Communication networks of an integrated project delivery team for construction: relationships between formal and informal communication networks

Lee, Sun Kyong; Ghosh, Somik

Communication networks of an integrated project delivery team for construction: relationships between formal and informal communication networks

Connections

Volume 40 (2020): Issue 1 (January 2020)

By: Sun Kyong Lee and Somik Ghosh

Open Access

|Dec 2020

Figures & Tables

The formal communication networks by gender, organizational affiliation, and outdegree centrality. Node size represents outdegree centrality with larger nodes having higher outdegree and node color gender [red = female, light blue = male]. Node shapes represent organizational affiliation [square = owner, circle = architect/engineer, triangle = general- or sub-contractor]. Edge thickness represents communication frequency. Layout algorithm is Kamada-Kawai.

The informal communication networks by gender, organizational affiliation, and outdegree centrality. Node size represents outdegree centrality with larger nodes having higher outdegree and node color represents actors’ gender [red = female, light blue = male]. Node shapes represent organizational affiliation [square = owner, circle = architect/engineer, triangle = general or sub-contractor]. Edge thickness represents communication frequency. Layout algorithm is Kamada-Kawai.

Valued ERGM predicting informal communication tie strength_

Parameter	Dimension	MLE (SE)
Sum	Tie-dependencies	13.01 (3.29)***
Transitivity		0.67 (0.13)***
Degree centralization		−1.64 (0.02)***
Formal communication ties	Multiplexity	1.56 (0.17)***
Same ethnicity	Homophily by ethnicity	−0.38 (0.67)
Hispanic/Latin indegree	Attribute popularity by ethnicity	0.12 (0.71)
Hispanic/Latin outdegree	Attribute activity by ethnicity	5.71 (1.39)***
Female indegree	Attribute popularity by gender (base = male)	−1.81 (0.34)***
Female outdegree	Attribute activity by gender	−16.36 (2.04)***
Some college indegree	Attribute popularity by education (base = high school graduate or less)	−2.10 (0.58)***
College degree indegree		−0.12 (0.37)
Graduate degree indegree		0.73 (0.33)*
Some college outdegree	Attribute activity by education	−32.79 (4.40)***
College degree outdegree		−4.39 (1.29)***
Graduate degree outdegree		5.06 (1.02)***
Age group indegree	Attribute popularity by age groups	0.34 (0.08)***
Age group outdegree	Attribute activity by age groups	4.27 (0.52)***
Architect/Engineer indegree	Attribute popularity by organizational affiliation (base = owner)	−1.12 (0.38)**
GC/SC indegree		−0.76 (0.33)*
Architect/Engineer outdegree	Attribute activity by organizational affiliation	−8.11 (1.18)***
GC/SC outdegree		−5.09 (0.88)***
Introvert indegree	Popularity by extrovert vs. introvert	−0.68 (0.20)***
Introvert outdegree	Activity by extrovert vs. introvert	−5.43 (0.77)***
Observant indegree	Popularity by intuitive vs. observant	−0.54 (0.15)***
Observant outdegree	Activity by intuitive vs. observant	−2.37 (0.80)**
Feeling indegree	Popularity by thinking vs. feeling	0.70 (0.21)***
Feeling outdegree	Activity by thinking vs. feeling	11.47 (1.44)***
Judging indegree	Popularity by perceptive vs. judging	0.28 (0.26)
Judging outdegree	Activity by perceptive vs. judging	0.63 (0.68)
Years in organization indegree	Continuous attribute popularity by organizational tenure	−0.80 (0.17)***
Years in organization outdegree	Continuous attribute activity by organizational tenure	−8.96 (1.34)***
Years in position indegree	Continuous attribute popularity by career experiences	0.46 (0.12)***
Years in position outdegree	Continuous attribute activity by career experiences	5.81 (0.82)***
Non-IPD indegree	Attribute popularity (base = IPD experience)	−0.05 (0.22)
Non-IPD outdegree	Attribute activity	0.03 (0.60)

Valued ERGM predicting formal communication tie strength_

Parameter	Dimension	MLE estimate (SE)
Sum	Tie-dependencies	−0.45 (0.28)
Reciprocity		0.22 (0.05)***
Transitivity		−0.01 (0.02)
Degree centralization		−2.61 (0.03)***
Informal communication network	Multiplexity	0.50 (0.04)***
Same ethnicity	Homophily	−0.79 (0.05)***
Same current positions	Homophily	−0.03(0.02)
Female indegree	Attribute popularity	0.14 (0.06)*
Female outdegree	Attribute activity	0.81 (0.07)***
Some college indegree	Attribute popularity by education	−0.71 (0.08)***
College degree indegree		0.28 (0.05)***
Graduate degree indegree		0.63 (0.06)***
Some college outdegree	Attribute activity by education	−0.88 (0.11)***
College degree outdegree		0.82 (0.07)***
Graduate degree outdegree		1.65 (0.08)***
Hispanic/Latin indegree	Attribute popularity by ethnicity	−0.97 (0.32)**
Hispanic/Latin outdegree	Attribute activity	0.47 (0.15)**
Architect/Engineer indegree	Attribute popularity by organizational affiliation (base = owner)	0.05 (0.08)
GC/SC indegree		0.30 (0.07)***
Architect/Engineer outdegree	Attribute activity by organizational affiliation	0.44 (0.08)
GC/SC outdegree		1.32 (0.08)***
Non-IPD indegree	Attribute popularity	0.09 (0.04)*
Non-IPD outdegree	Attribute activity	0.73 (0.07)***
Years in organization indegree	Continuous attribute popularity	−0.25 (0.02)***
Years in organization outdegree	Continuous attribute activity	−0.36 (0.03)***
Years in position indegree	Continuous attribute popularity	0.39 (0.08)***
Years in position outdegree	Continuous attribute activity	0.75 (0.03)***

MR-QAP predicting formal communication (FC) tie strength_

	Standardized coefficient	p value	As Large	As Small	SE
FC-Indegree preferential attachment	−0.11	0.03*	0.97	0.03	0.01
FC-Transitivity	0.64	0.00***	0.00	1.00	0.00
FC-Reciprocity	0.73	0.00***	0.00	1.00	0.05
FC-Cyclicality	−0.44	0.00***	1.00	0.00	0.00
Same Organization	−0.01	0.28	0.72	0.28	0.40
Receiver Organization	−0.05	0.03*	0.97	0.03	0.54
Sender Organization	0.12	0.01*	0.01	0.99	1.36
Same Sex	0.03	0.07	0.07	0.93	0.92
Sender Judging vs. Perceptive	0.01	0.42	0.42	0.58	2.99
Sender Feeling vs. Thinking	0.08	0.04*	0.04	0.96	3.00
Sender Observant vs. Intuitive	−0.04	0.14	0.86	0.14	2.32
Sender Introvert vs. Extrovert	0.13	0.00***	0.00	1.00	2.77
Sender previous non-IPD experience	−0.03	0.23	0.77	0.23	3.32
Sender Years in Current Position	0.03	0.26	0.26	0.74	1.16
Sender Years in Organization	−0.01	0.41	0.59	0.41	1.00
Sender Education	0.17	0.00***	0.00	1.00	1.97
Same Ethnicity	−0.06	0.02*	0.98	0.02	1.31
Sender Age	0.02	0.29	0.29	0.71	1.06
IC	0.02	0.20	0.20	0.81	0.24
IC-Indegree Preferential Attachment	0.09	0.02*	0.02	0.98	0.09
IC-Transitivity	−0.03	0.15	0.85	0.15	0.03
IC-Reciprocity	−0.05	0.03*	0.97	0.03	0.24
IC-Cyclicality	0.07	0.01*	0.01	0.99	0.02
Intercept	0.00	0.00***	0.00	0.00	0.00

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/connections-2019.016 | Journal eISSN: 2816-4245 | Journal ISSN: 0226-1766

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 103 - 122

Published on: Dec 14, 2020

Published by: International Network for Social Network Analysis (INSNA)

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

Keywords:

Communication networks,

Integrated project delivery team,

Valued exponential random graph modeling,

Multiplexity,

Cyclicality

Related subjects:

Social sciences,

Social sciences, other

© 2020 Sun Kyong Lee, Somik Ghosh, published by International Network for Social Network Analysis (INSNA)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous article Volume 40 (2020): Issue 1 (January 2020)Next article

Communication networks of an integrated project delivery team for construction: relationships between formal and informal communication networks

Figures & Tables

Figure 1:

Figure 2:

Valued ERGM predicting informal communication tie strength_

Valued ERGM predicting formal communication tie strength_

MR-QAP predicting formal communication (FC) tie strength_

Paradigm

My account