zbMATH — the first resource for mathematics

Can tools help unify organization theory? Perspectives on the state of computational modeling. (English) Zbl 1112.90357
Summary: Scholars engaged in the study of work group and organizational behavior are increasingly calling for the use of integrated methods in conducting research, including the wider adoption of computational models for generating and testing new theory. Our review of the state of modern computational modeling incorporating social structures reveals steady increases in the incorporation of dynamic, adaptive, and realistic behaviors of agents in network settings, yet exposes gaps that must be addressed in the next generation of organizational simulation systems. We compare 28 models according to more than two hundred evaluation criteria, ranging from simple representations of agent demographic and performance characteristics, to more richly defined instantiations of behavioral attributes, interaction with non-agent entities, model flexibility, communication channels, simulation types, knowledge, transactive memory, task complexity, and resource networks. Our survey assesses trends across the wide set of criteria, discusses practical applications, and proposes an agenda for future research and development.

90B70 Theory of organizations, manpower planning in operations research
Full Text: DOI
[1] Aldrich H (1992) Incommensurable paradigms? Vital Signs from Three Perspectives. In: Reed M, Hughes M (eds) Rethinking Organization: New Directions in Organization Theory and Analysis Sage, London, pp 17–45
[2] Argyris C, Schön D (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA
[3] Ashworth M (2005) Work Team Effectiveness Field Research: progress and prospects. Paper presented at the 65th Academy of Management Conference (August 5–10, 2005), Honolulu, HI
[4] Baligh H, Burton R, Obel B (1990) Devising Expert Systems in Organization Theory: the Organizational Consultant. In: Masuch M (ed) Organization Management and Expert Systems. Walter de Gruyter & Co, Berlin pp 35–57
[5] Baligh H, Burton R, Obel B (1994) Validating the Organizational Consultant on the Fly. In: Carley K, Prietula M (eds) Computational Organization Theory, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 179–194
[6] Bloomfield L, Moulton A (1997) Managing International Conflict: from Theory to Policy. St, Martin’s Press, New York
[7] Carley K (1990a) Group stability: a Socio-Cognitive Approach. In: Lawler E, Markovsky B, Ridgeway C, Walker H (eds) Advances in Group Processes: Theory and Research, JAI Press, Greenwich, CN, vol. VII, pp 1–44
[8] Carley K (1990b) Trading Information Redundancy for Task Simplicity. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE Press, New York, pp 261–270
[9] Carley K (1991a) A Theory of Group Stability. Amer Sociol Rev 56(3):331–354 · doi:10.2307/2096108
[10] Carley K (1991b) Designing Organizational Structures to Cope with Communication Breakdowns: a Simulation Model. Industr Cris Quart 5:19–57
[11] Carley K (1992) Organizational Learning and Personnel Turnover. Organiz Sci 3(1):20–46 · doi:10.1287/orsc.3.1.20
[12] Carley K (2002) Information Technology and Knowledge Distribution in C3I teams. In: Proceedings of the 2002 Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium. Conference (Monterey, CA). Evidence Based Research, Vienna, VA
[13] Carley K, Hill V (2001) Structural Change and Learning Within Organizations. In: Lomi A, Larsen E (eds) Dynamics of Organizations: Computational Modeling and Organization Theories Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp 63–92
[14] Carley K, Kjaer-Hansen J, Newell A, Prietula M (1992) Plural-soar: A Prolegomenon to Artificial Agents and Organizational Behavior. In: Masuch M, Warglien M (eds) Artificial Intelligence in Organization and Management Theory: Models of Distributed Activity Elsevier Science, New York, pp 87–118
[15] Carley K, Lin L (1993) Organizational Designs Suited to High Performance under Stress. In: Proceedings of the 1993 Symposium on Command and Control Research. Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA
[16] Carley K, Lin L (1995) Organizational Designs Suited to High Performance under Stress. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 25(2):221–230 · doi:10.1109/21.364841
[17] Carley K, Svoboda D (1996) Modeling Organizational Adaptation as a Simulated Annealing Process. Socio Meth Res 25(1):138–168 · doi:10.1177/0049124196025001005
[18] Clancey W, Sachs P, Sierhuis M, van Hoof R (1998) Brahms: simulating Practice for Work Systems Design. Intern J Human-Comput Stud 49:831–865 · Zbl 05472234 · doi:10.1006/ijhc.1998.0229
[19] Cohen SG, Bailey DE (1997) What Makes Teams Work: group Effectiveness Research from the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite. J Manag 23(3):239–290 · doi:10.1177/014920639702300303
[20] Decker K (1996) TAEMS: A Framework for Environment Centered Analysis & Design of Coordination Mechanisms. In: O’Hare G, Nick Jennings (eds) Foundations of Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Wiley Interscience, New York, pp 429–448
[21] Decker K (1998) Task Environment Centered Simulation. In: Prietula M, Carley K, Gasser L (eds) Simulating Organizations: Computational Models of Institutions and Groups. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 105-128
[22] Diedrich F, Carley K, MacMillan J, Baker K, Schlabach J, Fink J (2003) Visualization of Threats and Attacks in Urban Environments. Milit Intell Profess Bull 34-03(1):42–45
[23] Donaldson L (1995) American Anti-Management Theories of Organization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
[24] Emery FE, Trist EL (1960) Socio-technical systems. In: Management Sciences Models and Techniques. Tavistock Institute, London, vol. 2
[25] Epstein J, Axtell R (1996) Growing Artificial Societies. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
[26] George JM (1990) Personality, Affect, and Behavior in Groups. J Appl Psychol 75(2):105–117
[27] Giddens A (1986) The Constitution of Society: outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA
[28] Gladstein D (1984) Groups in context: a Model of Task Group Effectiveness. Administr Sci Quart 29(4):499–517 · doi:10.2307/2392936
[29] Goodman PS (1986) Impact of Task and Technology on Group Performance. In: Goodman PS, Associates (eds) Designing Effective Work Groups. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco pp 120–167
[30] Hackman JR (1983) A Normative Model of Work Team Effectiveness. In: Technical Report No. 2, Research Program on Group Effectiveness. Yale School of Organization and Management
[31] Hackman JR, Morris CG (1975) Group Tasks, Group Interaction Process, and Group Performance Effectiveness: A Review and Proposed Integration. In: Berkowitz L (ed), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press, Orlando, FL
[32] Harrison J, Carroll G (1991) Keeping the faith: a Model of Cultural Transmission in Formal Organizations. Administr Sci Quart 36(4):552–582 · doi:10.2307/2393274
[33] Hartman E (1988) Conceptual Foundations of Organization Theory. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA
[34] Hulin CL (2002) Lessons from Industrial and Organizational Psychology. In: Brett JM, Drasgow F (eds) The Psychology of Work: Theoretically Based Empirical Research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ pp 3–22
[35] Hulin CL, Ilgen DR (2000) Introduction to Computational Modeling in Organizations: the Good that Modeling Does. In: Ilgen DR Hulin CL (eds) Computational Modeling of Behavior in Organizations: The 3rd Scientific Discipline American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp 3–18
[36] Hyatt A, Contractor N, Jones P (1997) Computational Organizational Network Modeling: strategies and an example. Comput Mathem Organiz Theory 2(4):285–300 · doi:10.1007/BF00132313
[37] Kang M, Waisel L, Wallace W (1998) Team-soar: a Model for Team Decision Making. In: Prietula M, Carley K, Gasser L (eds) Simulating Organizations: Computational Models of Institutions and Groups. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 23–45
[38] Kang M (2001) Team-soar: A Computational Model for Multilevel Decision Making. IEEE Trans Syst, Man, and Cybern 31(6):708–714 · doi:10.1109/3468.983426
[39] Kozlowski SWJ, Bell BS (2003) Work Groups and Teams in Organizations. In: Borman WC, Ilgen DR, Klimoski RJ (eds) Handbook of psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 12, pp 333–375
[40] Kreps DM (1990) Game Theory and Economic Modeling. Oxford University Press, Oxford
[41] Levinthal DA (2001) Modeling Adaptation on Rugged Landscapes. In: Lomi A, Larsen E (eds) Dynamics of Organizations: Computational Modeling and Organization Theories. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 329–348
[42] Levitt R, Cohen G, Kunz J, Nass C, Christiansen T, Jin Y (1994) The Virtual Design Team: Simulating How Organization Structure and Information Processing Tools Affect Team Performance. In: Carley K, Prietula M (eds) Computational Organization Theory. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 1–18
[43] Lin Z, Carley K (1995) DYCORP: a Computational Framework for Examining Organizational Performance Under Dynamic Conditions. J Mathem Sociol 20(2–3):193–218 · doi:10.1080/0022250X.1995.9990162
[44] Macy M (1991) Learning to cooperate: stochastic and Tacit Collusion in Social Exchange. Amer J Sociol 97(3):808–843 · doi:10.1086/229821
[45] Majchrzak A, Finley L (1995) A Practical Theory and Tool for Specifying Sociotechnical Requirements to Achieve Organizational Effectiveness. In: Benders J, de Haan J, Bennett D (eds) The Symbiosis of Work and Technology Taylor & Francis, London, pp 95–115
[46] Majchrzak A, Gasser L (1992) HITOP-A: A tool to Facilitate Interdisciplinary Manufacturing Systems Design. Intern J Human Fact Manufact 2(3):255–276 · doi:10.1002/hfm.4530020307
[47] March J, Simon H (1958) Organizations. Wiley, New York
[48] Marks MA, Mathieu JE, Zaccaro SJ (2001) A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes. Acad Manag Rev 26(3):356–376 · doi:10.2307/259182
[49] Masuch M, LaPotin P (1989) Beyond Garbage Cans: an AI Model of Organizational Choice. Administr Sci Quart 34(1):38–67 · doi:10.2307/2392985
[50] McGrath J (1984) Groups: Interaction and performance. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
[51] McKelvey B (1997) Quasi-natural Organization Science. Organiz Sci 8:351–380 · doi:10.1287/orsc.8.4.351
[52] Miner JB (1982) Theories of Organizational Structure and Process. Dreyden Press, Chicago
[53] Miner JB (2002) Organizational behavior. Oxford University Press, New York
[54] Minksy M (1967) Computation: finite and Infinite Machines. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
[55] Mone M, McKinley W (1993) The Uniqueness Value and Its Consequences for Organization Studies. J Managem Inquiry 2:284–296 · doi:10.1177/105649269323010
[56] Nadler DA, Tushman ML (1980) A Model for Diagnosing Organizational Behavior. Organiz Dynam (Autumn):35–51 · doi:10.1016/0090-2616(80)90039-X
[57] Nieva VF, Fleishman EA, Rieck A (1978) Team dimensions: their Identity, Their Measurement, and Their Relationships. In: Final Technical Report for Contract No. DAHC19–78–C–0001 Advanced Research Resources Organization, Washington, DC
[58] Pfeffer J (1993) Barriers to the Advancement of Organizational Science: paradigm Development as a Dependent Variable. Acad Manag Rev 18:599–620 · doi:10.2307/258592
[59] Pfeffer J (1995) Mortality, Reproducibility, and the Persistence of Styles of Theory. Organiz Sci 6:681–686 · doi:10.1287/orsc.6.6.681
[60] Powell W (1990) Neither Market nor Hierarchy: network Forms of Organization. Res Organiz Behav 12:295–336
[61] Prietula MJ (2001) Advice, Trust, and Gossip among Artificial Agents. In: Lomi A, Larson E (eds) Dynamics of Organizations: Computational Modeling and Organization Theories. AAAI/MIT Press, Menlo Park, CA, pp 141–177
[62] Repenning N (2002) A Simulation-Based Approach to Understanding the Dynamics of Innovation Implementation. Organiz Sci 13(2):109–128 · doi:10.1287/orsc.
[63] Simon HA (1991) Organizations and markets. J Econ Perspect 5(2):25–44
[64] Sundstrom E, DeMeuse KP, Futrell D (1990) Work teams: applications and effectiveness. Amer Psychol 45:120–133 · doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.120
[65] Tambe M (1997a) Agent Architectures for Flexible, Practical Teamwork. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (July 27–31, 1997, Providence, RI), pp 22–28
[66] Tambe M (1997b) Towards Flexible Teamwork. J Artif Intell Res 7:83–124
[67] Tambe M, Johnson W, Jones R, Koss F, Laird J, Rosenbloom P, Schwamb K (1995) Intelligent Agents for Interactive Simulation Environments. AI Magazine 16(1):15–39
[68] Urban J, Weaver J, Bowers C, Rhodenizer L (1996) Effects of Workload and Structure on Team Processes and Performance: implications for Complex Team Decision Making. Human Factors 38(2):300–310 · doi:10.1518/001872096779048101
[69] Van Maanen J (1995a) Style as theory. Organiz Sci 6:133–143
[70] Van Maanen J (1995b) Fear and Loathing in Organization Studies. Organiz Sci 6:687–692
[71] Verhagen H, Masuch M (1994) TASCCS: A Synthesis of Double-AISS and plural-soar. In: Carley KM, Prietula MJ (eds) Computational Organization Theory. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 39–54
[72] Weber M (1968) Economy and society. Trans. and ed. by Roth G , Wittich C. Bedminster Press, New York
[73] Wegner D (1986) Transactive memory: a Contemporary Analysis of the Group Mind. In: Mullen B, Goethals GR (eds), Theories of group behavior. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp185–208
[74] Ye M, Carley K (1995) Radar-soar: Towards an Artificial Organization Composed of Intelligent Agents. J Mathem Sociol 20(2–3):219–246 · doi:10.1080/0022250X.1995.9990163
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.