Building upon prior research on enterprise centralization and knowledge dynamics, this paper uses computational methods to assess the behavior and project performance of different organization-al designs in varying environments. The results reinforce contingency theory and suggest particular characteristics of different project environments that make one form relatively more or less appropriate than another. Practically, the answers to the research questions have direct and immediate application to project/portfolio managers and senior executives. Theoretically, broad classes of organizations are generalized and prescribe a novel set of organizational design guides.
AlbertsDavid S., & HayesRichard E. (2003). Power to the edge.Washington, DC: CCRP.
2.
AshbyW. R. (1960). An introduction to cybernetics.London: Chapman & Hall.
3.
BernardH. R. (1998). Handbook of methods in cultural anthropologyWalnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
4.
BoxG. E. P., HunterW. G., and HunterJ. S. (1978). Statistics for experimenters: An introduction to design, data analysis and model building.New York: Wiley.
5.
CampbellD. T., & StanleyJ. C. (1973). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research.Chicago: Rand McNally.
6.
CarleyK. M., & LinZ. (1997). A theoretical study of organizational performance under information distortion. Management Science, 43(7), 976–997.
7.
CarleyK. M., & PrietulaM. J. (Eds.). (1994). Computational organization theory.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8.
CarrollT., & BurtonR. M. (2000, December). Organizations and complexity: Searching for the edge of chaos. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 6(4), 319–337.
9.
ChiangA. C. (1984). Fundamental methods of mathematical economics (third edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
10.
ChengC. H. F., & LevittR. E. (2001, Nov 3–7). Contextually changing behavior in medical organizations.Proceedings of the 2001 Annual Symposium of the American Medical Informatics Association. Washington, DC.
11.
ChristiansenT. R. (1993). Modeling efficiency and effectiveness of coordination in engineering design teams (Doctoral dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University). Published as Det Norske Veritas Research Report No. 932063, Oslo, Norway.
12.
CohenG. P. (1992). The virtual design team: An object-oriented model of information sharing in project teams (Unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University).
13.
CookT. D., & CampbellD. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
14.
Defense Acquisition University (DAU). (2004, February). Program managers' toolkit, 13th edition (Ver. 2.0).
15.
DelbecqAndré L., Van de VenAndrew, & GustafsonDavid (1986). Group techniques for program planning, 2nd edition.Madison, WI: Greenbriar Press.
16.
DenzinN. K., & LincolnY. S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 500–515). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
DillardJ. T. (2003). Centralized control of defense acquisition programs: A comparative review of the framework from 1987–2003.Naval Postgraduate School.
GalbraithJ. R. (1973). Designing complex organization.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
20.
GalbraithJ. R. (1977). Organization design.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
21.
GlaserB. G., & StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research.New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
22.
JinY., & LevittR. E. (1996). The virtual design team: A computational model of project organizations. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 2(3), 171–195.
23.
JohnsonR. A., & WichernD. W. (1992). Applied multivariate statistical analysis (third edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
24.
KimJ., & BurtonR. (2002). The effect of task uncertainty and decentralization on project team performance. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 8, 365–384.
25.
KoestlerA. (1967). The ghost in the machine.London: Arkana Books.
26.
KunzJ. C., LevittR. E., & JinY. (1998). The virtual design team: A computational simulation model of project organizations. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 41(11), 84–92.
27.
LawrenceP. R., & LorschJ. W. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration.Boston: Division of Research, Harvard Business School.
28.
LapinL. L. (1985). Quantitative methods for business decisions with cases (third edition). San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
29.
LawA. M., & KeltonD. (1991). Simulation modeling and analysis (second edition), New York: McGraw-Hill.
30.
LeavittH. J. (2004). Top down.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
31.
LevittRaymond E., CohenGeoffrey P., & KunzJohn C. (1994). The “virtual design team”: Simulating how organization structure and information processing tools affect team performance.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
32.
LevittR. E., ThomsenJ., ChristiansenT. R., KunzJ. C., JinY., & NassC. (1999). Simulating project work processes and organizations: Toward a mocro-contingency theory of organizational design. Management Science45(11), 1479–1495.
33.
MarchJ. G., & SimonH. A. (1958). Organizations.New York: John Wiley.
34.
MorganGareth (1997). Images of organization.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
35.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2003, August). Columbia accident investigation board report.Government Printing Office.
36.
NissenM. E., & BuettnerR. R. (2004). Computational experimentation with the virtual design team: Bridging the chasm between laboratory and field research in C2.10th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, Stanford, CA.
37.
NissenM. E., & LevittR. E. (2004, January). Agent-based modeling of knowledge flows: Illustration from the domain of information systems design.Proceedings Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI.
38.
NogueiraJ. C. (2000). A formal model for risk assessment in software projects (Doctoral dissertation, Department of Computer Science, Naval Postgraduate School).
39.
Packard Commission. (1986). A quest for excellence, final report to the president.Washington, DC: Packard Commission.
40.
SimonHerbert A. (1981). The sciences of the artificial (second edition). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
ThomsenJ. (1998). The virtual team alliance (VTA): Modeling the effects of goal incongruency in semi-routine, fast-paced project organizations (Doctoral dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University).
43.
ThompsonJ. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases in administrative theory.New York: McGraw-Hill.
44.
USD (AT&L). (2003, May 12). Department of Defense Directive 5000.2. Operation of the defense acquisition system.Washington, DC: USD.
45.
Van CreveldMartin (1985). Command in war.Boston: Harvard University Press.
WongS. S., & BurtonR. M. (2000, December). Virtual teams: What are their characteristics, and impact on team performance?Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 6(4), 339–360.
