IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v6y2003i3p184-194.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Organizational architectures and mission requirements: A model to determine congruence

Author

Listed:
  • Holly A. H. Handley
  • Alexander H. Levis

Abstract

In order to determine congruence between proposed organizational architectures and evolving mission requirements, an executable model was developed in support of a subject experiment testing the hypothesis that an organization congruent with an expected mission results in better performance than a noncongruent organization. The model is based on the task process, the sequence of stages that occur in order to complete a task, where the delays of each stage are based on the interactions of the task with decision‐makers and resources; in this case, tasks are limited to simple tasks completed by a single decision‐maker with a single resource. The model is configured to a particular organizational design and simulated with a scenario, a list of tasks and their parameters that characterize the mission. Congruence is determined by using regression analysis to fit a linear equation to the output of the simulation and computing the coefficient of determination to evaluate the fit. The model was developed with trial experiment data and validated with post‐experimental results. This model provides the foundation for a future, second order model that will include multiple decision‐makers interacting with multiple resources to complete complex tasks. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sys Eng 6: 184–194, 2003

Suggested Citation

  • Holly A. H. Handley & Alexander H. Levis, 2003. "Organizational architectures and mission requirements: A model to determine congruence," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(3), pages 184-194.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:6:y:2003:i:3:p:184-194
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.10045
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.10045
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.10045?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Newbern & Jerry Nolte, 1999. "Engineering of complex systems: Understanding the art side," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(3), pages 181-186.
    2. Alexander H. Levis & W.S. Vaughan, 1999. "Model driven experimentation," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 62-68.
    3. Tyson R. Browning, 2002. "Process integration using the design structure matrix," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(3), pages 180-193.
    4. Kathleen M. Carley, 1999. "On generating hypotheses using computer simulations," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 69-77.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Paul J. Componation & Sampson E. Gholston & Leslie A. Hyatt & Brandy B. Simmons, 2003. "Benefits of modeling and simulation in implementing a shared component build strategy," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(2), pages 63-75.
    2. Durugbo, Christopher & Tiwari, Ashutosh & Alcock, Jeffrey R., 2013. "Modelling information flow for organisations: A review of approaches and future challenges," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 597-610.
    3. Brian M. Kennedy & Durward K. Sobek & Michael N. Kennedy, 2014. "Reducing Rework by Applying Set‐Based Practices Early in the Systems Engineering Process," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 278-296, September.
    4. Young‐Don Shin & Sang‐Hyun Sim & Jae‐Chon Lee, 2017. "Model‐Based Integration of Test and Evaluation Process and System Safety Process for Development of Safety‐Critical Weapon Systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 257-279, May.
    5. Eckert, Claudia M. & Keller, René & Earl, Chris & Clarkson, P. John, 2006. "Supporting change processes in design: Complexity, prediction and reliability," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(12), pages 1521-1534.
    6. Max Boisot & Ian MacMillan & Kyeong Han, 2007. "Property rights and information flows: a simulation approach," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 63-93, February.
    7. Eun Suk Suh & Michael R. Furst & Kenneth J. Mihalyov & Olivier de Weck, 2010. "Technology infusion for complex systems: A framework and case study," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 186-203, June.
    8. M. D. Guenov & S. G. Barker, 2005. "Application of axiomatic design and design structure matrix to the decomposition of engineering systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages 29-40.
    9. Sarah M. Bonzo & David McLain & Mark S. Avnet, 2016. "Process Modeling in the Operating Room: A Socio‐Technical Systems Perspective," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 267-277, May.
    10. Zheng, Zhuang & Shafique, Muhammad & Luo, Xiaowei & Wang, Shengwei, 2024. "A systematic review towards integrative energy management of smart grids and urban energy systems," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 189(PB).
    11. Tyson R. Browning & Ernst Fricke & Herbert Negele, 2006. "Key concepts in modeling product development processes," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(2), pages 104-128, June.
    12. Bahram Hamraz & Nicholas H. M. Caldwell & P. John Clarkson, 2013. "A Holistic Categorization Framework for Literature on Engineering Change Management," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), pages 473-505, December.
    13. Ali A. Yassine & Luke A. Wissmann, 2007. "The Implications of Product Architecture on the Firm," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 118-137, June.
    14. Pedro Parraguez & Steven Eppinger & Anja Maier, 2016. "Characterizing Design Process Interfaces as Organization Networks: Insights for Engineering Systems Management," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 158-173, March.
    15. David M. Sharman & Ali A. Yassine, 2004. "Characterizing complex product architectures," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(1), pages 35-60.
    16. Alexander H. Levis & W.S. Vaughan, 1999. "Model driven experimentation," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 62-68.
    17. Rudolf Smaling & Olivier de Weck, 2007. "Assessing risks and opportunities of technology infusion in system design," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(1), pages 1-25, March.
    18. Tyson R. Browning, 2003. "On customer value and improvement in product development processes," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 49-61.
    19. Jason E. Bartolomei & Daniel E. Hastings & Richard de Neufville & Donna H. Rhodes, 2012. "Engineering Systems Multiple‐Domain Matrix: An organizing framework for modeling large‐scale complex systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(1), pages 41-61, March.
    20. Yu-Jie Zheng & Yu Yang & Na Zhang & Yao Jiao, 2016. "A Supernetwork-Based Model for Design Processes of Complex Mechanical Products," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-25, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:syseng:v:6:y:2003:i:3:p:184-194. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6858 .

    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.