Advertisement

The role of cognitive artifacts in organizational routine dynamics: an agent-based model

  • Dehua GaoEmail author
  • Flaminio Squazzoni
  • Xiuquan Deng
Manuscript

Abstract

Organizational routines consist of a mix of human actors and artifacts. Indeed, organizational settings are populated by a variety of cognitive artifacts, such as operating standards and prioritization rules, which encapsulate two types of knowledge: standards and regulations constraining individual action and rules sustaining explorative capacities of individuals. In order to investigate the role that cognitive artifacts may play in the formation and change of organizational routines, we developed an agent-based model that simulated environmental tasks, individual action and organizational settings. Our simulation results show that these two kinds of knowledge have different effects on routine dynamics and that when constraining knowledge and explorative capacities complement each other, routines are more efficacious. This indicates that organizational design should try to harmonize standardization and individual exploration. We also found that increasing the level of both these two kinds of knowledge inherent in cognitive artifacts within a dynamic environment tends to accelerate the adaptively changing processes of the routine system although at the expense of higher operating costs. Finally, we found that the impact of organizational inertia on the routine system might be either negative or positive, depending on a triangle relation among cognitive artifacts, environmental characteristics and inertia.

Keywords

Organizational routines Cognitive artifacts Knowledge Organizational environment Agent-based model 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research work in this paper has been sponsored by National Natural Science Foundation of China (under Grant No. 71501113), Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation (under Grant No. ZR2016GB06 and ZR2016GQ07), Aviation Science Foundation of China (under Grant No. 2015ZG51075) and the Shandong Technology and Business University (SDTBU)’s Doctoral Foundation (under Grant No. BS201606). The authors would like to thank Professor Kent D. Miller from Michigan State University who provided constructive comments during the early stage of this work.

References

  1. Abell P, Felin T, Foss NJ (2008) Building micro-foundations for the routines, capabilities, and performance links. Manag Decis Econ 29(6):489–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackerman M, Halverson C (2004) Organizational memory: processes, boundary objects, and trajectories. Comput Support Coop Work 13(2):155–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bai B, Yoo B, Deng X, Kim I, Gao D (2016) Linking routines to the evolution of IT capability on agent-based modeling and simulation: a dynamic perspective. Comput Math Organ Theory 22(2):184–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bapuji H, Hora M, Saeed AM (2012) Intentions, Intermediaries, and interaction: examing the emergence of routines. J Manag Stud 49(8):1586–1607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker MC (2004) Organizational routines: a review of the literature. Ind Corp Change 13(4):643–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bertels S, Howard-Grenville J, Pek S (2016) Cultural molding, shielding, and shoring at Oilco: the role of culture in the integration of routines. Organ Sci 27(3):573–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beverungen D (2014) Exploring the interplay of the design and emergence of business processes as organizational routines. Bus Inf Syst Eng 6(4):191–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boero R, Squazzoni F (2005) Does empirical embeddedness matter? Methodological issues on agent-based models for analytical social science. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 8(4):6. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/8/4/6.html
  9. Cacciatori E (2008) Memory objects in project environments: storing, retrieving and adapting learning in project-based firms. Res Policy 37(9):1591–1601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cacciatori E (2012) Resolving conflict in problem-solving: systems of artefacts in the development of new routines. J Manag Stud 49(8):1559–1585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen MD, Burkhart R, Dosi G, Egidi M, Marengo L, Warglien M, Winter SG (1996) Routines and other recurring action patterns of organizations: contemporary research issues. Ind Corp Change 5(3):653–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cowley SJ, Vallée-Tourangeau F (2013) Cognition beyond the brain: computation, interactivity and human artifice. Springer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. D’Adderio L (2008) The performativity of routines: theorizing the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics. Res Policy 37(5):769–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. D’Adderio L (2011) Artifacts at the centre of routines: performing the material turn in routine theory. J Inst Econ 7(2):197–230Google Scholar
  15. D’Adderio L (2014) The Replication dilemma unravelled: how organizations enact multiple goals in routine transfer. Organ Sci 25(5):1325–1350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feldman MS (2003) Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Adm Sci Q 48(1):94–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feldman MS, Pentland BT (2003) Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Adm Sci Q 48(1):94–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feldman MS, Rafaeli A (2002) Organizational routines as sources of connections and understandings. J Manag Stud 39(3):309–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Felin T, Foss N, Heimeriks KH, Madsen TL (2012) Microfoundations of routines and capabilities: individuals, processes, and structures. J Manag Stud 49(8):1351–1374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gao D, Deng X, Bai B (2014) The emergence of organizational routines from habitual behaviours of multiple actors: an agent-based simulation study. J Simul 8(3):215–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gao D, Deng X, Zhao Q, Zhou H, Bai B (2015). Multi-agent based simulation of organizational routines on complex networks. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 18(3):17. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/18/3/17.html
  22. Geiger D, Schröder A (2014) Ever-changing routines? Toward a revised understanding of organizational routines between rule-following and rule-breaking. Schmalenbach Bus Rev 66(2):170–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gilbert CG (2005) Unbundling the structure of inertia: resource versus routine rigidity. Acad Manag J 48(5):741–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gore R, Diallo S, Lynch C, Padilla J (2017). Augmenting bottom-up metamodels with predicates. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 20(1):4. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/20/1/4.html
  25. Grote G, Weichbrodt JC, Günter H, Zala-Mezö E, Künzle B (2009) Coordination in high-risk organizations: the need for flexible routines. Cogn Technol Work 11(1):17–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hendricks WO (1972) The structure study of narration: sample analyses. Poetics 1(3):100–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hendricks WO (1973) Methodology of Narrative structural analysis. Semiotica 7(2):163–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Howard-Grenville JA (2005) The persistence of flexible organizational routines: the role of agency and organizational context. Organ Sci 16(6):618–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Howard-Grenville J, Rerup C (2016) A process perspective on organizational routines. In: Langley A, Tsoukas H (eds) The Sage handbook of process organization studies. Sage, London, pp 323–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hutchins E (1995) Cognition in the wild. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Jager W (2017) Enhancing the realism of simulation (EROS): on implementing and developing psychological theory in social simulation. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 20(3):14. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/20/3/14.html
  32. Knudsen T (2008) Organizational routines in evolutionary theory. In: Becker MC (ed) Handbook of organizational routines. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 125–151Google Scholar
  33. Konlechner SW, Müller B, Güttel WH, Link K (2016) Sheep in wolf’s clothing: the role of artifacts in interpretive schema change. Schmalenbach Bus Rev 17(2):129–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kozica A, Kaiser S, Friesl M (2014) Organizational routines: conventions as a source of change and stability. Schmalenbach Bus Rev 66(3):334–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nelson R, Winter SG (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Norman D (2013) The design of everyday things. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. North MJ, Macal CM (2007) Managing business complexity: discovering strategic solutions with agent-based modeling and simulation. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pentland BT, Feldman MS (2005) Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Ind Corp Change 14(5):793–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pentland BT, Feldman MS (2007) Narrative networks: patterns of technology and organization. Organ Sci 18(5):781–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pentland BT, Feldman MS (2008) Designing routines: on the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action. Inf Organ 18(4):235–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Posada M, Martín-Sierra C, Perez E (2017) Effort, satisfaction and outcomes in organisations. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 20(2):9. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/20/2/9.html
  42. Secchi D, Cowley SJ (2016) Organizational cognition: What it is and how it works. In: European Academy of Management (EURAM) conference proceedingsGoogle Scholar
  43. Simon HA (1991) Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organ Sci 2(1):125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Squazzoni F, Edmonds B, Jager W (2014) Social simulation in the social sciences: a brief overview. Soc Sci Comput Rev 32(3):279–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stieglitz N, Knudsen T, Becker MC (2016) Adaptation and inertia in dynamic environments. Strateg Manag J 37(9):1854–1864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Swarm Development Group [SDG] (2000) A tutorial introduction to Swarm. http://www.swarm.org
  47. Ten Broeke G, Van Voorn G, Ligtenberg A (2016) Which sensitivity analysis method should I use for my agent-based model? J Artif Soc Soc Simul 19(1):5. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/19/1/5.html
  48. Tobias S, Mosler H (2017) Optimizing campaigns for changing routine behaviors by using an empirically calibrated microsimulation model. Soc Sci Comput Rev 35(2):184–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Turner SF, Rindova R (2012) A balancing act: how organizations pursue consistency in routine functioning in the face of ongoing change. Organ Sci 23(1):24–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Van Voorn GAK, Ten Broeke GA, Ligtenberg A (2013) Concepts and methods for sensitivity analysis of agent-based models. In: The 9th Conference of the European Social Simulation Association (ESSA), Warsaw, Poland, 16–20 September 2013Google Scholar
  51. Witt U (2011) Emergence and functionality of organizational routines: an individualisitic approach. J Inst Econ 7(2):157–174Google Scholar
  52. Wood RE (1986) Task complexity: definition of the construct. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 37(1):60–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yi S, Knudsen K, Becker MC (2016) Inertia in routines: a hidden source of organizational variation. Organ Sci 27(3):782–800CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Management Science and EngineeringShandong Technology and Business UniversityYantaiPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of Economics and ManagementUniversity of BresciaBresciaItaly
  3. 3.School of Economics and ManagementBeihang UniversityBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations