Structure and Flexibility of Project Teams under Turbulent Environments: An Application of Agent-Based Simulation

Abstract

The extent of authority and autonomy granted to the project manager and to individual team members has a significant impact on the ability of the project team to meet stakeholders’ goals and expectations. This is particularly true in dynamic environments, where resources, requirements, and other conditions change rapidly, and a great deal of innovation is required. In this paper, we provide some recommendations regarding the structure and flexibility of project teams operating in turbulent environments. The recommendations are based on a set of experiments carried out with agent-based simulation, a novel tool for organizational design. The observed results show that under high uncertainty, loose designs for project teams outperform tight organizational structures.

Keywords

project team agent-based simulation dynamic environment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brown

, & Eisenhardt

(1998). Competing on the edge: Strategy as structured chaos. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Burton

, & Obel

(1998). Strategic organizational diagnosis and design: Developing theory for application. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Carley

(1992). Organizational learning and personnel turnover. Organization Science, 3, 20–46.

Huberman

, & Glance

(1998). Fluctuating efforts and sustainable cooperation. In Prietula

, Carley

, & Gasser

(Eds.), Simulating organizations: Computational models for institutions and groups. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kaplan

, & Carley

(1998). An approach to modeling communication and information technology in organizations. In Prietula

, Carley

, & Gasser

(Eds.), Simulating organizations: Computational models for institutions and groups. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kim

, & Burton

R. M.

(2002, December). The effect of task uncertainty and decentralization on project team performance. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 8(4), 365–384.

Lant

, & Mezias

(1990). Managing discontinuous change: A simulation study of organizational learning and entrepreneurial strategies. Strategic Management Journal, Special Issue on Corporate Entrepreneurship, 11, 147–179.

Lant

, & Mezias

(1992). An organizational learning model of convergence and reorientation. Organization Science, 3, 47–71.

Levinthal

, & March

(1981). A model of adaptive organizational search. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 2, 307–333.

10.

Loumana

, & March

(1987). Adaptive coordination of a learning team. Management Science, 33, 107–123.

11.

March

(1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.

12.

Mezias

, & Glynn

(1993). The three faces of corporate renewal: Institution, revolution, and evolution. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 77–101.

13.

Mezias

, & Lant

(1994). Mimetic learning and the evolution of organizational populations. In Baum

, & Singh

(Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics of organizations. New York: Oxford University Press.

14.

Prietula

, Carley

, & Gasser

(Eds.) (1998). Simulating organizations: Computational models for institutions and groups. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.