On the Relationship Between Organizational Complexity and Organizational Structuration
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article represents a contribution to the conceptualization of organizational complexity. The first part of the article relates the concept of complexity to the production tasks of the organization by deriving measures of the complexity of production and planning tasks within the organization. This move allows us to analyze organizational activities in terms of the computational complexity of the tasks that the organization carries out. Drawing on concepts from theoretical computer science, the article introduces a taxonomy of production tasks based on their computational complexity and shows how to use the notion of computational complexity to analyze organizational phenomena such as vertical integration disintegration, the choice between markets and organizations as performers of particular production tasks, and the internal partitioning of organizational tasks and activities. The article then relates the complexity of the production function of the organization to the ways in which organizations structure themselves. It attempts to bring theorizing about organizational behavior based on complexity theory closer to the conceptual realm of "mainstream" organization theory and to make the concepts of complexity theory more useful to empirical examinations of firm dynamics and organizational behavior.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it