Skip to main content
Log in

Learning to align organizational design and data

  • Published:
Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

The relationship between organizational learning and organizational design is explored. In particular, we examine the information processing aspects of organizational learning as they apply to a two-valued decision making task and the relation of such aspects to organizational structure. Our primary contribution is to extend Carley's (1992) model of this process. The original model assumes that all data input into the decision making processes are of equal importance or “weight” in determining the correct overall organizational decision. The extension described here allows for the more natural situation of non-uniform weights of evidence. Further extensions to the model are also discussed. Such organizational learning performance measures provide an interesting framework for analyzing the recent trend towards flatter organizational structures. This research suggests that flatter structures are not always better, but rather that data environment, ultimate performance goals, and relative need for speed in learning can be used to form a contingency model for choosing organizational structure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Ashby, W. R. (1968), “Principles of Self-Organizing Systems,” in Walter Buckley (Editor),Modern Systems Research for the Behavioral Scientist, Chicago, IL: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Horim, M. and H. Levy (1975),Statics: Decisions and Applications in Business & Economics, New York, NY: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J.S., and P. Duguid (1991), “Organizational Learning and Communities of Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation,”Organization Science, 2(1), 40–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley, K.M. (Jan. 1990), “Coordinating for Success: Trading Information Redundancy for Task Simplicity,” inProceedings of the 23rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, Kona, Hawaii.

  • Carley, K.M. (1992), “Organizational Learning and Personnel Turnover,”Organization Science, 3(1), 20–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M.D. (1991), “Individual Learning and Organizational Routine: Emerging Connections,”Organization Science, 2(1), 135–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R.M., and J.G. March (1963),A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P.F. (April 18, 1988), “Tomorrow's Restless Managers,”Industry Week, 25.

  • Fiol, C.M., and M.A. Lyles (1985), “Organizational Learning,”Academy of Management Review, 10, 803–813.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garvin, D.A. (July–Aug. 1993), “Building a Learning Organization,”Harvard Business Review, 78–91.

  • Huber, G. P. (1990), “A Theory of the Effects of Advanced Information Technologies on Organizational Design, Intelligence, and Decision Making,”Academy of Management Review, 15(1), 47–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G.P. (1991), “Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures,”Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, D.H. (Fall 1993), “The Link between Individual and Organizational Learning,”Sloan Management Review, 37–50.

  • Lawrence, P.R., and J. Lorsch (1967),Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration, Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, B., and J.G. March (1988), “Organizational Learning,”Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G., and J.P. Olsen (1975), “The Uncertainty of the Past: Organizational Learning Under Ambiguity,”European Journal of Political Research, 3, 147–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G., and H.A. Simon (1958),Organizations, New York, NY: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G., L.S. Sproull, and M. Tamuz (1991), “Learning from Samples of One or Fewer,”Organization Science, 2(1), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norusis, M. J. (1988),SPSS PC Guide, Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P.M. (1994),The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, New York, NY: Doubleday/Currency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H.A. (1947),Administrative Behavior, New York, NY: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stinchcombe, A.L. (1990),Information and Organizations, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mihavics, K.W., Ouksel, A.M. Learning to align organizational design and data. Comput Math Organiz Theor 1, 143–155 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01299066

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01299066

Keywords

Navigation