IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/comaot/v13y2007i1d10.1007_s10588-006-9000-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Michael J. Ashworth

    (Carnegie Mellon University)

  • Kathleen M. Carley

    (Carnegie Mellon University)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael J. Ashworth & Kathleen M. Carley, 2007. "Can tools help unify organization theory? Perspectives on the state of computational modeling," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 89-111, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:comaot:v:13:y:2007:i:1:d:10.1007_s10588-006-9000-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10588-006-9000-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10588-006-9000-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10588-006-9000-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael Prietula & Kathleen Carley & Les Gasser (ed.), 1998. "Simulating Organizations: Computational Models of Institutions and Groups," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 026266108x, December.
    2. Nelson P. Repenning, 2002. "A Simulation-Based Approach to Understanding the Dynamics of Innovation Implementation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(2), pages 109-127, April.
    3. Herbert A. Simon, 1991. "Organizations and Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(2), pages 25-44, Spring.
    4. Joshua M. Epstein & Robert L. Axtell, 1996. "Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262550253, December.
    5. Jeffrey Pfeffer, 1995. "Mortality, Reproducibility, and the Persistence of Styles of Theory," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(6), pages 681-686, December.
    6. John Van Maanen, 1995. "Fear and Loathing in Organization Studies," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 6(6), pages 687-692, December.
    7. Kreps, David M., 1990. "Game Theory and Economic Modelling," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198283812.
    8. Kathleen Carley, 1992. "Organizational Learning and Personnel Turnover," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(1), pages 20-46, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lucio Biggiero & Enrico Sevi, 2009. "Opportunism by cheating and its effects on industry profitability. The CIOPS model," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 191-236, September.
    2. Matthias Meyer & Michael A. Zaggl & Kathleen M. Carley, 2011. "Measuring CMOT’s intellectual structure and its development," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 1-34, March.
    3. Mark Hoogendoorn & Catholijn M. Jonker & Jan Treur, 2011. "A generic architecture for redesign of organizations triggered by changing environmental circumstances," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 119-151, May.
    4. Kalloniatis, Alexander C. & McLennan-Smith, Timothy A. & Roberts, Dale O., 2020. "Modelling distributed decision-making in Command and Control using stochastic network synchronisation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 284(2), pages 588-603.
    5. Jahangirian, Mohsen & Eldabi, Tillal & Naseer, Aisha & Stergioulas, Lampros K. & Young, Terry, 2010. "Simulation in manufacturing and business: A review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 203(1), pages 1-13, May.
    6. Christos Ellinas & Christos Nicolaides & Naoki Masuda, 2022. "Mitigation strategies against cascading failures within a project activity network," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 383-400, May.
    7. Brian W. Kulik & Timothy Baker, 2008. "Putting the organization back into computational organization theory: a complex Perrowian model of organizational action," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 84-119, June.

    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. Richard M. Burton, 2003. "Computational Laboratories for Organization Science: Questions, Validity and Docking," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 91-108, July.
    2. Brian W. Kulik & Timothy Baker, 2008. "Putting the organization back into computational organization theory: a complex Perrowian model of organizational action," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 84-119, June.
    3. Edoardo Mollona & Andrea Marcozzi, 2009. "FirmNet: the scope of firms and the allocation of task in a knowledge-based economy," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 109-126, June.
    4. Tesfatsion, Leigh, 2001. "Introduction to the special issue on agent-based computational economics," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 25(3-4), pages 281-293, March.
    5. David O'Sullivan & Mordechai Haklay, 2000. "Agent-Based Models and Individualism: Is the World Agent-Based?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 32(8), pages 1409-1425, August.
    6. Leigh Tesfatsion, 2002. "Agent-Based Computational Economics," Computational Economics 0203001, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 15 Aug 2002.
    7. C. Schinckus, 2012. "Methodological comment on Econophysics review I and II: statistical econophysics and agent-based econophysics," Quantitative Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(8), pages 1189-1192, June.
    8. William B. Gartner, 2001. "Is There an Elephant in Entrepreneurship? Blind Assumptions in Theory Development," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 25(4), pages 27-39, July.
    9. Jovanovic, Franck & Schinckus, Christophe, 2017. "Econophysics and Financial Economics: An Emerging Dialogue," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780190205034.
    10. Bernd-O. Heine & Matthias Meyer & Oliver Strangfeld, 2005. "Stylised Facts and the Contribution of Simulation to the Economic Analysis of Budgeting," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 8(4), pages 1-4.
    11. Lucio Biggiero & Enrico Sevi, 2009. "Opportunism by cheating and its effects on industry profitability. The CIOPS model," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 191-236, September.
    12. Alfred Kieser, 2007. "Entwicklung von Organisationstheorien als Zeitgeistphänomen," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 59(6), pages 678-705, September.
    13. Christian Cordes & Wolfram Elsner & Claudius Graebner & Torsten Heinrich & Joshua Henkel & Henning Schwardt & Georg Schwesinger & Tong-Yaa Su, 2021. "The collapse of cooperation: the endogeneity of institutional break-up and its asymmetry with emergence," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 1291-1315, September.
    14. Riccardo Boero & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2005. "Does Empirical Embeddedness Matter? Methodological Issues on Agent-Based Models for Analytical Social Science," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 8(4), pages 1-6.
    15. Changkun Zhao & Ryan Kaulakis & Jonathan H. Morgan & Jeremiah W. Hiam & Frank E. Ritter & Joesph Sanford & Geoffrey P. Morgan, 2015. "Building social networks out of cognitive blocks: factors of interest in agent-based socio-cognitive simulations," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 115-149, June.
    16. Edward G. Anderson & Kyle Lewis, 2014. "A Dynamic Model of Individual and Collective Learning Amid Disruption," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 356-376, April.
    17. Yutaka I. Leon Suematsu & Keiki Takadama & Norberto E. Nawa & Katsunori Shimohara & Osamu Katai, 2003. "Analyzing The Agent-Based Model And Its Implications," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 6(03), pages 331-347.
    18. A. Georges L. Romme, 2004. "Unanimity Rule and Organizational Decision Making: A Simulation Model," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(6), pages 704-718, December.
    19. Stefano Balbi & Carlo Giupponi, 2009. "Reviewing agent-based modelling of socio-ecosystems: a methodology for the analysis of climate change adaptation and sustainability," Working Papers 2009_15, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    20. Rand, William & Rust, Roland T., 2011. "Agent-based modeling in marketing: Guidelines for rigor," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 181-193.

    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:spr:comaot:v:13:y:2007:i:1:d:10.1007_s10588-006-9000-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.