IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/comaot/v30y2024i2d10.1007_s10588-023-09378-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Two probability theories and a garbage can

Author

Listed:
  • David Mortimore

    (Naval Postgraduate School
    Naval Undersea Warfare Center Division, Keyport)

  • Mustafa Canan

    (Naval Postgraduate School)

  • Raymond R. Buettner

    (Naval Postgraduate School)

Abstract

Since its nascence, computational organization theory has predominantly relied on classical probability theory to model and simulate organizational properties. However, key assumptions of classical probability theory conflict with empirical observations of organizational behaviors and processes, thereby raising the question if an alternate theoretical basis for probabilistic modeling of organizations might improve the relevancy of computational organization research. In the context of the garbage can model of organizational decision-making, this paper provides two examples—order effects and system measurement—to illustrate the inadequacy of classical probability theory and to stimulate discussion on the merits of incorporating quantum probability theory in computational models. This paper recommends that future work explore the sensitivity of computational organization theory models to probability theories, the impacts associated theoretical assumptions might have on modeling and simulating dynamic organizational interdependencies, and the implications to community practices.

Suggested Citation

  • David Mortimore & Mustafa Canan & Raymond R. Buettner, 2024. "Two probability theories and a garbage can," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 148-160, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:comaot:v:30:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s10588-023-09378-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s10588-023-09378-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10588-023-09378-3
    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/s10588-023-09378-3?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. Jay R. Galbraith, 1974. "Organization Design: An Information Processing View," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 4(3), pages 28-36, May.
    2. Kathleen M. Carley, 1999. "On generating hypotheses using computer simulations," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 69-77.
    3. James G. March, 1978. "Bounded Rationality, Ambiguity, and the Engineering of Choice," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 9(2), pages 587-608, Autumn.
    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. Thunström, Linda & Nordström, Jonas & Shogren, Jason F., 2015. "Certainty and overconfidence in future preferences for food," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 101-113.
    2. Jiatong Yu & Jiajue Wang & Taesoo Moon, 2022. "Influence of Digital Transformation Capability on Operational Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-20, June.
    3. Freeman, Steven F., 1997. "Good decisions : reconciling human rationality, evolution, and ethics," Working papers WP 3962-97., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    4. Pascale Amans & Sylvie Rascol-Boutard, 2006. "Controlling Complex Organizations on the Basis of an Operational Performance Measure," Post-Print hal-01659071, HAL.
    5. Moore, Don A., 1999. "Order Effects in Preference Judgments: Evidence for Context Dependence in the Generation of Preferences, ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 146-165, May.
    6. de Camargo Fiorini, Paula & Roman Pais Seles, Bruno Michel & Chiappetta Jabbour, Charbel Jose & Barberio Mariano, Enzo & de Sousa Jabbour, Ana Beatriz Lopes, 2018. "Management theory and big data literature: From a review to a research agenda," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 112-129.
    7. Kieran Donaghy, 2011. "Models of travel demand with endogenous preference change and heterogeneous agents," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 17-30, March.
    8. Alvesson, Mats & Sveningsson, Stefan, 2011. "Management is the solution: Now what was the problem? On the fragile basis for managerialism," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 349-361.
    9. Ahmed Hamdi & Tarik Saikouk & Bouchaib Bahli, 2020. "Facing supply chain disruptions: enhancers of supply chain resiliency," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 40(4), pages 2943-2958.
    10. Jesse Shore & Ethan Bernstein & David Lazer, 2014. "Facts and Figuring: An Experimental Investigation of Network Structure and Performance in Information and Solution Spaces," Harvard Business School Working Papers 14-075, Harvard Business School, revised Jun 2014.
    11. Mohammad Reza Nikbakht & Mehrdad Sadr Ara, 2016. "A new experimental model for profit maximization," Journal of Economic and Financial Studies (JEFS), LAR Center Press, vol. 4(3), pages 45-52, June.
    12. Starling David Hunter & Henrik Bentzen & Jan Taug, 2020. "On the “missing link” between formal organization and informal social structure," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 9(1), pages 1-20, December.
    13. Phanish Puranam & Harbir Singh & Saikat Chaudhuri, 2009. "Integrating Acquired Capabilities: When Structural Integration Is (Un)necessary," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 313-328, April.
    14. Klein, Daniel & Ludwig, Christopher A. & Nicolay, Katharina, 2020. "Internal digitalization and tax-efficient decision making," ZEW Discussion Papers 20-051, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    15. Swait, Joffre & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2001. "Choice Environment, Market Complexity, and Consumer Behavior: A Theoretical and Empirical Approach for Incorporating Decision Complexity into Models of Consumer Choice," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 141-167, November.
    16. Paola Rovelli & Vincenzo Butticè, 2020. "On the organizational design of entrepreneurial ventures: the configurations of the entrepreneurial team," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 47(2), pages 243-269, June.
    17. Chu, P. C. & Spires, Eric E. & Sueyoshi, Toshiyuki, 1999. "Cross-Cultural Differences in Choice Behavior and Use of Decision Aids: A Comparison of Japan and the United States," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 77(2), pages 147-170, February.
    18. Augier, Mie & March, James G., 2002. "A model scholar: Herbert A. Simon (1916-2001)," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 1-17, September.
    19. Raaj Kumar Sah, 1991. "Fallibility in Human Organizations and Political Systems," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(2), pages 67-88, Spring.
    20. Stephen Bahadar & Muhammad Nadeem & Rashid Zaman, 2023. "Toxic chemical releases and idiosyncratic return volatility: A prospect theory perspective," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(2), pages 2109-2143, June.

    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:30:y:2024:i:2:d:10.1007_s10588-023-09378-3. 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.