团队设计变量与团队绩效关系研究
|
摘要
当前团队研究往往只能局限于单个团队设计变量与团队绩效关系研究，因为传统的实证方法很难获得足够且又准确的数据来研究作为复杂系统的团队。但是随着基于Agent的仿真技术逐步应用于工商管理学科，尤其是组织理论，这一情况正逐渐被改变。“计算机及数学组织理论”便是组织理论与基于Agent的社会仿真技术的最新“结合物”。在这个领域里的大多数研究可以纳入以下四个方向：组织设计，组织学习，组织和信息技术，以及组织进化和变革。目前研究主要聚焦于如何设计组织的问题。
由于工商管理领域研究者才开始使用基于Agent社会仿真技术，因此团队还没来得及被“计算机及数学组织理论”研究者所关注。本文抓住这一国内外的理论前沿展开研究，做了以下三项具有理论价值和实践意义的工作：
(1)针对传统实证方法研究团队所具有的局限性，在“人工社会”和“人工组织”的基础上提出了“人工团队”理论构想，并分析探讨了“人工团队”所要研究的几个基本问题。
(2)为突破当前团队研究仅仅围绕单个团队设计变量与团队绩效间简单关系研究这一瓶颈，在“人工团队”概念模型基础上开发了一个可运行的“灭火救援人工团队”仿真模型，使团队研究“可实验化”。
(3)借助“灭火救援人工团队”仿真模型，进行了大量的“人工团队”实验研究，从而获得了一系列团队设计变量与团队绩效关系的新发现。
这些新发现主要分为成员特质和团队结构两个方面。一是关于成员特质：成员特质可分“单性变量”、“双性变量”和“多性变量”三种；“单性变量”一定与团队绩效正相关；“双性变量”和“多性变量”存在临界值，该临界值还可能是动态依赖于其它团队设计变量；成员特质变量间存在以下六种关系：平等独立型、平等耦合型、主导决定型、主导互补型、主导干涉型、主导干扰型；相对于基本能力变量和外向程度而言，任务性专业技能对绩效贡献更大；设计团队时，应该追求“高绩效团队”，而不是追求“最优绩效团队”。
二是关于团队结构：权力因子可以分为“集权因子”和“自主因子”；相对于“集权因子”，“自主因子”对团队绩效起主导影响作用；团队规模对绩效贡献基本不受权力因子影响，但团队规模明显影响权力因子对绩效的贡献，即团队规模越大，权力因子对绩效影响越大。
关键词：团队设计变量，团队绩效，基于Agent社会仿真，人工团队
Team researchers are limited to research of the relationship between single team design variable and team performance, because of traditional empirical research method being not useful in getting enough valid research data about team. But it is being changed as agent-based social simulation technology applying to business management research, especial organization theory. Computational and mathematical organization theory is a new thing that is the combination of organization theory and agent-based social simulation. Much of the research in this area falls into four areas: organizational design, organizational learning, organizations and information technology, and organizational evolution and change. Much of the work in this area has been focused on the issue how should organizations be designed.
Because the application of agent-based social simulation is just beginning, team is still out of the eyes of most researchers of Computational and mathematical organization theory. So, this paper makes three important studies of theoretic value and practice significance on the front of this research:
(1) According to artificial society and artificial organization, I propose the concept of artificial team and discuss the foundation of artificial team.
(2) According to the artificial team, I developed one model that is firefighting and rescue artificial team.
(3) Using the model of firefighting and rescue artificial team, I performed some research and found some new relationship between team design variables and team performance.
These new findings include two aspects. New findings about team member attributes: Member attributes can be divided to three kinds: variables with one quality, variables with two qualities, and variables with three qualities. Variables with one quality must be positive with team performance. Variables with two qualities and variables with three qualities have a critical value which may be depend on other variables. There are six relationships among Member attributes: equality-independent, equality-coupling, leading-deciding, leading-complementary, leading-concerning, leading-intervene. Compare to general mental ability, task-specific ability has more influence on performance. As designing team, we should pursue "excellent team" but not "perfect team".
New findings about team structure: Factor of authority can be divided two kinds: factor of autocracy, factor of autonomy. Compare to factor of autocracy, factor of autonomy has more influence on performance. Team size's influence on performance is independent on Factor of authority, but Team size has influence on Factor of authority.
由于工商管理领域研究者才开始使用基于Agent社会仿真技术，因此团队还没来得及被“计算机及数学组织理论”研究者所关注。本文抓住这一国内外的理论前沿展开研究，做了以下三项具有理论价值和实践意义的工作：
(1)针对传统实证方法研究团队所具有的局限性，在“人工社会”和“人工组织”的基础上提出了“人工团队”理论构想，并分析探讨了“人工团队”所要研究的几个基本问题。
(2)为突破当前团队研究仅仅围绕单个团队设计变量与团队绩效间简单关系研究这一瓶颈，在“人工团队”概念模型基础上开发了一个可运行的“灭火救援人工团队”仿真模型，使团队研究“可实验化”。
(3)借助“灭火救援人工团队”仿真模型，进行了大量的“人工团队”实验研究，从而获得了一系列团队设计变量与团队绩效关系的新发现。
这些新发现主要分为成员特质和团队结构两个方面。一是关于成员特质：成员特质可分“单性变量”、“双性变量”和“多性变量”三种；“单性变量”一定与团队绩效正相关；“双性变量”和“多性变量”存在临界值，该临界值还可能是动态依赖于其它团队设计变量；成员特质变量间存在以下六种关系：平等独立型、平等耦合型、主导决定型、主导互补型、主导干涉型、主导干扰型；相对于基本能力变量和外向程度而言，任务性专业技能对绩效贡献更大；设计团队时，应该追求“高绩效团队”，而不是追求“最优绩效团队”。
二是关于团队结构：权力因子可以分为“集权因子”和“自主因子”；相对于“集权因子”，“自主因子”对团队绩效起主导影响作用；团队规模对绩效贡献基本不受权力因子影响，但团队规模明显影响权力因子对绩效的贡献，即团队规模越大，权力因子对绩效影响越大。
关键词：团队设计变量，团队绩效，基于Agent社会仿真，人工团队
Team researchers are limited to research of the relationship between single team design variable and team performance, because of traditional empirical research method being not useful in getting enough valid research data about team. But it is being changed as agent-based social simulation technology applying to business management research, especial organization theory. Computational and mathematical organization theory is a new thing that is the combination of organization theory and agent-based social simulation. Much of the research in this area falls into four areas: organizational design, organizational learning, organizations and information technology, and organizational evolution and change. Much of the work in this area has been focused on the issue how should organizations be designed.
Because the application of agent-based social simulation is just beginning, team is still out of the eyes of most researchers of Computational and mathematical organization theory. So, this paper makes three important studies of theoretic value and practice significance on the front of this research:
(1) According to artificial society and artificial organization, I propose the concept of artificial team and discuss the foundation of artificial team.
(2) According to the artificial team, I developed one model that is firefighting and rescue artificial team.
(3) Using the model of firefighting and rescue artificial team, I performed some research and found some new relationship between team design variables and team performance.
These new findings include two aspects. New findings about team member attributes: Member attributes can be divided to three kinds: variables with one quality, variables with two qualities, and variables with three qualities. Variables with one quality must be positive with team performance. Variables with two qualities and variables with three qualities have a critical value which may be depend on other variables. There are six relationships among Member attributes: equality-independent, equality-coupling, leading-deciding, leading-complementary, leading-concerning, leading-intervene. Compare to general mental ability, task-specific ability has more influence on performance. As designing team, we should pursue "excellent team" but not "perfect team".
New findings about team structure: Factor of authority can be divided two kinds: factor of autocracy, factor of autonomy. Compare to factor of autocracy, factor of autonomy has more influence on performance. Team size's influence on performance is independent on Factor of authority, but Team size has influence on Factor of authority.
引文
2 http://www.bized.ac.uk/virtual/economy/
3 http://simcity.ea.com/
[1] Ettin, M. F. Foundations and applications of group psychotherapy: A sphere of influence. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1992
[2] Cartwright, D. The nature of cohesiveness. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed., pp. 91-109). New York: Harper & Row, 1968
[3] Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Philips, J. L., Dunford, B. B., & Melner, S.B. Teams in organizations: Prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 30, 678-711,1999
[4] Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P. & Futrell, D. Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120-133, 1990
[5] McGrath, J. E. Social psychology:. A brief introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1964
[6] Hackman, J. R. The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1987
[7] Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27, 141-162, 2001
[8] Thompson, L. Making the team. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2000
[9] Bettenhausen, K. L. Five years of group research: What we have learned and what needs to be addressed. Journal of Management, 17, 345-381, 1991
[10] Kichuk, S. L. and Wiesner W. H. The big five personality factors and team performance: Implications for selecting successful product design teams. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 14, 195-221,1997
[11] Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 3-90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000
[12] Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in work groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741-763,1999
[13] Schmidt, F. L., The role of general cognitive ability and job performance: Why there cannot be a debate. Human Performance, 15, 187-210, 2002.
[14] Costa, A. C., Roe, R. A., & Tallillieu, T. Trust within teams: The relation with performance effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 225-244, 2001
[15] Blickensderfer, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. Cross-training and team performance. In J. A. Cannon-Bowers & E. Salas (Eds.). Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training (pp. 299-311). Washington DC: American Psychological Association, 1998
[16] Ilgen, D. R., Major, D. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Sego, D. J. Team research in the
[17] Dunphy, D., & Bryant, B. (1996). Teams: Panaceas or prescriptions for improved performance. Human Relations, 49, 677-699, 1993
[18] Marks, M. A., Sabella, M. J., Burke, C. S., & Zaccaro, S.J. The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 3-13, 2002
[19] Gilbert, N. and K. G. TroitzschSimulation for the Social Scientist. Open University Press, Buckingham, 1999
[20] Axelrod R. Advancing the Art of Simulation in the Social Sciences. Complexity, 3:16-22, 1997
[21] Eve R. A., S. Horsfall and M. E. Lee, editors, Chaos, Complexity and Sociology:. Myths, Models and Theories. Sage Publications, London, 1988
[22] Holland J. H. Emergence: From Chaos to Order. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1998
[23] Marion R., The Edge of Organization: Chaos and Complexity Theories of Formal Social Systems. Sage Publications, London, 1999
[24] Kennedy J. & Eberhart R.C. Swarm intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, 2000
[25] Stewart I. Does God Play Dice-The New Mathematics of Chaos, Penguin, 1990
[26] Casti, J.L. Complexification: Explaining a Paradoxical World Through the Science of Surprise, Abacus, U.K, 1994
[27] Gilbert, N. 'Computer Simulation of Social Processes', Social Research Update, Issue Six, 1996
[28] Prietula, M.J. Carley K.M. & Gasser L. eds., Simulating Organizations, M.I.T. Press, Ca, 1998
[29] Gilbert, N. & Conte, R. eds., Artificial Societies, UCL Press, London, 1995
[30] Conte, R., Hegselmann, R. & Terna P. eels. Simulating Social Phenomena, Springer, Berlin, 1997
[31] Hackman, J. R. Groups that work (and those that don't): Creating conditions for efective teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990
[32] Baker, D. P., & Salas, E. Principles and measuring teamwork: A summary and look toward the future. In M. T. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications (pp. 331-355). Mahwah, NJ: LEA, 1997
[33] Volpe, C. E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Spector, P. E. The impact of cross-training on team functioning: An empirical investigation. Human Factors, 38, 87-100, 1996
[34] Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. Teams in organizations: Research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307-338, 1996
[35] Cohen, S. G, & Bailey, D. E. What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239-290, 1997
[36] Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman & D. R. Ilgen (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333-375). New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2003
[37] Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go to next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9-30, 2001
[38] Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. Personality and job performance: The big 5 revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869-879, 2000
[39] Foushee, H. C., & Helmreich, R. L. Group interaction and flight crew performance. In E. L. Weiner & D. C. Nagel (Eds.), Human factors in aviation (pp. 189-228). San Diego: Academic Press, 1988
[40] Morgan, B. B. Jr., Glickman, A. S., Woodward, E. A., Blaiwes, A. S., & Salas, E. Measurement of team behaviors in a Navy environment (NTSC Tech. Report No. 86-014). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Systems Center, 1986
[41] Devine, D. J., & Phillips, J. L. Do smarter teams do better? A meta-analysis of cognitive ability and team performance. Small Group Research, 32, 507-532, 2001
[42] Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. Relating member ability and personality to work-team process and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,377-391, 1998
[43] Mohammed, S. N., Mathien, J. E., & Bartlett, A. L. Technical-administrative task performance, leadership task performance, and contextual performance: Considering the influence of team- and task-related composition variables. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23,795-814, 2002
[44] Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. Composition, process, and performance in self- managed groups: The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 62-78, 1997
[45] Driskell, J. E., Hogan, R., & Salas, E. Personality and group performance. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Group processes and intergroup relations. Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 91-112). Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1987
[46] Neuman, G A., & Wright, J. Team effectiveness: Beyond skills and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 376-389, 1999
[47] Campion, M. A., Medsker, G J., & Higgs, A. C. Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850, 1993
[48] Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429-452, 1996
[49] Gladstein, D. L. Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499-517, 1984
[50] Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizations work groups. Academy of Management Review, 21, 402-433, 1996
[51] Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1-28 , 1999
[52] Glickman, A. S., Zimmer, S., Montero, R. C., Guerette, P. J., Campbell, W. J., Morgan, B. B., & Salas, E. The evolution of team skills: An empirical assessment with implications for training (NTSC Tech. Report No. 87-016). Arlington, VA: Office of Naval Research, 1987
[53] Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tarmenbanm, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. E. Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements. In R. Guzzo and E. Salas (Eds.), Team efectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 333- 380). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995
[54] Tesluk, P. E., Zaccaro, S., Marks, M., & Mathieu, J. Task and aggregation issues in the analysis and assessment of team performance. In M. Brannick, & E. Salas (Eds.), Assessment and measurement of team performance: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 197-226). Mahwah, NJ: LEA, 1997
[55] Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. Personality predictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 52-69, 2001
[56] Muchinsky, P. M. Psychology applied to work. (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth, 2003
[57] Tsui, A. S., & Gutek, B. A. Demographic differences in organizations. New York: Lexington Books, 1999
[58] Pelled, L. H. Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening process theory. Organization Science, 7, 615-631, 1996
[59] Wood, W. Meta-analytic review of sex differences in group performance. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 53-71, 1987
[60] LePine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Colquitt, J. A., & Ellis, A. Gender composition, situational strength, and team decision-making accuracy: A criterion decomposition approach. Organizational Behavior and Decision Processes, 88,445-475, 2002
[61] McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90, 1987
[62] Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500-517, 2003
[63] Kickul, J., & Nenman, G. Emergent leadership behaviors: The function of personality and cognitive ability in determining teamwork performance and KSAs, Journal of Business and Psychology, 1 5, 27-51, 2000
[64] Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. Five-factor model of personality and performance in jobs involving interpersonal interaction. Human Performance, 11, 145-165, 1998
[65] Wagner, J. A., & Moch, M. K. Individualism-collectivism: Concept and measure. Group and Organization Studies, 11,280-303,1986
[66] Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26, 1991
[67] Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behaviors. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802, 1995
[68] Hough, L. M. The "Big Five" personality variables-construct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139-155, 1992
[69] Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Oser, R., & Flanagan, D. L. Work teams in industry: A selected review and proposed framework. In R. W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 355-377). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1992
[70] Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. Work design. In W. C. Borman & D. R. Ilgen (Eds.), Handbook of psychology:. Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 423-452). New York: Wiley & Sons, 2003
[71] Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. Work redesign. Reading, MA:Addison- Wesley, 1980
[72] Spreitzer, G. M., Cohen, S, G., & Ledford, G. E. Jr. Developing effective self-managing work teams in organizations. Group and Organization Management, 24, 340-366, 1999
[73] Griffin, R. W., & McMahan, G. C. Motivation through job design. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science. Series in applied psychology (pp. 23-43). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA, 1994
[74] Susman, G. I. Autonomy at work: A social-technical analysis of participative management. New York: Praeger, 1976
[75] Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 135-149, 2000
[76] Wagner, J. A. Studies of individual-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 152-172,1995
[77] Werner, J. M., & Lester, S. W. Applying a team effectiveness framework to the performance of student case teams. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12, 385-402,2001
[78] Lawler, E. E. III, Mohrman, S. A., & Ledford, G. E. Jr. Creating high performance organizations: Practices and results of employee involvement and total quality management in Fortune 1000 companies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995
[79] Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, G. E. The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A quasi-experiment. Human Relations, 49, 643-676, 1994
[80] Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. The wisdom of teams: Creating the high performance organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1993
[81] Wageman, R. The meaning of interdependence. In M. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 197-217). Mahwah, NJ: LEA, 2001
[82] McGrath, J. E. Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1984
[83] Stewart, G. L., & Manz, C. C. Leadership for self-managing work teams: A typology and integrative model. Human Relations, 48, 347-370, 1995
[84] Erez, A., Lepine, J. A., & Elms, H. Effects of rotated leadership and peer evaluation on the functioning and effectiveness of self-managed teams: A quasi- experiment. Personnel Psychology, 55, 929-948, 2002
[85] Steiner, I. Group processes and productivity. New York: Academic Press, 1972
[86] Baugh, S. G, & Graen, G. B. Effects of team gender and racial composition on perception of team performance in cross-functional teams. Group and Organization Management, 22, 366-383, 1997
[87] Martz, W. B., Vogel, R. R., & Nunamaker, J. F. Jr. Electronic meeting systems: Results from the field. Decision Support Systems, 8, 141-158, 1992
[88] Pearce, C. L., & Giacalone, R. A. Teams behaving badly: Factors associated with anti-citizenship behavior in teams. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 58-75,2003
[89] Chan, D. Functional relations among construct in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234-246, 1998
[90] Argote, L. & McGrath, J. E. Group processes in organizations: Continuity and change. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organization psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 333-389). New York: Wiley, 1993
[91] Albanese, R., & Van Fleet, D. D. Rational behavior in groups: The free riding tendency. Academy of Management Review, 10, 244-255, 1985
[92] Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681-706, 1993
[93] Sheppard, J. A. Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 67-81, 1993
[94] Wageman, R. Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 309-342, 1995
[95] Doran, Jim, and G. Nigel Gilbert, editors. Simulating Societies: the Computer Simulation of Social Phenomena. University of London College Press, London, 1994
[96] Chris Goldspink. Methodological Implications Of Complex Systems Approaches to Sociality: Simulation as a foundation for knowledge. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation vol. 5, no. 1, 2002
[97] Nigel Gilbert and Klaus G. Troitzsch. Simulation for the Social Scientist. McGraw-Hill Education, USA, 2005
[98] Hayes-Roth, F., Waterman, D. A., & Lenat, D. B. Building Expert Systems. Addison-Wesley, New York, 1983
[99] Ferber J. Des objects aux agents. Doctoral thesis, University of Paris Ⅵ, 1989
[100] Woolridge, M., and Jennings, N. Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. Knowledge Engineering Review 10(2): 115-152, 1995
[101] Hannerman R. A. and Patrick S. On the Uses of Computer-assisted Simulation Modeling in the Social Science. Sociological Research online,Vol. 2, No. 2, 1997
[102] Brassel K. H. Mohting, M. Schumacher E. & Troitzsch K. G. Can agents Cover All the World. In Conte R. Hegselmann R. & Terna P. eds. Simulating Social Phenomena, Springer, Berlin, 1997
[103] Balch and R. C. Arkin. Motor schema-based formation control for multi-agent robot teams. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-95), (Menlo Park, California), pp. 10-16, AAAI Press, 1995
[104] Levy and J. S. Rosenschein. A game theoretic approach to the pursuit Problem. In Working Papers of the 11th International Workshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence, pp. 195-213, 1992
[105] A. S. Rao and M. P. Georgeff. Modeling rational agents within a BDlarchitecture. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CA, 1991
[106] Marco Remondino. Analysis of Agent Based Paradigms for Complex Social Systems Simulation. Thesis of Doctor Degree 2002
[107] P. Kolesar, W. E. Walker. A Simulation Model of Police Patrol Operations: Executive Summary, 1975
[108] Dennis L. Meadows ... [et al.]. Dynamics of growth in a fmite world. Wright-Allen Press, 1974
[109] Orcutt G., J. Merz., & H. Quinke. Microanalytic Simulation Models to Support Social and Financial Policy. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1986
[110] Harding, D.E. Head Off Stress: Below the Bottom Line. London and New York: Arkana, 1990
[111] Klaus G. Troitzsch. Social Science Simulation-Origins, Prospects, Purposes. Institut fur Sozialwissenschaftliche Informatik, Fachbereich Informatik, Universit at Koblenz-Landau, Rheinau 1, D-56075 Koblenz, Germany 2002
[112] Cristiano, Castelfranchi. The theory of social functions: challenges for computational social science and multi-agent learning. Journal of Cognitive Systems Research 2 (2001) 5-38, 2000
[113] Anderson, J. R. Rules of the Mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993
[114] Carley, K. M., & Lin, Z. Organizational Designs Suited to High Performance Under Stress. IEEE-Systems Man and Cybernetics, 25(1). pp. 221-230, 1995
[115] Coward, L.A., & Sun, R. (in press) Criteria for an Effective Theory of Consciousness and Examples of Preliminary Attempts at Such a Theory. Consciousness and Cognition. 2002
[116] Edmonds, B., & Moss, S. "The Importance of Representing Cognitive Processes in Multi-Agent Models." In Dorffner G, Bischof H, and Hornik K (Eds.). Artificial Neural Networks-ICANN'2001. Springer-Verlag: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2130, pp. 759-766, 2001
[117] Hutchins, E. How a Cockpit Remembers Its Speeds. Cognitive Science, 19, pp. 265-288, 1995
[118] Jensen F, V. An Introduction to Bayesian Networks. NY: Springer-Verlag, 1996
[119] Kahan, J., & Rapoport, A. Theories of Coalition Formation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1984
[120] Louie, M. A., &Carley K M, Haghshenass L, Kunz J C, and Levitt R EModel Comparisons: Docking ORGAHEAD and SimVision. NAACSOS conference proceedings. PA: Pittsburgh, 2003
[121] Epstein & Axtell. Growing Artificial Societies Social Science from the Bottom Up, 1996
[122] A. H. Dekker. Using Agent-Based Modelling to Study Organisational Performance and Cultural Differences. Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Department of Defence, Canberra, ACT, Australia, 2002
[123] Kathleen M. Carley, Michael J. Prietula and Zhiang Lin. Design Versus Cognition: The interaction of agent cognition and organizational design on organizational performance. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation vol. 1, no. 3, 1998
[124] CARLEY, K. M., & Z. Lin. Organizational Designs Suited to High Performance Under Stress. IEEE-Systems Man and Cybernetics 25(1): 221-230, 1995
[125] Ron Sun., & Isaac Naveh. Simulating Organizational Decision-Making Using a Cognitively Realistic Agent Model. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation vol. 7, no. 3, 2004
[126] N Baxter, D Collings and I Adjali. Agent-based modelling-intelligent customer relationship management. BT Technology Journal·Vol 21 No 2·April 2003
[127] Antonio Moreno, Ada Valls, Marta Matin. Multi-agent simulation of work teams. Computer Science & Mathematics Department, Universitat Rovira i Virgili ETSE. Campus Scscelades. Av. dels Pasos Catalans, 26, 43007-Tarragona, Spain, 2002
[128] Jürgen Klüver., & Christina Stoica. Simulations of Group Dynamics with Different Models. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation vol. 6, no. 4, 2003
[129] Takeshi Morimoto. How to develop RoboCupRescue Agent. For RoboCupRescue Simulation System version 0
[130] Madhu Goyal. An Agent's Perspective of a Team in a Dynamic World. Faculty of IT, University of Technology
3 http://simcity.ea.com/
[1] Ettin, M. F. Foundations and applications of group psychotherapy: A sphere of influence. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1992
[2] Cartwright, D. The nature of cohesiveness. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed., pp. 91-109). New York: Harper & Row, 1968
[3] Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Philips, J. L., Dunford, B. B., & Melner, S.B. Teams in organizations: Prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 30, 678-711,1999
[4] Sundstrom, E., De Meuse, K. P. & Futrell, D. Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. American Psychologist, 45, 120-133, 1990
[5] McGrath, J. E. Social psychology:. A brief introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1964
[6] Hackman, J. R. The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315-342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1987
[7] Webber, S. S., & Donahue, L. M. Impact of highly and less job-related diversity on work group cohesion and performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 27, 141-162, 2001
[8] Thompson, L. Making the team. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2000
[9] Bettenhausen, K. L. Five years of group research: What we have learned and what needs to be addressed. Journal of Management, 17, 345-381, 1991
[10] Kichuk, S. L. and Wiesner W. H. The big five personality factors and team performance: Implications for selecting successful product design teams. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 14, 195-221,1997
[11] Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 3-90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000
[12] Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in work groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741-763,1999
[13] Schmidt, F. L., The role of general cognitive ability and job performance: Why there cannot be a debate. Human Performance, 15, 187-210, 2002.
[14] Costa, A. C., Roe, R. A., & Tallillieu, T. Trust within teams: The relation with performance effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 225-244, 2001
[15] Blickensderfer, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Salas, E. Cross-training and team performance. In J. A. Cannon-Bowers & E. Salas (Eds.). Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training (pp. 299-311). Washington DC: American Psychological Association, 1998
[16] Ilgen, D. R., Major, D. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Sego, D. J. Team research in the
[17] Dunphy, D., & Bryant, B. (1996). Teams: Panaceas or prescriptions for improved performance. Human Relations, 49, 677-699, 1993
[18] Marks, M. A., Sabella, M. J., Burke, C. S., & Zaccaro, S.J. The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 3-13, 2002
[19] Gilbert, N. and K. G. TroitzschSimulation for the Social Scientist. Open University Press, Buckingham, 1999
[20] Axelrod R. Advancing the Art of Simulation in the Social Sciences. Complexity, 3:16-22, 1997
[21] Eve R. A., S. Horsfall and M. E. Lee, editors, Chaos, Complexity and Sociology:. Myths, Models and Theories. Sage Publications, London, 1988
[22] Holland J. H. Emergence: From Chaos to Order. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1998
[23] Marion R., The Edge of Organization: Chaos and Complexity Theories of Formal Social Systems. Sage Publications, London, 1999
[24] Kennedy J. & Eberhart R.C. Swarm intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, 2000
[25] Stewart I. Does God Play Dice-The New Mathematics of Chaos, Penguin, 1990
[26] Casti, J.L. Complexification: Explaining a Paradoxical World Through the Science of Surprise, Abacus, U.K, 1994
[27] Gilbert, N. 'Computer Simulation of Social Processes', Social Research Update, Issue Six, 1996
[28] Prietula, M.J. Carley K.M. & Gasser L. eds., Simulating Organizations, M.I.T. Press, Ca, 1998
[29] Gilbert, N. & Conte, R. eds., Artificial Societies, UCL Press, London, 1995
[30] Conte, R., Hegselmann, R. & Terna P. eels. Simulating Social Phenomena, Springer, Berlin, 1997
[31] Hackman, J. R. Groups that work (and those that don't): Creating conditions for efective teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990
[32] Baker, D. P., & Salas, E. Principles and measuring teamwork: A summary and look toward the future. In M. T. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications (pp. 331-355). Mahwah, NJ: LEA, 1997
[33] Volpe, C. E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Spector, P. E. The impact of cross-training on team functioning: An empirical investigation. Human Factors, 38, 87-100, 1996
[34] Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. Teams in organizations: Research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307-338, 1996
[35] Cohen, S. G, & Bailey, D. E. What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239-290, 1997
[36] Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman & D. R. Ilgen (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333-375). New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2003
[37] Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go to next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9-30, 2001
[38] Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. Personality and job performance: The big 5 revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869-879, 2000
[39] Foushee, H. C., & Helmreich, R. L. Group interaction and flight crew performance. In E. L. Weiner & D. C. Nagel (Eds.), Human factors in aviation (pp. 189-228). San Diego: Academic Press, 1988
[40] Morgan, B. B. Jr., Glickman, A. S., Woodward, E. A., Blaiwes, A. S., & Salas, E. Measurement of team behaviors in a Navy environment (NTSC Tech. Report No. 86-014). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Systems Center, 1986
[41] Devine, D. J., & Phillips, J. L. Do smarter teams do better? A meta-analysis of cognitive ability and team performance. Small Group Research, 32, 507-532, 2001
[42] Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. Relating member ability and personality to work-team process and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83,377-391, 1998
[43] Mohammed, S. N., Mathien, J. E., & Bartlett, A. L. Technical-administrative task performance, leadership task performance, and contextual performance: Considering the influence of team- and task-related composition variables. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23,795-814, 2002
[44] Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. Composition, process, and performance in self- managed groups: The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 62-78, 1997
[45] Driskell, J. E., Hogan, R., & Salas, E. Personality and group performance. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Group processes and intergroup relations. Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 91-112). Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1987
[46] Neuman, G A., & Wright, J. Team effectiveness: Beyond skills and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 376-389, 1999
[47] Campion, M. A., Medsker, G J., & Higgs, A. C. Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850, 1993
[48] Campion, M. A., Papper, E. M., & Medsker, G. J. Relations between work team characteristics and effectiveness: A replication and extension. Personnel Psychology, 49, 429-452, 1996
[49] Gladstein, D. L. Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499-517, 1984
[50] Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizations work groups. Academy of Management Review, 21, 402-433, 1996
[51] Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1-28 , 1999
[52] Glickman, A. S., Zimmer, S., Montero, R. C., Guerette, P. J., Campbell, W. J., Morgan, B. B., & Salas, E. The evolution of team skills: An empirical assessment with implications for training (NTSC Tech. Report No. 87-016). Arlington, VA: Office of Naval Research, 1987
[53] Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tarmenbanm, S. I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C. E. Defining competencies and establishing team training requirements. In R. Guzzo and E. Salas (Eds.), Team efectiveness and decision making in organizations (pp. 333- 380). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995
[54] Tesluk, P. E., Zaccaro, S., Marks, M., & Mathieu, J. Task and aggregation issues in the analysis and assessment of team performance. In M. Brannick, & E. Salas (Eds.), Assessment and measurement of team performance: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 197-226). Mahwah, NJ: LEA, 1997
[55] Borman, W. C., Penner, L. A., Allen, T. D., & Motowidlo, S. J. Personality predictors of citizenship performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 52-69, 2001
[56] Muchinsky, P. M. Psychology applied to work. (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth, 2003
[57] Tsui, A. S., & Gutek, B. A. Demographic differences in organizations. New York: Lexington Books, 1999
[58] Pelled, L. H. Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening process theory. Organization Science, 7, 615-631, 1996
[59] Wood, W. Meta-analytic review of sex differences in group performance. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 53-71, 1987
[60] LePine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Colquitt, J. A., & Ellis, A. Gender composition, situational strength, and team decision-making accuracy: A criterion decomposition approach. Organizational Behavior and Decision Processes, 88,445-475, 2002
[61] McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90, 1987
[62] Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500-517, 2003
[63] Kickul, J., & Nenman, G. Emergent leadership behaviors: The function of personality and cognitive ability in determining teamwork performance and KSAs, Journal of Business and Psychology, 1 5, 27-51, 2000
[64] Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. Five-factor model of personality and performance in jobs involving interpersonal interaction. Human Performance, 11, 145-165, 1998
[65] Wagner, J. A., & Moch, M. K. Individualism-collectivism: Concept and measure. Group and Organization Studies, 11,280-303,1986
[66] Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26, 1991
[67] Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behaviors. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802, 1995
[68] Hough, L. M. The "Big Five" personality variables-construct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139-155, 1992
[69] Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Oser, R., & Flanagan, D. L. Work teams in industry: A selected review and proposed framework. In R. W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 355-377). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1992
[70] Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. Work design. In W. C. Borman & D. R. Ilgen (Eds.), Handbook of psychology:. Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 423-452). New York: Wiley & Sons, 2003
[71] Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. Work redesign. Reading, MA:Addison- Wesley, 1980
[72] Spreitzer, G. M., Cohen, S, G., & Ledford, G. E. Jr. Developing effective self-managing work teams in organizations. Group and Organization Management, 24, 340-366, 1999
[73] Griffin, R. W., & McMahan, G. C. Motivation through job design. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Organizational behavior: The state of the science. Series in applied psychology (pp. 23-43). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA, 1994
[74] Susman, G. I. Autonomy at work: A social-technical analysis of participative management. New York: Praeger, 1976
[75] Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 135-149, 2000
[76] Wagner, J. A. Studies of individual-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 152-172,1995
[77] Werner, J. M., & Lester, S. W. Applying a team effectiveness framework to the performance of student case teams. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12, 385-402,2001
[78] Lawler, E. E. III, Mohrman, S. A., & Ledford, G. E. Jr. Creating high performance organizations: Practices and results of employee involvement and total quality management in Fortune 1000 companies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995
[79] Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, G. E. The effectiveness of self-managing teams: A quasi-experiment. Human Relations, 49, 643-676, 1994
[80] Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. The wisdom of teams: Creating the high performance organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1993
[81] Wageman, R. The meaning of interdependence. In M. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research (pp. 197-217). Mahwah, NJ: LEA, 2001
[82] McGrath, J. E. Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1984
[83] Stewart, G. L., & Manz, C. C. Leadership for self-managing work teams: A typology and integrative model. Human Relations, 48, 347-370, 1995
[84] Erez, A., Lepine, J. A., & Elms, H. Effects of rotated leadership and peer evaluation on the functioning and effectiveness of self-managed teams: A quasi- experiment. Personnel Psychology, 55, 929-948, 2002
[85] Steiner, I. Group processes and productivity. New York: Academic Press, 1972
[86] Baugh, S. G, & Graen, G. B. Effects of team gender and racial composition on perception of team performance in cross-functional teams. Group and Organization Management, 22, 366-383, 1997
[87] Martz, W. B., Vogel, R. R., & Nunamaker, J. F. Jr. Electronic meeting systems: Results from the field. Decision Support Systems, 8, 141-158, 1992
[88] Pearce, C. L., & Giacalone, R. A. Teams behaving badly: Factors associated with anti-citizenship behavior in teams. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 58-75,2003
[89] Chan, D. Functional relations among construct in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234-246, 1998
[90] Argote, L. & McGrath, J. E. Group processes in organizations: Continuity and change. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organization psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 333-389). New York: Wiley, 1993
[91] Albanese, R., & Van Fleet, D. D. Rational behavior in groups: The free riding tendency. Academy of Management Review, 10, 244-255, 1985
[92] Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681-706, 1993
[93] Sheppard, J. A. Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 67-81, 1993
[94] Wageman, R. Interdependence and group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 309-342, 1995
[95] Doran, Jim, and G. Nigel Gilbert, editors. Simulating Societies: the Computer Simulation of Social Phenomena. University of London College Press, London, 1994
[96] Chris Goldspink. Methodological Implications Of Complex Systems Approaches to Sociality: Simulation as a foundation for knowledge. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation vol. 5, no. 1, 2002
[97] Nigel Gilbert and Klaus G. Troitzsch. Simulation for the Social Scientist. McGraw-Hill Education, USA, 2005
[98] Hayes-Roth, F., Waterman, D. A., & Lenat, D. B. Building Expert Systems. Addison-Wesley, New York, 1983
[99] Ferber J. Des objects aux agents. Doctoral thesis, University of Paris Ⅵ, 1989
[100] Woolridge, M., and Jennings, N. Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. Knowledge Engineering Review 10(2): 115-152, 1995
[101] Hannerman R. A. and Patrick S. On the Uses of Computer-assisted Simulation Modeling in the Social Science. Sociological Research online,Vol. 2, No. 2, 1997
[102] Brassel K. H. Mohting, M. Schumacher E. & Troitzsch K. G. Can agents Cover All the World. In Conte R. Hegselmann R. & Terna P. eds. Simulating Social Phenomena, Springer, Berlin, 1997
[103] Balch and R. C. Arkin. Motor schema-based formation control for multi-agent robot teams. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems (ICMAS-95), (Menlo Park, California), pp. 10-16, AAAI Press, 1995
[104] Levy and J. S. Rosenschein. A game theoretic approach to the pursuit Problem. In Working Papers of the 11th International Workshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence, pp. 195-213, 1992
[105] A. S. Rao and M. P. Georgeff. Modeling rational agents within a BDlarchitecture. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CA, 1991
[106] Marco Remondino. Analysis of Agent Based Paradigms for Complex Social Systems Simulation. Thesis of Doctor Degree 2002
[107] P. Kolesar, W. E. Walker. A Simulation Model of Police Patrol Operations: Executive Summary, 1975
[108] Dennis L. Meadows ... [et al.]. Dynamics of growth in a fmite world. Wright-Allen Press, 1974
[109] Orcutt G., J. Merz., & H. Quinke. Microanalytic Simulation Models to Support Social and Financial Policy. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1986
[110] Harding, D.E. Head Off Stress: Below the Bottom Line. London and New York: Arkana, 1990
[111] Klaus G. Troitzsch. Social Science Simulation-Origins, Prospects, Purposes. Institut fur Sozialwissenschaftliche Informatik, Fachbereich Informatik, Universit at Koblenz-Landau, Rheinau 1, D-56075 Koblenz, Germany 2002
[112] Cristiano, Castelfranchi. The theory of social functions: challenges for computational social science and multi-agent learning. Journal of Cognitive Systems Research 2 (2001) 5-38, 2000
[113] Anderson, J. R. Rules of the Mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993
[114] Carley, K. M., & Lin, Z. Organizational Designs Suited to High Performance Under Stress. IEEE-Systems Man and Cybernetics, 25(1). pp. 221-230, 1995
[115] Coward, L.A., & Sun, R. (in press) Criteria for an Effective Theory of Consciousness and Examples of Preliminary Attempts at Such a Theory. Consciousness and Cognition. 2002
[116] Edmonds, B., & Moss, S. "The Importance of Representing Cognitive Processes in Multi-Agent Models." In Dorffner G, Bischof H, and Hornik K (Eds.). Artificial Neural Networks-ICANN'2001. Springer-Verlag: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2130, pp. 759-766, 2001
[117] Hutchins, E. How a Cockpit Remembers Its Speeds. Cognitive Science, 19, pp. 265-288, 1995
[118] Jensen F, V. An Introduction to Bayesian Networks. NY: Springer-Verlag, 1996
[119] Kahan, J., & Rapoport, A. Theories of Coalition Formation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1984
[120] Louie, M. A., &Carley K M, Haghshenass L, Kunz J C, and Levitt R EModel Comparisons: Docking ORGAHEAD and SimVision. NAACSOS conference proceedings. PA: Pittsburgh, 2003
[121] Epstein & Axtell. Growing Artificial Societies Social Science from the Bottom Up, 1996
[122] A. H. Dekker. Using Agent-Based Modelling to Study Organisational Performance and Cultural Differences. Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Department of Defence, Canberra, ACT, Australia, 2002
[123] Kathleen M. Carley, Michael J. Prietula and Zhiang Lin. Design Versus Cognition: The interaction of agent cognition and organizational design on organizational performance. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation vol. 1, no. 3, 1998
[124] CARLEY, K. M., & Z. Lin. Organizational Designs Suited to High Performance Under Stress. IEEE-Systems Man and Cybernetics 25(1): 221-230, 1995
[125] Ron Sun., & Isaac Naveh. Simulating Organizational Decision-Making Using a Cognitively Realistic Agent Model. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation vol. 7, no. 3, 2004
[126] N Baxter, D Collings and I Adjali. Agent-based modelling-intelligent customer relationship management. BT Technology Journal·Vol 21 No 2·April 2003
[127] Antonio Moreno, Ada Valls, Marta Matin. Multi-agent simulation of work teams. Computer Science & Mathematics Department, Universitat Rovira i Virgili ETSE. Campus Scscelades. Av. dels Pasos Catalans, 26, 43007-Tarragona, Spain, 2002
[128] Jürgen Klüver., & Christina Stoica. Simulations of Group Dynamics with Different Models. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation vol. 6, no. 4, 2003
[129] Takeshi Morimoto. How to develop RoboCupRescue Agent. For RoboCupRescue Simulation System version 0
[130] Madhu Goyal. An Agent's Perspective of a Team in a Dynamic World. Faculty of IT, University of Technology