DYCORP : a computational framework for examining organizational performance under dynamic conditions

In an attempt to systematically address what factors affect organizational performance, we built a dynamic computational framework for examining organizational performance in which organizations are composed of intelligent adaptive agents. Using this framework the user can contrast organizations with different designs, existing in different task environments, and subject to different stresses. We demonstrate the value of this model by examining how training and stress affect organizational performance.

[1]  Mary Zey-Ferrell,et al.  Dimensions of organizations : environment, context, structure, process, and performance , 1980 .

[2]  Barry M. Staw,et al.  Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. , 1981 .

[3]  Kathleen M. Carley.  Coordinating the success: trading information redundancy for task simplicity , 1990, Twenty-Third Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[4]  C. R. Hinings,et al.  Values and Organizational Structure , 1996 .

[5]  HERBERT A. SIMON,et al.  The Architecture of Complexity , 1991 .

[6]  H. Simon,et al.  Applying Information Technology to Organization Design , 1973 .

[7]  Johan P. Olsen,et al.  Ambiguity and choice in organizations , 1976 .

[8]  D. L. Simms,et al.  Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies , 1986 .

[9]  W. Richard Scott.  Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems , 1981 .

[10]  Karlene H. Roberts,et al.  New challenges in organizational research: high reliability organizations , 1989 .

[11]  Robert E. Hoskisson,et al.  The Effect of Quantum Versus Incremental M-form Reorganization on Performance: A Time-Series Exploration of Intervention Dynamics , 1985 .

[12]  Kathleen M. Carley,et al.  Proactive or Reactive: An Analysis of the Effect of Agent Style on Organizational Decision-making Performance , 1993, Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management.

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

[14]  Kathleen M. Carley,et al.  Maydays and Murphies: A Study of the Effect of Organizational Design, Task, and Stress on Organizational Performance , 1992 .

[15]  Kathleen M. Carley.  Designing organizational structures to cope with communication breakdowns: a simulation model , 1991 .

[16]  P. Lawrence,et al.  Organization and environment , 1967 .

[17]  Yoram Zeira,et al.  Organizations in Contemporary Society , 1990 .

[18]  T. Ostrom.  Computer simulation: the third symbol system , 1988 .

[19]  M. Hannan,et al.  The Population Ecology of Organizations , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[20]  K. Roberts.  Some Characteristics of One Type of High Reliability Organization , 1990 .

[21]  H. Rothstein.  The effects of time pressure on judgment in multiple cue probability learning , 1986 .

[22]  Kathleen M. Carley.  Organizational Learning and Personnel Turnover , 1992 .

[23]  Michael X Cohen,et al.  A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice. , 1972 .

[24]  C. B. Schoonhoven.  Problems with contingency theory: testing assumptions hidden within the language of contingency "theory.". , 1981, Administrative science quarterly.

[25]  Lawrence H. Peters,et al.  Research note: The relationship between time pressure and performance: A field test of Parkinson's Law , 1984 .