1. ORGAHEAD - Modeling Network Adaptation as Simulated Annealing Process 2002

6. Orgahead Structure ORGAHEAD Knowledge Agent/Knowledge 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 Other performance and vulnerability measures Task Assignment TASK Communication team1 team2 accuracy team1 team2 workload

7. ORGAHEAD Simulated annealer (expectation learning) + adaptive agents (experiential learning) STRATEGIC 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 OPERATIONAL time task organizational decision Forecasting: Current performance Possible change Expected performance Who knows who Who knows what actual design change actual performance experience information from others information from task feedback Feedback Recommendations

8. Radar Task Decision: Friendly or Hostile? Speed > Mach 1? Transponder Code Correct? NATO? Weapons Armed? Heading into our airspace? ...

9. Agent Decisions

10. Tasks

12. Internal Representations/ Operations Analysts Managers CEOs Inputs “ 1 ” 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 = 0 1 0 1 = 0 1 1 0 = 0 1 1 1 = 0 0 0 = 0 0 1 = 1 1 0 = 1 1 1 = 0 0 0 = 0 0 1 = 1 1 0 = 0 1 1 = 1 0 0 = 0 0 1 = 1 1 0 = 1 1 1 = 0 0 0 0= 0 0 1 0= 1 1 0 0= 1 1 1 0= 0 0 0 1= 1 0 1 1= 1 1 0 1= 1 1 1 1= 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 • Agent constraints: 1. Limited memory 2. Maximum of seven resources/inputs Decision Rule: If # of 1 ’s > # of 0 ’s, then “ 1 ” Else “ 0 ” • Organizational activities: 1. After every n tasks, propose a change: hire, fire, or change ties. 2. Test change. 3. Accept all good changes and some bad changes. • Agent activities: 1. Update memory table based on correctness of final decision. 2. Report truthfully. April 2002 Ju-Sung Lee - CMU – CASOS – SDS - ICES

14. Strategic: Simulated Annealing metropolis criterion: p j ( k,  , Temp 0 ) = e -cost*k/Temp Temp i =  · Temp i-1 where 0.0 <  < 1.0 cost j = current perf j - lookahead perf j 1-dimensional solution landscape heuristic April 2002 Ju-Sung Lee - CMU – CASOS – SDS - ICES

17. Performance over Time

18. Sequence Analysis adaptive organizations : HHH T F TT FFFFF HHH T H FF H F T F H FFF H F H T H F H F HH F H H T HH T HHHH TT F T H T H T H TTTTT H T F T F TTTTTT F H T F TT HH F HH F H FF H T H TTT F HH T HH F T F T F H FFF T H F HH T F HH T T H TTTTTTTT H TTTTTT H F T H T H TTTTTT F TT HHHHH TT TTTTTTTTT H TTTTTTTT H TT H F TTTTTTT F T H TTTT H T T H T H F T H TTT H TT H TTTTTTTTTT H TTT H T F TTTTTTT F T T H T H TTT H TTTT H TTT HH F T FFF TTTT FF T FF TTTTTT F T TT F HH T H TT F TTTT F T F TT F H T FF TTT HH TTTTT H T H TT T H TT H TTTTTT H TT HH TTTTTTT H TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT H F T FF TTT H TTTT HH T H F T H T F H TT H TT FF TT FF TTTT F maladaptive organizations : TTTTTTT H TT F TTTTT H FFF H F T F TT F T H T FF TT H T H F TT TTTTT H F T F TTTT H TT F T FF T FFFFFF T F H T F TT FF TT F HHHHHH F HHHH F H F H F HH F H TT H F H FFFFF T HH F HH F T F T F TTT F T FF H F HHHHH T H T H F TT H FF T FF H FF H F H F H T F TTT H T FF HH F HH TT FF H TT H F TT F H T F H T H FF H T F HH TT T F TT F TT F T H TT F T F TT FF H T F H F T F H T FF H F T H F H F H F F T FF TTTT FF H FF T FFFF H FFFFFFF H F HH F H F H F HH FF H F TT F H F H T HH T HHH T H T F H TT H FF T H F H T H T FFFFFF H T H T H TTTTTTTTT FF TTTTT F TT F HHH T HH TT F H FF H FFF H F HHH T FF H TT HH FFFFFFF HH F H FFF T F HH FF HHH F H F H F too many firings more structural changes than turnover T = Tie Change H = Hire F = Fire

19. Correlating Performance and Activity

20. Firing can Hinder Perfromance

21. … But Not Always

22. Maladaptive Hiring and Adaptive Firing

23. Dynamic Adaptation

24. Adaptive Organizational Structures April 2002 Ju-Sung Lee - CMU – CASOS – SDS - ICES

25. Adaptive Structures with Tasks April 2002 Ju-Sung Lee - CMU – CASOS – SDS - ICES

26. Maladaptive Structures April 2002 Ju-Sung Lee - CMU – CASOS – SDS - ICES

27. Maladaptive Structures with Tasks April 2002 Ju-Sung Lee - CMU – CASOS – SDS - ICES

31. Applications Hypothetical 3-45 Adaptive Organizations Questionnaire Schwab Questionnaire 683, 9 divisions SGI Questionnaire 17-150, 35 units Nursing Study Archival Data 9-12 Crisis Response Units Questionnaire and Experiment 4-6 NPS teams Field Observations 5 cells Comcargru Data Number of Agents/divisions Study