Can tools help unify organization theory? Perspectives on the state of computational modeling

Article

Abstract

Scholars engaged in the study of work group and organizational behavior are increasingly calling for the use of integrated methods in conducting research, including the wider adoption of computational models for generating and testing new theory. Our review of the state of modern computational modeling incorporating social structures reveals steady increases in the incorporation of dynamic, adaptive, and realistic behaviors of agents in network settings, yet exposes gaps that must be addressed in the next generation of organizational simulation systems. We compare 28 models according to more than two hundred evaluation criteria, ranging from simple representations of agent demographic and performance characteristics, to more richly defined instantiations of behavioral attributes, interaction with non-agent entities, model flexibility, communication channels, simulation types, knowledge, transactive memory, task complexity, and resource networks. Our survey assesses trends across the wide set of criteria, discusses practical applications, and proposes an agenda for future research and development.

Keywords

Computational organizational theory Agent-based simulation Dynamic network analysis Organizational behavior 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aldrich H (1992) Incommensurable paradigms? Vital Signs from Three Perspectives. In: Reed M, Hughes M (eds) Rethinking Organization: New Directions in Organization Theory and Analysis Sage, London, pp 17–45Google Scholar
  2. Argyris C, Schön D (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashworth M (2005) Work Team Effectiveness Field Research: progress and prospects. Paper presented at the 65th Academy of Management Conference (August 5–10, 2005), Honolulu, HIGoogle Scholar
  4. Baligh H, Burton R, Obel B (1990) Devising Expert Systems in Organization Theory: the Organizational Consultant. In: Masuch M (ed) Organization Management and Expert Systems. Walter de Gruyter & Co, Berlin pp 35–57Google Scholar
  5. Baligh H, Burton R, Obel B (1994) Validating the Organizational Consultant on the Fly. In: Carley K, Prietula M (eds) Computational Organization Theory, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 179–194Google Scholar
  6. Bloomfield L, Moulton A (1997) Managing International Conflict: from Theory to Policy. St, Martin's Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Carley K (1990a) Group stability: a Socio-Cognitive Approach. In: Lawler E, Markovsky B, Ridgeway C, Walker H (eds) Advances in Group Processes: Theory and Research, JAI Press, Greenwich, CN, vol. VII, pp 1–44Google Scholar
  8. Carley K (1990b) Trading Information Redundancy for Task Simplicity. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE Press, New York, pp 261–270Google Scholar
  9. Carley K (1991a) A Theory of Group Stability. Amer Sociol Rev 56(3):331–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carley K (1991b) Designing Organizational Structures to Cope with Communication Breakdowns: a Simulation Model. Industr Cris Quart 5:19–57Google Scholar
  11. Carley K (1992) Organizational Learning and Personnel Turnover. Organiz Sci 3(1):20–46Google Scholar
  12. Carley K (2002) Information Technology and Knowledge Distribution in C3I teams. In: Proceedings of the 2002 Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium. Conference (Monterey, CA). Evidence Based Research, Vienna, VAGoogle Scholar
  13. Carley K, Hill V (2001) Structural Change and Learning Within Organizations. In: Lomi A, Larsen E (eds) Dynamics of Organizations: Computational Modeling and Organization Theories Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp 63–92Google Scholar
  14. Carley K, Kjaer-Hansen J, Newell A, Prietula M (1992) Plural-soar: A Prolegomenon to Artificial Agents and Organizational Behavior. In: Masuch M, Warglien M (eds) Artificial Intelligence in Organization and Management Theory: Models of Distributed Activity Elsevier Science, New York, pp 87–118Google Scholar
  15. Carley K, Lin L (1993) Organizational Designs Suited to High Performance under Stress. In: Proceedings of the 1993 Symposium on Command and Control Research. Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VAGoogle Scholar
  16. Carley K, Lin L (1995) Organizational Designs Suited to High Performance under Stress. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 25(2):221–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carley K, Svoboda D (1996) Modeling Organizational Adaptation as a Simulated Annealing Process. Socio Meth Res 25(1):138–168Google Scholar
  18. Clancey W, Sachs P, Sierhuis M, van Hoof R (1998) Brahms: simulating Practice for Work Systems Design. Intern J Human-Comput Stud 49:831–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cohen SG, Bailey DE (1997) What Makes Teams Work: group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite. J Manag 23(3):239–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Decker K (1996) TAEMS: A Framework for Environment Centered Analysis & Design of Coordination Mechanisms. In: O'Hare G, Nick Jennings (eds) Foundations of Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Wiley Interscience, New York, pp 429–448Google Scholar
  21. Decker K (1998) Task Environment Centered Simulation. In: Prietula M, Carley K, Gasser L (eds) Simulating Organizations: Computational Models of Institutions and Groups. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 105-128Google Scholar
  22. Diedrich F, Carley K, MacMillan J, Baker K, Schlabach J, Fink J (2003) Visualization of Threats and Attacks in Urban Environments. Milit Intell Profess Bull 34-03(1):42–45Google Scholar
  23. Donaldson L (1995) American Anti-Management Theories of Organization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  24. Emery FE, Trist EL (1960) Socio-technical systems. In: Management Sciences Models and Techniques. Tavistock Institute, London, vol. 2Google Scholar
  25. Epstein J, Axtell R (1996) Growing Artificial Societies. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  26. George JM (1990) Personality, Affect, and Behavior in Groups. J Appl Psychol 75(2):105–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Giddens A (1986) The Constitution of Society: outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of California Press, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  28. Gladstein D (1984) Groups in context: a Model of Task Group Effectiveness. Administr Sci Quart 29(4):499–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Goodman PS (1986) Impact of Task and Technology on Group Performance. In: Goodman PS, Associates (eds) Designing Effective Work Groups. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco pp 120–167Google Scholar
  30. Hackman JR (1983) A Normative Model of Work Team Effectiveness. In: Technical Report No. 2, Research Program on Group Effectiveness. Yale School of Organization and ManagementGoogle Scholar
  31. Hackman JR, Morris CG (1975) Group Tasks, Group Interaction Process, and Group Performance Effectiveness: A Review and Proposed Integration. In: Berkowitz L (ed), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press, Orlando, FLGoogle Scholar
  32. Harrison J, Carroll G (1991) Keeping the faith: a Model of Cultural Transmission in Formal Organizations. Administr Sci Quart 36(4):552–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hartman E (1988) Conceptual Foundations of Organization Theory. Ballinger, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  34. Hulin CL (2002) Lessons from Industrial and Organizational Psychology. In: Brett JM, Drasgow F (eds) The Psychology of Work: Theoretically Based Empirical Research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ pp 3–22Google Scholar
  35. Hulin CL, Ilgen DR (2000) Introduction to Computational Modeling in Organizations: the Good that Modeling Does. In: Ilgen DR Hulin CL (eds) Computational Modeling of Behavior in Organizations: The 3rd Scientific Discipline American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp 3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hyatt A, Contractor N, Jones P (1997) Computational Organizational Network Modeling: strategies and an example. Comput Mathem Organiz Theory 2(4):285–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kang M, Waisel L, Wallace W (1998) Team-soar: a Model for Team Decision Making. In: Prietula M, Carley K, Gasser L (eds) Simulating Organizations: Computational Models of Institutions and Groups. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 23–45Google Scholar
  38. Kang M (2001) Team-soar: A Computational Model for Multilevel Decision Making. IEEE Trans Syst, Man, and Cybern 31(6):708–714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kozlowski SWJ, Bell BS (2003) Work Groups and Teams in Organizations. In: Borman WC, Ilgen DR, Klimoski RJ (eds) Handbook of psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 12, pp 333–375Google Scholar
  40. Kreps DM (1990) Game Theory and Economic Modeling. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  41. Levinthal DA (2001) Modeling Adaptation on Rugged Landscapes. In: Lomi A, Larsen E (eds) Dynamics of Organizations: Computational Modeling and Organization Theories. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 329–348Google Scholar
  42. Levitt R, Cohen G, Kunz J, Nass C, Christiansen T, Jin Y (1994) The Virtual Design Team: Simulating How Organization Structure and Information Processing Tools Affect Team Performance. In: Carley K, Prietula M (eds) Computational Organization Theory. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  43. Lin Z, Carley K (1995) DYCORP: a Computational Framework for Examining Organizational Performance Under Dynamic Conditions. J Mathem Sociol 20(2–3):193–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Macy M (1991) Learning to cooperate: stochastic and Tacit Collusion in Social Exchange. Amer J Sociol 97(3):808–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Majchrzak A, Finley L (1995) A Practical Theory and Tool for Specifying Sociotechnical Requirements to Achieve Organizational Effectiveness. In: Benders J, de Haan J, Bennett D (eds) The Symbiosis of Work and Technology Taylor & Francis, London, pp 95–115Google Scholar
  46. Majchrzak A, Gasser L (1992) HITOP-A: A tool to Facilitate Interdisciplinary Manufacturing Systems Design. Intern J Human Fact Manufact 2(3):255–276Google Scholar
  47. March J, Simon H (1958) Organizations. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Marks MA, Mathieu JE, Zaccaro SJ (2001) A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes. Acad Manag Rev 26(3):356–376Google Scholar
  49. Masuch M, LaPotin P (1989) Beyond Garbage Cans: an AI Model of Organizational Choice. Administr Sci Quart 34(1):38–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McGrath J (1984) Groups: Interaction and performance. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  51. McKelvey B (1997) Quasi-natural Organization Science. Organiz Sci 8:351–380Google Scholar
  52. Miner JB (1982) Theories of Organizational Structure and Process. Dreyden Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  53. Miner JB (2002) Organizational behavior. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Minksy M (1967) Computation: finite and Infinite Machines. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  55. Mone M, McKinley W (1993) The Uniqueness Value and Its Consequences for Organization Studies. J Managem Inquiry 2:284–296Google Scholar
  56. Nadler DA, Tushman ML (1980) A Model for Diagnosing Organizational Behavior. Organiz Dynam (Autumn):35–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nieva VF, Fleishman EA, Rieck A (1978) Team dimensions: their Identity, Their Measurement, and Their Relationships. In: Final Technical Report for Contract No. DAHC19–78–C–0001 Advanced Research Resources Organization, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  58. Pfeffer J (1993) Barriers to the Advancement of Organizational Science: paradigm Development as a Dependent Variable. Acad Manag Rev 18:599–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pfeffer J (1995) Mortality, Reproducibility, and the Persistence of Styles of Theory. Organiz Sci 6:681–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Powell W (1990) Neither Market nor Hierarchy: network Forms of Organization. Res Organiz Behav 12:295–336Google Scholar
  61. Prietula MJ (2001) Advice, Trust, and Gossip among Artificial Agents. In: Lomi A, Larson E (eds) Dynamics of Organizations: Computational Modeling and Organization Theories. AAAI/MIT Press, Menlo Park, CA, pp 141–177Google Scholar
  62. Repenning N (2002) A Simulation-Based Approach to Understanding the Dynamics of Innovation Implementation. Organiz Sci 13(2):109–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Simon HA (1991) Organizations and markets. J Econ Perspect 5(2):25–44Google Scholar
  64. Sundstrom E, DeMeuse KP, Futrell D (1990) Work teams: applications and effectiveness. Amer Psychol 45:120–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tambe M (1997a) Agent Architectures for Flexible, Practical Teamwork. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (July 27–31, 1997, Providence, RI), pp 22–28Google Scholar
  66. Tambe M (1997b) Towards Flexible Teamwork. J Artif Intell Res 7:83–124Google Scholar
  67. Tambe M, Johnson W, Jones R, Koss F, Laird J, Rosenbloom P, Schwamb K (1995) Intelligent Agents for Interactive Simulation Environments. AI Magazine 16(1):15–39Google Scholar
  68. Urban J, Weaver J, Bowers C, Rhodenizer L (1996) Effects of Workload and Structure on Team Processes and Performance: implications for Complex Team Decision Making. Human Factors 38(2):300–310Google Scholar
  69. Van Maanen J (1995a) Style as theory. Organiz Sci 6:133–143Google Scholar
  70. Van Maanen J (1995b) Fear and Loathing in Organization Studies. Organiz Sci 6:687–692Google Scholar
  71. Verhagen H, Masuch M (1994) TASCCS: A Synthesis of Double-AISS and plural-soar. In: Carley KM, Prietula MJ (eds) Computational Organization Theory. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 39–54Google Scholar
  72. Weber M (1968) Economy and society. Trans. and ed. by Roth G , Wittich C. Bedminster Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  73. Wegner D (1986) Transactive memory: a Contemporary Analysis of the Group Mind. In: Mullen B, Goethals GR (eds), Theories of group behavior. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp185–208Google Scholar
  74. Ye M, Carley K (1995) Radar-soar: Towards an Artificial Organization Composed of Intelligent Agents. J Mathem Sociol 20(2–3):219–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations