Agent-Based Modeling Approach to a Team Creativity Pattern Analysis Based on Heterogeneity and Network Structure

Recently organizations have paid more attention to team creativity as a strategic resource for innovation and performances improvement. The purpose of this research is to find out the evolution pattern of team creativity longitudinally in order to explain how heterogeneity and network structure - degree centrality and structural hole - can affect team creativity. Through the pattern analysis by Agent-Based Modeling (ABM) simulations, it was found that both heterogeneity and network structure - degree centrality and structural hole - positively affect team creativity. Furthermore we also found that degree centrality and structural hole are more effective than heterogeneity in the long term perspective. This research can provide foundation for future research and expand the research coverage on team creativity by conducting longitudinal analysis, while previous researches mainly addressed this topic with cross-sectional approach.

[1]  W. P. Barnett,et al.  Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. , 1989 .

[2]  Ricky W. Griffin,et al.  Toward a Theory of Organizational Creativity , 1993 .

[3]  R. Sawyer.  Social Emergence: Societies As Complex Systems , 2005 .

[4]  Adam Brand,et al.  Knowledge Management and Innovation at 3M , 1998, J. Knowl. Manag..

[5]  Teresa M. Amabile,et al.  From Guilford to Creative Synergy: Opening the Black Box of Team-Level Creativity , 2001 .

[6]  B. Uzzi,et al.  Collaboration and Creativity: The Small World Problem1 , 2005, American Journal of Sociology.

[7]  Steven B. Andrews,et al.  Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition , 1995, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[8]  J. Coleman.  Foundations of Social Theory , 1990 .

[9]  Constantine Andriopoulos,et al.  DETERMINANTS OF ORGANISATIONAL CREATIVITY: A LITERATURE REVIEW , 2001 .

[10]  Ezra W. Zuckerman,et al.  Networks, Diversity, and Productivity: The Social Capital of Corporate R&D Teams , 2001 .

[11]  Nathalie Lazaric,et al.  Knowledge Creation Facing Hierarchy: The Dynamics of Groups Inside The Firm , 2004, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[12]  Ezra W. Zuckerman,et al.  How to Make the Team: Social Networks vs. Demography as Criteria for Designing Effective Teams , 2004 .

[13]  Akbar Zaheer,et al.  Network Memory: The Influence of Past and Current Networks on Performance , 2004 .

[14]  Charles M. Macal,et al.  Managing Business Complexity: Discovering Strategic Solutions with Agent-Based Modeling and Simulation , 2007 .

[15]  Ali A. Yassine,et al.  Information Leaders in Product Development Organizational Networks: Social Network Analysis of the Design Structure Matrix , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[16]  Steven Durlauf,et al.  Social Capital , 2004 .

[17]  Jeffrey Pfeffer,et al.  Organizational Demography: Implications for Management , 1985 .

[18]  Teresa M. Amabile,et al.  A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations , 1988 .

[19]  R. M. Milgram,et al.  Developmental test of Mednick's associative hierarchies of original thinking. , 1980 .

[20]  Wenpin Tsai.  Social capital, strategic relatedness and the formation of intraorganizational linkages , 2000 .

[21]  B. Kogut.  The network as knowledge : Generative rules and the emergence of structure , 2000 .

[22]  E. Todeva.  Networks , 2007 .

[23]  Charles M. Macal,et al.  Managing Business Complexity: Discovering Strategic Solutions with Agent-Based Modeling and Simulation , 2007 .

[24]  D. Harrison,et al.  TIES, LEADERS, AND TIME IN TEAMS: STRONG INFERENCE ABOUT NETWORK STRUCTURE'S EFFECTS ON TEAM VIABILITY AND PERFORMANCE , 2006 .

[25]  Deborah G. . Ancona,et al.  Demography and Design: Predictors of New Product Team Performance , 1992 .