Agent-based simulation approach to understanding the interaction between employee behavior and dynamic tasks

SIMULATION

Volumn 87, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 407-422

  Jiang, Guoyin ^a   Hu, Bin ^a   Wang, Youtian ^b  

^a HUAZHONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (China)

^b HUBEI UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS   (China)

Author keywords

agent based simulation; collaborative learning; dynamic tasks; matching; task allocation

Indexed keywords

AGENT BASED SIMULATION; COLLABORATIVE LEARNING; DYNAMIC TASKS; MATCHING; TASK ALLOCATION;

ALGORITHMS; JAVA PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE; MULTI AGENT SYSTEMS; PERSONNEL;

COMPUTER SOFTWARE;

EID: 79954525363     PISSN: 00375497     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0037549710385745     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Gomolski B. Are you really customer-centric? Computerworld 2005; 39: 33.
2. Wilke HAM and Meertens RW Group performance. London, New York: Routledge, 1994.
3. Zoethout K., Jager W. and Molleman E. Formalizing self-organizing processes of task allocation. Simul Model Practice Theory 2006; 14: 342-359.
4. Uzumeri MV and Nembhard DA A population of learners: a new way to measure organizational learning. J Oper Manage 1998; 16: 515-528.
5. Papa MJ and Papa WH Perceptual and communicative indices of employee performance with new technology. West J Speech Commun 1990; 54: 21-41.
6. Nembhard DA The effects of task complexity and experience on learning and forgetting: a field study. Human Factors 2000; 42: 272-286.
7. Nembhard DA and Osothsilp N. Task complexityeffects on between-individuallearning/forgetting variability. Int J Indust Ergon 2002; 29: 297-306.
8. Wood RE Task complexity: definition of the construct. Organiz Behav Human Decis Process 1986; 37: 60-82.
9. Carley KM Computational organizational science and organizational engineering. Simul Model Practice Theory 2002; 10: 253-269.
10. Gilbert N. Agent-based models. London: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2008.
11. Alonso E. How individuals negotiate societies. In: Demazeau Y (ed.) Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multiagent Systems, ICMAS 1998. Paris: IEEE Computer Society, 1998, pp.18-25.
12. Sandholm TW and Lesser VR Coalitions among computationally bounded agents. Artif Intell 1997; 1-2: 99-137.
13. Vidal-Puga JJ Forming coalitions and the Shapley NTU value. Eur J Operat Res 2008; 190: 659-671.
14. Konishi H. and Ray D. Coalition formation as a dynamic process. J Econ Theory 2003; 110: 1-41.
15. Arnold T. and Schwalbe U. Dynamic coalition formation and the core. J Econ Behav Organiz 2002; 49: 363-380.
16. Ferber J. and Gutknecht O. Aalaadin: a meta-model for the analysis and design organizations in multi-agent systems. In: Demazeau Y (ed.) Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems. Paris: IEEE Computer Society, 1998: 128-135.
17. Ferber J. and Gutknecht O. Operational semantics of a role-based agent architecture. In: Jennings N and Lesperance Y (eds) Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages. Orlando: Springer-Verlag, 2000, pp.205-217.
18. Lander SE and Lesser VR Sharing metainformation to guide cooperative search among heterogeneous reusable agents. IEEE Trans Know Data Eng 1997; 9: 193-208.
19. Nagendra Prasad MV, Lesser VR and Lander S. Learning organizational roles in a heterogeneous multi-agent system. Int J Human-Comp Studies 1996; 48: 51-67.
20. Zhang W. and Shi C. A recursive model of agent organization. Chinese J Software 2002; 13: 2149-2153.
21. Jiang JG, Wu Q., Xia N. and Li Y. A task-matching based coalition generation strategy. Syst Eng Theory Practice 2007; 27: 85-91.
22. Jiang JG, Yin X., Xia N. and Su ZP Strategy of agent coalition ba sed on historic behavior. Acta Electron Sinica 2007; 35: 1485-1489.
23. Yin X., Jiang J. and Xia N. Multi-task multi-coalition generation problem: model and algorithm. Syst Eng Theory Practice 2008; 28: 90-95.
24. Ouksel A. and Vyhmeister R. Performance of organizational design models and their impact on organization learning. Comput Math Organiz Theory 2000; 6: 395-410.
25. Chen Y., Brockner J. and Greenberg J. When is it ‘a pleasure to do business with you?’ The effects of relative status, outcome favorability, and procedural fairness. Organiz Behav Human Decis Proc 2003; 92: 1-21.
26. Chen C., Chen Y. and Xin K. Guanxi Practices and trust in management:a procedural justice perspective. Organiz Sci 2004; 15: 200-209.
27. Alexander PA, Kulikowich JM and Jetton TL The role of subject-matter knowledge and interest in the processing of linear and non-linear texts. Rev Educat Res 1994; 64: 201-252.
28. Benton SL, Corkill AJ, Sharp JM and Dowrey. Knowledge,interest, and narrative writing. J Educat Psychol 1995; 87: 66-79.
29. Bray RM, Kerr NL and Atkin RS Effects of group size, problem difficulty, and sex on group performance and member reactions. J Personal Social Psychol 1978; 36: 1224-1240.
30. Zoethout K., Jager W. and Molleman E. Self-organising social processes of task allocation. Cognitive Syst 2004; 6: 189-203.
31. Zoethout K., Jager W. and Molleman E. Newcomers in self-organizing task groups: A pilot study. In: Takahashi D, Sallach J and Rouchier J (eds) Proceedings of Advancing Social Simulation: The First World Congress. Springer, 2007, pp.214-224.
32. Zoethout K., Jager W. and Molleman E. Task dynamics in self-organising task groups: expertise,motivational, and performance differences of specialists and generalists. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 2008; 16: 75-94.
33. Zoethout K., Jager W. and Molleman E. Simulating the emergence of task rotation. J Artif Soc Social Simul 2006; 9, http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/9/1/5.html.
34. Rothrock L., Cohen A., Yin J., Thiruvengada H. and Nahum-Shani I. Analyses of team performance in a dynamic task environment. Appl Ergonom 2008; 40: 699-706.
35. Gilbert N. and Troitzsch KG Simulation for the social scientist. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1999.
36. Kitts JA, Macy MW and Flache A. Structural learning: Attraction and conformity in task oriented groups. Comput Math Organiz Theory 1999; 5: 129-145.
37. Panait L. and Luke S. Cooperative multi-agent learning: The state of the art. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 2005; 11: 387-434.
38. Reagans R., Argote L. and Brooks D. Individual experience and experience working together. Manage Sci 2005; 51: 869-881.
39. Shafer SM, Nembhard DA and Uzumeri MV The effects of worker learning, forgetting, and heterogeneity on assembly line productivity. Manage Sci 2001; 47: 1639-1653.
40. North MJ, Collier NT and Vos JR Experiences creating three implementations of the repast agent modeling toolkit. ACM Trans Model Comp Simul 2006; 16: 1-25.
41. Railsback SF Agent-based simulation platforms: review and development recommendations. Simul Model Practice Theory 2006; 82: 609-623.