IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/106630.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On the quest for defining organisational plasticity: a community modelling experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Siebers, Peer Olaf
  • Herath, Dinuka
  • Bardone, Emanuele
  • Farahbakhsh, Siavash
  • Knudsen, Peter Gloggengiehser
  • Madsen, Jens Koed
  • Mufti, Mehwish
  • Neumann, Martin
  • Richards, Dale
  • Seri, Raffaello
  • Secchi, Davide

Abstract

Purpose: This viewpoint article is concerned with an attempt to advance organisational plasticity (OP) modelling concepts by using a novel community modelling framework (PhiloLab) from the social simulation community to drive the process of idea generation. In addition, the authors want to feed back their experience with PhiloLab as they believe that this way of idea generation could also be of interest to the wider evidence-based human resource management (EBHRM) community. Design/methodology/approach: The authors used some workshop sessions to brainstorm new conceptual ideas in a structured and efficient way with a multidisciplinary group of 14 (mainly academic) participants using PhiloLab. This is a tool from the social simulation community, which stimulates and formally supports discussions about philosophical questions of future societal models by means of developing conceptual agent-based simulation models. This was followed by an analysis of the qualitative data gathered during the PhiloLab sessions, feeding into the definition of a set of primary axioms of a plastic organisation. Findings: The PhiloLab experiment helped with defining a set of primary axioms of a plastic organisation, which are presented in this viewpoint article. The results indicated that the problem was rather complex, but it also showed good potential for an agent-based simulation model to tackle some of the key issues related to OP. The experiment also showed that PhiloLab was very useful in terms of knowledge and idea gathering. Originality/value: Through information gathering and open debates on how to create an agent-based simulation model of a plastic organisation, the authors could identify some of the characteristics of OP and start structuring some of the parameters for a computational simulation. With the outcome of the PhiloLab experiment, the authors are paving the way towards future exploratory computational simulation studies of OP.

Suggested Citation

  • Siebers, Peer Olaf & Herath, Dinuka & Bardone, Emanuele & Farahbakhsh, Siavash & Knudsen, Peter Gloggengiehser & Madsen, Jens Koed & Mufti, Mehwish & Neumann, Martin & Richards, Dale & Seri, Raffaello, 2020. "On the quest for defining organisational plasticity: a community modelling experiment," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 106630, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:106630
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/106630/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giovanni Gavetti & Daniel Levinthal & William Ocasio, 2007. "Perspective---Neo-Carnegie: The Carnegie School’s Past, Present, and Reconstructing for the Future," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 523-536, June.
    2. Guido Fioretti, 2012. "Two measures of organizational flexibility," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 957-979, November.
    3. Daniel A. Levinthal, 1997. "Adaptation on Rugged Landscapes," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(7), pages 934-950, July.
    4. Davide Secchi & Stephen J. Cowley, 2018. "Modeling Organizational Cognition: The Case of Impact Factor," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 21(1), pages 1-13.
    5. Davide Secchi & Martin Neumann (ed.), 2016. "Agent-Based Simulation of Organizational Behavior," Springer Books, Springer, edition 1, number 978-3-319-18153-0, September.
    6. Guido Fioretti & Alessandro Lomi, 2007. "An Agent-Based Representation of the Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 11(1), pages 1-1.
    7. David J. Teece, 2007. "Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(13), pages 1319-1350, December.
    8. David J. Collis, 1994. "Research Note: How Valuable are Organizational Capabilities?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(S1), pages 143-152, December.
    9. Daniel A. Levinthal & Alessandro Marino, 2015. "Three Facets of Organizational Adaptation: Selection, Variety, and Plasticity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(3), pages 743-755, June.
    10. Linda Andren & Mats Magnusson & Soren Sjolander, 2003. "Opportunistic adaptation in start-up companies," International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(5/6), pages 546-562.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Giovanni Gavetti, 2012. "PERSPECTIVE—Toward a Behavioral Theory of Strategy," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 267-285, February.
    2. Davies, Andrew & Frederiksen, Lars & Cacciatori, Eugenia & Hartmann, Andreas, 2018. "The long and winding road: Routine creation and replication in multi-site organizations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1403-1417.
    3. Soluk, Jonas & Decker-Lange, Carolin & Hack, Andreas, 2023. "Small steps for the big hit: A dynamic capabilities perspective on business networks and non-disruptive digital technologies in SMEs," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    4. Alessandro Marino & Paolo Aversa & Luiz Mesquita & Jaideep Anand, 2015. "Driving Performance via Exploration in Changing Environments: Evidence from Formula One Racing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 1079-1100, August.
    5. Eriksson, Taina, 2014. "Processes, antecedents and outcomes of dynamic capabilities," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 65-82.
    6. Giada Baldessarelli & Nathalie Lazaric & Michele Pezzoni, 2022. "Organizational routines: Evolution in the research landscape of two core communities," Post-Print halshs-03718851, HAL.
    7. Giovanni Gavetti & Constance E. Helfat & Luigi Marengo, 2017. "Searching, Shaping, and the Quest for Superior Performance," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(3), pages 194-209, September.
    8. André de Abreu Saraiva Monteiro Alves & Fernando Manuel Pereira de Oliveira Carvalho, 2022. "How Dynamic Managerial Capabilities, Entrepreneurial Orientation, and Operational Capabilities Impact Microenterprises’ Global Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-23, December.
    9. van Uden, Annelies & Knoben, Joris & Vermeulen, P.A.M., 2015. "Making Sense of Industry Characteristics as Drivers of Dynamic Capabilites," Other publications TiSEM fbb2a35d-c957-489b-b170-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Hazhir Rahmandad & Nelson Repenning, 2016. "Capability erosion dynamics," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 649-672, April.
    11. Hazhir Rahmandad, 2012. "Impact of Growth Opportunities and Competition on Firm-Level Capability Development Trade-offs," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 138-154, February.
    12. Malik, Omar R., 2008. "Adapting to market liberalization: The role of dynamic capabilities, initial resource conditions, and strategic path choices in determining evolutionary fitness of Less Developed Country (LDC) firms," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 217-231, September.
    13. Jasna Prester, 2023. "Operating and Dynamic Capabilities and Their Impact on Operating and Business Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-24, October.
    14. Peter Ping Li & Shameen Prashantham & Abby Jingzi Zhou & Steven Shijin Zhou, 2022. "Compositional springboarding and EMNE evolution," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 53(4), pages 754-766, June.
    15. Patricia Laurens & Christian Le Bas & Stéphane Lhuillery & Antoine Schoen, 2017. "The determinants of cleaner energy innovations of the world’s largest firms: the impact of firm learning and knowledge capital," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(4), pages 311-333, May.
    16. Stefan N. Groesser & Niklas Jovy, 2016. "Business model analysis using computational modeling: a strategy tool for exploration and decision-making," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 61-88, February.
    17. Giannoccaro, Ilaria, 2015. "Adaptive supply chains in industrial districts: A complexity science approach focused on learning," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(PB), pages 576-589.
    18. Giannoccaro, Ilaria & Galesic, Mirta & Massari, Giovanni Francesco & Barkoczi, Daniel & Carbone, Giuseppe, 2020. "Search behavior of individuals working in teams: A behavioral study on complex landscapes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 507-516.
    19. Shaker A. Zahra & Olga Petricevic & Yadong Luo, 2022. "Toward an action-based view of dynamic capabilities for international business," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 53(4), pages 583-600, June.
    20. Cleverton Rodrigues Fernandes & André Gustavo Carvalho Machado, 2019. "Technology Transfer Capability: development dynamics in higher education institutions," Brazilian Business Review, Fucape Business School, vol. 16(1), pages 1-15, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agent-based modelling; Community modelling; Disorganisation; Organisational behaviour; PhiloLab; Plasticity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J50 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:106630. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.