JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Development of a Simulator by Assimilating Survey Approach with Computational Theory for the Research of Organizational Activities
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Development of a Simulator by Assimilating Survey Approach with Computational Theory for the Research of Organizational Activities
Nakamura, Yoshiki;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
An enterprise must achieve both a sound organizational management and effective development of individual members while maintaining a balanced approach. Relative to this, there is a research field dubbed as Organizational Activation. However, there is a necessity to clarify various factors required for organizational activation and to propose a methodology for organization management. This study is an attempt to create a model from an organization-a University Seminar Class-and agents therein-the Students and the Teacher-with an assumed goal of advancing together toward the students' self-growth. The model is expressed on two dimensional planes with vectors through a computer. Vectors are composed of the growth, demand, member, hindrance and student vectors. These vectors provide data to the mathematical model for a simulation. Each agent provided the individual information from the questionnaire-conducted to 169 university students. From the analysis data and extrapolations, this study was able to craft a guideline for future seminar activity. It also examines the possibility of assimilation of the Questionnaire Approach and that of the Computational Organization Theory approach. Finally, this study discusses the future possibility of application of the Assimilated Method for research and development, and for project management.
 Keywords
Organizational Activation;Vector Model;Simulation;Agent Model;Organizational Management;
 Language
English
 Cited by
 References
1.
Axelrod, R. (1997), The Complexity of Cooperation: Agent-Based Models of Competition and Collaboration, Princeton University Press.

2.
Amabile, T. M. (1988), A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations, Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123-167.

3.
Barczak, G. and Wilemon, D. (2003), Team Member Experiences in New Product Development: Views from the Trenches, R&D Management, 33, 463-479. crossref(new window)

4.
Battiston, S. and Weisbuch, G. (2003), Decision spread in the corporate board network, Advances in Complex Systems, 6, 631-644. crossref(new window)

5.
Bonabeau, E. (2002), Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems, PNAS, 99, 7280-7287. crossref(new window)

6.
Bruniaux, P. and Ghith, A. (2003), Modeling and parametric study of a fabric drape, Advances in Complex Systems, 62, 457-476.

7.
Cederman, L. E. (2002), Endogenizing geopolitical boundaries with agent-based modeling, PNAS, 99, 7296-7303.

8.
Chen, C. C., Ford, C. M., and Farris, G. F. (1999), Do rewards benefit the organization? the effects of reward types and the perceptions of diverse R&D professionals, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 46, 47-55. crossref(new window)

9.
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., and Olsen, J. P. (1972), A garbage can model of organizational choice, Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1-25. crossref(new window)

10.
Eby, L. T. and Dobbins, G. H. (1997), Collectivistic orientation in teams: an individual and group-level analysis, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 275-295. crossref(new window)

11.
Epstein, J. M. and Epstein, J. M. (1996), Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up (Complex Adaptive Systems), The MIT press.

12.
Fisher, C. D. (2003), Why do lay people believe that satisfaction and performance are correlated? Possible sources of a commonsense theory, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 753-777. crossref(new window)

13.
Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J. E. M., Scheer, L. K., and Kumard, N. (1996), The effects of trust and interdependence on relationship commitment: A trans- Atlantic study, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13, 303-317. crossref(new window)

14.
Härenstam, A., Bejerot, E., Leijon, O., Schéele, P., Waldenström, K. and The MOA Research Group. (2004), Multilevel analyses of organizational change and working conditions in public and private sector, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 305-343. crossref(new window)

15.
Huselid, M. A. (1995), The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover, Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance, Academy of Management Journal, 38, 635-672. crossref(new window)

16.
Inui, T. and Sakurai, S. (2001), A basic Study on formation of collaborative behavior in a multi-agent pursuit game, IPSJ SIG Notes Contents Game Informatics, 5, 23-30.

17.
Jobson, J. D. (1994), Applied Multivariate Data Analysis: Volume II: Categorical and Multivariate Methods, Springer.

18.
Johnston, J. M. (2000), Behavior Analysis and the R&D Paradigm, The Behavior Analyst, 23, 141-148.

19.
Johnston, R. B. (1996), Planning or Organizing: the Implications of Theories of Activity for the Management of Operations, Omega, 24, 367-384. crossref(new window)

20.
Jorgensen, F., Laugen, B. T., and Boer H. (2007), Human Resource Management for Continuous Improvement, Creativity and Innovation Management, 16, 363-375. crossref(new window)

21.
Kor, Y. Y. (2003), Experience-Based Top Management Team Competence and Sustained Growth, Organization Science, 14, 707-719.

22.
Ligtenberga, A., Wachowicza, M., Bregta, A. K., Beulensb, A. and Kettenis, D. L. (2004), A design and application of a multi-agent system for simulation of multi-actor spatial planning, Journal of Environmental Management, 72, 43-55. crossref(new window)

23.
Lesser, V., Horling, B., Raja, A. and Zhang, S. X. Q. (2000), BIG: An agent for resource-bounded information gathering and decision making, Artificial Intelligence, 118, 197-244. crossref(new window)

24.
Lyman, W. P., Ricfiard, M. S., Richard T. M. and Paul V. B. (1974), Organizational Commitment, Job Satisfacition and Turnover among Psychiatric Technicisans, Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603- 609. crossref(new window)

25.
Nakamura, Y. and Tsuji, M. (2004), An Analysis of the Method to Invigorate Organizations: From the View of Computational Organization Theory Approach in R&D, Journal of Japan Industrial Management Association, 55, 1-8.

26.
Oldham, G. R. and Cummings, A. (1996), Employee Creativity: Personal and Contextual Factors at Work, Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607-634. crossref(new window)

27.
Parsons, S., Sierra, C., and Jennings, N. R. (1998), Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing, Journal of Logic and Computation, 8, 261-292. crossref(new window)

28.
Putsch, F. (2003), Analysis and modeling of science collaboration networks, Advances in Complex Systems, 6, 477-485. crossref(new window)

29.
Schaubroeck, J. (1990), Investigating reciprocal causation in organizational behavior research, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 17-28. crossref(new window)

30.
Schelling, T. C. (1971), Dynamic Models of Segregation, Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1, 143-186. crossref(new window)

31.
Seijts, G. H. and Latham, G. P. (2001), The effect of distal learning, outcome, and proximal goals on a moderately complex task, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 291-307. crossref(new window)

32.
Stauffer, D. and Martins, J. S. S. (2003), Asymmetry in the hierarchy model of bonabeau et al., Advances in Complex Systems, 6, 559-564. crossref(new window)

33.
Tan, H. H., Foo, M. D., Chong, C. L. and Ng, R. (2003), Situational and dispositional predictors of displays of positive emotions, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 961-978. crossref(new window)

34.
Tomikawa, Y., Munetomo, M., Takai, Y., and Sato, Y. (1995), Emergence of Cooperative Strategies in a Multi Agent Game, IPSJ SIG Notes Artificial Intelligence, 102, 25-30.

35.
Wang, C. W. and Horng, R. Y. (2002), The Effects of Creative Problem Solving Training on Creativity, Cognitive Type and R&D Performance, R&D Management, 32, 35-45. crossref(new window)

36.
Whitener, E. M. (2001), Do "high commitment" human resource practices affect employee commitment? A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling, Journal of Management, 27, 515-535.

37.
Yahira, H. (2008), The difference and commonness of belonging consideration to the plural organizations -comparison analysis among a university seminar, a part-time job and a circle-, Graduation thesis of Nihon University (in Japanese).