Skip to main content
Log in

Organizational Performance Under Critical Situations—Exploring the Role of Computer Modeling in Crisis Case Analyses

  • Published:
Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Organizations sometimes face critical situations or crises that can induce severe consequences or even disasters if wrong decisions are made. The bulk of crisis management research has relied heavily on case study methods yet often with rhetorical or even inconsistent suggestions. With an exclusive focus on crisis prevention, the issue of how organizations can maintain good performance when faced with critical situations has largely remained unexplored. There is also an apparent lack of consideration regarding how aspects of organizational design and task environment interact and affect organizational performance under critical situations. In this paper, we attempt to address this issue from an open system's perspective and integrate techniques of computational modeling with the analyses of two crisis cases, the Vincennes incident and the Hinsdale incident. The use of a computational model with strong organization theory foundation has provided a systematic mechanism for abstracting empirical information and generating theoretical results, thus complementing conventional case analyses, which thrive on in-depth information but are often limited by the lack of analytical ability to provide theoretical insight that goes beyond empirical descriptions. For the two crisis cases, the study shows, through detailed quantitative illustrations, that the computer model can be very effective in predicting organizational performance and suggesting designs that organizations can employ to mitigate the impact of crises. This study has demonstrated that our approach of computational case analysis can be very successful in providing systematic and explicit guidance for effective crisis mitigation both theoretically and empirically.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aldrich, H.E. (1979), Organizations and Environment. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arabmazar, A. (1983), “Simulation and Control of a Large-scale Logistics System With Application to Food Crisis Management,” Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University.

  • Axelrod, R. (1997), The Complexity of Cooperation: Agent-based Models of Competition and Collaboration. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baligh, H.H., R.M. Burton and B. Obel (1990), “Devising Expert Systems in Organization Theory: The Organizational Consultant,” in M. Masuch (Ed.) Organization, Management, and Expert Systems. Walter De Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 35-57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baligh, H.H., R.M. Burton and B. Obel (1996), “Organizational Consultant: Creating a Useable Theory for Organizational Design,” Management Science, 42(12), 1648-1662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R.M. and B. Obel (1984), Designing Efficient Organizations: Modeling and Experimentation. Elsevier Science.

  • Burton, R.M. and B. Obel (1995), “The Validity of Computational Models in Organizations Science: From Model Realism to Purpose of the Model,” Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 1(1), 57-71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley, K.M. (1996), “A Comparison of Artificial and Human Organizations,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organizations, 31(2), 175-191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley, K.M. and Z. Lin (1995), “Organizational Designs Suited to High Performance Under Stress,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 25(2), 221-230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley, K.M. and Z. Lin (1997), “Atheoretical Study of Organizational Performance Under Information Distortion,” Management Science, 43(7), 976-997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley, K. M. and M.J. Prietula (1992), “Toward a Cognitively Motivated Theory of Organizations,” in Proceedings of the 1992 Coordination Theory and Collaboration Technology Workshop, Washington, D.C.

  • Carley, K M., M.J. Prietula and Z. Lin (1998), “Design Versus Cognition: The Interaction of Agent Cognition and Organizational Design on Organizational Performance,” Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 1(3) 1-19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, R. (1988), “Blaming Men, Not Machines,” Time, August 15, p. 19.

  • Cohen, M.D., J.G. March and J.P. Olsen (1972), “A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1-25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, N. (1988), “Seven Minutes to Death,” Newsweek, July 18, pp. 18-23.

  • Dill, W.R. (1958), “Environment as an Influence on Managerial Autonomy,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 2, 409-443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, L. (1985), In Defense of Organization Theory: A Reply to the Critics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy, B., R. Kaylor and P. Cary (1988), “How Good is this Navy, Anyway?” U.S. News and World Report, July 18, pp. 18-19.

  • Glance, N.S., T. Hogg and B.A. Huberman (1997), “Training and Turnover in the Evolution of Organizations,” Organization Science, 8(1), 84-96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J.R. and G.R. Carroll (1991), “Keeping the Faith: A Model of Cultural Transmission in Formal Organizations,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 552-582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Havron, M.D. and R.L. Blanton (1977), Simulation for Crisis Management. Human Sciences Research, Inc., McLean, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermann, C.F. (1963), “Some Consequences of Crisis which Limit the Viability of Organizations,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 8, 343-358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karwath, R. and A. Barnum (1991), “Bell to Pay $1 Million in Phone Outage Deal,” Chicago Tribune, 1D, 1-2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kupperman, R.H. and A.C. Goldberg (1987), “Leaders and Crisis: The CSIS Crisis Simulations: A Report of the Arms Control and Crisis Management Program,” Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and International Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagadec, P. (1981), Major Technological Risk: An Assessment of Industrial Disasters. Pergamon Press. Translated from French by H. Ostwald, 1982, Anchor Press Ltd.

  • Lant, T.K. (1994), “Computer Simulation of Organizations as Experiential Learning Systems: Implications for Organization Theory,” in K.M. Carley and M.J. Prietula (Eds.) Computational Organization Theory. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hilladale, NJ, pp. 195-216.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Porte, T.R. and P.M. Consolini (1991), “Working in Practice but not in Theory: Theoretical Challengers of 'High-Reliability Organizations',” Journal of Public Administrative Research and Theory, 1(1), 19-47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, R.S. (1988), Challenger, the Last Voyage. Columbia University Press, New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Z. (1994), “Organizational Performance: Theory and Reality,” Doctoral Dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University.

  • Lin, Z. and K.M. Carley (1995), “DYCORP: A Computational Framework for Examining Organizational Performance under Dynamic Conditions,” Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 20(2-3), 193-217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Z. and K.M. Carley (1997), “Organizational Response: The Cost Performance Tradeoff,”Management Science, 43(2), 217-234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Z. and C. Hui (1999), “Should Lean Replace Mass Organization Systems: A Theoretical Examination from a Management Coordination Perspective,” Journal of International Business Studies, 30(1), 45-80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lounamaa, P.H. and J.G. March (1987), “Adaptive Coordination of a Learning Team,” Management Science, 33(1), 107-123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, K.D. (1978), Organizational Structures. AHM Publishing Corporation, Arlington Heights, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G. and J.P. Olsen (1976), Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Universitetsforlaget, Bergen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1983), Structures in Five: Designing Effective Organizations. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Numagami, T. (1998), “The infeasibility of Invariant Laws in Management Studies: A Reflective Dialogue in Defense of Case Studies,” Organization Science, 9(1), 2-15.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Leary, D.E. (1997), “Validation of Computational Models Based on Multiple Heterogeneous Knowledge Sources,” Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 3(2), 1-75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orasanu, J. and E. Salas (1992), “Team Decision Making in Complex Environments,” in G. Klein, J. Orasanu, and R. Calderwood (Eds.) Decision Making in Action: Models and Methods, Ablex Publishing Corp., Norwood, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panning, W.H. (1986), “Information Pooling and Group Decisions in Non-experimental Settings,” in F.M. Jablin, L.L. Putnam, K.H. Roberts and L.W. Porter (Eds.) Handbook of Organizational Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauchant, T.C., I.I. Mitroff, D.N. Weldon and G.F. Ventolo (1990), “The Ever-Expanding Scope of Industrial Crises: A Systemic Study of the Hinsdale Telecommunications Outage,” Industrial Crisis Quarterly, 4, 243-261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrow, C. (1984), Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies. Basic Books, Inc.

  • Pearson, C.M. and I.I. Mitroff (1993), “From Crisis Prone to Crisis Prepared: A Framework for Crisis Management,” Academy of Management Executive, 7(1), 48-59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pete, A., K.R. Pattipati and D.L. Kleinman (1995), “Structural Reconfiguration and Informal Coordination in Administrative Organizations,” Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 1(1), 93-116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Presidential Commission (1986), “Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident,” Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, J.L. (1977), The Study of Turnover. Iowa State University Press, Iowa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, J.L. and C.W. Mueller (1981), Professional Turnover: The Case of Nurses. Spectrum Publications, Jamaica, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radner, R. (1987), Decentralization and Incentives. University of Minnesota Press.

  • Roberts, K. (1990), “Some Characteristics of One Type of High Reliability Organizations,” Organization Science, 1(2), 160-176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochlin, G.I. (1991), “Iran Air Flight 655 and the USS Vincennes: Complex, Large-scale Military Systems and the Failure of Control,” in T.R. La Porte (Ed.) Social Responses to Large Technical Systems: Control or Anticipation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolfe, J., D. Saunders and T. Powell (Eds.) (1998), Simulation and Games for Emergency and Crisis Management. Kogan Page, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, U. and B. Pijnenburg (1991), Crisis Management and Decision Making: Simulation Oriented Scenarios, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoonhoven, C.B. (1981), “Problems with Contingency Theory: Testing Assumptions Hidden within the Language of Contingency Theory,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 349-370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W.R. (1987), Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. Prentice Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sohal, A.S. and A. Egglestone (1994), “Lean Production: Experience Among Australian Organizations,” International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 14(11), 35-51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staw, B.M., L.E. Sanderlands and J.E. Dutton (1981), “Threat-rigidity Effects in Organizational Behavior: A Multilevel Analysis,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 501-524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, W.J. (1989), “Managing Crises: U.S.-ROK Security Ties: The Results of a Crisis Simulation,” Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J.D. (1967), Organizations in Action. McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Congress (1988), “Iran Airflight 655 Compensation Hearings before the Defense Policy Panel of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Second Session (Held on August 3, and 4, September 9, and October 6, 1988),” U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, D. (1996), The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, W.E. (1995), “The Use of Scenarios and Gaming in Crisis Management Planning and Training,” in RAND, Santa Monica, CA.

  • Watson, R., J. Barry and R. Sandza (1988), “A Case of Human Error,” Newsweek, August 15, pp. 18-21.

  • Weiss, G. (Ed.) (1999), Multiagent Systems: A Modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lin, Z. Organizational Performance Under Critical Situations—Exploring the Role of Computer Modeling in Crisis Case Analyses. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory 6, 277–310 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009681619457

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009681619457

Navigation