The role of trust in distributed design

Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing: AIEDAM

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 199-209

  Wijngaards, Niek J E ^a   Boonstra, Hidde M ^a   Brazier, Frances M T ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Agents; Distributed Design; Knowledge Level; Trust Model

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; COMPUTER SIMULATION; INTELLIGENT AGENTS; OPEN SYSTEMS; PROJECT MANAGEMENT; WEBSITES;

DESIGN PROBLEMS; DISTRIBUTED DESIGN; KNOWLEDGE LEVELS; TRUST MODELS;

SOFTWARE AGENTS;

EID: 17444407346     PISSN: 08900604     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0890060404040132     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (70)

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