Skip to main content
Log in

A Formal Study of Distributed Meeting Scheduling

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Automating routine organizational tasks, such as meeting scheduling, requires a careful balance between the individual (respecting his or her privacy and personal preferences) and the organization (making efficient use of time and other resources). We argue that meeting scheduling is an inherently distributed process, and that negotiating over meetings can be viewed as a distributed search process. Keeping the process tractable requires introducing heuristics to guide distributed schedulers' decisions about what information to exchange and whether or not to propose the same tentative time for several meetings. While we have intuitions about how such heuristics could affect scheduling performance and efficiency, verifying these intuitions requires a more formal model of the meeting schedule problem and process. We present our preliminary work toward this goal, as well as experimental results that validate some of the predictions of our formal model. We also investigate scheduling in overconstrained situations, namely, scheduling of high priority meetings at short notice, which requires cancellation and rescheduling of previously scheduled meetings. Our model provides a springboard into deeper investigations of important issues in distributed artificial intelligence as well, and we outline our ongoing work in this direction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Conry, S.E., R.A. Meyer, and V.R. Lesser. (1988). “Multistage Negotiation in Distributed Planning.” in Alan H. Bond and Les Gasser, (eds.), Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufman, pp. 367-384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dent, L., et al. (1992). “A Personal Learning Apprentice.” in Proceedings of the Tenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp 96-103.

  • Durfee, E.H., V.R. Lesser, and D.D. Corkill. (1989). “Trends in Cooperative Distributed Problem Solving.” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering. 1(1), 63-83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durfee, E.H. and T.A. Montgomery. (1991). “Coordination as Distributed Search in a Hierarchical Behavior Space.” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. 21(6), 1363-1378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fieldman, M. (1987). “Electronic Mail and Weak Ties in Organizations.” Office Technology and People. 3, 83-101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greif, I. (1982). PCAL: A personal calendar. Technical Report TM-213, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grudin, J. (1987). “Social Evaluation of the User Interface: Who does the Work and Who gets the Benefit?” in H. Bullinger and B. Shacketl (eds.), Human Computer Interaction-INTERACT87. North Holland, pp. 805-811.

  • Hewitt, C., and J. Inman. (1991). “DAI Betwixt and Between: From ‘intelligent agents' to Open Systems Science.” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 21(6), 1409-1419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, J.F. and A. Chapanis. (1982). “How Professional Persons Keep Their Calendars: Implications for Computerization.” Journal of Occupational Psychology. 55, 141-156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kincaid, C., P. Dupont, and A. Kaye. (1985). “Electronic Calendars in the Office: An Assessment of User Needs and Current Technology.” ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems. 3(1), 89-102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maes, P., and R. Kozierok. (1993). “Learning Interface Agents.” in Proceedings of the Eleventh National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. pp. 459-464.

  • Malone, T.W., et al. (1987). “Intelligent Information-sharing Systems.” Communications of the ACM. 30(5), 390- 402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pan, J.Y.-C., and J.M. Tenenbaum. (1991). “An Intelligent Agent Framework for Enterprise Integration.” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. 21(6), 1391-1408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, S. (1993). Predicting Tradeoffs in Contract-Based Distributed Scheduling. PhD thesis, University of Michigan.

  • Sen, S., and E.H. Durfee. (1993). “Using Temporal Abstractions and Cancellations for Efficiency in Automated Meeting Scheduling.” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems. pp. 163-172.

  • Sen, S., and E.H. Durfee. (1994a). “On the Design of an Adaptive Meeting Scheduler.” in Proceedings of the Tenth IEEE Conference on AI Applications. pp. 40-46.

  • Sen, S., and E.H. Durfee. (1994b). “The Role of Commitment in Cooperative Negotiation.” International Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems. 3(1), 67-81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, S., and E. Durfee. (1995). “Unsupervised Surrogate Agents and Search Bias Change in Flexible Distributed Scheduling.” in First International Conference on Multiagent Systems, pp. 336-343.

  • Smith, R.G. (1980). “The Contract Net Protocol: High-level Communication and Control in a Distributed Problem Solver.” IEEE Transactions on Computers. C-29(12), 1104-1113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taub, E. (1993). “Sharing Schedules.” MacUser, pp. 155-162.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sen, S., Durfee, E.H. A Formal Study of Distributed Meeting Scheduling. Group Decision and Negotiation 7, 265–289 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008639617029

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008639617029

Navigation