Studying Organisational Topology with Simple Computational Models

The behaviour of many complex systems is influenced by the underlying network topology. In particular, this applies to social systems in which people or organisational units collaboratively solve problems. Network rewiring processes are one useful tool in understanding the relationship between network topology and behaviour. Here we use the Kawachi network rewiring process, together with three simple simulation models of organisational collaboration, to investigate the network characteristics that influence performance. The simulation models are based on the Assignment Problem, the Kuramoto Model from physics, and a novel model of collaborative problem-solving which involves finding numbers with certain characteristics, the existence of which is guaranteed by Lagrange's Theorem. For all three models, performance is best when the underlying organisational network has a low average distance between nodes. In addition, the third model identified long-range connectivity between nodes as an important predictor of performance. The commonly-used clustering coefficient, which is a measure of short-range connectivity, did not affect performance. We would expect that long-range network connectivity would also influence the behaviour of other complex systems displaying global self-synchronization. The paper also demonstrates the utility of simple computational models in studying issues of organisational topology.

[1]  Béla Bollobás,et al.  Random Graphs: Preface to the Second Edition , 2001 .

[2]  Martin H. Levinson Linked: The New Science of Networks , 2004 .

[3]  A. Gibbons Algorithmic Graph Theory , 1985 .

[4]  M. Newman,et al.  The structure of scientific collaboration networks. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[5]  Leoni Warne,et al.  The Challenge of the Seamless Force: The Role of Informal Networks in Battlespace , 2005 .

[6]  A. Dekker Network Topology and Military Performance , 2005 .

[7]  David Cornforth,et al.  Network Structures and Agreement in Social Network Simulations , 2002, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[8]  Yukinori Kakazu,et al.  The structural phase transition among fixed cardinal networks , 2004 .

[9]  D. A. Dekker Using Tree Rewiring to Study “ Edge ” Organisations for C 2 , 2007 .

[10]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[11]  Mark E. J. Newman,et al.  The Structure and Function of Complex Networks , 2003, SIAM Rev..

[12]  James Moffat,et al.  Complexity Theory and Network Centric Warfare , 2003 .

[13]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Statistical mechanics of complex networks , 2001, ArXiv.

[14]  S. Strogatz From Kuramoto to Crawford: exploring the onset of synchronization in populations of coupled oscillators , 2000 .

[15]  Sergey N. Dorogovtsev,et al.  Critical phenomena in complex networks , 2007, ArXiv.

[16]  Vijaya Ramachandran,et al.  The diameter of sparse random graphs , 2007, Random Struct. Algorithms.

[17]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age , 2003 .

[18]  Armano Srbljinovic,et al.  An Agent-Based Model of Ethnic Mobilisation , 2003, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[19]  E. Kay,et al.  Graph Theory. An Algorithmic Approach , 1975 .

[20]  Ramon Sangüesa,et al.  How Can Social Networks Ever Become Complex? Modelling the Emergence of Complex Networks from Local Social Exchanges , 2005, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..