Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 283–314 | Cite as

Analysis of meeting protocols by formalisation, simulation, and verification

  • Catholijn M. JonkerEmail author
  • Martijn C. Schut
  • Jan Treur
  • Pınar Yolum


Organizations depend on regular meetings to carry out their everyday tasks. When carried out successfully, meetings offer a common medium for participants to exchange ideas and make decisions. However, many meetings suffer from unfocused discussions or irrelevant dialogues. To study meetings in detail, we first formalize general properties of meetings and a generic meeting protocol to specify how roles in a meeting should interact to realize these properties. This generic protocol is used as a starting point to study real-life meetings. Next, an example meeting is simulated using the generic meeting protocol. The general properties are formally verified in the simulation trace. Next, these properties are also verified formally against empirical data of a real meeting in the same context. A comparison of the two traces reveals that a real meeting is more robust since when exceptions happen and the rules of the protocol are violated, these exceptions are handled effectively. Given this observation, a more refined protocol is specified that includes exception-handling strategies. Based on this refined protocol a meeting is simulated that closely resembles the real meeting. This protocol is then validated against another set of data from another real meeting. By iteratively adding exception handling rules, the protocol is enhanced to handle a variety of situations successfully.


Meeting protocols Dynamic properties Temporal logical formalisation Simulation Verification Organisation modeling 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barringer H, Fisher M, Gabbay D, Owens R, Reynolds M (1996) The Imperative Future: principles of Executable Temporal Logic. Research Studies Press Ltd John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  2. Bosse T, Jonker CM, van der Mey L, Treur J (2005) LEADSTO: a Language and Environment for Analysis of Dynamics by SimulaTiOn. In: Eymann T et al (eds) Proc. of the Third German Conference on Multi-Agent System Technologies, MATES'05 vol 3550. Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer Verlag, pp 165–178Google Scholar
  3. Carley KM, Gasser L (1999) Computational Organization Theory in Multiagent Systems: a Modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Chapter 7. Gerhard Weiss (ed). MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  4. Clarke EM, Grumberg O, Peled DA (2000) Model Checking. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  5. Cornelissen F, Jonker CM, Treur J (2003) Compositional Verification of Knowledge-Based Task Models and Problem Solving Methods. Knowl Inf Syst J 5:337–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Creighton JL, Using Group Process Techniques to Improve Meeting Effectiveness. URL: http://www.
  7. Croston JD, Goulding HB (1966) The Effectiveness of Communication at Meetings: a Case Study. Oper Res Quarterly 17(1):47–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. van Eck PAT, Engelfriet J, Fensel D, van Harmelen F, Venema Y, Willems M (2001) A Survey of Languages for Specifying Dynamics: A Knowledge Engineering Perspective. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 13:462–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fasli M (2003) Formal Systems and Agent-Based Social Simulation Equals Null? J Artif Society Simul 7(4). Available at: <>
  10. Fisher M (1994) A survey of Concurrent MetateM—the language and its applications. In: Gabbay DM, Ohlbach HJ (eds) Temporal logic—Proceedings of the First International Conference, Lecture Notes in AI, vol 827, pp 480–505Google Scholar
  11. Forbus KD (1984) Qualitative process theory. Artif Intell 24(1–3):85–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gamboa R, Kaufmann M (2001) Nonstandard Analysis in ACL2. J Autom Reason 27:323–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garfinkel H (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-HallGoogle Scholar
  14. Goffman E (1961) Encounters. The Bobs-Merrill CompanyGoogle Scholar
  15. Goffman E (1963) Behaviour in Public Places. Collier-MacMillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Henzinger T, Nicollin X, Sifakis J, Yovine S (1994) Symbolic model checking for real-time systems. Inform Comput 111(2):193–244. Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jonker CM, Treur J (2002) Compositional Verification of Multi-Agent Systems: A Formal Analysis of Pro-activeness and Reactiveness. In: de Roever WP, Langmaack H, Pnueli A (eds) Proceedings of the International Workshop on Compositionality, COMPOS'97. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1536, Springer Verlag, 1998, pp. 350–380. Extended version in: International J Coop Infor Syst 11:51–92Google Scholar
  18. Kelso JAS (1995) Dynamic Patterns: the Self-Organisation of Brain and Behaviour. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  19. Law AD, Kelton WD (2000) Simulation Modeling and Analysis. McGraw HillGoogle Scholar
  20. Manna Z, Pnueli A (1995) Temporal Verification of Reactive Systems: Safety. Springer VerlagGoogle Scholar
  21. Moss S, Gaylard H, Wallis S, Edmonds B (1998) SDML: a Multi-Agent Language for Organizational Modelling. Comput Math Organ Theory 4(1):43–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Niederman F, Beise CM, Beranek PM (1996) Issues and Concerns about Computer-Supported Meetings: The Facilitator's Perspective. MIS Quarterly 20(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Port RF, van Gelder T (eds) (1995) Mind as Motion: Explorations in the Dynamics of Cognition. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  24. Reiter, R (2001) Knowledge in Action: Logical Foundations for Specifying and Implementing Dynamical Systems. MIT Press, 2001Google Scholar
  25. Robert HM (2000) Robert's Rules of Order (Newly Revised), 10th edn, HarperCollins PublishersGoogle Scholar
  26. de Roever WP, Langmaack H, Pnueli A (eds) (1998) Proceedings of the International Workshop on Compositionality, COMPOS'97. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1536, Springer VerlagGoogle Scholar
  27. Serman CB, Basili VR (1998) Communication and Organization: An Empirical Study of Discussion in Inspection Meetings. IEEE Trans Soft Eng 24(6):559–572Google Scholar
  28. Stirling C (2001) Modal and Temporal Properties of Processes. Springer VerlagGoogle Scholar
  29. Wolf K (2002) The Makings of a Good Meeting. Available at:

Copyright information

© Springer Science &#x002B; Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catholijn M. Jonker
    • 1
    Email author
  • Martijn C. Schut
    • 2
  • Jan Treur
    • 2
  • Pınar Yolum
    • 3
  1. 1.Man-Machine InteractionDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Artificial IntelligenceVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Computer EngineeringBogazici UniversityBebekTurkey

Personalised recommendations