
improvement in communication frequency over the course of the project, we calculate difference
between average communication frequency over the course of the project and the average
communication frequency over the first stage of the project. If this difference comes out to be a
positive value then it means that team mechanics have improved over the course of the project.

Let sum of communication frequency for the first stage be x,
Sum of communication frequency for second stage be y,
Now, summation of x and y will give the total communication frequency (x + y),
The average communication frequency over the course of the project = (x + y) / 6
And the average communication frequency for the first stage of the project = x/3
So the difference between these two frequencies will show the improvement in communication
frequency (Δ).
Δ= ((x + y) / 6) – (x / 3)

(1)

(2)

47

Equation 2 compares the ratio of change in performance of the control and experiment teams to
their respective mechanics.
Where, ΔP Control is the change in performance of the control team
ΔP Experiment is the change in performance of the experiment team
ΔM Control is the change in mechanics of the control team
ΔM Experiment is the change in mechanics of the experiment team.

3.9.1 Qualitative analysis
The data collected from class observation sessions, electronic communications was analyzed
through data reduction to categorize for different team variables, like leadership, collaboration,
identity, information exchange.

The field notes from observation sessions were scanned for data reduction analysis for
categorizing it into teamwork matrix variables such as leadership, collaboration, team identity,
information exchange, and shared vision. A data reduced field note sample can be seen in
Appendix I. The links between different people’s names shows the chain of communication. The
circle on either of AI (asking information), GI (giving information), GO (giving opinion), and
GS (giving suggestion) shows whether the person communicating is asking information, giving
information, giving opinion, or giving suggestion (Bales 1950).
3.9.2 Relevant SNA Variables
Density: Density provides information about the density of ties present in a network. So,
understanding density for any kind of network becomes important to understand the level of
interaction going on in any network. This SNA variable has been utilized in this study.
48

Degree Centrality: Degree centrality provides information about nodes and their ties.
Specifically, degree centrality is defined as the number of links incident upon a node (i.e., the
number of ties that a node has). This becomes essential for this study as it will help visualize the
ties of every team member and any kind of changes that happen in number of ties over the period
of time.

Betweenness Centrality: Betweenness centrality views an actor as being in a favored position to
the extent that the actor falls on the geodesic paths between other pairs of actors in the network.
That is, the more people depend on someone to make connections with other people, the more
power that person has. (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005). Since this study studies a small network of
five nodes, where everybody is on a same platform and there is no hierarchy of any sorts, so it is
expected that every node would have one tie with every other node, eliminating any chances for
betweenness centrality. So, this SNA variable is not analyzed in this study.

Geodesic Distance: The geodesic distance is the number of relations in the shortest possible
walk from one actor to another. If two actors are adjacent, the distance between them is one
(Hanneman & Riddle, 2005). Geodesic distance value of one also implies that the actors are
directly interacting with each other, so for a more integrated group, geodesic distances closer to
one are important. To understand the influences of team members in a team and the relation
between direct interaction and organizational tenure, this SNA variable is analyzed in this study.

49

3.10 Summary
This chapter contains a description of methods and process that were followed in this research
study. This research utilized a mixed methods approach for data analysis. The main sections
described in this chapter are pilot study, data collection and analysis process.

50

CHAPTER 4

Data Collection, Categorization, and Coding

4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the study population characteristics, team formation, data collection, data
recording and analysis procedures.

4.2 Sample Characteristics
The sample size consisted of ten graduate students enrolled in Fall 2011 offering of sustainable
planning design and construction course (PDC-901) at School of Planning Design and
Construction, Michigan State University. The students were from varied educational
backgrounds (i.e. construction management, civil engineering, landscape architecture,
architecture design, environment design, mechanical engineering, and urban and regional
planning), work experiences, and also from different countries, as a result they shared team
characteristics of an international construction project. They were divided into two equivalent
teams of five students each such that both teams have nearly equal amount of experience,
centrality values (leadership), and educational background.

4.3 Data Collection Steps
This section describes the specific steps taken to conduct data collection for this research, from
getting the institutional review board approval to conducting surveys, observations, and
recording the online electronic communication.

51

4.3.1 Pre and Post Surveys to Evaluate Student Learning Outcomes
The objective of these surveys was to evaluate student learning outcomes with regard to
sustainable built environment and teamwork. The survey had two sections: section: A) had
questions which focused on evaluating students’ current awareness on sustainability aspects on a
scaled response, while; B) had questions evaluating their attitude towards teamwork on a scaled
response. The surveys can be seen in Appendix D. The pre survey was conducted just before the
term project was started, and post survey was conducted at the end of the term project.

4.3.2 In-class Observations
The data collection started with observation of teams when they were working on their projects
in the classroom. The aim of these observations was to track the chains of communication, their
nature, and frequency among team members and also to note the content of the conversations. To
simultaneously note the chain and content of communication a specially designed template
(Appendix H) was used, in which every row had names of team members and a blank space to
note the content. The flow of communication was marked with lines crossing over names and the
content was noted alongside (Appendix I). To eliminate any bias in taking field notes, two
researcher observed the two teams simultaneously and exchanged observation positions once
every observation session. Also, the two note takers discussed the observations soon after the
observation session to expand the notes (Schuler & Namioka 1993).

52

4.3.3 Electronic Communication
The course website (ANGEL) was used for tracking of online communication, through emails
and discussions boards. Both the teams were requested to exclusively use the course website for
all and any kind of communication they have regarding the project. One of the teams did not like
the functionality of the course website, so they created a group at Google, including the
researcher as a member of Google group, so that every conversation can be tracked.

4.3.4 Survey to Evaluate Team Mechanics and Dynamics
Pre and post surveys were conducted after the mid semester presentation and final presentation.
The purpose of these surveys was to collect data related to team dynamics and mechanics, so as
to know their amount of project specific communication, information exchange, reliance, trust,
and shared values. These surveys not only complemented the observed data but also helped in
data triangulation. The survey can be seen in appendix E.

4.3.5 Presentations
Both the teams presented their results in two project presentations, first one at mid semester and
other one at the end of semester. For the purpose of effective evaluation of their performance
both the presentations were video recorded. The student and team evaluation at both stages
helped understand their performance and its relation with the feedback provided for one team
and compare that with other team, which did not received any feedback. A detailed description
of presentation content requirements is explained in project assignment description in Appendix
F.
53

1. Mid-semester Presentation: Teams were expected to critically analyze the construction
documents and determine which LEED points the project can go after, and developing
arguments on why those LEED - NC credits can be pursued. They were also expected to
submit a report stating their results for this stage.
2. Final Presentation: The teams were expected to further investigate what opportunities /
problems exist in the project to achieve more points across all LEED sections; come up
with innovative ideas to address those with convincing arguments and report on how
these opportunities relate to planning, design, and construction practices.

4.3.6 Student Team Evaluation
Along with the final presentation each student was asked to personally submit feedback on
his/her team members’ work for the project. This provided necessary motivation for teamwork
to both team members. The evaluation form can be seen in appendix J.

4.4 Data Recording and Categorization
Collected data was recorded into different mediums. It was also categorized according to
teamwork variables.

4.4.1 Survey Data
The data from learning outcomes survey was compiled in excel sheets to reflect pre and post
results in a comparative format. It was categorized into two sections: sustainable built
environment and teamwork.

54

4.4.2 Observation Data
The observation data was analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. Qualitative analysis included
scanning the field notes for data reduction and then categorizing the interactions for teamwork
matrix. Quantitative analysis extracted chain of communication and its frequency from field
notes, and use that as input for UCINET, SNA software.

4.5 Data Analysis
The data collected through observations and surveys was analyzed through qualitative and
quantitative methods.

4.5.1 Qualitative Analysis Findings
The following sections qualitatively analyze the interactions of control and experiment team over
the course of the project.

4.5.1.1 In-depth Qualitative Analysis of Control Team over the Course of the Project

a. First Week Analysis
In-class Observations: This team was organized and very well managed starting at the first
week. There were leaders in the team which help in managing the team work and are well
supported by other group members. The following statement by one of the team members shows
these skills:

55

“We might not have the experience with related LEED section, if we split it up in
pages and take notes on what pages goes towards what section and discuss at
team meetings”
“We need to set today what we did like to accomplish”

Team identity together with collaboration was also quite apparent when one of the team
members refused any money from other members for buying the reference guide, citing
“It will help me in exams, no worries!”
Overall, this team had no informal communication happening, they just talked about the project,
were very organized and leaders of the team were effectively managing the team by preplanning,
setting deadlines, dividing work to suit everybody’s schedule.

Electronic communication: One of the team members was very organized and helping the team
set up email accounts on Google docs and explaining everybody how it works. The management
skills of this member are evident that this member creates meeting minutes and requests
everybody to update them and also to upload everything on Google docs so that everybody can
be in the loop. This was found in correlation with this team member’s organizational tenure.

Other team members provided necessary support and collaborated among themselves to give the
team a good start to the project. All of them showed interest and were frequently communicating
on the discussion forum.

b. Second Week Analysis
56

In-class Observations: This week was pretty much similar to the previous week where a leader
was keeping a check on everybody’s work status and was going through all credits with the team
members. This was well supported by other team members. There was still no informal talks
happening which makes this team very efficient as they utilize the given time in the most
efficient manner. All the team members were attentive to what the leaders said and showed the
general acceptance of them.

Electronic communication: This week’s online interaction did not see many changes in the
basic structure of the team. Leadership and management were shown by the team leader, who
was sending reminders to other team members about their schedule and project deadlines:

“I’ll have my calculations and write ups ready for Wednesday, I hope everyone
else will too, our report / presentation is due a week from Wednesday.”

A team member who had construction management background researched on the university’s
construction website to find useful information about the project and shared it with his team
members.

c. Third Week Analysis
In-class Observations: The leaders and their leaderships were seen more pronounced this week.
This can be said due to the fact that other team members were directing their queries and
questions to one single person instead talking to the whole group. There was lot of collaboration
and support going around when a team member was asking the query to the leader other team
member would pitch in to help. An example for leadership and collaboration can be seen here,
57

where other team members pitch in to solve one query raised by a member from his section of
work:
Member 1: Where is the best option to find out for potable water?
Member 2: For landscaping or free water system?
Member 3: For water credit / waste water?
Member 2: Calculate baseline (standard water use)
Member 4: tells more about the credit
Member 2: Are you still confused?
Member 1: Yes, whether they use it or not.
Member 2: Just assume that they are using potable water.

Core-competencies did not seem to evolve, a civil engineering team member asked a landscape
design team member:
“Are there three levels in the building?”

On another occasion a landscape designer was answering queries related to HVAC, while the
mechanical background team member did not showed much interest in those discussions.
Overall this team had good management, leadership and collaboration which helped the team
work on the project from very beginning but no other teamwork traits came out or developed
over the course of the week.

58

Electronic communication: Few core competencies emerged in Control team in the third week,
where in a construction management background team member used estimating software to
calculate areas of the building, and passed on this information to other team members. Another
team member who had engineering background, and was leading and managing the team since
the first week, shared his experience with the group:
“In the engineering world as long as you state your assumptions before your
calculation, then you will only be graded / judged on the procedure. So my solid
advice is to make some assumptions, run the number get an answer, state your
assumptions in the paper”.
The same leader also used a healthy approach on arriving decisions by a general consensus
“For the headings I vote for a bold underline category”
Collaboration was also seen when a team member was helping other team member with
information as can be seen here
“I am not sure if you located the information you were asking about last week
with regard to energy efficiency percentages, but this may help” and passed on a
document.
It was for the first time that this team shared informal communication on the course website.
“Hope everyone enjoyed the exciting and nail biting game yesterday”

d. Fourth Week Analysis
In-class Observations: Control team still had a good amount of project specific communication
going on in the fourth week. Each member would go through their own section, while the other
team members asked questions and gave their input. During an information exchange one

59

member referred to information they had gained through a conference about green hospitals and
another member shared their own knowledge about solar water heating.

Leadership instances as seen in this week, where a team member was saying what needs to be the
next step.
“Everyone should look into credits they have expertise in”
This allowed the team members to be on the same page and gives directions to what steps need
to be taken to get things done on time.

Electronic communication: During this week couple of team members took the role of leaders
by keeping everyone on the same page and making sure each member knew what was going on.
An example of leadership is:
“Also I trust that you saw the new doc that I started last night for our next portion
to determine which improvements we are seeking this time around. It would be
appreciated if everyone would have their doc filled out at meeting time so we can
discuss them and continue forward on our project.”
This member took on the responsibility of making a document that allows each member to write
down what needs to be improved, so during meetings each member will have ideas of discussion
topics written down. Another example of leadership is:
“Look at the credit areas you reviewed and try to think of ways to increase the
points the project could achieve if some aspects were changed. It would also be
helpful if we all thought of examples for areas other than the ones we reviewed.”

60

This member is assisting another member in increasing the points possible in given areas and
giving something for all the team members to think about before the next meeting, so they can
discuss it then.

Also during this week project specific communication was taking place. Team members were
consistently communicating about information from the project. One team member, for example,
summarized the credits that the team was improving from an earlier discussion. The team
member took information from the discussion and put it onto one document for all the other team
members to use as a reference, to make sure is one was addressed.

e. Fifth Week Analysis
In-class Observations: Project and assignment management instances were observed as team
members went through the different credits and sections to divide them out amongst themselves.
Leadership and collaboration instances were also observed in these discussions as two of the
team members asking questions about what needs to be done and who wants to be responsible
for certain tasks.
“Do you want to do green roofs?”
“I figured I could.”
“I am also interested in this. Maybe we can do it together?”
“Yeah, sure.”

There were other collaborating instances during this week involving figuring out how to get a
new bus stop. Few members had a discussion about who to contact about getting a new bus stop

61

and finally the discussion lead to two members, each looking in a different source and bringing
their ideas together.
“I’ll look into that. Maybe in the CATA website they tell about new steps of
getting a new bus stop, etc. I’ll see if there’s readily available information”
“My friend works for CATA maybe we can get something from that.”

Electronic communication: During this week the team members who take the role of leadership
continued keeping everyone on the same page, completed work for everyone, put together team
member’s work and encouraged the team. One example of this is:
“I called CATA today and talked to them about what it would take to change a
bus route to add a stop.”
This team member played the lead role by being the one to find the required information and
then letting the other team members know of the findings.

f. Sixth Week Analysis
In-class Observations: During week sixth, leadership instances were very prevalent. The two
leaders in the team made sure everyone was doing their part and asked if any members need help
doing any of the tasks to also make sure things get complete.

During this week there was also a lot of project specific communication occurring to make sure
all the details were complete and each team member knew the information they were presenting.

62

Electronic communication: Leadership and organization was seen as the team leader created a
folder for each member to submit their portion of the project so other members can put their files
together to create the final report. This team member kept everyone on the same page and made
sure everyone was getting their parts in. This same team member also often encouraged the
others. This team member was one of the very few members that would respond to most emails
even if all they said was “Thanks”. This member helped the group stay focused and kept each
individual member feeling they were needed.

During this week there was also information exchange occurring. One team member found a
source that would be helpful to the project.

“I know someone who works for Phillips (lighting). She informed of photo clock
controls for exterior lighting.”

This team member had a connection with another person outside the group that would be
knowledgeable about a topic needed for the project, so this team member took the initiative to
contact this person and then share the information with the team.

4.5.1.2 In-depth Qualitative Analysis of Experiment Team over the Course of the Project

a. First Week analysis
In-class Observations: The first meeting of this team started with informal communication,
which is just right for developing familiarity and friendlier environment in the team. Since the
team members were culturally and geographically diverse, they seemed very interested and
63

intrigued by the fact that everyone is from a different country. Team Identity is clearly reflected
when they named their team accordingly “Global Green Group”.

They seemed to get carried away with informal talks and talked about the project minimal
compared to non project stuff. It was also clear that they have not even looked at the project
documents or planned ahead for the meeting. One of the members was trying to lead the team
and channel their communication towards project specific talks, but it was not well received by
other team members.

Overall it can be said that the team meeting was not very productive as the leadership was not
well received, the team lacked a plan to work on the project and all of them were getting easily
distracted with informal communication. There was some creative ideas thrown by a team
member like
“taking notes on the side, for stage II while they work on stage I”

Collaboration was shown by one member when he volunteers to take sections, wherein he will be
helped by others if he has any questions related to those. It seems that this team has no dearth of
leadership but definitely needs some help in getting inputs on effective teamwork.

Electronic Communication: This team had a slow start on electronic communication, with team
members not being frequent on the forum. However, they showed collaboration and team
identity when one of them was talking about buying a LEED ebook for the team and sharing its
cost among themselves.

64

“I am wondering if anyone want to share the cost, or, maybe more important, if a
team can share the cost for an ebook”

b. Second Week analysis
In-class Observations: Leadership was well received in this team working session. One of the
team members pulled the team from informal communication and channeled it towards project
specific communication, while the other provided the necessary support for that. Interestingly
one of the members seemed more distracted then the previous meeting and less involved in
project specific talks; though he helped in creating a more jovial environment in the group, but
also ate up the efficiency of the team.

Another interesting observation was that the team members started focusing on their core
competencies. One of the team members who was researching on energy modeling in the
graduate program, talked about how he can use his energy modeling software for helping with
energy and atmosphere LEED credits. Other guys who had educational major in landscape
design and civil engineering started discussing on sustainable sites credit together with studying
the civil drawings of the project, which requires a combined knowledge of landscape and civil
for easy interpretation. Collaboration and team participation was observed when the other team
members joined them in helping figure out more data from the documents.

Overall, this team working session showed slightly improved teamwork, as they talked more
about the project, with some distractions. A gradual shift from guessing game of who takes what

65

section to members taking sections related to their core competencies was seen. Communication
channeling towards project specific talks was better received by the team members. This team
exudes a jovial and friendly environment which may be helpful in eliminating any disputes.
Team members not only started working on their sections but a general sense of collaboration
prevailed.

Electronic Communication: Competencies emerged for team members in this week’s electronic
communication. One of the members researched online for different ideas that they can
incorporate into their stage two of the project. Team members also started identifying each other
with their competencies, an example of that can be seen when a team member from Landscape
architecture asked for help in finding plumbing fixtures in the spec book from a team member
with architecture background.
“Does anyone know where to find a list of the plumbing fixtures? I just went on a
scavenger hunt through several sheets and was unable to find model numbers of
any of the fixtures. I have more sheets I can look through, but I was hoping
somebody (possibly (team member name?)) might know where to find them.”

Informal communication was mostly initiated by one of the team members, though on few
occasions it helped in bringing a friendly and supportive environment in the group and bring the
team members closer to each other, like when everybody wished one the team member Happy
Birthday.

66

Leadership and management skills developed a lot this week, a team member developed action
agenda for the next week and this was well received and supported by other team members.
Leading the team by encouraging others was also seen when one of the team members
apologized for missing his deadline, the leading team member said:
“No worries, we're all busy so I don't think anyone will fault anyone else for not
being on the ball. Look at my (lack of) presentation last Friday. But I'll have one
tomorrow!”

c. Third Week analysis
In-class Observations: Core competencies clearly emerged in this team working session. The
team member who had educational background and industry experience in Landscape design
used his knowledge and resources of plants and irrigation which helped the team in achieving
potential points in water efficiency LEED section. The team member who had background in
energy efficiency and architecture design took the lead in the energy and atmosphere section and
helped explain other group members that room numbers in the drawings, the circulation spaces
and identifying shower rooms in bathrooms, this also showed a high degree of collaboration
between team members. The team member who had lean construction and research background
used his competency in researching more about the project through web, newspaper articles; he
also advocated and supported the use of lean tools for improvement.

Leadership and management was not only well received and supported by team members but
also diffused among other group members. The first week had one prominent leader who tried to
channelize the communication towards project, which was sometimes not well received. In the
second week two team members were leading and managing the team and their leadership was
67

well received by the team, towards the third week we still had two prominent leaders, but one
more team member took initiation in preplanning and setting deadlines for the team.

Overall the teamwork of this team looked pretty efficient with team members doing pre planning
of their work, bringing their core competencies to the project, collaborating for a common goal
and focusing on more project specific communication then informal communication.

Electronic Communication: Several teamwork variables emerged in this week’s electronic
interaction. Team member having construction management and Lean construction background
initiated a project plan, set deadlines for every group member, initiated plus-delta analysis and
daily huddle. The same team member showed research competency by researching on different
available resources related to the project like the live webcam, current news on a local newspaper
about the project. The lean competency was evident by the fact that the team member pushed the
group to do daily huddle. Dedication to the team and project was seen by the fact that the team
member was frequent on the discussion forum and making himself available for teamwork any
time required.

Professional management was also seen when one other team member was keeping in loop with
every communication happening on the forum, and setting deadlines for finishing report and
presentation shows dedication towards team.
“I’ll be checking the discussion board regularly throughout the weekend for any
questions”

68

One other team member, who rendered necessary support to the leadership helped in time
management
“We also need to discuss the presentation time slot for each of us – remember we
have 45 minutes to present”.
The informal communication seemed to help this group evolve a friendly environment, where
team members taking out time to wish one of the members Happy Birthday, even on discussion
forum.

d. Fourth Week analysis
In-class Observations: During this week each member went back and forth about money/cost
and where to get product numbers. Collaborating together they were able to figure out who
would research these questions and where they would research.

The team members also worked together to define the deadline for certain tasks. A discussion
took place of what times worked best of each team member and how they could come up with a
date everyone would be happy with. This discussion had a leader that would specify a time
things should be done. Leadership also occurred in other moments during this week. At one point
one student noticed there was credits missing for regional priority and another team member took
responsibility to figure it out.

Electronic Communication: Leadership instances were observed, where a few members took the
role of keeping everyone on task. One example of this is:

69

“I think it would be best to go over our individual sections at home tonight. It
would be helpful to report tonight how long it will take you to explain your
section so we can get an idea of our total presentation time.”
This allowed everyone to know what needed to be done and when it needed to be done, so they
can get things done in a timely manner and they can work on the times for the presentation far
enough in advanced to give time for practicing their own individual parts.

Project specific management also was taking place. Each member was doing their own parts, but
there were a few team members that took it further and collected each team member’s parts, gave
the deadlines of each part and kept the project organized. One example of this is:
“I think for the second presentation we can either eliminate or reduce the
introduction part of each section since we’ve already introduced it in the first
presentation. “

e. Fifth Week analysis
In-class Observations: This week started with a discussion about formatting the slides and
making sure each person understands the different aspects needed for the slides. In this
discussion some team members took leadership roles that guided the conversation to make sure
all members were formatting the same and other members took the role of asking questions
because they did not understand how to use certain tools in power point.

Project specific communication occurred during one conversation. Each member was putting in
their own opinion about the amount of points being earned in each credit and where they should

70

take away and add points. Members of the group started figuring out what credits were worth
what points and then figuring out where the place would be for changes.

During another discussion project technical information was shared and discussed. This included
discussion about R-valves of doors etc. This was a very involving conversation with members
asking questions, members giving answers and asking more questions and all team members
completely involved in the conversation.

Electronic Communication: Leadership moments were observed when leaders let the team
know what tasks need to be done and help the other team members figure out what changes need
to be done. An example of this is:
“We’ll need a good background on how wind energy works and I like the idea of
having either a fact list like you have done or a sidebar with facts and trivia that
relate to topics in each section.”
Not only did this team member kept track of each task and what needs to be done, but this
member came forward to help other members:
“Please add your financial, intro, and conclusion. Let me know if you have any
questions.”

This provided the other members a helpful resource to go to if they are having difficulty and
could prevent the other member from being stressed about something they do not understand.

f. Sixth Week analysis
71

In-class Observations: The entire week was dedicated to making sure everyone was completing
their parts of the power points and putting together the last details; like how long is everyone’s
slides taking them to get through, where there needs to be cuts so they stay in the time frame for
the presentation, where each member is sending their parts for someone to put it all together, etc.

During this week there was a lot of leadership taking place, due to the closing of the project.
There needed to be someone making sure everything is getting put together for one presentation,
all members knew what they were doing and all the last minute details.

Leadership moments:
“We need to report how well we finished with the team project.”
“Let’s work throughout the week and finish Sunday.”
“I’ll start piecing them together Sunday.”
“Don’t worry. I’ll do it.”
“I’ll put it all together and post it.”

The final project was completed due to these members taking the lead role in getting all slides
put together into one presentation and making sure each member had completed their part in a
certain amount of time.

Electronic Communication: The members who took the leadership role were making sure all
members are completing their tasks, turning them in and keeping up with everything. One great
example of leadership is the team member that was collecting all the information to create one
project sent an email out highlighting what was needed by each team member to get things
72

completed. Then at the end of the email the team member says “Thanks everyone, so far so
good!” This member is encouraging the other team members.
Other great examples of leadership are:
“Thanks for all the on-line submissions. I think this is going very smooth. Great
job everybody!!”
“When I get your final inputs, I will do the calculation and indicate how much
time each one of us has.”

4.5.2 Feedback Sessions and their Influences on Experiment Team
4.5.2.1 Session #1
Description: This first feedback session started with an age old tale of hare and tortoise, which
draw inferences on working hard, strategy, core competencies, and importance of teamwork.
Analogies were provided, to reflect the fictional story idea on real AEC industry. After that, they
were given a ten minute to-do activity to work on their project plan, reflect and discuss their core
competencies, come up with deadlines and schedule for future meetings. Teamwork matrix was
explained to them, which included the essential qualities for a successful team. Various real
world scenarios especially for sustainable projects were discussed, to further stress on the
importance of teamwork.

Students then were sensitized towards social networks, by showing and explaining them about
sociograms. First, they were showed sociograms from the pilot study (Singh and Korkmaz 2011),
then from the Bavelas - Leavitt experiment (1950) and were asked to discuss questions like
which team has more interaction, which is more efficient, which has less chances of failure, and
73

what links can be added to improve the sociograms. After making them learn the interpretation
of sociograms, they were showed sociograms from their informal and project specific
interactions and were asked to identify which node belongs to them, before the name tagged
sociograms were shown. Most of them were able to identify their positions in the sociograms and
showed some acceptance to their positions. The students who were on the far end with less links
were encouraged to be more active in communicating with other groups.

4.5.2.2 Session #2
Description: The purpose of the second feedback session was not only to provide students with
feedback but also help them with team building exercises so this feedback session started with a
team building game “Candy Appreciation”, in which every member was given two candies and
were told that one candy is for them and the other one is for the person in the team, whom they
especially enjoy working with or want to show their appreciation to that member. It was
observed that the students seemed to not know what to do in general in terms of whom to pass
the candy. One of them initiated the "passing the candy to the next one" movement, which was
followed by others. It seemed that the team was still at the primary stages of team development
and there was very little effort to recognize peer's accomplishments. Rather they seem to have
fun and did not care about spotting the problems or celebrating the accomplishments. They do
not left anyone out for and seemed to have fun together as a team.

After the game they were showed three sets of sociograms in categories of informal
communication, project specific communication, and electronic communication. First they were
showed the sociogram from their last week’s interaction, which was compared to their present
74

week’s interaction and finally how an ideal sociogram should look like. The nodes of sociograms
were differently colored and sized representing educational backgrounds and organizational
tenure respectively. They were also asked to analyze and comment on the sociograms. One of the
team member said that the team had not prepared at all before the meetings and it impacted their
mode in the team meetings. He said:

"We did not get anything done in our in -class meeting this week. It was just chitchat. It was a better meeting today before the feedback. We were prepared this
time and got something accomplished".

One of the members seemed irritated by his isolated position on sociogram, but accepted the fact
that they lacked a plan and need to pre-plan ahead for future meetings. Researchers encouraged
the students to avoid a blame game and instead focus on learning from their mistakes and
improve the process so that along the way they do not loose opportunities to succeed in this
project because when the time is up they will have to rush through the assignment and potentially
loose quality.

The team was then told about various communication tools and their uses. They were then asked
to have ten minutes discussion to pick any of these tools for their project. The tools are explained
below:

a. Plus- Delta Analysis: It is tool which can be utilized after every meeting by having
everyone consider what went well (plus) or what could be changed (delta) to improve the

75

processes in the meeting. It helps to review project eliciting comments from anyone who
wishes to give comment, opens communication and improve the team processes.

b. Retrospective: This tool asks the question “Why”. Students were asked to discuss their
positions in Sociograms, the effectiveness of their meetings, and why are they like that,
and how they can be improved.

c. Daily Huddle: In organizational teams daily huddle is generally a fifteen – thirty minutes
phone conversation addressing issues related to current tasks that team members
committed to perform individually. It also addresses issues regarding whether a task has
been completed by the relevant party or not and problems encountered in performing the
task. To make this more practically applicable to a five member team students were asked
to be in touch using the course website, and keep track of all the tasks assigned.

The team particularly liked plus-delta analysis and daily huddle and decided to use both these
tools on a regular basis. For all the coming class meetings they used plus-delta analysis and for
checking up on work status every other day through email, they utilized daily huddle.

4.5.2.3 Session #3
Discussion: This feedback session started with showing experiment team their sociograms from
second week, and comparing them to the sociograms of the current week, followed by ideal
sociograms. The sociograms were explained with qualitative interpretation to the team members,
showing how they were able improve their performance and work on various teamwork
76

variables. This was done for project specific communication, informal communication, and
electronic communication. They were also showed comparative sociograms, together with the
evolution of density and centrality for all three weeks, appreciating their performance
improvement over the weeks. Finally they were given some time to reflect on the feedback
sessions and sociograms, to which the team members provided a very positive reaction.

4.5.3 Direct Influence of Feedback Sessions on Experiment Team
Influence of first feedback session on the second week’s teamwork: The experiment team’s
second weeks in class observation and electronic communication had some clear influence of the
feedback session as the team members started focusing on their core competencies. One of the
team members who was researching on energy modeling in the graduate program, talked about
how he can use his energy modeling software for helping with energy and atmosphere LEED
credits. Other team members who had educational major in landscape design and civil
engineering started discussing on sustainable sites credit together with studying the civil
drawings of the project, which requires a combined knowledge of landscape design and civil
engineering for easy interpretation. One of the members researched online for different ideas that
they can incorporate into their stage two of the project for example researching on geothermal
energy. Team members also started identifying each other with their competencies, an example
of that can be seen when a team member from Landscape design asked for help in finding
plumbing fixtures in the specification book from a team member with architecture background.

Influence of the second feedback session on the third week’s teamwork: The team chose to use
plus-delta analysis (as was discussed in the feedback session), for their team meetings, they also
77

decided that they will have an agenda for each meeting, will set milestones for the delivery of
report and presentation. Core competencies emerged in this feedback session, as one of the team
member who was familiar with teamwork tools and had construction management background
took the lead in initiating them. The team member who had educational background and industry
experience in Landscape design used his knowledge and resources of plants and irrigation which
helped the team in achieving potential points in water efficiency LEED section. The team
member who had background in energy efficiency and architectural design took the lead in the
energy and atmosphere section and helped explain other group members that room numbers in
the drawings, the circulation spaces and identifying shower rooms in bathrooms. The team
member who had lean construction and research background used his competency in researching
more about the project through web, newspaper articles; he also advocated and supported the use
of lean tools such as plus-delta analysis, retrospective analysis for improvement.

Influence of the third feedback session on the fifth week’s teamwork: When asked, what is their
opinion of the sociograms and feedback sessions, team members talked that sociograms truly
represent what happens in the team meetings and the feedback sessions really help in improving
their performance over the course of the project. They also acknowledged that the feedback
sessions analysis pretty much covered their interactions, and they lacked preplanning.
One of team members commented:
“feedback helps a lot in speeding up things. Angel (Course website) discussion
group set up helps the teamwork a lot. I never had that in another class and it is
really helpful”.
One other member commented

78

“I never worked in such a large team before in any of my classes. It is 2 or 3
people teams at most. It is pretty challenging when you have this large of a team
but I believe it is very good experience".

This member also appreciated the use of teamwork improvement tools and their benefits to their
team. Overall, the whole team showed a very positive response to the feedback session and
acknowledged that they helped in improving their performance.
4.5.4 Quantitative analysis
The chain of communication and its frequency observed in participant observation, electronic
communications, and surveys were analyzed through SNA to calculate density and degree
centrality. Sociograms and other SNA metrics were generated based on their observed
interactions, emails, and data collected from event logs at ANGEL (MSU course website) and
Google Docs.

4.6 Summary
This sections talks about data collection and analysis. It starts with explaining data collection
steps, and then explains data analysis, followed by description of feedback sessions.

79

CHAPTER 5
Results

5.1 Introduction
The study tests the validity of each proposition with results from data analysis in the following
sections.
5.1.1 Proposition 1
According to proposition 1: “Team mechanics (e.g., communication, information exchange) will
improve more in the experiment group compared to the control group as a result of receiving
continuous feedback on their teamwork using SNA.”

In order to validate this proposition, the team mechanics variable such as project specific
communication, informal communication, and information exchange were analyzed both
qualitatively and quantitatively.

Project Specific Communication: The analysis of in class observed communication over the six
weeks of the project showed that the control team had a robust start with good amount of
interaction going on in the first week, while the experiment team did had a very low amount of
communication. Both the teams showed improvement till the third week, but after that the
experiment team surpassed the control team in interaction frequency, and continued to improve
after the fourth week. This seemed in congruence with timing of feedback for the experiment
team. The graph below compares the interaction frequency between control and experiment team
(Figure 4).
80

Frequency of Project Specific
Communication

300
250
200
150

Control Team

Experiment Team

100

Feedback
Session for the
Experiment
Team

50
0
W1

W2
W3
W4
W5
Project Progress (Weeks)

W6

Figure 3: Project Specific communication frequency change over the weeks for in class
working sessions (Week 1 is the start of the first stage of the project, while week 4 is the
start of the second stage of the project)

Figure 5 below compares the change in project specific communication frequency during
electronic communication between control and experiment teams. It was found that experiment
team did communicate more than control team, but it did most of the communication just before
the presentations of both stages, as a result they have huge peaks in the graph. Control team on
the other hand showed a more regular amount of interaction.

81

Project Specific Communication Frequency

200
180
160
140
120
100

Control Team

80

Experiment Team

60

Feedback Session
for the
Experiment Team

40
20
0
W1

W2
W3
W4
W5
Project Progress (Weeks)

W6

Figure 4: Project Specific communication frequency change over the weeks for electronic
communication (Week 1 is the start of the first stage of the project, while week 4 is the start
of the second stage of the project)

Combining in class project specific communication and electronic communication frequencies, it
was again evident that the experiment team has a slow start compared to control team but
showed a rapid improvement soon after second feedback and surpassed the control team after the
third feedback. Eventually it communicated twice more than the control team in the last week as
seen in Figure 6.

82

Project Specific Communication
Frequency

400
350
300
250
200

Control Team

150

Experiment Team

100

Feedback Session
for the
Experiment Team

50
0
W1

W2
W3
W4
W5
Project Progress (Weeks)

W6

Figure 5: Project Specific communication frequency change over the weeks for in class and
electronic communication combined (Week 1 is the start of the first stage of the project,
while week 4 is the start of the second stage of the project)

Figure 7 below shows the change of control and experiment team members project specific
communication frequency respectively. It can be seen that experiment team’s members’
communication frequency gradually increases every week, with the final week showing the
highest frequency, while the control team members showing an increase in communication
frequency in the first three weeks, but their interactions declined in the last three weeks of the
project.

83

160
Project Specific Communication Frequency

Project Specific Communciation Frequency

120

100
W1
80

W2

60

W3
W4

40
W5
20

W6

140
120

W1

100

W2

80

W3

60

W4

40

W5

20

W6

0

0
1A

1B

1C

1D

2A 2B 2C 2D 2E

1E

Project Progress (Weeks)

Project Progress (Weeks)

Figure 6: Project specific communication frequency change of control and experiment
team members (Week 1 is the start of the first stage of the project, while week 4 is the start
of the second stage of the project)

Project Specific Communication Compared through Sociograms:
Sociograms for both control and experiment teams were made, which represented comparative
communication links between team members. The team member’s attributes such as educational
background and organizational tenure were also included in the node properties of the
sociograms. The color represented educational background, the coding for which is shown in
table 5 below. The size of the node was in relation to organizational tenure, the higher the
organizational tenure, the larger was the size.

84

Table 5: Color coding of sociograms’ nodes according to educational backgrounds.
Control Team
Blue
Landscape Design
Black
Mechanical Engineering
Red
Civil Engineering

Experiment Team
Blue
Architecture
Black
Civil Engineering
Red
Landscape Design

The in-class communication sociograms for control team shows a presence of a central leader
(1C) in the team (Figure 7). It can also be seen that interactions links between team members
changes but not increases. The group finally evolves into a network, which becomes central
around one team member, and misses some vital links between team members.

85

The experiment team showed a gradual development in project networks. It started from being
isolated to a more central network. In week five the network took a shape of a star, which is one
of the efficient project networks (figure 8).

86

The electronic communication project network of the control team had a good start with the
presence of good number of links in the beginning, but by the end of the project in lost some of
its links. On an average there wasn’t any considerable change in the project network over the
course of the project (figure 9).

87

Experiment team started with a very weak network with just one person connecting the whole
team, but gradually the number of links increased in their network (Figure 10). By the end of the
project they had a comparable sociogram to the control team. Overall, the experiment team
showed a marked improvement in interaction patterns by the end of the project.

88

Geodesic Distance: As discussed in Chapter 2, the geodesic distance as can be visualized in a
sociogram is the number of relations in the shortest possible walk from one actor to another. If
two actors are adjacent, the distance between them is one (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005). For
example, if A is directly connected to B, then the geodesic distance is 1, while if A is directly
connected to B and B is directly connected to C and there is no direct connection between A and
C then the geodesic distance between A and C is 2. Geodesic distance value of one implies that
the actors are directly interacting with each other, so for a more integrated group, geodesic
distances closer to one are important. Table 6 compares average geodesic distance over the

89

course of the project with organizational tenure of team members. Average geodesic distance in
this table has been calculated by the addition of all the geodesic distance values an individual is
having with the team members and dividing that value with the total number of team members. It
can be seen that lower geodesic distances (one and closer to one) are associated with higher
organizational tenure. Team members with higher organizational tenure are important actors for
a team’s integration.
Table 6: Average geodesic distance values compared with organizational tenure of team
members
Control Team Geodesic
Member
Distance
1A
1B
1C
1D
1E

2.19
1.56
1.33
1.58
1.85

Organizational Experiment
Tenure
Team
Member
4.00
2A
1.75
2B
8.00
2C
4.00
2D
3.00
2E

Geodesic
Distance

Organizational
Tenure

1.08
1.38
2.19
2.08
1.60

3.00
7.00
0.33
0.16
0.00

Informal Communication: The experiment team started the project with heavy informal
communication, where the members spend considerable time knowing about each other. In the
first feedback session they were told that informal communication is important for developing
and informal and friendly ties within a group, but it should be gradually decreased to give way to
project specific communication. This was also found in direct relation with their communication
frequency of the remaining weeks. On the other hand the control team had negligible informal
communication over the course of the project. They spent all the time in team meetings in talking
about the project as can be seen in the figure 11 below.

90

Informal Communication
Frequency

70
60
50
40
30

Control Team

20

Experiment Team

10

Feedback Session
for the
Experiment Team

0
W1

W2
W3
W4
W5
Project Progress (Week)

W6

Figure 11: Informal communication frequency of control and experiment team (Week 1 is
the start of the first stage of the project, while week 4 is the start of the second stage of the
project)

Information Exchange: The experiment team surpassed the control team in exchanging
information for the benefit of team and the project, soon after first feedback and exchanged
information more frequently than the control team as can be seen in Figure 12 below.

91

Information Exchange Frequency

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Control Team
Experiment Team
Feedback Session
for the
Experiment Team
W1

W2

W3
W4
W5
Project Progress (Week)

W6

Figure 12: Information exchange frequency of control and experiment team (Week 1 is the
start of the first stage of the project, while week 4 is the start of the second stage of the
project)

Density and Centrality of Team Mechanics:
Density: The density of control and experiment teams were calculated from in-class project
specific communications. It was found that the control team had a high density at the start of the
project, but over the course of the project it decreases. On the other hand, the experiment team
started low on density but gradually increased it density over the weeks. The graph below shows
this transition (figure 13).

92

Density for Project Specific
Communication

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Control Team
Experiment Team
Feedback Session
for the
Experiment Team
W1

W2
W3
W4
W5
Project Progress (Week)

W6

Figure 13: Density of Control and Experiment Teams for Project Specific Communication
(Week 1 is the start of the first stage of the project, while week 4 is the start of the second
stage of the project)

Degree Centrality-Out: Degree centrality out represents the outgoing links of communication
from a team member. The results from in class interaction between team members showed that
control team’s centrality did not change considerably over the duration of the project, there were
few peaks, but on an average the centrality values remained the same (Table 7). The centrality
out values for experiment team showed a lot of improvement especially for members, who had
very low centrality values in the beginning of the project (Table 8)

93

Table 7: Centrality-Out values for control team
Control Team
Degree Centrality Out

W1

W2

W3

W4

W5

W6

1A
1B
1C
1D
1E

0.25
1
1
0.75
0.75

0.25
1
0.75
0.25
0.5

0.5
1
0.5
0.75
0.5

0.25
0.5
0.75
0.5
0.5

0.5
0.5
0
0.75
0.5

0.25
0.25
0.75
0.75
0

Table 8: Centrality-Out values for experiment team
Experiment
Team Degree
Centrality - Out

W1

W2

W3

W4

W5

W6

2A
2B
2C
2D
2E

1
1
0
0.25
0

1
0.75
0.25
0
0.5

1
0.6667
0
0.6667
1

1
0.75
0.25
0.5
0.5

1
1
1
0.25
0.5

0.75
0.75
0.25
0
0.5

Overall, it can be seen that team mechanics variables do improve in the experiment team after
the first few weeks, while in the control team, they remain the same or decrease somewhat. This
validates our proposition and establishes the importance of feedback to teams in general. It was
also observed that organizational tenure played an important role, as it was seen that
organizational tenure of team members helped bring organization in the team, in other words, the
control team which had a higher organizational tenure acted more professional and organized
from the project start.
94

5.1.2 Proposition 2
According to proposition 2: If team dynamics (e.g., shared values, reliance, trust) among team
members are high, so will be the team mechanics.
In order to validate this proposition, the team dynamics variable such as reliance, trust, value
sharing, leadership and management, collaboration and participation, team identity, engagement
of core competencies, and reflection and self assessment were analyzed both qualitatively and
quantitatively.

Reliance, Trust and Value Sharing: The pre and post survey results to determine the amount of
reliance, team members have on each other showed that a presence of a direct relation between
the amount of reliance team members’ have on someone and that persons leadership and
management skills. The table below shows the difference between pre and post survey
summation of the values of reliance scored by team members on a likert scale of 1 to 5, where 1
is low reliance and 5 is high reliance. This is the difference between pre and post survey’s sum of
the values given by four team members to the fifth member.
Table 9 below shows that control team improved on both reliance and trust, while experiment
team improved on reliance but amount of trust decreased. The increase and decrease in reliance
and trust follows a more regular pattern than the control team. So providing feedback does affect
the amount of reliance and trust in a team. Decrease in trust could be due the fact that the
experiment team better understood the meaning of trust and its emotive element, so in the post
survey they responded to lower values of trust and higher values of reliance. Also, actual trust
requires some time to develop, so if it had been a long project then just three months, we may
95

have seen increase in values for trust. Currently, we can say higher reliance will be in direct
relation with higher mechanics (Proposition 1 validates that experiment team has higher
mechanics than control team). The responses to value sharing showed that team members who
had higher reliance and trust on each other also shared similar values.

Table 9: Delta values for reliance and trust variable for control and experiment teams.
Control Team

Experiment Team

Team

Δ Reliance

Δ Trust

Team

Δ Reliance

Δ Trust

Member Code

Value

Value

Member Code

Value

Value

1A

1

2

2A

2

-1

1B

0

2

2B

2

-1

1C

2

1

2C

3

-1

1D

1

2

2D

2

1

1E

2

1

2E

4

-1

Leadership and Management: Experiment team scored low on leadership and management in the
first two weeks but was able to considerably improve after fourth week, and surpassed the
control team in the last week. The figure 14 below shows this transformation and comparison.

96

Leadership and Management
Instances

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Control Team
Experiment Team

W1

W2
W3
W4
W5
Project Progress (Week)

W6

Feedback Session
for the
Experiment Team

Figure 14: Leadership and Management instances of control and experiment team (Week 1
is the start of the first stage of the project, while week 4 is the start of the second stage of
the project)

The control group showed a good organization from the beginning by giving detailed directions
for each member to follow and they continue this throughout the project. The experiment group
showed little organization from the beginning; discussing only note taking and no details about
what they should be looking for, but towards the end they started discussing specific needs for
topics and which way of organizing the information is good for the presentation. The difference
in the development of organization and management skills can be seen in the following quotes
from different weeks for both the teams.

Control Team
Week 1: “We might not have the experience with related LEED
section, if we split it up in pages and take notes on what pages
goes towards what section and discuss at team meetings”
97

Week 4: “Look at the credit areas you reviewed and try to think of
ways to increase the points the project could achieve if some
aspects were changed.”

Experiment Team
Week 1: “taking notes on the side, for stage II while we work on
stage I”
Week 5: “We’ll need a good background on how wind energy
works and I like the idea of having either a fact list like you have
done or a sidebar with facts and trivia that relate to topics in each
section.”

Collaboration and Participation: Both the teams’ members showed a good amount of
collaboration and participation for every aspect of the project so this variable was not compared
and analyzed.

Team Identity: Team identity was observed for both teams. Both the teams’ members identified
with the team, and showed enthusiasm when choosing a name for team. The experiment teams’
members spent more time in knowing about each other and discovering that everybody is from a
different country in the team, as a result they ended up naming their team as ‘Global Green
Group’. The control team identified there team as ‘Spartans for LEED’, which was relevant to
their identity as students of Michigan State University.

98

Engagement of Core Competencies: Core competencies of team members evolved a lot for
experiment team, which was found in relation with the feedbacks provided to them. The
experiment team was encouraged to work on their core competencies for the improvement of
project in the feedback sessions as a result use of core competencies instances were considerably
higher in the experiment team than the control team as can be seen in Figure 15.

Improvement of core competencies can also be seen as a reason for a considerable improvement
in project technical communication for experiment team, considering that four of the five team
members of the experiment team had more technical educational background. This improvement
has been shown in figure 16.

Shared Vision: The control and experiment teams both worked towards a well defined plan and
goal for the project benefit, so this variable was not analyzed.

Reflection and Self Assessment: Qualitatively analyzing the in class observations and electronic
communication, the experiment team used reflection and assessment tools such as plus-delta
analysis to reflect on their performance. The control team did not used any such tools or any
other form of reflection and self assessment.

99

Engagement of Core
Competencies Instances

16
14
12
10
8

Control Team

6

Experiment Team

4

Feedback Session
for the
Experiment Team

2
0
W1

W2
W3
W4
W5
Project Progress (Week)

W6

Figure 15: Engagement of core competencies instances of control and experiment team
(Week 1 is the start of the first stage of the project, while week 4 is the start of the second
stage of the project)

Technical Communication
Related to Project Instacnes

12
10
8
6

Control Team

4

Experiment Team
Feedback Session
for the
Experiment Team

2
0
W1

W2
W3
W4
W5
Project Progress (Week)

W6

Figure 16: Technical communication related to project instances of control and experiment
team (Week 1 is the start of the first stage of the project, while week 4 is the start of the
second stage of the project)

100

5.1.2.1 Revised Proposition 2
Overall, it was found that except improvement in the values of trust all other team dynamics
variables improved significantly in the experiment team as a result of feedback sessions. The
decline in trust values for the experiment team makes the SNA based feedback sessions even
more important, considering the fact that the experiment team performed better even with low
amount of trust among its team members. So, a new proposition can be stated as follows:

SNA based feedbacks becomes more significant in teams where amount of trust is low between
team members” The networks with low amount of trust will gain higher benefits from SNA based
feedbacks. as lower trust will require a team to have a stronger teamwork to perform better.

5.1.3 Proposition 3
According to proposition 3: The experiment team’s project performance will improve more over
time compared to the control group’ performance, mediated through higher improvements in
team mechanics and dynamics.

Since, we have validated proposition 2 and 3 we can say that the experiment team has higher
team mechanics and dynamics than the control team, now proposition 3 tries to validate that the
project performance of experiment team will improve more than control team’s performance,
owing to experiment teams improvement in mechanics and dynamics.

The communication frequency including in class observations and all the electronic
communications are summed up for all the six weeks. Next, in order to find the average
101

communication frequency over the course of project, the summed up frequency is divided by 6.
This gives the average communication frequency over the course of the project. Now, for testing
the proposition that team mechanics have improved over the course of the project, we calculate
average communication frequency for first stage of the project. Now, the difference between
average communication frequency over the course of the project and the average communication
frequency over the first stage of the project is calculated. If this difference comes out to be a
positive value than our proposition that team mechanics have improved over the course of the
project is validated.
Let sum of communication frequency for the first stage be x,
Sum of communication frequency for second stage be y,
Now, summation of x and y will give the total communication frequency (x+y),
The average communication frequency over the course of the project = (x+y) / 6
And the average communication frequency for the first stage of the project = x/3
So the difference between these two frequencies will show the improvement in communication
frequency (Δ).
Δ= ((x + y) / 6) – (x / 3)

(1)

The performance grade sheet for both the teams is shown below in figure 9:
According to the proposition 3,
Equation 2:

102

Equation 3:

Where, ΔP Control is the change in performance of the control team
ΔP Experiment is the change in performance of the experiment team
ΔM control and ΔD Control is the change in mechanics and dynamics respectively of the control
team.
ΔM Experiment and ΔD Experiment is the change in mechanics and dynamics respectively of
the experiment team.
Equation 2 compares the ratio of change in performance of the control and experiment teams to
their respective mechanics.
Filling the values, it was found,
Equation 2:

Equation 3:

In this equation k1 and k2, can be any variable which are dependent on several factors such as
organizational tenure of team members, background etc. It can be seen that the equation is nonlinear but it shows a direct relationship between improvement in mechanics and improvement in

103

performance. Overall, it can be said that experiment teams’ performance improvement bears a
direct relation with improvement in mechanics and dynamics, thus validating our proposition.

5.1.4 Proposition 4
Proposition 4 is divided into two propositions, proposition 4a and proposition 4b.

According to proposition 4a Student learning outcomes on sustainability will be higher in the
experiment team, due to higher improvements in team mechanics and dynamics.

Table 10 shows the change in mechanics and dynamics for both control and experiment team and
compares their sustainability scores. Owing to the higher improvements in mechanics and
dynamics, experiment team should show higher learning outcomes in sustainability. Though the
change in sustainability score for experiment team is not significant in comparison to control
team but the project presentation results at both stages where the experiment team delivered a
more comprehensive analysis of the project together with providing creative solutions to the
project problems, which were significantly better than the control team, validates this
proposition.

Project Presentation Analysis evaluating sustainability learning outcomes
The control team’s presentation included visuals and calculations on different credits but lacked
an in depth evaluation of green resources, on the other hand, the experiment team came up with
cost calculations for using alternative fuel for generating energy. Their presentation was heavy
on visuals which included calculations for hardscapes surfaces, geothermal explanations
104

specifically for the building. They explored government websites for potential standards and
software tools, one such was the US Department of Energy’s ‘Cool Roof Calculator’, through
which this team provided cost and energy savings for using the green roof. For water efficiency
this team came up with a complete list of recommended plants which can save a required
percentage of water from irrigation to get specified LEED points. Other calculations and
innovative products recommended for a higher LEED certification were water fixtures, use of
solar calculator, carbon dioxide sensors, auto air monitors etc. Overall, experiment team showed
a great depth in the understanding of learning of sustainable built environment. They also
utilized outside sources to recommend products together with substantial calculations that can
help the project generate more LEED points. In summary it can be said that the project was
helpful to both in terms of earning outcomes in sustainability, but potentially as a result of the
feedback, the experiment team had more competencies flowing through the network and showed
a more comprehensive result.

105

Table 10: Change in mechanics and dynamics with change in sustainability score of control
and experiment team.

Δ Mechanics

Δ Dynamics

Δ Sustainability Score

Control Team

-21

-15

27

Experiment Team

31

1

30

According to proposition 4b Student learning outcomes on teamwork will be higher in the
experiment team, due to higher improvements in team mechanics and dynamics.

The survey responses for teamwork learning section did not show any significant improvement
for both the teams (Table 11 and 12). It could be due to the fact that responses to some of the
survey questions were dependent on many other factors, so most of the team members checked
they ‘neither agree nor disagree’ with few of the questions, as a result, no improvement was
quantitatively noted in the teamwork of any team. Qualitatively speaking, the experiment team
showed a significant increase in their teamwork knowledge and its application. The following
quote from a member of experiment team, provided at the final presentation confirms this:

“On the first team meeting, we started brain storming with a name.
We came up with a name ‘Global Green Group’ as we all are from
different countries, it’s just not a name, but we have trust among
each other.

Once trust developed we started dividing our
106

responsibilities, into such categories. It’s not strict to categories,
anytime anyone needs help, we provide help. For team meetings
we have every Wednesday, and if we don’t get very productive on
Wednesdays, then we meet on Fridays. During our team work
sessions we developed several communication methods; first one is
plus delta, which is from lean construction basically. We see what
we like from last meeting and what parts we can improve on, The
second method we used was daily huddle, is also from lean
construction, in which we used Angle (course website), to write
something about problem we have and help with each other’s stuff.
Angel was very powerful tool of communication and sharing
documents, we shared reference guide and other documents, and
also used angel just to say hi or happy birthday. We really liked
how our team worked and we find that our team is very productive,
and how everybody’s role emerged from the teamwork”
One of the team members from the control team summarized their teamwork in the quote below:
“Basically as a team we used integrated design approach, but it
was very informal, nothing written down, though we had vision,
scope, objective but nothing written down; However we met
several times outside, we had phone calls, We had objectives to
meet, we all trusted and respected each other, we always had if
anybody needed anything we are there to help, we knew that
people will turn themselves in. we all had different personalities,
someone is not that much vocal but we made sure that everyone
got heard”
The difference between the two quotes from the two teams is that the experiment team is more
organized in using various resources to make their team productive. They reflect and self assess
their performance using various teamwork tools such as daily huddle and plus delta. They have a
more informal network going on, as they seemed socializing among each other, this is good for
107

developing friendly networks in the team. As been earlier said data analysis, both teams had
good amount of collaboration going on.
Table 11: Change in mechanics and dynamics with change in teamwork score of control
team.
Control Team

Δ Mechanics

Δ Dynamics

Δ Teamwork Score

1A

-3

-0.6

-26

1B

-8

-7

-3

1C

-6

-5

1

1D

3

-2

6

1E

-6

-0.5

-1

Table 12: Change in mechanics and dynamics with change in teamwork score of
experiment team.
Experiment Team

Δ Mechanics

Δ Dynamics

Δ Teamwork Score

2A

12

0

-3

2B

18

3

4

2C

7

-2

-2

2D

-6

0

-7

2E

0

-1

-5

108

Overall, experiment teams showed higher learning outcomes for sustainability and teamwork and
this validates proposition 4.

5.1.5 Survey Verification
A survey which asked questions about team mechanics was administered to both control and
experiment teams. The purpose of the survey was to verify team responses about their team
mechanics by comparing it with actual observed mechanics, so in the end to deliver a verified
survey for measuring team mechanics, which could be used in future research. Table 13 and 14
compares the interaction responses provided by the team members in the survey to the
interaction responses recorded through electronic communication for both teams.
Table 13: Comparison of interaction responses provided by control team members to the
interaction instances recorded.
1A

1B

1C

1D

1E

Interaction instances as observed

12

47

81

61

33

Interaction instances as reported in

22

42

48

100

42

survey

Table 14: Comparison of interaction responses provided by experiment team members to
the interaction instances recorded.
2A

2B

2C

2D

2E

Interaction instances as observed

62

77

11

26

29

Interaction instances as reported in

54

20

35

35

25

survey

109

As can be seen from the table above that some responses are very close to the ones observed,
while some not so close, so it can be said that asking for exact responses to interactions times in
a survey may have its limitations. However, comparative questions can be asked, which asks the
team members to rate the number of times they have interacted on a likert scale of 1 to 10. A
modified improved survey, which can gather approximate and comparative responses about team
mechanics, is being provided in appendix L.

110

CHAPTER 6

Conclusions

6.1 Summary of Findings
Proposition 1, “Team mechanics (e.g., communication, information exchange) will improve
more in the experiment group compared to the control group as a result of receiving continuous
feedback on their teamwork using SNA.” was validated through the use of qualitative and
quantitative data based off the team communication amongst one another using both in class and
outside class methods of communication.

For each category within Team Mechanics; informal communication, project specific
communication and information exchange, the data supported that in each category the
experiment group improved and at one point surpassed the control group. For the category
informal communication the data supports the idea of learning about the people you will be
working with in the first weeks of the project, which will be strengthening the team later. The
experiment group had a high use of informal communication during the first week, but the
amount of this declined as the weeks passed. The control group showed very little to no informal
communication throughout the entire project.

For the category project specific communication the data supports the idea that the experiment
group improved this type of communication throughout the project, where as the control group
either remained the same or declined in the use of project specific communication. For each way
of communication; in-class and electronic, the data shows a slow incline with some peaks and
111

troughs occurring for the experiment group showing the three feedback sessions effecting the use
of this form of communication. For the same way of communication; in-class and electronic, the
data shows a slow incline until week three, where the control group begins to decline in the use
of project specific communication. When comparing the two groups it is very apparent from the
data that the experiment group improved over the 6 weeks with using project specific
communication, where the control group declined in the use of project specific communication.
Proposition 2, “If team dynamics (e.g., shared values, reliance, trust) among team members are
high, so will be the team mechanics.” was validated by the data provided by pre and post surveys
conducted to determine the trust and reliance each team member had on the other team members
and through the use of in-class and electronic communication to determine leadership and
management, collaboration and participation, team identity, engagement of core competencies,
shared vision and reflection and self assessment.

For reliance, leadership and management, engagement of core competencies and reflection and
self assessment the data shows an incline in use for the experiment group, where the control
group either declines in use or remains the same. For collaboration and participation and shared
vision the data does not show a difference in both the experiment and the control group showing
that both groups took advantage of these categories equally. For trust the data shows a decline in
the trust between members when comparing the pre and post surveys for the experiment group.
Though the data determined the experiment group trusted each other less by the end of the
project this still supports the idea of the feedback sessions affecting trust. Without speaking to
each team member individually about the trust they have with the other members, it can only be
said that the cause of the decline of trust could be that the experiment group better understood

112

what trust meant and its emotive element or that trust takes more time to occur, so team members
did not have enough time to create the bond of trust within the 6 weeks. A new proposition could
be created to test the idea of giving more time to build the trust and what effect would that new
built trust have on the team’s project performance. Also, trust was lower in the experiment team,
yet the performance was better at the end. So a potential proposition to be tested is: In teams
where trust level is low among team members, SNA based feedback becomes even more
important to carry teams to successful outcomes.

For team identity the data shows that both the experiment group and the control group started
with team building by creating a group name, but the experiment team spent more time learning
about each other and using this knowledge as a guide to creating their team name.
Proposition 3, “The experiment team’s project performance will improve more over time
compared to the control group’ performance, mediated through higher improvements in team
mechanics and dynamics.” was validated using the sums of in class observations and electronic
communication. The data shows a direct relationship between the experiment team’s
performance and the team’s mechanics and dynamics compared to the control group,
determining that if a team’s mechanics and dynamics incline in use it will have an effect the
team’s performance.

Proposition 4, “Student learning outcomes on teamwork and sustainability will be higher in the
experiment team, due to higher improvements in team mechanics and dynamics” was validated
through the use of pre and post surveys asking specific questions about teamwork and
sustainability. The data shows no measureable conclusion for both the experiment and the

113

control group for both sustainability and teamwork, though the presentations conducted at the
end of the project showed that the experiment group had a better understanding about
sustainability than the control group and the experiment group used specific teamwork tools
learned in the feedback sessions creating a more organized, cohesive presentation.

From all the data from each proposition it can be determined the importance of team dynamics
and mechanics in creating a higher performing team that can work more efficiently and
effectively. Creating a base for a team strengthens the team, so they are more successful at
handling disagreements, getting tasks complete on time, getting along, having strong
communication skills and collaborating. The mechanics and the dynamics are that base a group
needs to be an organized and complete team.

6.2 Theoretical and Practical Applications
Theoretically these same tools can be used in any classroom setting. Each classroom, may it be a
kindergarten class or a masters degree class, there is teamwork involved in some way or form.
Depending on the grade level there would need to be some adaptations made, but the basic ideas
of team dynamics and mechanics occur the same way. In public school classrooms teachers
begin the school year with “ice breakers”, which is like informal communication because the
students are learning about each other in a non-academic way; favorite things, family, friends,
etc. to become more comfortable with each other so they may build trust and reliance on each
other. These are the same basic dynamics and mechanics that took place in a master’s course at
Michigan State University.

114

The results of this research though limited by the size and number of teams still can be applied to
any course in different universities that utilize teamwork. The study shows that mechanics and
dynamics of a team students working in can influence their final assignment outcomes.
Therefore, application of pre-surveys and/or preliminary in-class role plays can help instructors
to understand student characteristics and previous experience and inform team building
processes for creating more balanced teams for optimum results. The results would be more
significant in courses where students are dealing with sustainability issues and/or multifaceted
problems like improving a building’s level of sustainability.

This research also shows that how teaching sustainable built environment in higher education
institutions can be more efficient if teams are given a real world problem. In existing research,
students from different backgrounds were combined to make a team and play roles consistent
with their educational backgrounds and thus simulate a real world scenario. For example Chinowsky et al. (2008) used SNA to compare categorical performance with strength of project
network, on a team of 35 students having backgrounds in various AEC disciplines worked on an
international design and construction competition for energy efficient housing. The ideas of
teamwork, collaboration, communication for working towards sustainability issues were found in
resonance with existing research (Magent et al. 2009, Korkmaz et al.-I and II 2010).

In sustainable built environment projects, there might be more than one solution to a specific
problem and solutions generally depend on more than one area (such as materials and indoor
environmental quality or orientation / site, energy, materials, and lighting). Therefore, leadership,
teamwork, and communication in teams with members from different disciplines are of critical

115

importance for success in these projects. Educators, teaching the principles of sustainable built
environment projects should realize the importance of team mechanics and the need for students
develop it to excel in the industry. A classroom experience that provides effective teamwork
environment for students from a variety of backgrounds, would prepare students for real world
problems.

6.3 Limitations
Several limitations exist in this study. The study was limited to students, not actual AEC teams.
There were also only two teams with five members each. While statistical significance was not
possible, the study laid the groundwork for future research about teamwork in sustainable built
environment projects, and its improvement.

Also these teams were formed based on

organizational tenure, educational background and leadership in order to form balanced teams,
this also adds to its limitation as randomization of teams can be one of the methods to form
teams and also to pick which team receives feedback sessions.

Also, the use of student evaluation sheet (Appendix J) for both control and experiment teams
contaminated the experiment, providing the necessary motivation for both teams to improve their
teamwork. Future studies can look into using student evaluation form for just experiment team
and see how that impacts the teamwork for experiment team and comparing it with teamwork of
control team.

116

6.4 Recommendation of Future Research
This research verifies the significance of improving team mechanics and dynamics for a better
project performance in AEC teams. The research also adds the dimension of classroom learning
showing how team dynamics and mechanics can have a positive impact on students’
performance in learning sustainable built environment practices. It is reasonable to impart these
skills to AEC students, through role playing and team work exercises. This study further verifies
the need to place students with leadership skills in team projects through pre-teamwork
evaluations to improve student learning. In a real world scenario prior to team formation, leaders
can be chosen after analyzing their interpersonal skills and their use of various communication
channels. The existing research by Manoliadis (2009) showed how in a civil engineering
undergraduate course, IT based learning methods including simulation and use of case studies
encouraging role playing, improved students’ approach towards society and environmental
problems. The results of this research indicate how improvement in teamwork through a
curriculum can help AEC students generate creative sustainable results. With this motivation,
further research can look into modifying higher education AEC institutions curriculum to include
students from varied backgrounds in courses with project based teamwork assignments to help
them learn integrated approach towards problem solving for sustainable built environments. This
will allow for interdisciplinary interaction and teamwork among students, which will help them,
prepare for real world applications.

In this study randomization was not used to create the two teams, instead balanced teams were
created making sure each group had similar backgrounds, equal number of leaders and
approximately equal organizational tenure. Also, ease of availability of team members of one of

117

the two balanced teams was used as deciding factor in determining which team will receive
regular feedback sessions and thus be the experiment team. Future studies can look into choosing
team members on the basis of randomization and also pick the experiment team for receiving
feedback sessions by randomization, instead of ease of availability.

In future studies involving classrooms, team variables as suggested in Table 1, excluding shared
vision can be used. Shared vision is difficult to measure in a classroom setting where each
student in both teams would have a shared vision of getting a good grade or passing the class and
making a building greener, while in a professional environment visions among team members
could vary differently. So a future study involving professional teams can also analyze shared
vision.

In future studies feedback can be used by concentrating on teamwork tools or on only SNA, or a
combination of both. In this study a combination of both was used, but future studies do not need
to be confined to this one way. Individual studies would need to be completed to find if one
particular way of using feedback is more useful or direct, but in this study that was not the focus.

Another interesting observation that can be looked in future studies is the what characteristics
flow through a network, for example how does leadership or management flows from a leader to
other team members or how does having a strong tie with a leader will help spread leadership to
other team members. In this study the experiment team started with two team members showing
leadership and management instances in the beginning of the project, by the end of second week,
three team members showed leadership and management instances. However, considering the
118

small size of the team statistical significance is not possible, but a future research can look into
measuring the flow of variables among team members.

Sustainable projects require high interdependency among different building trades, such as electrical, energy, and lighting trades to minimize energy loss and maximize daylight. Therefore,
team characteristics leading to communication and information exchange quality are critical in
these projects. This study examines teams and their integration, and tries to improve their
mechanics by a continuous feedback, while working on a sustainable project in a classroom
setting. The study confirms that the improvement of team mechanics and dynamics can improve
the project performance, especially when working on a sustainable project, through a classroom
assignment. The results show that centrality and density in team communication can be improved
by providing regular feedbacks with the help of SNA, which can finally lead to better outputs,
especially when team members also share values, rely, and trust on each other.

119

APPENDICES

120

Appendix A: Consent Forms
IRB Consent Form for Survey
Informed Consent
I am currently doing my Master’s thesis and as part of my research I am investigating team
integration for sustainable projects. Thus the purpose of this survey is to determine the
educational background and previous experience of general student population. I have asked you
to help me with this study because I would like to understand how feedback affects team
integration, and performance, when graduate students of sustainable built environment course
work on real world green building project.
This survey will take 2-3 minutes to complete. Your confidentiality will be protected to the
maximum extent allowable by law. Your name will not be used in any written records or
reports, and will only be viewed by the researcher and his advisor.
Participation is voluntary, you may choose not to participate at all, or you may refuse to
participate in certain procedures or answer certain questions or discontinue your participation at
any time without penalty or loss of benefits. (E.g. will not affect treatment you will receive, will
not affect your grade or evaluation, etc.).
If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied
at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact my advisor, Dr. Sinem Korkmaz
(korkmaz@msu.edu).
***********************************

By checking here:
I certify that I have read and understand the above informed consent information.
Participant’s Name (please print) ________________________

Date ___________

If you have any questions about the study, please contact me: Aditya Singh
(singhad2@msu.edu or 517-580-9232)

121

Consent Form for Video Recording of Presentation

I am currently doing my Master’s thesis and as part of my research I am investigating team
integration for sustainable projects. Thus the purpose of these observation/ interview is to help
me learn the level of interaction that happens between different teams. I have asked you to help
me with this study because I would like to understand how feedback affects team integration, and
performance, when graduate students of sustainable built environment course work on real world
green building project.
I will be video recording your presentations, which will help me analyze and evaluate your
performance as part of my research. Again, this will not affect your grades or performance in any
way.
Your confidentiality will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. All information
recorded from the interview or in observation sessions will be kept under a pseudonym. Your
name will not be used in any written records or reports, and video recordings will only be viewed
by the researcher. The videotapes will never be used in any presentations, and will only be
listened to by me.
If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied
at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact my advisor, Dr. Sinem Korkmaz
(korkmaz@msu.edu).
***********************************
I voluntarily agree to participate in this study. I grant permission for the researcher to video tape
the presentations and use them for research.
Participant’s signature ___________________________________
Participant’s Name (please print) ________________________

Date ___________

If you have any questions about the study, please contact me: Aditya Singh
(singhad2@msu.edu or 517-580-9232)

122

Appendix B: Survey #1 – Experience

1. Please write your name here _____________________
2. Please list you field of study/ major / specialization against the degree you have
completed or are currently enrolled.
Bachelor’s _______________________
Masters _________________________
Doctorate________________________
Other ___________________________
3. After completing your high school, please list any kind of work experience you have
in any kind of industry and for how long?
Industry name

Duration

Work Profile

4. Please check below if you have worked before or know personally with any of your
class members, before meeting in this class.
Worked

If yes, than please elaborate on your

before

Name

previous experience of working together.

Awan, Abdul Basir
Beck, Brad
Duah, Daniel Yaw Addai
Gangwal, Sanjog Kumar
Haering, Mary Carole
Partin, Shawn Charles

123

Sinden, Joseph Christopher
Sun, Weida
Tascioglu, Berkay
Wang, Qi

5. Please check against the subjects, which you are proficient in? Check all that apply.
Energy Modeling
Planning, Policy
Landscape Architecture
Building Design
Construction Management Practice
Interior Design
Civil / Structures
Electrical Systems
Lighting Systems
Mechanical Systems
Materials / Specifications
Others, please specify __________________________

124

Appendix C: Team Formation Criteria

Name
A
B

Centrality out
30.000
24.000

Centrality in
6.000
21.000

Educational Background

Organizational Tenure
7 years as an Architect
3 yrs as landscape
designer
8 years in Landscape

20.000

Architecture
Landscape / Environmental
Design
Landscape / Environmental
Design
Landscape / URP

C

17.000

20.000

D

16.000

E
F
G
H
I

15.000
14.000
11.000
4.000
3.000

11.000
22.000
10.000
13.000
11.000

Civil
Civil
Civil
Construction Management
Mechanical

J

-

-

Civil

4 yrs in construction
remodeling
4 yrs as engineer
1.75 years in civil
2 months as engineer
None
3 months in mechanical
systems
3 months as Civil
Engineer

We can see from the table that the two teams had pretty much comparable amount of previous
experience and organizational tenure.
So the Final Teams are:
Control team: Centrality out - 65
E – Civil
C - Landscape
F - Civil
I - Mechanical
D - Landscape
Experiment team: Centrality out- 69
A - Architecture
B - Landscape
G - Civil
H - CM
J – Civil

125

Appendix D: Pre – Survey #2 – Learning Outcome
This survey has two parts: A and B, and will take 5 minutes to complete.
Part A: Sustainable Built Environment Learning
1. Please write your name here _______________________________
2. How would you rate your knowledge/ understanding of these terms?

Not at

Unfamiliar Familiar

all

Very
Familiar

familiar
Green
Building
Sustainability

3. Please indicate your familiarity with and interest in learning about the following:
Familiarity

Interest

High Medium Low None High Medium Low None
Energy Efficiency
Geothermal Heating /
Cooling
Glazing (Window
Efficiency)
Indoor Air Quality
Insulation Ratings
Lighting Efficiency
Recycled / Reused
Building Products
Sustainable or Renewable
Construction Materials
Water Conservation

126

4. In what fields (if any), you had formal education where sustainability was addressed
(Select all that apply)
Civil Engineering
Interior Design
Landscape Architecture
Building Design
Urban Planning
Others, please specify __________________________

5. Have you done any of the following?
Educated yourself or trained others about green building/ sustainability practices.
Political action such as writing letters to senators, protests, campaigning, boycotts,
membership in Greenpeace (or other) etc.
Used alternative energy sources (Solar, wind, hydro)
Researched, designed or built green structures/technologies professionally.
started energy saving habits.
Participated in nature conservation (planting trees, trash cleanup, etc.)
Recycling, reducing waste, reuse, etc.
Changing shopping habits to support green businesses
Used alternate transportation methods

6. What is your opinion of green building in general?
I think it is a waste of time and effort.
It doesn’t bother me
I think it’s OK for others to do it.
I think it’s a good thing
I am a passionate advocate

7. What are you prepared to do in your personal lifestyle in regards to green building and
sustainability?
Buy more green building products
127

Recycling
Energy and/or water efficient appliances
Alternative energy use (solar, wind, hydro, clean energy)
Political actions (Advocate, campaign, vote, or protest)
Nature conservation/volunteering (Clean Parks/Rivers, Avoid littering, plant trees)

Part B: Teamwork Learning
For each item, please indicate your response by circling the appropriate number for each item in
the scale below.
Strongly

Neither

Strongly

Disagree

Agree

Agree

or
Disagree
1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

1. Teamwork skills deserve more

2

3

4

5

attention in the workplace
2. Teams make better decisions than
individuals
3. Given a choice, I would rather work
alone than do a job where I have to
work in a team
4. It is impossible to function in
today’s society without being a good
team player
5. I prefer to participate in teamoriented activities.
6. Teams always outperform
individuals.
7. Everyone should be taught to be a
good team player
8. I prefer to work on teams where
team members perform their own
tasks independently rather than
128

working together.
1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

12. I prefer to be rewarded for my
team’s performance rather than my
individual performance
13. People with strong teamwork skills
will always be successful.
14. Teams plan better than individuals.

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

15. I prefer working as part of a team

1

2

3

4

5

9. I find that working as a member of
a team increases my ability to
perform effectively.
10. I find working in a team to be very
satisfying
11. Teamwork is one of the most
important skills in life

to working alone

129

Appendix E: Survey #3
-

Part A - Team Dynamics -

Team dynamics are the unseen forces that operate in a team between different people. Team
dynamics can strongly influence how a team reacts, behaves or performs, and the effects of team
dynamics are often very complex.
This research identifies the team dynamics for your team through observations and surveys. The
questions below will help further identify team dynamics; in particular reliance, trust, and
shared values.
Please note that these questions are strictly for individual responses; please don’t discuss it
with your team members.
A distinction between Reliance and Trust: If you rely on somebody to get their part of the
work done and if they don’t deliver then you will feel bad about it. On the other hand, if you
trust somebody and they don’t deliver then you will be emotionally hurt. So trust has an
emotional aspect to it.
6. Your name here______________________________________
7. Using the table below, can you please rate the amount of reliance you have on your
team members (individually) to complete their tasks so that you can
perform/complete yours?
Please write the name of your team members below and circle the appropriate Likert
scale value to represent your reliance for each (On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 represents low
reliance and 5 represents high reliance).
Team Member Name

Likert Scale Value
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
1, 2, 3, 4, 5

8. How much do you trust your team members (individually) to take actions that are
mutually beneficial to both of you?
Please write the name of your team members in the table below and circle the
appropriate Likert scale value (On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 represents low trust and 5
represents high trust).
Team Member Name

Likert Scale Value
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
130

9. Please circle the values given below that best describe you (You can circle more than
one).
Also write the name of team members from your team only if you believe that they
share similar values as you.
You can add any more values you think are related to you. Some of the values are
defined below for easier interpretation.
Openness: willingness or readiness to receive (especially impressions or ideas)
Integrity: firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values
Respect: esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal
quality or ability
Flexibility: willing or disposed to yield; pliable
Teamwork: acting together for the interests of a common cause.
Honesty: truthfulness, sincerity, or frankness.
Timeliness: the quality or habit of arriving or being ready on time
Values
Team member name that shares this value
Openness
Integrity
Respect
Flexibility
Teamwork
Responsibility
Honesty
Timeliness
Others….

131

-

Part B - Team Mechanics –

1. Please list below, approximately how many times did you meet with your team
members after the first stage presentation till date, outside the class, to work on
your project?
__________________
2. Please list the team members that were present in each meeting that happened
outside the class.
Meeting
Meeting
#1
Meeting
#2
Meeting
#3
Meeting
#4
Meeting
#5

Names of Team Members Present

3. How many times (from stage 1 presentation till date) approximately did you used
electronic communication (email, phone, Angel), to communicate with your team
members?
For example if you think that you on an average emailed 2 times per week, then
for the seven weeks (from the stage 1 presentation till date), you may write 14
next to email column, similarly for others.
Emails
Phone
Angel
Google
Group

132

4. Please list all persons other than your team members, with whom you have
communicated till now, regarding this project and in order to seek any
additional information and approximately how many times till now (from the
first stage presentation till date).
Name and position of person

# of times you
have
communicated

133

Appendix F: Project Assignment Description
LEED PROJECT
How Green can a Building Project be?
Objectives:
This assignment is designed to help students to achieve the following objectives of the course:


Be prepared to become productive contributors to environmentally sustainable building
project teams through knowledge of the sustainable building process and
multidisciplinary collaboration skills (Objective # 2);



Obtain the required skills to continue learning about sustainable buildings as the field
evolves (Objective # 3);



Gain a working familiarity with the 6 primary strategies for environmentally sustainable
buildings: sustainable site development, water conservation, energy and atmosphere,
materials and resources, and indoor environmental quality, and innovation and design
process (Objective # 5).

Description:
This project assignment will be prepared in teams and includes the development of written
reports and presentations.
The students will be divided into two teams and are expected to analyze the
construction documents of the Life Science Building-Addition project at Michigan State
University. The construction of the project started in May 2011 and is planned to be
completed in December 2012. The assignment constitutes of two important stages:
1. Stage 1: The students are expected to critically analyze the construction
documents (provided on ANGEL under the Assignments folder) using the LEED
score card and the LEED-New Construction reference guide; determine which
LEED points the project can go after, and developing arguments on why those
LEED - NC credits can be pursued. A mid-semester report and a closed-doors
presentation by both teams will be the deliverables of Stage 1 are due on
10/26/11.
2. Stage 2: The teams will further investigate what opportunities / problems exist in the
project to achieve more points across all LEED sections; come up with innovative ideas
to address those with convincing arguments and report on how these opportunities relate
to planning, design, and construction practices. Within the context of stage 2 of this
assignment, the students are expected to:
a. Deliver a report and a presentation where they:
134

o Critically analyze the project in terms of point synergies;
o Provide creative ideas on how points can be achieved under innovation in
design section;
o Discuss how the suggested points relate to sustainable planning, design, and
construction practices; and
o Reflect on team members responsibilities over the course of the project, how
team mechanics and dynamics changed over time, and how the teamwork
contributed to the outcome.
The deliverables of stage 2 (due on 12/15):
 Final project report
 Final project presentation
 Individual report on teamwork
b. Submit an individual report on teamwork. Each student will be asked to personally
submit feedback on his/her team members’ work for the assignment on ANGEL.
Suggested criteria for this evaluation is as follows: creative thinking, timing of input,
contribution to the overall assignment.
Important Note:
Teams will be provided in-class time for the project meetings. For their e-mails/electronic
communications teams should strictly use ANGEL discussion board created for them, on the
course website under Projects / LEED Project folder.
Format and Submission Guidelines:
There is no limit on the length of the reports; however, written reports should be single
spaced, using Times New Roman, size 12 font. Presentations may be delivered using
powerpoints and any additional materials teams see fit.
Submission, Deadlines, and Presentation Dates:
The reports and presentations should be submitted by uploading the document on ANGEL
course website before the class on: 10/26 for Stage 1; 12/15 for Stage 2. If your presentation file
is too big to upload on ANGEL, please plan on bringing it on a USB disk to the class. Instructor
will not be responsible for the “not working power point presentations”; therefore, the students
should take precautions beforehand if needed (e.g. checking the ppt ahead of time on the
instructor’s laptop, bringing their own laptop). A submission folder on ANGEL under Projects
folder will be created for the students to upload their documents. Students should name the
assignment documents after their team’s name (e.g. Team # 1_Stage 1.doc).
Evaluation Criteria:
The grade for this project will be a combination of the written report and the presentation for
both the stages. This assignment will make up for the 30% of your course grade, 20% of that will
be for Stage 1 and 10% for stage 2. While the reports and the presentations will be team
products, the grades will be specific to individuals due to use of team work and presentation
criteria. The weight will be distributed as follows among various criteria:
135

Grading Criteria:
Criteria
Content

Organization

Language and
Style
Relevance

Description

Assessment

The quality and depth of the presented material.
Creative solutions provided which are cost effective and
technically feasible

50

Flow of ideas, text connections, and strength of supporting
evidences and conclusions in the reports and team
coherence during presentations.
Clarity, professionalism, punctuation, grammar, spelling,
style, and usage.

20

Understanding the intent & requirements of credits
Correctness of conclusion regarding a particular credit

5

Teamwork

20

5

Extra points (10 points): Providing cost information for each point will not be necessary for
this assignment; however, teams that choose to provide cost-benefit ratios and actual $
information for the required improvements in the building for LEED certification will be given
extra points. The instructor reserves the right to give extra points to teams that provide costbenefit ratios and actual $ information for the required improvements in the building for LEED
certification.

136

Appendix G: Team Feedback Presentation #1 (partially adapted from (Nonlinear Controls and
Robotics, University of Florida), #2, and #3

Figure 17: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #1
137

Figure 18: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #2
138

Figure 19: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #3

139

Figure 20: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #4

140

Figure 21: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #5

141

Figure 22: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #6

142

Figure 23: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #7

143

Figure 24: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #8
144

Figure 25: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #9

145

Figure 26: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #10

146

Figure 27: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #11

147

What should
I do?

Figure 28: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #12

148

Figure 29: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #13

149

Figure 30: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #14

150

Figure 31: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #15

151

Figure 32: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #16

152

Figure 33: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #17

153

Sustainable built environment projects
need situational leadership as well, most
importantly collaboration through the
projects due to high interdependency
needed for optimized solutions.

Figure 34: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #18

154

Figure 35: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #19

155

Figure 36: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #20

156

Figure 37: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #21

157

Figure 38: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #22

158

Figure 39: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #23

159

Forming – Storming – Norming - Performing

Figure 40: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #24

160

Figure 41: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #25

161

Figure 42: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #26

162

-DBB method for green projects have
resulted in not getting the desired
performance from the team, as there is less
coordination involved.
-There can always be an extraordinary
individual that can pull the project across the
targeted green line in time and on budget
even in DBB projects but most of the real life
scenarios that experienced this had an
informally on board contractor earlier in the
process and was really committed. It is
unlikely for this to happen in every single
case due to the lack of collaboration.

Figure 43: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #27

163

Team 1

Team 2

Team 3

Figure 44: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #28

164

Figure 45: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #29
165

Figure 46: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #30
166

Figure 47: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #31
167

Figure 48: Team feedback session presentation #1 image #32
168

Figure 49: Team feedback session presentation #2 image #1
169

Figure 50: Team feedback session presentation #2 image #2
170

Figure 51: Team feedback session presentation #2 image #3
171

Figure 52: Team feedback session presentation #2 image #4
172

Figure 53: Team feedback session presentation #2 image #5
173

Figure 54: Team feedback session presentation #2 image #6
174

Figure 55: Team feedback session presentation #2 image #7
175

Figure 56: Team feedback session presentation #2 image #8

176

Figure 57: Team feedback session presentation #2 image #9
177

Figure 58: Team feedback session presentation #2 image #10
178

Figure 59: Team feedback session presentation #3 image #1
179

Figure 60: Team feedback session presentation #3 image #2
180

Figure 61: Team feedback session presentation #3 image #3
181

Figure 62: Team feedback session presentation #3 image #4

182

Figure 63: Team feedback session presentation #3 image #5

183

Figure 64: Team feedback session presentation #3 image #6

184

Figure 65: Team feedback session presentation #3 image #7

185

Figure 66: Team feedback session presentation #3 image #8

186

Appendix H: Field Notes Template

Table 15: Field Notes Sample Template with Team Members Names Coded

187

Appendix I: Data Reduction from Field Notes

Leadership

Collaboration and
Participation

Leadership

Figure 67: Sample field notes showing data reduction (Scanned document, shows the procedure followed in taking field notes;
handwritten text represents what was noted down during in-class team observations and the lines represent the chain of
communication)
188

Appendix J: Student Evaluation Form
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
PDC 901
Fall 2011
“Coming together is a beginning…Keeping together is progress…Working together is success”
Henry Ford
A team is only as good as its individual members. Therefore companies routinely evaluate the
performance of individual members to properly assess salary increases and promotion decisions.
In many cases, the entire evaluation is based on performance on team projects. You will be
frequently asked to “weigh-in” on the performance of a co-worker or a subordinate. It’s an
enormous responsibility that requires honesty and objectivity since it directly impacts how
people “butter their bread”.
Keep this in mind while you evaluate the contributions of your team members on the PDC 901
LEED project. Using the following form (developed by Professor Paul Streng ), give each
member a percentage contribution in each of the four categories shown and then total
contribution. This will be uses to calculate the final project scores.

189

Table 16: Student Self and Team Evaluation Table

Made scheduled
Materials
Team
meetings and
prepared were
Members
was prepared
complete and
Names
with materials
represented
PLEASE
they were
through research
PRINT
assigned to
and a complete
LEGIBLY
produce.
work product
which met their
(Evaluate
assigned task.
yourself and (maximum 25%)
(maximum 25%)
others

Team member
Team member
shared the
played an active
Total
load equally
role in preparing contribu
with other
for each task that
tion
team
was submitted and
(max
members and
in the preparation
100%)
contributed to for the final project
the overall
presentation.
process by
(maximum 25%)
their
membership
in the team.
(maximum
25%)

Complete the evaluation without identifying yourself

190

Appendix K: Calculations related to proposition 1

Solving equation 1 for project specific communication frequency for control team:
x = 686; y =554
ΔM = ((686 + 554) / 6) – (686/3)
ΔM Control = 207 – 229 = -22

Now solving equation 1 for project specific communication frequency for experiment team:
x = 448; y = 686
ΔM = ((448+686) / 6) – (448/3)
ΔM Experiment = 189 – 150 = 39

191

Appendix L: Modified Team Mechanics Survey

1. Please list below, approximately how many times did you meet with your team members,
to work on your project between the two stages of the project?__________________

2. Please list the team members that were present in each meeting that happened (all
meetings including in class, out of class)
Meeting
Meeting
#1
Meeting
#2
Meeting
#3
Meeting
#4
Meeting
#5

Names of Team Members Present

3. Rate how many times approximately did you communicate with your team members in
face to face meetings on a Likert scale of 1 to 10? Please circle the appropriate number, 1
is no communication, while 10 is very high, constant communication.
Team Member Name

Likert Scale Value
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5
5

6
6
6
6
6

7
7
7
7
7

8
8
8
8
8

9
9
9
9
9

10
10
10
10
10

4. Rate how many times approximately did you communicate with your team members
using electronic communication on a Likert scale of 1 to 10? Please circle the appropriate
number, 1 is no communication, while 10 is very high, constant communication.

192

Team Member Name

Likert Scale Value
1
1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5
5

6
6
6
6
6

7
7
7
7
7

8
8
8
8
8

9
9
9
9
9

10
10
10
10
10

5. How many times approximately did you communicate with your team members using
electronic communication on a Likert scale of 1 to 10? Please circle the appropriate
number, 1 is no communication, while 10 is very high, constant communication.
Team Member
Name

Variables

Likert Scale Value

Leadership
Project and Assignment
Managment
Collaboration and
Participation
Team Identity
Engagement of core
competencies
Shared Vision
Issue Negotiation and
Resolution

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6. Using the table below, can you please rate the amount of reliance you have on your team
members (individually) to complete their tasks so that you can perform/complete yours?
If you rely on someone to get something done and if that person does not get that
done, you feel bad about it. Please write the name of your team members below
and circle the appropriate Likert scale value to represent your reliance for each
(On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 represents low reliance and 5 represents high reliance).
Please also write a short reason for your choice of particular Likert scale value.
Team Member Name

Likert Scale Value Reason for the choice
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
193

7. How much do you trust your team members (individually) to take actions that are
mutually beneficial to both of you?
If you trust someone to get something done and if that person does not get that done, you
feel emotionally hurt. Please write the name of your team members in the table below and
circle the appropriate Likert scale value (On a scale of 1 to 5, 1 represents low trust and
5 represents high trust).
Please also write a short reason for your choice of particular Likert scale value.

Team Member Name

Likert
Scale Reason for choice
Value
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
1, 2, 3, 4, 5

194

BIBLIOGRAPHY

195

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(n.d.). Retrieved September 5, 2011, from Nonlinear Controls and Robotics, University of
Florida: http://ncr.mae.ufl.edu/funstuff/Teamwork.ppt
7 Group; Reed, B. (2009). The Integrative Design Guide to Green Building: Redefining the
Practice of Sustainability. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
AIA. (2007). Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide. AIA.
Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., Sarshar, M., & Newton, R. (2002). Quantitative and Qualitative
Research in the Built Environment: Application of Mixed Research Approach. Work Study, Vol
51 (1) .
ASCE. (2007). Civil engineering body of knowledge for the 21st century: Preparing the civil
engineer for the future. Body of Knowledge Committee of the Committee on Academic
Prerequisites for Professional Practice, ASCE.
Ashley, D., & Jaselskis, E. (1991). Optimal allocation of project management resources for
achieving success. J. Water Resource Planning Management, 117(2) .
Baiden, B., & Price, A. (2011). The effect of integration on project delivery team effectiveness.
International Journal of Project Management, 29(2) , 129-136.
Bales, R. (1950). Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups.
Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
BHKR (Burt Hill Kosar Rittelmann Associates). (2003). Achieving Architectural and
Engineering Collaboration in Building Design. Butler, PA: White Paper.
Borgatti, S., Everett, M., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social
Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
Chinowsky, P., Diekmann, J., & Galotti, V. (2008). Social network model of construction.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 134, No. 10.
Chinowsky, P., Diekmann, J., & O`Brien, J. (2010). Project Organizations as Social Networks.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management .
Chinowsky, P., Taylor, J. E., & Di Marco, M. (2010). Project Network Interdependency
Alignment: A New Approach to Assessing Project Effectiveness. Journal of Management in
Engineering .

196

Condit, C. W. (1982). American building: Materials and techniques from the first colonial
settlements to the present. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Cross, R., Parker, A., & Borgatti, S. (2002). Making Invisible Work Visible: Using Social
Network Analysis to Support Strategic Collaboration. California Management Review, 44(2) ,
25-46.
Di Marco, M., Taylor, J., & Pauli, A. (2010). Emergence and Role of Cultural Boundary
Spanners in Global Engineering Project Networks. Journal of Management in Engineering.
Eclipse Research Consultants, Cambridge. (2004, March). Constructing Excellence. Retrieved
November 20, 2011, from
http://www.constructingexcellence.org.uk/pdf/document/Teamwork_Guide.pdf
Enache-Pommer, E., & Horman, M. (2009). Key Processes in the Building Delivery of Green
Hospitals. Building a Sustainable Future , 636–645.
Forbes, L., & Ahmed, S. (2010). Modern Construction: Lean Project Delivery and Integrated
Practices. CRC Press.
Fortune, J., & White, D. (2006). Framing of Project Critical Success Factors by a Systems
Model. International Journal of Project Management Volume 24, Issue 1 , 53-65.
Frechtling, J., & Sharp, L. (1997). User-friendly handbook for mixed method evaluations.
Directorate for Education and Human Resources, Division of Research, Evaluation and
Communication, NSF.
Hanneman, R. A., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside,
Calif.: University of California, Riverside.
Haring, T., & Breen, C. (1992). A Peer Mediated Social Network Intervention to Enhance the
Social Integration of Persons with Moderate and Severe Diabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 25 , 319-333.
Hollingshead, A. (1998). Retrieval Processes in Transactive Memory Systems. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 74(3) , 659-671.
Hutchins, E. (1991). Organizing Work by Adaptation. Organization Science, 2(1) , 14-29.
Ibrahim, C., Costello, S., & Wilkinson, S. (2011). Key Practice Indicators of Team Integration in
Construction Projects: A Review. 2nd International Conference on Construction and Project
Management (pp. 230-235). Singapore: IACSIT Press.
Ibrahim, R., Fruchter, R., & Sharif, R. (2007). Framework for a cross-border transdisciplinary
design studio education. International Journal of Architectural Research, Vol. 1 (3) .
197

Javernick-Will, A., & Levitt, R. E. (2010). Mobilizing Institutional Knowledge for International
Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management , 430-441.
Kashyap, M., Khalfan, M., & Zianul-Abidin, N. (2003). A proposal for achieving sustainability
in construction projects through concurrent engineering. Proceedings of the RICS Foundation
Construction and Building Research Conference, School of Engineering and the Built
Environment, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton (pp. 127–138). London: The RICS
Foundation in association with the University of Wolverhampton Press.
Katzenbach, J., & Smith, D. K. (2003). The Wisdom of Teams. New York: Harper Collins .
Kelly, W. E. (2008). General Education for Civil Engineers: Sustainable Development. Journal
of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice , 75-83.
Konchar, M., & Sanvido, V. (1998). Comparison of U.S. project delivery systems. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 124 (6) , 435–444.
Korkmaz, S., Messner, J. I., Riley, D. R., & Magent, C. (2010). High Performance Green
Building Design Process Modeling and Integrated Use of Visulaization Tools. Journal of
Architectural Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 1 .
Korkmaz, S., Riley, D., & Horman, M. (2010). Piloting Evaluation Metrics for Sustainable HighPerformance Building Project Delivery. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
Vol.136, No. 8.
Laat, M. D., Lally, V., Lipponen, L., & Simons, R.-J. (2007, March 8). Investigating patterns of
interaction in networked learning and computer-supported collaborative learning: A role for
Social Network Analysis. International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science
+ Business Media, LLC .
Lapinski, A., Horman, M., & Riley, D. (2006). Lean Processes for Sustainable Project Delivery.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol.132, No.10 .
Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2008). Innovating or doing as told? Status Differences and overlapping
boundaries in offshore collaboration. MIS Q, 32(2) , 307–332.
Lewis, M. (2004). Integrated design for sustainable buildings. ASHRAE Journal, 46(9) , S22–
S29.
Losada, M. (1999). The complex dynamics of high performance teams. Math. Comput. Modell. ,
179–192.
Lucio, S., O’Brien, W., & Elvin, G. (2003). Encouraging concurrent collaboration in
multidisciplinary design projects: a classroom based study. 3rd International Conference on
Concurrent Engineering in Construction. Berkeley: University of California.
198

Magent, C. S., Korkmaz, S., Klotz, L. E., & Riley, D. R. (2009). A Design Process Evaluation
Method for Sustainable Buildings. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 5 , 6274.
Manoliadis, O. (2009). Education for Sustainability: Experiences from Greece. Journal of
Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice , 70-74.
Martinez, A., Dimitriadis, Y., Rubia, B., Gomez, E., & Fuente, P. (2003). Combining qualitative
evaluation and social network analysis for the study of classroom social interactions. Computers
& Education, 41 , 353–368.
Mattews, O., & Howell, G. A. (2005). Integrated Project Delivery An Example of Relational
Contracting. Lean Construction Journal , 46-61.
Molenaar, K., Sobin, N., Gransberg, D., McCuen, T., Korkmaz, S., & Horman, M. (2009,
September 1). Sustainable, High Performance Projects and Project Delivery Methods: A State of
Practice Report. Retrieved November 1, 2011, from The Charles Pankow Foundation and The
Design-Build Institute of America: http://www.dbia.org/NR/rdonlyres/AA033026-60BF-495B9C9C-51353F744C71/0/Sep2009ReportPankowDBIA.pdf
Moreland, R., Argote, L., & Krishnan, R. (1996). What’s Social About Social Cognition: Socially
Shared Cognition at Work: Transactive Memory and Group Performance. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Park, H., Han, S. H., Rojas, E. M., Son, J., & Jung, W. (2011). Social Network Analysis of
Collaborative Ventures for Overseas Construction Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management , 344-355.
Perkins and Stantec Consulting. (2007). Roadmap for the Integrated Design Process Part One:
Summary Guide. BC Green Building Roundtable.
Pocock, J. B., Hyun, C. T., Liu, L. Y., & Kim, M. K. (1996). Relationship between project
interaction and performance indicators. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
122 (2) , 165–176.
Ramalingam, S., & Mahalingam, A. (2010). Enabling Conditions for the Emergence and
Effective Performance of Technical and Cultural Boundary Spanners in Global Virtual Teams.
Engineering Project Organizations Conference.
Reed, W. G., & Gordon, E. B. (2000). Integrated Design and Building Process: What Research
and Methodologies are Needed? Building Research and Information 28(5/6) , 325-337.
Reffay, C., & Chanier, T. (2002). Social Network Analysis Used for Modelling Collaboration in
Distance Learning Groups. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg .
199

Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. (1993). Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. CRC /
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Singh, A., & Korkmaz, S. (2011). Assessing Integration and Project Performance in Student
Teams in Teaching Sustainable Built Environment. International Conference on Sustainable
Design and Construction. Kansas City.
Singleton, R. A., & Straits, B. C. (2005). Approaches to Social Research. Oxford University
Press.
Sive, T. (2009). Integrated Project Delivery: Reality and Promise - A Strategist guide to
Understanding and Marketing IPD. SMPS Foundation.
Steinemann, A. (2003). Implementing sustainable Development through Problem-Based
Learning: Pedagogy and Practice. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and
Practice , 216.
Swarup, L., Korkmaz, S., & Riley, D. (2011). Project Delivery Metrics for Sustainable High
Performance Buildings. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management .
Taylor, J. E., Levitt, R., & Villarroel, J. A. (2009). Simulating Learning Dynamics in Project
Networks. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management , 1009-1015.
The Talloires Declaration. (1990). Proc., Rep. and Declaration of the Presidents Conference.
Tufts European Center. Talloires, France.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: methods and applications.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weick, K., & Roberts, K. (1993). Collective Mind in Organizations: Heedful Interrelating on
Flight Decks. Administrative Science Quarterly , 357-381.
Wolcott, M., Brown, S., King, M., Ascher-Barnstone, D., Beyreuther, T., & and Olsen, K.
(2010). A Model for Faculty, Student, and Practitioner Development in Sustainability
Engineering through an Integrated Design Experience. Journal of Professional Issues in
Engineering Education and Practice .
Woodruff, E. (1999). Concerning the Cohesive Nature of CSCL Communities. Proceedings of
CSCL' 1999 Conference (pp. 677-680). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.
Yates, J. K., & Battersby, L. C. (2003). Master Builder Project Delivery System and Designer
Construction Knowledge. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management .

200

Yates, J. K., & Epstein, A. (2006). Avoiding and Minimizing Construction Delay Claim Disputes
in Relational Contracting. ASCE Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and
Practice .

201