Organizational design based on simulation modeling

  • Stanojevic Petar
  • Mirjana MisitaEmail author
  • Jeftic Zoran
  • Milosevic Mladen
  • Miskovic Vasilije
  • Bukvic Vladimir


This paper deals with an organizational design based on simulation modeling. The purpose the specific methodology is created is based on the following main ideas:
  1. 1.

    Usage of advanced simulation technology—object-oriented and agent-based (OAA) approach for modeling of organizational structure and its functioning;

  2. 2.

    Usage of modified organizational matrixes (tables) and usable “message objects” to overcome communication system modeling complexity;

  3. 3.

    Usage of simulation for obtaining quantitative values of the system performance.


The use of the methodology creates possibilities to examine and evaluate organizational changes and opportunities.

Results of the investigation based on the methodology in the real system are presented in a case study.


Organization Structure Design Modeling Object-oriented Simulation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Champy J, Hammer M (2001) Reengineering the corporation: a manifesto for business revolution. Nicholas Brealey Publishing, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mumford E, Hendricks R (1997) Re-engineering rhetoric and reality: the rise and fall of a management fashion, ESRC Business Process Resource Center. URL:
  3. 3.
    Sterman JD, Repening NP, Kofman F (1997) Unanticipated side effects of successful quality programs: exploring a paradox of organizational improvement. Manag Sci 43(4):503–521. CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Evans GN, Towill DR, Naim MM (1995) Business process re-engineering the supply chain. Production planning & control 6(3):227–237. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Harringhton HJ (1991) Business process improvement, the breakthrough strategy for total quality, productivity, and competitiveness. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Park RJ (1998) Value engineering: a plan for invention. St. Lucie Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Browning TR (2003) On customer value and improvement in product development processes. Syst Eng 6(1):49–61. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Womack JP, Jones DT (1996) Lean thinking: banish waste and create wealth in your corporation. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Smith KB (1989) Combat information flow. Mil Rev:41–54Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Killbrew R (1998) Learning from war games: a status report, parameters. US Army War College Quarterly:122–135Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sterman, J (1998) Introduction to system dynamics: modelling for organizational learning. MIT Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vukicevic S (1995) Warehouses. Preving, Belgrade (in Serbian) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Naim MM, Towill DR (1994) Establishing a framework for effective materials logistics management. The International Journal of Logistics Management 5(1):81–88. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pitcher P (1993) Balancing personality types at the top. Business Quarterly, Western Business School, London, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Venter C (1998) Planning for transformation: continuity in change, the SA Army in transition, monograph no. 26, edited by Jakkier ClilliersGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lammers LL (2003) Plan of the day (POD)—a process to manage daily activities, CSI Services, Inc., an Emerson Process Management Company,
  17. 17.
    Adizes I (1990) Organizational life cycle. Politika 1990 (in Serbian) Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Naim MM, Lewis JC (2007) Benchmarking of aftermarket supply chains. Production Planning & Control 6(3):258–269Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Svee H, Saebo JH, Vatn J (1998) Estimating the potential benefit of introducing RCM on railway infrastructure. Safety and Reliability, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Repenning PN, Sterman JD (1997) Getting quality, the old-fashioned way: self-confirming attributions in the dynamic of process improvement, paper prepared for National Research CouncilGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kreutzer DP, Wiley V (1997) Making it happen: the implementation challenge, MITGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Forester JW (1961) Industrial dynamics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York-LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zeigler BP (1976) Theory of modeling and simulation. J. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Larman C (1998) Applying UML and patterns. PTR, Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Malone TW, Crowston K (1994) The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Comput Surv 26(1):87–119. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fanti MP, Iacobellis G, Gikovich W, Boschian V, Georgoulas G, Stylios C (2015) A simulation-based decision support system for logistics management. Journal of Computational Science 10:86–96. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Prenkert F, Folgesvold F (2014) Relationship strength and network form: an agent-based simulation of interaction business network. Australian Marketing Journal 22(1):15–27. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Whitfield RI, Duffy AHB, Boyle I, Liu S, McKeena I (2011) An integrated environment for organizational decision support. Comput Ind 62(8-9):842–853. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chae SW, Seo YW, Lee KC (2015) Task difficulty and team diversity on team creativity: multi-agent simulation approach. Comput Hum Behav 42:83–92. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    IDEF1, IDEF2, IDEF3 - manualGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    WITNESS- manualGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stanojevic P, Miskovic V, Bukvic V et al. (2000) Yugoslav military forces logistics organization, Project reportGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Naylor TH, Finger JM (1967) Verification of computer simulation models. Manag Sci 2:B92–B101CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stanojevic Petar
    • 1
  • Mirjana Misita
    • 2
    Email author
  • Jeftic Zoran
    • 1
  • Milosevic Mladen
    • 1
  • Miskovic Vasilije
    • 3
  • Bukvic Vladimir
    • 4
  1. 1.Faculty of Security StudiesUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  2. 2.Faculty of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of BelgradeBelgradeSerbia
  3. 3.Military AcademyBelgradeSerbia
  4. 4.Ministry of DefenseBelgradeSerbia

Personalised recommendations