Computational organization theory
INTRODUCTION
The discipline of computational organization theory (COT) focuses on theorizing about, describing, understanding, and predicting the behavior of organizations and the process of organizing using formal approaches (computational, mathematical and logical models). This research includes the development, testing and analysis of computational models, and the development and testing of computational techniques particularly suited to organizational analysis. These computational abstractions are incorporated into organizational practice through tools, procedures, measures and knowledge.
The notion of organizations in this field spans groups, teams, societies, corporations, industries, and governments (e.g., see Carley and Prietula, 1994; Prietula, Carley and Gasser, 1998; Gilbert and Doran, 1994). The two generic types of organizations considered are the human and the artificial. Human organizations continually acquire, manipulate, and produce information (and possibly other...
References
- [1]Baligh, H. H., Burton, R. M., and Obel, B. (1990). “Devising Expert Systems in Organization Theory: The Organizational Consultant,” in Organization, Management, and Expert Systems, M. Masuch, ed., Walter De Gruyer, Berlin.Google Scholar
- [2]Baum, J. and Oliver, C. (1991). “Institutional Linkages and Organizational Mortality,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 187–218.Google Scholar
- [3]Bond, A. and Gasser, L., eds. (1988). Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Kaufmann, San Mateo, California.Google Scholar
- [4]Burt, R. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition, Harvard University Press, Boston.Google Scholar
- [5]Burton, R. M. and Obel, B. (1996). “Organization,” in Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science, S. I. Gass and C. M. Harris, eds., Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwood, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
- [6]Carley, K. M. (1992). “Organizational Learning and Personnel Turnover,” Organization Science, 3(1) 20–46.Google Scholar
- [7]Carley, K. M. and Svoboda, David M. (1996). “Modeling Organizational Adaptation as a Simulated Annealing Process,” Sociological Methods and Research, 25, 138–168.Google Scholar
- [8]Carley, K. M. and Gasser, L. (forthcoming). “Computational Organization Theory,” in Distributive Artificial Intelligence, Gerhard Weiss ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Google Scholar
- [9]Carley, K. M. and Prietula, M. J., eds. (1994). Computational Organization Theory, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.Google Scholar
- [10]Carley, K. M. and Newell, A. (1994). “The Nature of the Social Agent,” Jl. Mathematical Sociology, 19, 221–262.Google Scholar
- [11]Carley, K. M. and Prietula, M. J. (1994). “ACTS Theory: Extending the Model of Bounded Rationality,” in K. M. Carley and M. J. Prietula eds., Computational Organization Theory, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.Google Scholar
- [12]Carley, K. M. (1995). “Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory: Perspective and Directions,” Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 1(1), 39–56.Google Scholar
- [13]Cohen, M. D. (1986). “Artificial Intelligence and the Dynamic Performance of Organizational Designs,” in Ambiguity and Command: Organizational Perspectives on Military Decision Making, J. G. March and R. Weissinger-Baylon eds., Pitman, Marshfield, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
- [14]Cyert, R. and March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar
- [15]Decker, K. (1995). “A Framework for Modeling Task Environment,” Environment-Centered Analysis and Design of Coordination Mechanisms, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts. Google Scholar
- [16]Decker, K. (1996). “TAEMS: “A Framework for Environment Centered Analysis and Design of Coordination Mechanisms,” in Foundations of Distributed Artificial Intelligence, G. M.P. O'Hare and N. R. Jennings, eds., John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
- [17]Durfee, E. H. and Montgomery, T. A. (1991). “Coordination as Distributed Search in a Hierarchical Behavior Space,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 21, 1363–1378.Google Scholar
- [18]Galbraith, J. (1973). Designing Complex Organizations, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
- [19]Gasser, L. and Majchrzak, A. (1994). “ACTION Integrates Manufacturing Strategy, Design, and Planning,” in Ergonomics of Hybrid Automated Systems, IV, P. Kidd and W. Karwowski, eds., IOS Press, Netherlands.Google Scholar
- [20]Gasser, L. and Huhns, M. N., eds. (1989). Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 2, Morgan Kaufmann, New York.Google Scholar
- [21]Gilbert, N. and Doran, J., eds. (1994). Simulating Societies: The Computer Simulation of Social Phenomena, UCL Press, London.Google Scholar
- [22]Granovetter, M. (1985). “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness,” American Jl. Sociology, 91, 481–510.Google Scholar
- [23]Hannan, M. T. and Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational Ecology, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
- [24]Hannan, M. T. and Freeman, J. (1977). “The Population Ecology of Organizations,” American Jl. Sociology, 82, 929–964.Google Scholar
- [25]Holland, J. H. (1975). Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
- [26]Kaplan, D. J. and Carley, K. M. (1998). “An Approach to Modeling Communication Technology in Organizations,” in Simulating Organizations: Computational Models of Institutions and Groups, M. Prietula, K. Carley and L. Gasser eds., AAAI Press/The MIT Press, Boston, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
- [27]Kaufer, D. S. and Carley, K. M. (1993). Communication at a Distance: The Effect of Print on Socio-Cultural Organization and Change, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.Google Scholar
- [28]Krackhardt, D. (1987). “Cognitive Social Structures,” Social Networks, 9, 109–134.Google Scholar
- [29]Lesser, V. R., Durfee, E. D., and Corkill, D. D. (1987). “Coherent Cooperations Among Communicating Problem Solvers,” IEEE Transactions on Computers, C-36, 1275–1291.Google Scholar
- [30]Lesser, D. D. and Corkill, D. D. (1988). “Functionally Accurate, Cooperative Distributed Systems,” in Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence, A. H. Bond and L. Gasser, eds., Morgan Kaufmann, Inc., San Mateo, California.Google Scholar
- [31]Levinthal, D. and March, J. G. (1981). “A Model of Adaptive Organizational Search,” Jl. Economic Behavior and Organization, 2, 307–333. Google Scholar
- [32]Levitt, R. E., Cohen, G. P., Kunz, J. C., Nass, C. I., Christiansen, T., and Jin, Y. (1994). “The ‘Virtual Design' Team: Simulating How Organization Structure and Information Processing Tools Affect Team Performance,” in Computational Organization Theory, K. M. Carley and M. J. Prietula, eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey.Google Scholar
- [33]Malone, T. W. (1986). “Modeling Coordination in Organizations and Markets,” Management Science, 33, 1317–1332.Google Scholar
- [34]March, J. and Simon, H. (1958). Organizations, John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
- [35]Masuch, M. and LaPotin, P. (1989). “Beyond Garbage Cans: An AI Model of Organizational Choice,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 38–67.Google Scholar
- [36]Masuch, M. (1990). Organization, Management and Expert Systems: Models of Automated Reasoning, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York.Google Scholar
- [37]Mezias, S. J. and Glynn, M. A. (1995). “Using Computer Simulation to Understand the Management of Technology: Applications for Theory Development,” Technology Studies, 2, 175–208.Google Scholar
- [38]Nersessian, N. J. (1992). “How do Scientists Think? Capturing the Dynamics of Conceptual Change in Science,” in Cognitive Models of Science, Vol. XV, R. N. Giere, ed., Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.Google Scholar
- [39]Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective, Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
- [40]Powell, W. W. and DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
- [41]Prietula, M. J., Carley, K. M., and Gasser, L., eds. (1998). Simulating Organizations: Computational Models of Institutions and Groups, AAAI Press/The MIT Press, Menlo Park, California.Google Scholar
- [42]Salanick, G. R. and Leblebici, H. (1998). “Variety and Form in Organizing Transactions: A Generative Grammar of Organization,” Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 6, 1–31.Google Scholar
- [43]Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative Behavior, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
- [44]Stuart, T. E. and Podolny, J. M. (1996). “Local Search and the Evolution of Technological Capabilities,” Strategic Management Jl., 17, 21–38.Google Scholar
- [45]Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in Action, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
- [46]Waisel, L., Wallace, W. A., and Willemain, T. (1998). “Using Diagrammatic Reasoning in Mathematical Modeling: The Sketches of Expert Modelers,” Proceedings of the AAAI 1997 Fall Symposium on Reasoning with Diagrammatic Representations II, AAAI Press, Menlo Park, California.Google Scholar
- [47]Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
- [48]Wasserman, S. and Galaskiewicz, J., eds. (1994). Advances in Social Network Analysis: Research in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.Google Scholar