JACIII Vol.22 No.5 pp. 640-653
doi: 10.20965/jaciii.2018.p0640


Study on the Adaptation with Learning About the Environment: The Case of Post-Acquisition Integration

Jing Su*, Mohsen Jafari Songhori**, and Takao Terano*

*Tokyo Institute of Technology
4259 Nagatsuta-cho, Midori-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 226-8502, Japan

**Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Technical Medical Center, University of Twente
Ravelijn 5151, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands

December 22, 2017
June 8, 2018
September 20, 2018
complex systems, adaptation, learning, agent-based simulation, post-acquisition integration

Organizations can be considered as complex systems that can adapt to their changing environment. In this work, we study a complex system adapting to an unfamiliar environment with learning; this is grounded in the context of the post-acquisition integration of the companies. More specifically, we conceptualize post-acquisition integration from the perspective of behavioral theory as a reason for the environmental changes to the firms (agents). We studied the adaptation of these complex systems and we propose a coupled learning method over the NK landscape. The simulation results show that the initial perceptions of the agents regarding the new task environment can be quite influential to the performance of the entire system during the adaptation process. Correct initial perceptions can help the system to quickly achieve high performance, whereas incorrect initial perceptions may prevent the system from reaching high performance. Lack of initial perceptions could lead to a slow yet robust adaptation process with a moderate level of performance. Moreover, certain other factors, such as the sensitivity to the feedback from the environment, the incentive of the system for exploration, and the learning frequency, may have different impact on the adaptation and performance of the system.

Cite this article as:
J. Su, M. Songhori, and T. Terano, “Study on the Adaptation with Learning About the Environment: The Case of Post-Acquisition Integration,” J. Adv. Comput. Intell. Intell. Inform., Vol.22, No.5, pp. 640-653, 2018.
Data files:
  1. [1] łabelRef.
  2. [2] J. H. Holland, “Complex adaptive systems,” Daedalus, Vol.121, No.1. pp. 17-30, 1992.
  3. [3] J. H. Holland, “Studying complex adaptive systems,” J. of Systems Science and Complexity, Vol.19, No.1, pp. 1-8, 2006.
  4. [4] S. D. Pathak, J. M. Day, A. Nair, W. J. Sawaya, and M. M. Kristal, “Complexity and adaptivity in supply networks: Building supply network theory using a complex adaptive systems perspective,” Decision Sciences, Vol.38, No.4, pp. 547-580, 2007.
  5. [5] W. P. Millhiser and D. Solow, “How large should a complex system be? An application in organizational teams,” Complexity, Vol.12, No.4, pp. 54-70, 2007.
  6. [6] R. M. Cyert and J. G. March, “A behavioral theory of the firm,” Prentice-Hall, 1963.
  7. [7] S. A. Kauffman and E. D. Weinberger, “The NK model of rugged fitness landscapes and its application to maturation of the immune response,” J. of Theoretical Biology, Vol.141, No.2, pp. 211-245, 1989.
  8. [8] J. Uotila, “Punctuated equilibrium or ambidexterity: Dynamics of incremental and radical organizational change over time,” Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol.27, No.1, pp. 131-148, 2017.
  9. [9] J. Claussen, T. Kretschmer, and N. Stieglitz, “Vertical scope, turbulence, and the benefits of commitment and flexibility,” Management Science, Vol.61, No.4, pp. 915-929, 2015.
  10. [10] S. Yi, T. Knudsen, and M. C. Becker, “Inertia in routines: A hidden source of organizational variation,” Organization Science, Vol.27, No.3, pp. 782-800, 2016.
  11. [11] H. A. Simon, “A behavioral model of rational choice,” The Quarterly J. of Economics, Vol.69, No.1, pp. 99-118, 1955.
  12. [12] D. A. Levinthal, “Adaptation on rugged landscapes,” Management science, Vol.43, No.7, pp. 934-950, 1997.
  13. [13] N. Siggelkow and J. W. Rivkin, “Speed and search: Designing organizations for turbulence and complexity,” Organization Science, Vol.16, No.2, pp. 101-122, 2005.
  14. [14] N. Stieglitz, T. Knudsen, and M. C. Becker, “Adaptation and inertia in dynamic environments,” Strategic Management J., Vol.37, No.9, pp. 1854-1864, 2016.
  15. [15] S. K. Ethiraj and D. Levinthal, “Bounded rationality and the search for organizational architecture: An evolutionary perspective on the design of organizations and their evolvability,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.49, No.3, pp. 404-437, 2004.
  16. [16] D. A. Levinthal and A. Marino, “Three facets of organizational adaptation: Selection, variety, and plasticity,” Organization Science, Vol.26, No.3, pp. 743-755, 2015.
  17. [17] J. W. Rivkin and N. Siggelkow, “Organizational sticking points on NK landscapes,” Complexity, Vol.7, No.5, pp. 31-43, 2002.
  18. [18] J. W. Rivkin and N. Siggelkow, “Patterned interactions in complex systems: Implications for exploration,” Management Science, Vol.53, No.7, pp. 1068-1085, 2007.
  19. [19] V. A. Aggarwal, N. Siggelkow, and H. Singh, “Governing collaborative activity: Interdependence and the impact of coordination and exploration,” Strategic Management J., Vol.32, No.7, pp. 705-730, 2011.
  20. [20] F. A. Csaszar and J. P. Eggers, “Organizational decision making: An information aggregation view,” Management Science, Vol.59, No.10, pp. 2257-2277, 2013.
  21. [21] T. Knudsen and D. A. Levinthal, “Two faces of search: Alternative generation and alternative evaluation,” Organization Science, Vol.18, No.1, pp. 39-54, 2007.
  22. [22] J. Mihm, C. H. Loch, D. Wilkinson, and B. A. Huberman, “Hierarchical structure and search in complex organizations,” Management Science, Vol.56, No.5, pp. 831-848, 2010.
  23. [23] P. C. Haspeslagh and D. B. Jemison, “Managing acquisitions: Creating value through corporate renewal,” New York: Free Press, 1991.
  24. [24] J. Birkinshaw, H. Bresman, and L. Hakanson, “Managing the post-acquisition integration process: How the human integration and task integration processes interact to foster value creation,” J. of Management Studies, Vol.37, No.3, pp. 395-425, 2000.
  25. [25] R. Larsson and S. Finkelstein, “Integrating strategic, organizational, and human resource perspectives on mergers and acquisitions: A case survey of synergy realization,” Organization Science, Vol.10, No.1, pp. 1-26, 1999.
  26. [26] A. Zaheer, X. Castaer, and D. Souder, “Synergy sources, target autonomy, and integration in acquisitions,” J. of Management, Vol.39, No.3, pp. 604-632, 2013.
  27. [27] B. Uzelac, F. Bauer, K. Matzler, and M. Waschak, “The moderating effects of decision-making preferences on M&A integration speed and performance,” The Int. J. of Human Resource Management, Vol.27, No.20, pp. 2436-2460, 2016.
  28. [28] H. Bresman, J. Birkinshaw, and R. Nobel, “Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions,” J. of Int. Business Studies, Vol.30, No.3, pp. 439-462, 1999.
  29. [29] J. Gammelgaard, K. Husted, and S. Michailova, “Knowledge sharing behavior and post-acquisition integration failure,” CKGWP 6, pp. 24-41, 2004.
  30. [30] A. L. Ranft, “Knowledge preservation and transfer during post-acquisition integration,” Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 51-67, 2006.
  31. [31] E. Gomes, D. N. Angwin, Y. Weber, and S. Yedidia Tarba, “Critical success factors through the mergers and acquisitions process: Revealing pre-and post-M&A connections for improved performance,” Thunderbird Int. Business Review, Vol.55, No.1, pp. 13-35, 2013.
  32. [32] G. Gavetti, D. A. Levinthal, and J. W. Rivkin, “Strategy making in novel and complex worlds: The power of analogy,” Strategic Management J., Vol.26, No.8, pp. 691-712, 2005.
  33. [33] P. Puranam and M. Swamy, “How initial representations shape coupled learning processes,” Organization Science, Vol.27, No.2, pp. 323-335, 2016.
  34. [34] M. Jafari Songhori, M. S. Jalali, and T. Terano, “The effects of teams’ initial characterizations of interactions on product development performance,” Simulation Conf. (WSC), 2017 Winter, pp. 1383-1394, 2017.
  35. [35] R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto, “Reinforcement learning,” MIT Press Cambridge, 1998.
  36. [36] J. Denrell and J. G. March, “Adaptation as information restriction: The hot stove effect,” Organization Science, Vol.12, No.5, pp. 523-538, 2001.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, IE9,10,11, Opera.

Last updated on Oct. 23, 2018