Advertisement

Agent-Based Models and Behavioral Operational Research

  • Duncan A. Robertson
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter sets out agent-based modelling as a promising methodology for behavioural operational research. We set out the links between existing modelling techniques such as system dynamics and discrete event simulation and offer examples of how agent-based models can be used to model the behavior of individuals. We show how existing system-level models can be “agentized” so that system-level behavior is modelled by the interactions of individual agents. This focus on the individuals in the system rather than the system itself opens up a rich prospect for the use of agent-based modelling within behavioural operational research.

Keywords

Behavioral Operational Research Agent-based Model Existing Modeling Techniques Forest Fire Model Facilitate Model Building 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ackoff, R.L. 2006. Why few organizations adopt systems thinking. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 23: 705–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Axtell, R.L. 2001. Zipf distribution of U.S. firm sizes. Science 293: 1818–1820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Axtell, R., R. Axelrod, J. Epstein, and M. Cohen. 1996. Aligning simulation models: A case study and results. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 1: 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bak, P., K. Chen, and C. Tang. 1990. A forest-fire model and some thoughts on turbulence. Physics Letters A 147: 297–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bass, F.M. 1969. A new product growth model for consumer durables. Management Science 15: 215–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borshchev, A., and A. Filippov. 2004. From system dynamics and discrete event to practical agent based modeling: Reasons, techniques, tools. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference of the System Dynamics Society (Vol. 22).Google Scholar
  7. Coleman, J.S. 1987. Psychological structure and social structure in economic models. In Rational choice: The contrast between economics and psychology, ed. R. Hogarth and M. Reder. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cronin, M.A., C. Gonzalez, and J.D. Sterman. 2009. Why don’t well-educated adults understand accumulation? A challenge to researchers, educators, and citizens. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 108: 116–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drossel, B., and F. Schwabl. 1992. Self-organized critical forest-fire model. Physical Review Letters 69: 1629–1632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Economist. (2010). Agents of change. Economist, July 22.Google Scholar
  11. Farmer, J.D., and D. Foley. 2009. The economy needs agent-based modeling. Nature 460: 685–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Forrester, J.W. 1961. Industrial dynamics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Franco, L.A., and G. Montibeller. 2010. Facilitated modeling in operational research. European Journal of Operational Research 205: 489–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Franco, L.A., and E.A.J.A. Rouwette. 2011. Decision development in facilitated modeling workshops. European Journal of Operational Research 212: 164–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldenberg, L., B. Libai, and E. Muller. 2001. Using complex systems analysis to advance marketing theory development: Modeling heterogeneity effects on new product growth through stochastic cellular automata. Academy of Marketing Science Review 9: 1–18.Google Scholar
  16. Goldstein, J. 1999. Emergence as a construct: History and issues. Emergence: Complexity and Organization 1: 49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goodwin, R. 1967. A growth cycle. In Socialism, capitalism, and economic growth, ed. C.H. Feinstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Grimm, V., and S.F. Railsbark. 1997. Agent-based and individual-based modeling. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hämäläinen, R.P., and E. Saarinen. 2006. Systems intelligence: A key competence for organizational life. Reflections: The SoL Journal 7: 191–201.Google Scholar
  20. Hämäläinen, R.P., and E. Saarinen. 2008. Systems intelligence—The way forward? A note on Ackoff’s ‘Why few organizations adopt systems thinking’. Systems Research and Behanvioral Science 25: 821–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hämäläinen, R.P., J. Luoma, and E. Saarinen. 2013. On the importance of behavioral operational research: The case of understanding and communicating about dynamic systems. European Journal of Operational Research 228: 623–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hiebeler, D.E. 1994. The Swarm simulation system and individual-based modeling. Working paper series, 1994-11-065. Santa Fe: Santa Fe InstituteGoogle Scholar
  23. Hill, T.L. 1994. Thermodynamics of small systems. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, N. 2009. Two’s company, three is complexity. In Simply complexity: A clear guide to complexity theory, ed. N. Johnson. London: Oneworld.Google Scholar
  25. Kuhn, T.S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lee, S.-J., D.-J. Lee, and H.-S. Oh. 2005. Technological forecasting at the Korean stock market: A dynamic competition analysis using Lotka–Volterra model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 72: 1044–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lotka, A.J. 1920. Analytical note on certain rhythmic relations in organic systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 6: 410–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lotka, A.J. 1925. Elements of physical biology. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  29. Lotka, A.J. 1926. The frequency distribution of scientific production. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 16: 317–323.Google Scholar
  30. Luoma, J., R.P. Hämäläinen, and E. Saarinen. 2010. Acting with systems intelligence: Integrating complex responsive processes with the systems perspective. Journal of the Operational Research Society 62: 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Modis, T. 2003. A scientific approach to modeling competition. Industrial Physicist 9: 25–27.Google Scholar
  32. Morecroft, J. 1983. System dynamics: Portraying bounded rationality. Omega 11: 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Morecroft, J. 1985. Rationality in the analysis of behavioral simulation models. Management Science 31: 900–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Robertson, D.A. 2005. Agent-based modeling toolkits: NetLogo, RePast, and Swarm. Academy of Management Learning and Education 4: 524–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Robinson, S. 2014. Simulation: The practice of model development and use, 2nd ed. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rouwette, E.A.J.A., J.A.M. Vennix, and T. van Mullekom. 2002. Group model building effectiveness: A review of assessment studies. System Dynamics Review 18: 5–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rouwette, E.A.J.A., J.A.M. Vennix, H. Korzilius, and E. Jacobs. 2011. Modeling as persuasion: The impact of group model building on attitudes and behavior. System Dynamics Review 27: 1–21.Google Scholar
  38. Saarinen, E., and R.P. Hämäläinen. 2007. Systems intelligence: Connecting engineering thinking with human sensitivity. In Systems intelligence in leadership and everyday life, ed. R.P. Hämäläinen and E. Saarinen. Helsinki: University of Technology Helsinki.Google Scholar
  39. Schelling, T.C. 1969. Models of segregation. American Economic Review 59: 488–493.Google Scholar
  40. Schelling, T.C. 1971. Dynamic models of segregation. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 1: 143–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schelling, T.C. 1978. Micromotives and macrobehavior. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  42. Sethna, J. 2006. Statistical mechanics: Entropy, order parameters and complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Simon, H. 1955. On a class of skew distribution functions. Biometrika 42: 425–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Simon, H. 1957. A behavioral model of rational choice. In Models of man, social and rational: Mathematical essays on rational human behavior in a social setting, ed. H. Simon. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  45. Sterman, J.D. 1989. Modeling managerial behavior: Misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making process. Management Science 35: 321–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tesfatsion, L. 2002. Agent-based computational economics: Growing economies from the bottom up. Artificial Life 8: 55–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tesfatsion, L. 2006. Agent-based computational economics: A constructive approach to economic theory. Handbook of Computational Economics 2: 831–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Volterra, V. 1926. Variazioni e Fluttuazioni del Numero d’Individui in Specie Animali Conviventi. Mem. Acad Lincei Roma 2: 31–113.Google Scholar
  49. Watts, C., and N. Gilbert. 2014. Simulating innovation: Computer-based tools for rethinking innovation. Chichester: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilensky, U. 2005. NetLogo Wolf Sheep Predation (docked) model. Evanston: Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University. http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/models/WolfSheepPredation(docked)
  51. Zipf, G.K. 1935. The psychobiology of language: An introduction to dynamic philology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Zipf, G.K. 1949. Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Duncan A. Robertson
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Business and EconomicsUniversity of LoughboroughLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations