A leadership-as-practice perspective on design in architecture, engineering and construction projects: interaction analysis of a collaborative workshop

Figures & data

Table 1 Coding scheme implemented for the workshop participants

Position	Level of seniority/expertise	Code
University facilities unit
Project manager	High	PM
Regional hospital group
Nuclear medicine physician	High	H1
Information analyst	Medium	H2
CT clinician	Medium	H3
Echo specialist	Medium	H4
Stochastic operations research group
Experienced researcher healthcare logistics	High	L1
Experienced researcher healthcare logistics	Medium	L3
Researcher healthcare logistics	Low	L2

Figure 1 Dynamics of dominance in workshop interactions

Table 2 Analysis of the overall annotation scheme

Participant	Interactions coded (N)	Total duration of turn (s)	Average duration of turn (s)	Self-reference ratio (%)
PM	76	771.86	10.15
Medical practitioner group				33
H1	82	542.82	6.61
H2	34	342.50	10.07
H3	36	176.82	4.91
H4	13	48.07	3.69
Logistics experts group				27
L1	118	701.70	5.94
L3	34	190.29	5.59
L2	12	97.25	8.10

Table 3 Transition matrix highlighting high-frequency dyads and high-response actors

Follows/followed by	H1	H2	H3	H4	L1	L2	L3	PM
L1	31	13	10	6	11	5	10	31
H1	6	3	8	2	44	0	4	15
L3	7	4	3	0	6	3	1	10
H2	7	2	3	0	10	1	3	8
PM	20	4	9	1	28	1	7	6
H3	10	5	0	2	9	1	5	4
L2	1	1	0	0	4	1	4	1
H4	0	1	3	2	6	0	0	1
Total responsiveness	82	33	36	13	118	12	34	76

Note: Bold value indicates high frequency dyads (L1-H1 and PM-L1) as well as high response actors (last row of the table).

Figure 2 Transition analysis at the level of disciplinary groups

Table 4 Knowledge-brokering interactions

Knowledge-brokering mode	H1	H2	H3	H4	L1	L2	L3	PM
Domain self-referential (N)	23	11	14	6	21	9	15	23
Cross-disciplinary (N)	59	22	22	7	97	3	19	70
Domain self-referential (%)	28	33	39	46	18	75	44	8
Cross-disciplinary (%)	72	67	61	54	82	25	56	92

Note: Bold values indicate high activity actors.