Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-vt8vv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-09-01T18:36:49.291Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 11 - Agent-Based Modelling in Routine Dynamics

from Part II - Methodological Issues in Routine Dynamics Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2021

By
Dehua Gao
Edited by
Martha S. Feldman ,
Brian T. Pentland ,
Luciana D'Adderio ,
Katharina Dittrich ,
Claus Rerup  and
David Seidl
Martha S. Feldman
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
Brian T. Pentland
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Luciana D'Adderio
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Katharina Dittrich
Affiliation:
University of Warwick
Claus Rerup
Affiliation:
Frankfurt School of Finance and Management
David Seidl
Affiliation:
University of Zurich
Get access

Summary

The development of routine dynamics entails both a theoretical shift and changes in methodology. Agent-based modelling (ABM) offers an approach to enriching our understandings of routine dynamics from the ‘bottom-up’. This chapter provides an overview of ABM methodology in routine dynamics research. It includes a comparison of the eleven contemporary agent-based models (ABMs) selected from literature, a summary of research challenges and reflections on future work. As this chapter shows, we can differentiate ABMs in routine dynamics based on levels of analysis and concrete research questions. Further, developing empirically grounded ABMs will be a challenging but worthwhile effort.

Keywords

Routinesroutine dynamicsagent-based modelling (ABM)simulation'bottom-up'
Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Routine Dynamics , pp. 159 - 171
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aggarwal, V. A., Posen, H. E. and Workiewicz, M. (2017). Adaptive capacity to technological change: A microfoundational approach. Strategic Management Journal, 38(6), 1212–1231.Google Scholar
Axelrod, R. (1997). Advancing the art of simulation in the social sciences. Complexity, 3(2), 16–22.Google Scholar
Bai, B., Yoo, B., Deng, X., Kim, I. and Gao, D. (2016). Linking routines to the evolution of IT capability on agent-based modeling and simulation: A dynamic perspective. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 22(2), 184–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boero, R. and Squazzoni, F. (2005). Does empirical embeddedness matter? Methodological issues on agent-based models for analytical social science. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 8(4), 6 http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/8/4/6.htmlGoogle Scholar
Bonabeau, E. (2002). Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(suppl 3), 7280–7287.Google Scholar
Bruch, E. and Atwell, J. (2015). Agent-based models in empirical social research. Sociological Methods & Research, 44(2), 186–221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, M. H. and Harrington, J. J. (2006). Agent-based models of organizations. In Tesfatsion, L. and Judd, K. L., ed., Handbook of Computational Economics (volume 2). Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 1273–1337.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. D. and Bacdayan, P. (1994). Organizational routines are stored as procedural memory: Evidence from laboratory study. Organization Science, 5(4), 554–568.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. D., Levinthal, D. A. and Warglien, M. (2014). Collective performance: Modeling the interaction of habit-based actions. Industrial and Corporate Change, 23(2), 329–360.Google Scholar
D’Adderio, L., Feldman, M. S., Lazaric, N. and Pentland, B. T. (2012). Call for papers – Special issue on routine dynamics: Exploring sources of stability and change in Organizations. Organization Science, 23(6), 1782–1783.Google Scholar
Eberlen, J., Scholz, G. and Gagliolo, M. (2017). Simulate this! An introduction to agent-based models and their power to improve your research practice. International Review of Social Psychology, 30(1), 149–160.Google Scholar
Edmonds, B. and Moss, S. (2004). From KISS to KIDS – an ‘anti-simplistic’ modelling approach. In International Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems and Agent-Based Simulation. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 130–144.Google Scholar
Epstein, J. M. and Axtell, R. (1996). Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom-up. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11(6), 611–629.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2003). A performative perspective on stability and change in organizational routines. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(4), 727–752.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. (2016). Routines as process: Past, present, and future. In Howard-Grenville, J., Rerup, C., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H., eds., Organizational routines: How They Are Created, Maintained, and Changed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 23–46.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S. and Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94-118.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. S., Pentland, B. T., D’Adderio, L. and Lazaric, N. (2016). Beyond routines as things: Introduction to the special issue on routine dynamics. Organization Science, 27(3), 505–513.Google Scholar
Felin, T. and Foss, N. J. (2009). Organizational routines and capabilities: Historical drift and a course-correction toward microfoundations. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25(2), 157–167.Google Scholar
Fioretti, G. (2013). Agent-based simulation models in organization science. Organizational Research Methods, 16(2), 227–242.Google Scholar
Gao, D., Deng, X. and Bai, B. (2014). The emergence of organizational routines from habitual behaviours of multiple actors: An agent-based simulation study. Journal of Simulation, 8(3), 215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gao, D., Deng, X., Zhao, Q., Zhou, H. and Bai, B. (2015). Multi-agent based simulation of organizational routines on complex networks. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 18(3), 17. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/18/3/17.htmlGoogle Scholar
Gao, D., Squazzoni, F. and Deng, X. (2018a). The role of cognitive artifacts in the evolutionary dynamics of organizational routines: An agent-based model. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 24(4), 473–499.Google Scholar
Gao, D., Squazzoni, F. and Deng, X. (2018b). The intertwining impact of intra-organizational and routine networks on routine replication dynamics: An agent-based model. Complexity, vol.2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/8496235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geiger, D. and Schröder, A. (2014). Ever-changing routines? Toward a revised understanding of organizational routines between rule-following and rule-breaking. Schmalenbach Business Review, 66(2), 170–190.Google Scholar
Gilbert, G. N. (2008). Agent-Based Models: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, vol 153. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
Gómez-Cruz, N. A., Loaiza Saa, I. and Ortega Hurtado, F. F. (2017). Agent-based simulation in management and organizational studies: A survey. European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 26(3), 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimm, V., Berger, U., DeAngelis, D., Polhill, J., Giske, J. and Railsback, S. (2010). The ODD protocol: A review and first update. Ecological Modeling, 221, 2760–2768.Google Scholar
Grimm, V., Berger, U., Bastiansen, F., Eliassen, S., Ginot, V., Giske, J., Gross-Custar, J., Grand, T., Heinz, S., Rbbins, A., Robbins, M., Rossmanith, E., Rüger, N., Strand, E., Souissi, S., Stillman, R., Vabø, R., Visser, U. and DAngelis, D. (2006). A standard protocol for describing individual-based and agent-based models. Ecological Modeling, 198, 115–126.Google Scholar
Grimm, V., Revilla, E., Berger, U., Jeltsch, F., Mooij, W. M., Railsback, S. F., Thulke, H.-H., Weiner, J., Weigand, T. and DeAngelis, D. (2005). Pattern-oriented modeling of agent-based complex systems: lessons from ecology. Science, 310(5750), 987–991.Google Scholar
Hauke, J., Achter, S. and Meyer, M. (2020). Theory development via replicated simulations and the added value of standards. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 23(1), 12, http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/23/1/12.htmlGoogle Scholar
Heath, B., Hill, R. and Ciarallo, F. (2009). A survey of agent-based modeling practices (January 1998 to July 2008). Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 12(4), 9, http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/12/4/9.htmlGoogle Scholar
Hooten, M. B. and Wikle, C. K. (2010). Statistical agent-based models for discrete spatio-temporal systems. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105(489), 236–248.Google Scholar
Howard-Grenville, J., Rerup, C., Langley, A. and Tsoukas, H. eds. (2016). Organizational Routines: How They Are Created, Maintained, and Changed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Janssen, M. and Ostrom, E. (2006). Empirically based, agent-based models. Ecology and Society, 11(2), 37, www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art37/Google Scholar
Kahl, C. H. and Meyer, M. (2016). Constructing agent-based models of organizational routines. In Secchi, D. and Neumann, M., eds., Agent-Based Simulation of Organizational Behavior: New Frontiers of Social Science Research. Cham: Springer, pp. 85–107.Google Scholar
Kasaie, P. and Kelton, W. D. (2015). Guidelines for design and analysis in agent-based simulation studies. In Yilmaz, L., Chan, W. K. V., Moon, I. et al., eds., Proceedings of the 2015 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), pp. 183–193.Google Scholar
Kremser, W. and Schreyögg, G. (2016). The dynamics of interrelated routines: Introducing the cluster level. Organization Science, 27(3), 698–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, J. S., Filatova, T., Ligmann-Zielinska, A., Hassani-Mahmooei, B., Stonedahl, F. et al. (2015). The complexities of agent-based modeling output analysis. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 18(4), 4. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/18/4/4.htmlGoogle Scholar
Lorscheid, I., Heine, B. O. and Meyer, M. (2012). Opening the ‘black box’ of simulations: Increased transparency and effective communication through the systematic design of experiments. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 18(1), 22–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macal, C. M. and North, M. J. (2010). Tutorial on agent-based modeling and simulation. Journal of Simulation, 4(3), 151–162.Google Scholar
Miller, K. D. (2015). Agent-based modeling and organization studies: A critical realist perspective. Organization Studies, 36(2), 175–196.Google Scholar
Miller, K. D., Choi, S. and Pentland, B. T. (2014). The role of transactive memory in the formation of organizational routines. Strategic Organization, 12(2), 109–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, K. D., Pentland, B. T. and Choi, S. (2012). Dynamics of performing and remembering organizational routines. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1536–1558.Google Scholar
Müller, B., Bohn, F., Dreßler, G., Groeneveld, J., Klassert, C., Martin, R. and Schwarz, N. (2013). Describing human decisions in agent-based models–ODD+ D, an extension of the ODD protocol. Environmental Modelling & Software, 48, 37–48.Google Scholar
Neumann, M. and Secchi, D. (2016). Exploring the new frontier: Computational studies of organizational behavior. In Secchi, D. and Neumann, M., eds., Agent-Based Simulation of Organizational Behavior: New Frontiers of Social Science Research. Cham: Springer, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Parmigiani, A. and Howard-Grenville, J. (2011). Routines revisited: Exploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 413–453.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Feldman, M. S. (2005). Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 793–815.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T., Feldman, M. S., Becker, M. C. and Liu, P. (2012). Dynamics of organizational routines: A generative model. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1484–1508.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T., Hærem, T. and Hillison, D. (2011). The (n) ever-changing world: Stability and change in organizational routines. Organization Science, 22(6), 1369–1383.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T., Recker, J. and Wyner, G. (2015). A thermometer for interdependence: Exploring patterns of interdependence using networks of affordances. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Information Systems. Association for Information Systems.Google Scholar
Pentland, B. T. and Rueter, H. H. (1994). Organizational routines as grammars of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(3), 484–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Railsback, S. F. and Grimm, V. (2019). Agent-Based and Individual-Based Modeling: A Practical Introduction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Secchi, D. and Seri, R. (2017). Controlling for false negatives in agent-based models: A review of power analysis in organizational research. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 23(1), 94–121.Google Scholar
Sele, K. and Grand, S. (2016). Unpacking the dynamics of ecologies of routines: Mediators and their generative effects in routine interactions. Organization Science, 27(3), 722–738.Google Scholar
Seri, R. and Secchi, D. (2013). How many times should one run a computational simulation? In Edmonds, B. and Meyer, R., eds., Simulating Social Complexity: A Handbook (second edition). Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Shimazoe, J. and Burton, R. M. (2013). Justification shift and uncertainty: Why are low-probability near misses underrated against organizational routines? Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 19(1), 78–100.Google Scholar
Silverman, E. (2018). Methodological Investigations in Agent-Based Modelling: With Applications for the Social Sciences. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Smaldino, P. E., Calanchini, J. and Pickett, C. L. (2015). Theory development with agent-based models. Organizational Psychology Review, 5(4), 300–317.Google Scholar
Squazzoni, F. (2010). The impact of agent-based models in the social sciences after 15 years of incursions. History of Economic Ideas, 18(2), 197–233.Google Scholar
Squazzoni, F. (2012). Agent-Based Computational Sociology. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
Squazzoni, F., Jager, W. and Edmonds, B. (2014). Social simulation in the social sciences: A brief overview. Social Science Computer Review, 32(3), 279–294.Google Scholar
Sun, Z., Lorscheid, I., Millington, J. D., Lauf, S., Magliocca, N. R. et al. (2016). Simple or complicated agent-based models? A complicated issue. Environmental Modelling & Software, 86, 56–67.Google Scholar
Thiele, J. C., Kurth, W. and Grimm, V. (2014). Facilitating parameter estimation and sensitivity analysis of agent-based models: A cookbook using NetLogo and R. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 17(3), 11. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/17/3/11.htmlGoogle Scholar
Wall, F. (2016). Agent-based modeling in managerial science: An illustrative survey and study. Review of Managerial Science, 10(1), 135–193.Google Scholar
Yi, S., Knudsen, T. and Becker, M. C. (2016). Inertia in routines: A hidden source of organizational variation. Organization Science, 27(3), 782–800.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, L. (2006). Validation and verification of social processes within agent-based computational organization models. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 12(4), 283–312.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×