to have it in terms of the effects (RWEs) of behavior rather than (or in addition to?) behavior itself?
is essentially one entity’s belief that the effects of another entity's behavior (actions?) will be those that are expected, even if not those that are desired
During our discussion today I would have connected this with effects needed to realize the trusting entity's goal(s), but I can trust in actions leading to effects that have nothing to do with realizing specific goals but might prompt action on my part to, say, mitigate risk to my goals.
Make sense?
Ken
On Feb 18, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Estefan, Jeff A wrote:
Colleagues,
Lots of discussion today yet again around the concept of trust. I just want to make sure we don’t lose sight of the relationship between trust and confidence. We cover this in more detail in Sect 2, but there should be some capture of this relationship in our Trust Model in Sect 3. Also would prefer we keep the concepts simple yet general enough for adaptability. One of the simplest definitions that I’ve seen that pretty well sums up the notion of trust in a general sense is essentially one entity’s believe that another entity will behave a certain way. In this way, trust is indeed perception not fact. For example, the other entity could behave unexpectedly even if there was a high degree of trust prior to any collaboration between entities. And while such a succinct definition might make sense for human entities, the concept needs to be expanded to non-human entities, including machines (e.g., software and hardware entities/agents/components or whatever we like to call these beasts).
Cheers…
- J