Organizational dynamics in adaptive distributed search processes: effects on performance and the role of complexity

Article

Abstract

In this paper, the effects of altering the organizational setting of distributed adaptive search processes in the course of search are investigated. We put particular emphasis on the complexity of interactions between partial search problems assigned to search agents. Employing an agent-based simulation based on the framework of NK landscapes we analyze different temporal change modes of the organizational set-up. The organizational properties under change include, for example, the coordination mechanisms among search agents. Results suggest that inducing organizational dynamics has the potential to increase the effectiveness of distributed adaptive search processes with respect to various performance measures like the final performance achieved at the end of the search, the chance to find the optimal solution of the search problem, or the average performance per period achieved during the search process. However, results also indicate that the mode of temporal change in conjunction with the complexity of the search problem considerably affects the order of magnitude of these beneficial effects. In particular, results suggest that organizational dynamics induces a shift towards more exploration, i.e., discovery of new areas in the fitness landscape, and less exploitation, i.e., stepwise improvement.

Keywords

Agent-based simulation Complexity Coordination Distributed search NK landscapes 

CLC number

TP13 

References

  1. Altenberg, L., 1997. NK fitness landscapes. In: Back, T., Fogel, D.B., Michalewicz, Z. (Eds.), Handbook of Evolutionary Computation. Oxford University Press, UK, p.B2.7:5–B2.7:10.Google Scholar
  2. Baumann, O., 2013. Distributed problem solving in modular systems: the benefit of temporary coordination neglect. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci., 32(1):124–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sres.2218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cao, Y., Yu, W., Ren, W., et al., 2013. An overview of recent progress in the study of distributed multi-agent coordination. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform., 9(1):427–438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TII.2012.2219061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carley, K.M., Gasser, L., 1999. Computational organization theory. In: Weiss, G. (Ed.), Multiagent Systems: a Modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence. MIT Press, Cambridge, p.299–330.Google Scholar
  5. Gross, T., Blasius, B., 2008. Adaptive coevolutionary networks: a review. J. Royal Soc. Interf., 5(20):259–271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2007.1229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hansen, M.T., 1999. The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administr. Sci. Quart., 44(1):82–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2667032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Karp, R.M., Upfal, E., Wigderson, A., 1988. The complexity of parallel search. J. Comput. Syst. Sci., 36(2):225–253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-0000(88)90027-XMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kauffman, S., 1993. The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford University Press, UK.Google Scholar
  9. Kauffman, S., Levin, S., 1987. Towards a general theory of adaptive walks on rugged landscapes. J. Theor. Biol., 128(1):11–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5193(87)80029-2MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Law, A., 2007. Simulation Modeling and Analysis. McGraw-Hill, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Levitan, B., Kauffman, S., 1995. Adaptive walks with noisy fitness measurements. Mol. Divers., 1(1):53–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01715809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Li, R., Emmerich, M.T.M., Eggermont, J., et al., 2006. Mixed-integer NK landscapes. Proc. 9th Int. Conf. on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, p.42–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/11844297_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Peterson, C., 1990. Parallel distributed approaches to combinatorial optimization: benchmark studies on traveling salesman problem. Neur. Comput., 2(3):261–269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/neco.1990.2.3.261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rivkin, J.W., Siggelkow, N., 2007. Patterned interactions in complex systems: implications for exploration. Manag. Sci., 53(7):1068–1085. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Siggelkow, N., Levinthal, D.A., 2003. Temporarily divide to conquer: centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organ. Sci., 14(6):650–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Siggelkow, N., Rivkin, J.W., 2005. Speed and search: designing organizations for turbulence and complexity. Organ. Sci., 16(2):101–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Thompson, J.D., 1967. Organizations in Action: Social Science Bases of Administrative Theory. McGraw-Hill, USA.Google Scholar
  18. Wall, F., 2010. The (beneficial) role of informational imperfections in enhancing organisational performance. Progress in Artificial Economics, p.115–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13947-5_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wall, F., 2013. Comparing basic design options for management accounting systems with an agent-based simulation. Proc. 10th Int. Conf. on Distributed Computing and Artificial Intelligence, p.409–418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00551-5_50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wall, F., 2015. Effects of organizational dynamics in adaptive distributed search processes. Proc. 12th Int. Conf. on Distributed Computing and Artificial Intelligence, p.121–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19638-1_14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wall, F., 2016a. Agent-based modeling in managerial science: an illustrative survey and study. Rev. Manag. Sci., 10(1):135–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11846-014-0139-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Wall, F., 2016b. Beneficial effects of randomized organizational change on performance. Adv. Complex Syst., 18(5-6):1550019.1–1550019.23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0219525915500198Google Scholar
  23. Welch, B.L., 1938. The significance of the difference between two means when the population variances are unequal. Biometrika, 29(3/4):350–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Zhejiang University Science Editorial Office and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Controlling and Strategic ManagementAlpen-Adria-Universitaet KlagenfurtKlagenfurtAustria

Personalised recommendations