Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Can tools help unify organization theory? Perspectives on the state of computational modeling

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

Abstract

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris C, Schön D (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloomfield L, Moulton A (1997) Managing International Conflict: from Theory to Policy. St, Martin's Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley K (1991a) A Theory of Group Stability. Amer Sociol Rev 56(3):331–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carley K (1991b) Designing Organizational Structures to Cope with Communication Breakdowns: a Simulation Model. Industr Cris Quart 5:19–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley K (1992) Organizational Learning and Personnel Turnover. Organiz Sci 3(1):20–46

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley K, Lin L (1995) Organizational Designs Suited to High Performance under Stress. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 25(2):221–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carley K, Svoboda D (1996) Modeling Organizational Adaptation as a Simulated Annealing Process. Socio Meth Res 25(1):138–168

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson L (1995) American Anti-Management Theories of Organization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery FE, Trist EL (1960) Socio-technical systems. In: Management Sciences Models and Techniques. Tavistock Institute, London, vol. 2

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein J, Axtell R (1996) Growing Artificial Societies. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • George JM (1990) Personality, Affect, and Behavior in Groups. J Appl Psychol 75(2):105–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens A (1986) The Constitution of Society: outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Gladstein D (1984) Groups in context: a Model of Task Group Effectiveness. Administr Sci Quart 29(4):499–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison J, Carroll G (1991) Keeping the faith: a Model of Cultural Transmission in Formal Organizations. Administr Sci Quart 36(4):552–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartman E (1988) Conceptual Foundations of Organization Theory. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hyatt A, Contractor N, Jones P (1997) Computational Organizational Network Modeling: strategies and an example. Comput Mathem Organiz Theory 2(4):285–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang M (2001) Team-soar: A Computational Model for Multilevel Decision Making. IEEE Trans Syst, Man, and Cybern 31(6):708–714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreps DM (1990) Game Theory and Economic Modeling. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin Z, Carley K (1995) DYCORP: a Computational Framework for Examining Organizational Performance Under Dynamic Conditions. J Mathem Sociol 20(2–3):193–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macy M (1991) Learning to cooperate: stochastic and Tacit Collusion in Social Exchange. Amer J Sociol 97(3):808–843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Majchrzak A, Gasser L (1992) HITOP-A: A tool to Facilitate Interdisciplinary Manufacturing Systems Design. Intern J Human Fact Manufact 2(3):255–276

    Google Scholar 

  • March J, Simon H (1958) Organizations. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks MA, Mathieu JE, Zaccaro SJ (2001) A Temporally Based Framework and Taxonomy of Team Processes. Acad Manag Rev 26(3):356–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Masuch M, LaPotin P (1989) Beyond Garbage Cans: an AI Model of Organizational Choice. Administr Sci Quart 34(1):38–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath J (1984) Groups: Interaction and performance. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey B (1997) Quasi-natural Organization Science. Organiz Sci 8:351–380

    Google Scholar 

  • Miner JB (1982) Theories of Organizational Structure and Process. Dreyden Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Miner JB (2002) Organizational behavior. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Minksy M (1967) Computation: finite and Infinite Machines. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Mone M, McKinley W (1993) The Uniqueness Value and Its Consequences for Organization Studies. J Managem Inquiry 2:284–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadler DA, Tushman ML (1980) A Model for Diagnosing Organizational Behavior. Organiz Dynam (Autumn):35–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Pfeffer J (1993) Barriers to the Advancement of Organizational Science: paradigm Development as a Dependent Variable. Acad Manag Rev 18:599–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer J (1995) Mortality, Reproducibility, and the Persistence of Styles of Theory. Organiz Sci 6:681–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell W (1990) Neither Market nor Hierarchy: network Forms of Organization. Res Organiz Behav 12:295–336

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Repenning N (2002) A Simulation-Based Approach to Understanding the Dynamics of Innovation Implementation. Organiz Sci 13(2):109–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1991) Organizations and markets. J Econ Perspect 5(2):25–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundstrom E, DeMeuse KP, Futrell D (1990) Work teams: applications and effectiveness. Amer Psychol 45:120–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Tambe M (1997b) Towards Flexible Teamwork. J Artif Intell Res 7:83–124

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Maanen J (1995a) Style as theory. Organiz Sci 6:133–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Maanen J (1995b) Fear and Loathing in Organization Studies. Organiz Sci 6:687–692

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber M (1968) Economy and society. Trans. and ed. by Roth G , Wittich C. Bedminster Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ye M, Carley K (1995) Radar-soar: Towards an Artificial Organization Composed of Intelligent Agents. J Mathem Sociol 20(2–3):219–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Smith Hall 231, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15213, USA

    Michael J. Ashworth

  2. Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Wean 1325, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA

    Kathleen M. Carley

Authors
  1. Michael J. Ashworth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kathleen M. Carley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael J. Ashworth.

Additional information

Michael J. Ashworth is a doctoral candidate in computational organization science at Carnegie Mellon University, where he conducts research on social, knowledge, and transactive memory networks along with their effects on group and organizational learning and performance. Practical outcomes of his work include improved understanding of the impact of technology, offshoring, and turnover on organizational performance. Mr. Ashworth has won several prestigious grants from the Sloan Foundation and the National Science Foundation to pursue his research on transactive memory networks. Journals in which his research has appeared include Journal of Mathematical Sociology, International Journal of Human Resource Management, and Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems. His recent work on managing human resource challenges in the electric power industry has been featured in the Wall Street Journal and on National Public Radio's ``Morning Edition.'' Mr. Ashworth received his undergraduate degree in systems engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Kathleen M. Carley is a professor at the Institute for Software Research International in the School of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University. She is the director of the center for Computational Analysis of Social and Organizational Systems (CASOS), a university-wide interdisciplinary center that brings together network analysis, computer science and organization science (www.casos.ece.cmu.edu). Prof. Carley carries out research that combines cognitive science, dynamic social networks, text processing, organizations, social and computer science in a variety of theoretical and applied venues. Her specific research areas are computational social and organization theory; dynamic social networks; multi-agent network models; group, organizational, and social adaptation, and evolution; statistical models for dynamic network analysis and evolution, computational text analysis, and the impact of telecommunication technologies on communication and information diffusion within and among groups. Prof. Carley has undergraduate degrees in economics and political science from MIT and a doctorate in sociology from Harvard University.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ashworth, M.J., Carley, K.M. Can tools help unify organization theory? Perspectives on the state of computational modeling. Comput Math Organiz Theor 13, 89–111 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-006-9000-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-006-9000-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation