An Agent–Based Model of the Impact of Computer–Mediated Communication on Organizational Culture and Performance: An example of the Application of Complex Systems Analysis Tools to the Study of CIS
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online December, 2006
An Agent–Based Model of the Impact of Computer–Mediated Communication on Organizational Culture and Performance: An example of the Application of Complex Systems Analysis Tools to the Study of CIS
Organizations that make use of computer information systems (CIS) are prototypical complex adaptive systems (CAS). This paper shows how an approach from Complexity Science, exploratory agent-based modeling (ABM), can be used to study the impact of two different modes of use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) on organizational culture (OC) and performance. The ABM includes stylized representations of (a) agents communicating with other agents to complete tasks; (b) an OC consisting of the distribution of agent traits, changing as agents communicate; (c) the effect of OC on communication effectiveness (CE), and (d) the effect of CE on task completion times, that is, performance. If CMC is used in a broad mode, that is, to contact and collaborate with many, new agents, the development of a strong OC is slowed, leading to decreased CE and poorer performance early on. If CMC is used in a local mode, repeatedly contacting the same agents, a strong OC develops rapidly, leading to increased CE and high performance early on. However, if CMC is used in a broad mode over longer time periods, a strong OC can develop over a wider set of agents, leading to an OC that is stronger than an OC which develops with local CMC use. Thus broad use of CMC results in overall CE and performance that is higher than is generated by local use of CMC. We also discuss how the dynamics generated by an ABM can lead to a deeper understanding of the behavior of a CAS, for example, allowing us to better design empirical longitudinal studies.
AlgeB., WiethofC., and KleinH. (2003). When Does the Medium Matter? Knowledge-Building Experiences and Opportunities in Decision-Making Teams, Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes91(1): 26–37.
2.
AndersonP. (1999). Complexity Theory and Organization Science, Organization Science10(3): 216–232.
3.
AxelrodR., and CohenM.D. (2000). Harnessing Complexity, Chicago: The Free Press.
4.
AxelrodR. (1997a). Advancing the Art of Simulation in the Social Sciences, in ConteR., HegselmannR., and TernaP. (eds.) Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems: Simulating Social Phenomena, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
5.
AxelrodR. (1997b). The Dissemination of Culture: A model with local convergence and global polarization, Journal of Conflict Resolution41: 203–226.
6.
BankesS.C. (1993). Exploratory Modeling for Policy Analysis, Operations Research41(3): 435–449.
7.
BankesS.C. (2002a). Agent-Based Modeling: A revolution?PNAS99(3): 7199–7200.
8.
BankesS.C. (2002b). Tools and Techniques for Developing Policies for Complex and Uncertain Systems, PNAS99(3): 7263–7266.
9.
BonabeauE. (2002). Agent-Based Modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems, PNAS99(3): 7280–7287.
10.
BurkeK., and ChidambaramL. (1999). How Much Bandwith is Enough? A Longitudinal Examination of Media Characteristics and Group Outcomes, MIS Quarterly23(4): 557–580.
11.
CanessaE. (2002). Computer Mediated Communication and Organizational Culture: A survey-based study and agent based simulation model, Ph.D. Thesis, Rackham Graduate School, University of Michigan.
12.
CanessaE., and RioloR.L. (2003). The Effect of Organizational Communication Media on Organizational Culture and Performance: An agent-based simulation model, Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory9(2): 147–176.
13.
ChatmanJ. (1988). Matching People and Organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms, Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
14.
ChinK., PunK., HoA., and LauH. (2002). A Measurement-Communication-Recognition Framework of Corporate Culture Change: An empirical study, Human Factors & Ergonomics in Manufacturing12(4): 365–382.
15.
ClarkH.H. (1996). Using Language, New York: Cambridge University Press.
16.
ConteR., HegselmannR., and TernaP. (eds.) (1997). Simulating Social Phenomena, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
17.
CorneliusC., and BoosM. (2003). Enhancing Mutual Understanding in Synchronous Computer-Mediated Communication by Training: Trade-offs in judgmental tasks, Communication Research30(2): 147–177.
18.
DaftR., LengelR., and TrevinoL. (1987). Message Equivocality, Media Selection, and Manager Performance: Implications for information systems, MIS Quarterly11(3): 355–366.
19.
DaftR.L., and LengelR.H. (1986). Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design, Management Science32(5): 554–571.
20.
DenisonD. (1990). Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
21.
FulkJ., and DeSanctisG. (1995). Electronic Communication and Changing Organizational Forms, Organization Science6(4): 337–349.
22.
GilbertN., and TroitzschK. (1999). Simulation for the Social Scientist, UK: Open University Press.
23.
GrimmV., and RailsbackS.F. (2005). Individual-Based Modeling and Ecology, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
24.
GrimmV., RevillaE., BergerU., JeltschF., MooijW.M., RailsbackS.F., ThulkeH.-H., WeinerJ., WiegandT., and DeAngelisD.L. (2005). Pattern-Oriented Modeling of Agent-Based Complex Systems: Lessons from ecology, Science310(5750): 987–991.
25.
GurbaxaniV., and WhangS. (1991). The Impact of Information Systems on Organizations and Markets, Communications of the ACM34(1): 59–73.
26.
HerslebJ.D., and MockusA. (2003). An Empirical Study of Speed and Communication in Globally Distributed Software Development, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering29(6): 481–494.
27.
HollandJ.H. (1995). Hidden Order: How adaptation Builds Complexity, Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley.
28.
JarvenpaaS., KnollK., and LeidnerD. (1998). Is Anybody Out There? Antecedents of Trust in Global Virtual Teams, Journal of Management Information Systems14(4): 29–64.
29.
KreijnsK., KirschnerP.A., and JochemsW. (2003). Identifying the Pitfalls for Social Interaction in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environments: A review of the research, Computers in Human Behavior19(3): 335–353.
30.
LeeA. (1994). Electronic Mail as a Medium for Rich Communication: An empirical investigation using hermeneutic interpretation, MIS Quarterly18: 143–157.
31.
LeendersR., van EngelenJ.M.L., and KratzerJ. (2003). Virtuality, Communication, and New Product Team Creativity: A social network perspective, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management20: 69–92.
32.
MarchJ. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning, Organization Science2(1): 122–125.
33.
McKelveyB. (2002). Model-Centered Organization Science Epistemology, in BaumJ.A.C. (ed.) The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 752–780.
34.
MeyerA.D., GabaV., and ColwellK.A. (2005). Organizing Far from Equilibrium: Nonlinear change in organizational frontiers, Organization Science16(5): 456–475.
35.
NewlandsA., AndersonA., and MullinJ. (2003). Adapting Communicative Strategies to Computer-Mediated Communication: An analysis of task performance and dialogue structure, Applied Cognitive Psychology17(3): 325–348.
36.
NgwenyamaO., and LeeA. (1997). Communication Richness in Electronic Mail: Critical social theory and the contextuality of meaning, MIS Quarterly21: 145–167.
37.
OlsonG., and OlsonJ. (2000). Distance Matters, Human Computer Interaction15(2/3): 139–178.
38.
OreskesN., Shrader-FrechetteK., and BelitzK. (1994). Verification, Validation and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences, Science263(5147): 641–646.
39.
ParunakV., SavitR, and RioloR (1998). Agent-based Modeling i Equation-based Modeling: A case study and users guide, in Proceedings of Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems and Agent-based Simulation; Berlin: Springer.
40.
RykielE. (1996). Testing Ecological Models: The meaning of validation, Ecologila Modelling90(3): 229–244.
41.
ScheinE. (1990). Organizational Culture, American Psychologist45(2): 109–119.
42.
ScheinE.H. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership, San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Inc.
43.
SmithA.D., and RuppW.T. (2002). Communication and Loyalty Among Knowledge Workers: A resource of the firm theory view, Journal of Knowledge Management6(3): 250–261.
44.
SproullL., and KieslerS. (1986). Reducing Social Context Cues: The case of electronic mail, Management Science32: 1492–1512.
45.
ValacichJ., MenneckeB., WachterR, and WheelerB (1994). Extensions to Media Richness Theory: A test of the task-media fit hypothesis, in Proceedings of the Twenty-Seven Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 11–20.
46.
van LaereK., and HeeneA. (2003). Social Networks as a Source of Competitive Advantage for the Firm, Journal of Workplace Learning15(6): 248–258.
47.
WilliamsE. (1977). Experimental Comparisons of Face-To-Face and Mediated Communication: A review, Psychological Bulletin84(5): 963–976.
48.
Zwijze-KoningK.H., and de JongM.D.T. (2005). Auditing Information Structures in Organizations: A review of data collection techniques for network analysis, Organizational Research Methods8(4): 429–453.
