Computational modeling for what-is, what-might-be, and what-should-be studies-and triangulation

Organization Science

Volumn 22, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 1195-1202

  Burton, Richard M ^a   Obel, Børge ^b  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b AARHUS SCHOOL OF BUSINESS   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Computational modeling; Experimentation; Organizational design; Simulation; Triangulation

Indexed keywords

EID: 82255167605     PISSN: 10477039     EISSN: 15265455     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0635     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Burton, R. M. 2003. Computational laboratories for organization science: Questions, validity and docking. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory 9(2) 91-108.
2. Burton, R. M., B. Obel. 1980. A computer simulation test of the M-form hypothesis. Admin. Sci. Quart. 25(3) 457-466.
3. Burton, R. M., B. Obel. 1988. Opportunism, incentives, and the M-form hypothesis-A laboratory experiment. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 10(1) 99-119.
4. Burton, R. M., B. Obel. 1995. The validity of computational models in organization science: From model realism to purpose of the model. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory 1(1) 57-71.
5. Cardinal, L. B., S. B. Sitkin, C. P. Long. 2004. Balancing and rebalancing in the creation and evolution of organizational control. Organ. Sci. 15(4) 411-431.
6. Cardinal, L. B., S. F. Turner, M. J. Fern, R. M. Burton. 2011. Organizing for product development across technological environments: Performance trade-offs and priorities. Organ. Sci. 22(4) 1000-1025.
7. Carley, K. M. 2009. Computational modeling for reasoning about the social behavior of humans. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory 15(1) 47-59.
8. Carroll, T. N., T. J. Gormley, V. J. Bilardo, R. M. Burton, K. L. Woodman. 2006. Designing a new organization at NASA: An organization design process using simulation. Organ. Sci. 17(2) 202-214.
9. Davis, J. P., K. M. Eisenhardt, C. B. Bingham. 2007. Developing theory through simulation methods. Acad. Management Rev. 32(2) 480-499.
10. Denrell, J., J. G. March. 2001. Adaptation as information restriction: The hot stove effect. Organ. Sci. 12(5) 523-538.
11. Ethiraj, S. K., D. Levinthal. 2009. Hoping for A to Z while rewarding only A: Complex organization and multiple goals. Organ. Sci. 20(1) 4-21.
12. Harrison, J. R., L. Zhiang, R. G. Carroll, K. M. Carley. 2007. Simulation modeling in organizational and management research. Acad. Management Rev. 32(4) 1229-1245.
13. Jick, T. D. 1979. Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action, qualitative methodology. Admin. Sci. Quart. 24(4) 602-611.
14. Knudsen, T., D. A. Levinthal. 2007. Two faces of search: Alternative generation and alternative evaluation. Organ. Sci. 18(1) 39-54.
15. Lenox, M. J., S. F. Rockart, A. Y. Lewin. 2006. Interdependency, competition, and the distribution of firm and industry profits. Management Sci. 52(5) 757-772.
16. Lenox, M. J., S. F. Rockart, A. Y. Lewin. 2007. Interdependency, competition, and industry dynamics. Management Sci. 53(4) 599-615.
17. Lenox, M. J., S. F. Rockart, A. Y. Lewin. 2010. Does interdependency affect firm and industry profitability? An empirical test. Strategic Management J. 31(2) 121-139.
18. Levitt, R. E. 2004. Computational modeling of organizations comes of age. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory 10(2) 127-145.
19. Lin, Z., X. Zhao, K. M. Ismail, K. M. Carley. 2006. Organizational design and restructuring in response to crises: Lessons from computational modeling and real-world cases. Organ. Sci. 17(5) 598-618.
20. Long, C. P., R. M. Burton, L. B. Cardinal. 2002. Three controls are better than one: A computational model of complex control systems. Comput. Math. Organ. Theory 8(3) 197-220.
21. Majchrzak, A. 1997. What to do when you can't have it all: Toward a theory of sociotechnical dependencies. Human Relations 50(5) 535-565.
22. March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2(1) 71-87.
23. McGrath, J. E., J. Martin, R. A. Kulka. 1982. Judgment Calls in Research. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
24. Ouchi, W. G. 1980. Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Admin. Sci. Quart. 25(1) 129-141.
25. Prietula, M. J., H. S. Watson. 2000. Extending the Cyert-March duopoly model: Organizational and economic insights. Organ. Sci. 11(5) 565-585.
26. Repenning, N. P. 2002. A simulation-based approach to understanding the dynamics of innovation implementation. Organ. Sci. 13(2) 109-127.
27. Rivkin, J. W. 2001. Reproducing knowledge: Replication without imitation at moderate complexity. Organ. Sci. 12(3) 274-293.
28. Siggelkow, N., D. A. Levinthal. 2003. Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organ. Sci. 14(6) 650-669.
29. Siggelkow, N., J. W. Rivkin. 2005. Speed and search: Designing organizations for turbulence and complexity. Organ. Sci. 16(2) 101-122.
30. Simon, H. A. 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
31. Sitkin, S. B., L. B. Cardinal, K. M. Bijlsma-Frankema, eds. 2010. Organizational Control: Cambridge Companions to Management. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
32. Sterman, J. D. 1991. A skeptic's guide to computer models. G. O. Barney, W. B. Kreutzer, M. J. Garrett, eds. Managing a Nation: The Microcomputer Software Catalog. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, 209-229.
33. Weber, M. 1946. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Oxford University Press, New York.
34. Weber, M. 1983. On Capitalism, Bureaucracy, and Religion: A Selection of Texts. Translated by S. Andreski. Allen & Unwin, London.
35. Williamson, O. E. 1975. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. Free Press, New York.