Unlocking Organizational Potential: A Computational Platform for Investigating Structural Interdependence in Design

A team’s design—the structuring of its resources and flows of knowledge—is an important element determining its effectiveness. An essential element in achieving a team’s problem-solving potential is the role that interdependence, in both the task and the organization, plays in determining the dynamic and emergent system-level properties of the organization. In this paper, we present a computational platform for experimentally investigating the influence of informational dependencies found in the design of a complex system for exploring their role in determining system behaviors and performance. The approach presented in this paper is a multiagent simulation of the conceptual design of space mission plans by Team X, an advanced project design group at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The algorithm is composed of rich descriptive models of both the team-types and timing of interactions, collaborative methods, sequencing, rates of convergence- and the task-primary variables, their behaviors and relations, and the approaches used to resolve them. The objective is to create an environment of interaction representative of that found in actual design sessions. Better understanding how the dynamics arising from organizational and domain interdependencies impact an organization’s ability to effectively resolve its task should lead to the development of guidelines for better coping with task complexities, suggest ways to better design organizations, as well as suggest ways for improving the search for innovative solutions.

[1]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Landscape Design: Designing for Local Action in Complex Worlds , 1999 .

[2]  Pietro Panzarasa Modeling Structure and Cognition in Organizations : A Meta-Network Computational Approach , 2003 .

[3]  Yan Jin,et al.  The Virtual Design Team: A Computational Simulation Model of Project Organizations1 , 1998 .

[4]  Krishna R. Pattipati,et al.  Normative design of organizations. II. Organizational structure , 2002, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[5]  Gérard P. Cachon,et al.  Perspective: Complexity Theory and Organization Science , 1999, Organization Science.

[6]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994 .

[7]  James D. Thompson Organizations in Action , 1967 .

[8]  Kathleen M. Carley Intra-Organizational Computation and Complexity , 2003 .

[9]  Kathleen M. Carley,et al.  A PCANS Model of Structure in Organizations , 1998 .

[10]  Steven D. Eppinger,et al.  The Misalignment of Product Architecture and Organizational Structure in Complex Product Development , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[11]  J. A. Barnes Graph Theory and Social Networks: A Technical Comment on Connectedness and Connectivity , 1969 .

[12]  Steven D. Eppinger,et al.  Identifying Modular and Integrative Systems and Their Impact on Design Team Interactions , 2003 .

[13]  Christoph H. Loch,et al.  Communication and Uncertainty in Concurrent Engineering , 1998 .

[14]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Special Issue on Design and Development: Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[15]  Paul S. Adler,et al.  Interdepartmental Interdependence and Coordination: The Case of the Design/Manufacturing Interface , 1995 .

[16]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of , 1990 .

[17]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994, Structural analysis in the social sciences.

[18]  Yuri N. Levchuk,et al.  Normative Design of Organizations — Part II : Organizational Structure , 2001 .

[19]  Christopher Alexander Notes on the Synthesis of Form , 1964 .

[20]  Jay R. Galbraith Designing Complex Organizations , 1973 .

[21]  James R. Wertz,et al.  Space Mission Analysis and Design , 1992 .

[22]  Raymond E. Levitt,et al.  The virtual design team , 1998, CACM.