Advertisement

Constructing Agent-Based Models of Organizational Routines

  • Cara H. KahlEmail author
  • Matthias Meyer

Abstract

Organizational routines represent a form of organizational behavior currently studied in multifarious scientific domains, such as economics, organization science, sociology, and psychology. The diverse perspectives on this phenomenon produce a plethora of models reflecting, for instance, what a routine is and how it emerges from and changes within a socio-technical system. Newcomers to the topic of organizational routines may be easily confused by this substantial scientific diversity, discovering many maps for seemingly the same territory. This chapter presents descriptors to facilitate the comparison of work on organizational routines, and applies them to a contemporary method employed to investigate the phenomenon: agent-based modeling. This insight is related to technical issues relevant to simulating organizational routines, such as model design, implementation, and validation.

Keywords

Routines Organizational behavior Agent-based modeling Complexity Context Personification Map-territory relation Target Simulation Model Micro-foundations Operationalization Sense-making Construct Validation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors greatly appreciate the feedback provided by two anonymous reviewers, Jonas Hauke and Bruce Edmonds on an early draft of this chapter. Your remarks have considerably helped us to communicate our ideas.

References

  1. Aggarwal, V. A., Siggelkow, N., & Singh, H. (2011). Governing collaborative activity: Interdependence and the impact of coordination and exploration. Strategic Management Journal, 32(7), 705–730. doi: 10.1002/smj.900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amit, R., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, 14(1), 33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bapuji, H., Hora, M., & Saeed, A. M. (2012). Intentions, intermediaries, and interaction: Examining the emergence of routines. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1586–1607. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01063.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, M. C. (2004). Organizational routines: A review of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(4), 643–678. doi: 10.1093/icc/dth026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, M. C. (2005). A framework for applying organizational routines in empirical research: Linking antecedents, characteristics and performance outcomes of recurrent interaction patterns. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 817–846. doi: 10.1093/icc/dth072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker, M. C., Lazaric, N., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (2005). Applying organizational routines in understanding organizational change. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 775–791. doi: 10.1093/icc/dth071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breslin, D. (2014). Calm in the storm: Simulating the management of organizational co-evolution. Futures, 57, 62–77. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2014.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Breuker, D., & Matzner, M. (2014). Performances of business processes and organizational routines: Similar research problems, different research methods – A literature review. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2014). Tel Aviv, Israel. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1242&context=ecis2014.
  9. Bruderer, E., & Singh, J. V. (1996). Organizational evolution, learning, and selection: A genetic-algorithm-based model. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1322–1349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burns, J., & Scapens, R. W. (2000). Conceptualizing management accounting change: An institutional framework. Management Accounting Research, 11(1), 3–25. doi:10.1006/mare.1999.0119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chun, A., Wai, H., & Wong, R. Y. (2003). Optimizing agent-based meeting scheduling through preference estimation. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 16(7), 727–743. doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2003.09.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clancey, W. J., Sachs, P., Sierhuis, M., & van Hoof, R. (1998). Brahms: Simulating practice for work systems design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 49(6), 831–865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen, M. D. (2012). Perceiving and remembering routine action: Fundamental micro-level origins. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1383–1388. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01078.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, M. D., & Bacdayan, P. (1994). Organizational routines are stored as procedural memory: Evidence from a laboratory study. Organization Science, 5(4), 554–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen, M. D., Burkhart, R., Dosi, G., Egidi, M., Marengo, L., Warglien, M., et al. (1996). Routines and other recurring action patterns of organizations: Contemporary research issues. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5(3), 653–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cohen, M. D., Levinthal, D. A., & Warglien, M. (2014). Collective performance: Modeling the interaction of habit-based actions. Industrial and Corporate Change, 23(2), 329–360. doi: 10.1093/icc/dtu005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Criado, N. (2013). Using norms to control open multi-agent systems. AI Communications, 26(3), 317–318. doi: 10.3233/AIC-130560.Google Scholar
  18. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). Behavioral theory of the firm. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  19. D’Adderio, L. (2008). The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics. Research Policy, 37(5), 769–789. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. D’Adderio, L., Feldman, M., Lazaric, N., & Pentland, B. (2012). Call for papers – Special issue on routine dynamics: Exploring sources of stability and change in organizations. Organization Science, 23(6), 1782–1783. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1120.0800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dignum, F., Prada, R., & Hofstede, G. J. (2014). From autistic to social agents. In Proceedings of AAMAS '14 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (pp.~1161–1164). Richland, SC: International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems.Google Scholar
  22. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Feldman, M. S. (2003). A performative perspective on stability and change in organizational routines. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(4), 727–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Felin, T., & Foss, N. J. (2009). Organizational routines and capabilities: Historical drift and a course-correction toward microfoundations. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25(2), 157–167. doi: 10.1016/j.scaman.2009.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Felin, T., Foss, N. J., Heimeriks, K. H., & Madsen, T. L. (2012). Microfoundations of routines and capabilities: Individuals, processes, and structure. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1351–1374. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01052.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gao, D. (2012). Multi-agent based simulation of organizational routines from an actor-based view. In 2012 3rd International Conference on System Science, Engineering Design and Manufacturing Informatization (ICSEM) (Vol. 1, pp. 311–314). doi: 10.1109/ICSSEM.2012.6340736.
  28. Gao, D., Deng, X., & Bai, B. (2014). The emergence of organizational routines from habitual behaviours of multiple actors: An agent-based simulation study. Journal of Simulation, 8(3), 215–230. doi: 10.1057/jos.2014.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gaskin, J., Berente, N., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2014). Toward generalizable sociomaterial inquiry: A computational approach for zooming in and out of sociomaterial routines. MIS Quarterly, 38(3), 849–871.Google Scholar
  30. Geiger, D., & Schröder, A. (2014). Ever-changing routines? Toward a revised understanding of organizational routines between rule-following and rule-breaking. Schmalenbach Business Review, 66, 170–190.Google Scholar
  31. Geisendorf, S. (2009). The influence of innovation and imitation on economic performance. Economic Issues, 14(1), 65–94.Google Scholar
  32. Gevers, J. M. P., Passos, A. M., & Uitdewilligen, S. (2014). Call for papers: Special issue on “Team adaptation and the dynamics of team cognition.” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. Retrieved from http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/cfp/pewocfp.pdf.
  33. Groff, E. R. (2007). Simulation for theory testing and experimentation: An example using routine activity theory and street robbery. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23(2), 75–103. doi: 10.1007/s10940-006-9021-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hodgson, G. M. (2008). The concept of a routine. In M. C. Becker (Ed.), Handbook of organizational routines (pp. 15–28). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  35. Hodgson, G. M., & Knudsen, T. (2004a). The complex evolution of a simple traffic convention: The functions and implications of habit. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 54(1), 19–47. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2003.04.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hodgson, G. M., & Knudsen, T. (2004b). The firm as an interactor: Firms as vehicles for habits and routines. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(3), 281–307. doi: 10.1007/s00191-004-0192-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hodgson, G. M., & Knudsen, T. (2006). Why we need a generalized Darwinism, and why generalized Darwinism is not enough. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 61, 1–19. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2005.01.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Holtz, G. (2014). Generating social practices. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 17(1), 17. Retrieved from http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/17/1/17.html.Google Scholar
  39. Howard-Grenville, J. A. (2005). The persistence of flexible organizational routines: The role of agency and organizational context. Organization Science, 16(6), 618–636. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Jack, L., & Mundy, J. (2013). Routine and change: The role of management accounting and control. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 9(2), 112–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kim, T., & Rhee, M. (2009). Exploration and exploitation: Internal variety and environmental dynamism. Strategic Organization, 7(1), 11–41. doi: 10.1177/1476127008100125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kozica, A., Kaiser, S., & Friesl, M. (2014). Organizational routines: Conventions as a source of change and stability. Schmalenbach Business Review, 66, 334–356.Google Scholar
  44. Kunz, J. (2011). Group-level exploration and exploitation: A computer simulation-based analysis. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 14(4), 18. Retrieved from http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/14/4/18.html.Google Scholar
  45. Lazaric, N. (2011). Organizational routines and cognition: An introduction to empirical and analytical contributions. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(02), 147–156. doi: 10.1017/S1744137411000130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Levitt, R. E. (2012). The virtual design team. Designing project organizations as engineers design bridges. Journal of Organization Design, 1(2), 14–41. doi: 10.7146/jod.1.2.6345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Marengo, L. (1992). Coordination and organizational learning in the firm. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 2(4), 313–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Maritan, C. A., & Coen, C. A. (2004). An agent-based model of investing in capabilities: Processes, decisions and performance. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Meeting Abstract Supplement, Vol. 2004, pp. N1–N6). Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management. doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2004.13863777.
  50. McMullen, J. S., & Dimov, D. (2013). Time and the entrepreneurial journey: The problems and promise of studying entrepreneurship as a process. Journal of Management Studies, 50(8), 1481–1512. doi: 10.1111/joms.12049.Google Scholar
  51. Meyer, M., & Carley, K. (2007). Costs and benefits of budgeting in dynamic environments – An information processing model. In European Accounting Association Annual Conference. Lisbon, Portugal, April 2007.Google Scholar
  52. Meyer, M., Lorscheid, I., & Troitzsch, K. G. (2009). The development of social simulation as reflected in the first ten years of JASSS: A citation and co-citation analysis. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 12(4), 12. Retrieved from http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/12/4/12.html.Google Scholar
  53. Michel, A. A. (2007). A distributed cognition perspective on newcomers’ change processes: The management of cognitive uncertainty in two investment banks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(4), 507–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Miller, K. D., Choi, S., & Pentland, B. T. (2014). The role of transactive memory in the formation of organizational routines. Strategic Organization, 12(2), 109–133. doi: 10.1177/1476127014521609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Miller, K. D., Pentland, B. T., & Choi, S. (2012). Dynamics of performing and remembering organizational routines. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1536–1558. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01062.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Miner, A. S., Ciuchta, M. P., & Gong, Y. (2008). Organizational routines and organizational learning. In M. C. Becker (Ed.), Handbook of organizational routines (pp. 152–186). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  57. Müller, B., Bohn, F., Dreßler, G., Groeneveld, J., Klassert, C., Martin, R., et al. (2013). Describing human decisions in agent-based models – ODD+D, an extension of the ODD protocol. Environmental Modelling & Software, 48, 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Murji, K., & Neal, S. (2014). Call for papers – Sociology special issue on the sociologies of everyday life. Sociology. Retrieved from http://www.britsoc.co.uk/media/61136/sociologies_of_the_everyday_CFP.pdf.
  59. Narduzzo, A., & Warglien, M. (2008). Conducting experimental research on organizational routines. In M. C. Becker (Ed.), Handbook of organizational routines (pp. 301–324). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  60. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Parmigiani, A., & Howard-Grenville, J. (2011). Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 413–453. doi: 10.1080/19416520.2011.589143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pavlov, A., & Bourne, M. (2011). Explaining the effects of performance measurement on performance: An organizational routines perspective. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 31(1), 101–122. doi: 10.1108/01443571111098762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. (2005). Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 793–815. doi: 10.1093/icc/dth070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pentland, B. T., & Feldman, M. S. (2008). Issues in empirical studies of organizational routines. In M. C. Becker (Ed.), Handbook of organizational routines (pp. 281–300). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  65. Pentland, B. T., Feldman, M. S., Becker, M. C., & Liu, P. (2012). Dynamics of organizational routines: A generative model. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1484–1508. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01064.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pentland, B. T., Hærem, T., & Hillison, D. (2010). Comparing organizational routines as recurrent patterns of action. Organization Studies, 31(7), 917–940. doi: 10.1177/0170840610373200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Posada, M., & Lopez, A. (2008). How to choose the bidding strategy in continuous double auctions: Imitation versus take-the-best heuristics. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 11(1), 6. Retrieved from http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/11/1/6.html.Google Scholar
  68. Quinn, M. (2014). Stability and change in management accounting over time—A century or so of evidence from Guinness. Management Accounting Research, 25(1), 76–92. doi: 10.1016/j.mar.2013.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rouchier, J., Bousquet, F., Requier-Desjardins, M., & Antona, M. (2001). A multi-agent model for describing transhumance in North Cameroon: Comparison of different rationality to develop a routine. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 25(3), 527–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schulz, M. (2008). Staying on track: A voyage to the internal mechanisms of routine reproduction. In M. C. Becker (Ed.), Handbook of organizational routines (pp. 228–255). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  71. Siggelkow, N. (2011). Firms as systems of interdependent choices. Journal of Management Studies, 48(5), 1126–1140. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2011.01010.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. A. (2005). Escaping real (non-benign) competency traps: Linking the dynamics of organizational structure to the dynamics of search. Strategic Organization, 3(1), 85–115. doi: 10.1177/1476127005050521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Siirola, J. D., Hauan, S., & Westerberg, A. W. (2003). Toward agent-based process systems engineering: Proposed framework and application to non-convex optimization. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 27(12), 1801–1811. doi: 10.1016/S0098-1354(03)00152-2.
  74. Sikora, R., & Shaw, M. J. (1998). A multi-agent framework for the coordination and integration of information systems. Management Science, 44(11-part-2), 65–78.Google Scholar
  75. Silva, C., Gonçalves, E., Dimuro, G., Dimuro, G., & de Manuel Jerez, E. (2013). Modeling agent periodic routines in agent-based social simulation using colored petri nets. In 2013 BRICS Congress on Computational Intelligence and 11th Brazilian Congress on Computational Intelligence (BRICS-CCI & CBIC) (pp. 644–650). doi: 10.1109/BRICS-CCI-CBIC.2013.112.
  76. Squazzoni, F. (2012). Agent-based computational sociology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Ter Bogt, H. J., & Scapens, R. W. (2014). Institutions, rationality and agency in management accounting: Rethinking and extending the Burns and Scapens Framework. Available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2464980.
  78. van der Steen, M. (2009). Inertia and management accounting change: The role of ambiguity and contradiction between formal rules and routines. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 22(5), 736–761. doi: 10.1108/09513570910966351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. van der Steen, M. (2011). The emergence and change of management accounting routines. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 24(4), 502–547. doi:10.1108/09513571111133072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Vromen, J. (2007). Generalized Darwinism in evolutionary economics: The devil is in the details. Papers on Economics and Evolution. Evolutionary Economics Group, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Jena, Germany (0711), pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
  81. Vromen, J. (2011). Routines as multi-level mechanisms. Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(2), 175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wall, F. (2014). Agent-based modeling in managerial science: An illustrative survey and study. Review of Managerial Science, 1–59. doi: 10.1007/s11846-014-0139-3.
  83. Winter, S. G. (2012). Capabilities: Their origins and ancestry. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1402–1406. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01081.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Yang, Y. J., Sung, T.-W., Wu, C., & Chen, H.-Y. (2010). An agent-based workflow system for enterprise based on FIPA-OS framework. Expert Systems with Applications, 37(1), 393–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zollo, M., Reuer, J. J., & Singh, H. (2002). Interorganizational routines and performance in strategic alliances. Organization Science, 13(6), 701–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Technology, Work Processes and Vocational EducationHamburg University of TechnologyHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Management Control and AccountingHamburg University of TechnologyHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations