IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/comaot/v24y2018i4d10.1007_s10588-018-9263-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The role of cognitive artifacts in organizational routine dynamics: an agent-based model

Author

Listed:
  • Dehua Gao

    (Shandong Technology and Business University)

  • Flaminio Squazzoni

    (University of Brescia)

  • Xiuquan Deng

    (Beihang University)

Abstract

Organizational routines consist of a mix of human actors and artifacts. Indeed, organizational settings are populated by a variety of cognitive artifacts, such as operating standards and prioritization rules, which encapsulate two types of knowledge: standards and regulations constraining individual action and rules sustaining explorative capacities of individuals. In order to investigate the role that cognitive artifacts may play in the formation and change of organizational routines, we developed an agent-based model that simulated environmental tasks, individual action and organizational settings. Our simulation results show that these two kinds of knowledge have different effects on routine dynamics and that when constraining knowledge and explorative capacities complement each other, routines are more efficacious. This indicates that organizational design should try to harmonize standardization and individual exploration. We also found that increasing the level of both these two kinds of knowledge inherent in cognitive artifacts within a dynamic environment tends to accelerate the adaptively changing processes of the routine system although at the expense of higher operating costs. Finally, we found that the impact of organizational inertia on the routine system might be either negative or positive, depending on a triangle relation among cognitive artifacts, environmental characteristics and inertia.

Suggested Citation

  • Dehua Gao & Flaminio Squazzoni & Xiuquan Deng, 2018. "The role of cognitive artifacts in organizational routine dynamics: an agent-based model," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 473-499, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:comaot:v:24:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s10588-018-9263-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s10588-018-9263-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10588-018-9263-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10588-018-9263-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Teppo Felin & Nicolai J. Foss & Koen H. Heimeriks & Tammy L. Madsen, 2012. "Microfoundations of Routines and Capabilities: Individuals, Processes, and Structure," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(8), pages 1351-1374, December.
    2. Guus ten Broeke & George van Voorn & Arend Ligtenberg, 2016. "Which Sensitivity Analysis Method Should I Use for My Agent-Based Model?," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 19(1), pages 1-5.
    3. Jennifer A. Howard-Grenville, 2005. "The Persistence of Flexible Organizational Routines: The Role of Agency and Organizational Context," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(6), pages 618-636, December.
    4. Dehua Gao & Xiuquan Deng & Qiuhong Zhao & Hong Zhou & Bing Bai, 2015. "Multi-Agent Based Simulation of Organizational Routines on Complex Networks," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 18(3), pages 1-17.
    5. Ross Gore & Saikou Diallo & Christopher Lynch & Jose Padilla, 2017. "Augmenting Bottom-up Metamodels with Predicates," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 20(1), pages 1-4.
    6. Stefan W. Konlechner & Barbara Müller & Wolfgang H. Güttel & Irina Koprax & Karin Link, 2016. "Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing: The Role of Artifacts in Interpretive Schema Change," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 17(2), pages 129-150, August.
    7. Sangyoon Yi & Thorbjørn Knudsen & Markus C. Becker, 2016. "Inertia in Routines: A Hidden Source of Organizational Variation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 782-800, June.
    8. Martha S. Feldman & Anat Rafaeli, 2002. "Organizational Routines as Sources of Connections and Understandings," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(3), pages 309-331, May.
    9. Hari Bapuji & Manpreet Hora & Akbar M. Saeed, 2012. "Intentions, Intermediaries, and Interaction: Examining the Emergence of Routines," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(8), pages 1586-1607, December.
    10. Witt, Ulrich, 2011. "Emergence and functionality of organizational routines: an individualistic approach," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 157-174, June.
    11. Wood, Robert E., 1986. "Task complexity: Definition of the construct," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 60-82, February.
    12. Markus C. Becker, 2004. "Organizational routines: a review of the literature," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 13(4), pages 643-678, August.
    13. Riccardo Boero & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2005. "Does Empirical Embeddedness Matter? Methodological Issues on Agent-Based Models for Analytical Social Science," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 8(4), pages 1-6.
    14. Stephanie Bertels & Jennifer Howard-Grenville & Simon Pek, 2016. "Cultural Molding, Shielding, and Shoring at Oilco: The Role of Culture in the Integration of Routines," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 573-593, June.
    15. Brian T. Pentland & Martha S. Feldman, 2007. "Narrative Networks: Patterns of Technology and Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(5), pages 781-795, October.
    16. Bing Bai & Byungjoon Yoo & Xiuquan Deng & Iljoo Kim & Dehua Gao, 2016. "Linking routines to the evolution of IT capability on agent-based modeling and simulation: a dynamic perspective," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 184-211, June.
    17. Scott F. Turner & Violina Rindova, 2012. "A Balancing Act: How Organizations Pursue Consistency in Routine Functioning in the Face of Ongoing Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 24-46, February.
    18. Nils Stieglitz & Thorbjørn Knudsen & Markus C. Becker, 2016. "Adaptation and inertia in dynamic environments," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(9), pages 1854-1864, September.
    19. Cohen, Michael D, et al, 1996. "Routines and Other Recurring Action Patterns of Organizations: Contemporary Research Issues," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 5(3), pages 653-698.
    20. Peter Abell & Teppo Felin & Nicolai Foss, 2008. "Building micro-foundations for the routines, capabilities, and performance links," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(6), pages 489-502.
    21. Brian T. Pentland & Martha S. Feldman, 2005. "Organizational routines as a unit of analysis," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 14(5), pages 793-815, October.
    22. Daniel Beverungen, 2014. "Exploring the Interplay of the Design and Emergence of Business Processes as Organizational Routines," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 6(4), pages 191-202, August.
    23. Eugenia Cacciatori, 2012. "Resolving Conflict in Problem-Solving: Systems of Artefacts in the Development of New Routines," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(8), pages 1559-1585, December.
    24. Wander Jager, 2017. "Enhancing the Realism of Simulation (EROS): On Implementing and Developing Psychological Theory in Social Simulation," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 20(3), pages 1-14.
    25. Herbert A. Simon, 1991. "Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 125-134, February.
    26. Cacciatori, Eugenia, 2008. "Memory objects in project environments: Storing, retrieving and adapting learning in project-based firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1591-1601, October.
    27. Markus C. Becker, 2004. "Organizational routines : a review of the literature," Post-Print hal-00279010, HAL.
    28. Marta Posada & Celia Martín-Sierra & Elena Perez, 2017. "Effort, Satisfaction and Outcomes in Organisations," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 20(2), pages 1-9.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dehua Gao & Flaminio Squazzoni & Xiuquan Deng, 2018. "The Intertwining Impact of Intraorganizational and Routine Networks on Routine Replication Dynamics: An Agent-Based Model," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-23, November.
    2. Friederike Wall, 2023. "Modeling managerial search behavior based on Simon’s concept of satisficing," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 265-299, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dehua Gao & Flaminio Squazzoni & Xiuquan Deng, 2018. "The Intertwining Impact of Intraorganizational and Routine Networks on Routine Replication Dynamics: An Agent-Based Model," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2018, pages 1-23, November.
    2. Giada Baldessarelli & Nathalie Lazaric & Michele Pezzoni, 2022. "Organizational routines: Evolution in the research landscape of two core communities," Post-Print halshs-03718851, HAL.
    3. Giada Baldessarelli & Nathalie Lazaric & Michele Pezzoni, 2022. "Organizational routines: Evolution in the research landscape of two core communities," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 1119-1154, September.
    4. Dehua Gao & Aliakbar Akbaritabar, 2022. "Using agent-based modeling in routine dynamics research: a quantitative and content analysis of literature," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 521-550, February.
    5. Paul Spee & Paula Jarzabkowski & Michael Smets, 2016. "The Influence of Routine Interdependence and Skillful Accomplishment on the Coordination of Standardizing and Customizing," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 759-781, June.
    6. Mickaël David & Frantz Rowe, 2015. "Enterprise Systems Contribution to Organizational Routines Evolution Potential [Le rôle des systèmes d’information d’entreprise dans l’évolutivité des routines organisationnelles]," Post-Print hal-01559512, HAL.
    7. Jeremy Aroles & Christine McLean, 2016. "Rethinking Stability and Change in the Study of Organizational Routines: Difference and Repetition in a Newspaper-Printing Factory," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 535-550, June.
    8. Robert Charles Sheldon & Eric Michael Laviolette & Fabien Geuser, 2020. "Explaining the process and effects of new routine introduction with a notion of micro-level entrepreneurship," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 609-642, July.
    9. Peter Kesting, 2023. "(Ex)Change of Routines: An Action-Based Microfoundation," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 75(2), pages 173-194, June.
    10. Gilstrap, J. Bruce & Hart, Timothy A., 2020. "How employee behaviors effect organizational change and stability," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 120-131.
    11. Aura Parmentier-Cajaiba & Nathalie Lazaric & Giovany Cajaiba-Santana, 2021. "The effortful process of routines emergence: the interplay of entrepreneurial actions and artefacts," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 33-63, January.
    12. Kandora Marcin, 2017. "In search for effective methods of routine formation," Management, Sciendo, vol. 21(1), pages 20-39, May.
    13. Nathalie Lazaric, 2021. "Cognition and Routine Dynamics," Post-Print halshs-03402421, HAL.
    14. Davies, Andrew & Frederiksen, Lars & Cacciatori, Eugenia & Hartmann, Andreas, 2018. "The long and winding road: Routine creation and replication in multi-site organizations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1403-1417.
    15. Scott F. Turner & Violina Rindova, 2012. "A Balancing Act: How Organizations Pursue Consistency in Routine Functioning in the Face of Ongoing Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 24-46, February.
    16. Kathrin Sele & Simon Grand, 2016. "Unpacking the Dynamics of Ecologies of Routines: Mediators and Their Generative Effects in Routine Interactions," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 722-738, June.
    17. Rouslan Koumakhov & Adel Daoud, 2017. "Routine and reflexivity: Simonian cognitivism vs practice approach," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(4), pages 727-743.
    18. Neil M Kay, 2018. "We need to talk: opposing narratives and conflicting perspectives in the conversation on routines," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(6), pages 943-956.
    19. Scott Sonenshein, 2016. "Routines and Creativity: From Dualism to Duality," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(3), pages 739-758, June.
    20. Roberto Grandinetti, 2022. "A Routine-Based Theory of Routine Replication," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-23, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:comaot:v:24:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s10588-018-9263-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.