PosoMAS: An Extensible, Modular SE Process for Open Self-organising Systems

  • Jan-Philipp Steghöfer
  • Hella Seebach
  • Benedikt Eberhardinger
  • Wolfgang Reif
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8861)


This paper introduces PosoMAS, the Process for open, self-organising Multi-Agent Systems. The process is composed of a number of practices, reusable and customisable building parts, and integrated into the lifecycle of the Open Unified Process to yield an iterative, incremental software engineering process tailored to open self-organising systems. The individual practices are introduced and their interplay described. We evaluate PosoMAS in two case studies and provide a qualitative comparison with existing AOSE processes.


Multiagent System Work Product Architecture Domain Requirement Elicitation Agent Organisation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Steghöfer, J.P., Anders, G., Siefert, F., Reif, W.: A system of systems approach to the evolutionary transformation of power management systems. In: Proc. of INFORMATIK 2013 – Workshop on Smart Grids. LNI, vol. P-220. Bonner Köllen Verlag (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bernard, Y., Klejnowski, L., Müller-Schloer, C., Pitt, J., Schaumeier, J.: Enduring institutions and self-organising trust-adaptive systems for an open grid computing infrastructure. In: Proc. of the 2012 Sixth IEEE Int. Conf. on Self-Adaptive and Self-Organizing Systems Workshop (SASOW), pp. 47–52. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sudeikat, J., Steghöfer, J.P., Seebach, H., Reif, W., Renz, W., Preisler, T., Salchow, P.: On the combination of top-down and bottom-up methodologies for the design of coordination mechanisms in self-organising systems. Information and Software Technology 54(6), 593–607 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eberhardinger, B., Steghöfer, J.P., Nafz, F., Reif, W.: Model-driven Synthesis of Monitoring Infrastructure for Reliable Adaptive Multi-Agent Systems. In: Proc. of the 24th IEEE Int. Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE 2013). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, D.C (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Steghöfer, J.P., Behrmann, P., Anders, G., Siefert, F., Reif, W.: HiSPADA: Self-Organising Hierarchies for Large-Scale Multi-Agent Systems. In: 9th Int. Conf. on Autonomic and Autonomous Systems, ICAS 2013, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 71–76. IARIA (March 2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kroll, P., Kruchten, P.: The Rational Unified Process Made Easy—A Practitioner’s Guide to the RUP. Addison-Wesley Professional (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Henderson-Sellers, B., Gonzalez-Perez, C., Ralyte, J.: Comparison of method chunks and method fragments for situational method engineering. In: 19th Australian Conf. on Software Engineering, ASWEC 2008, pp. 479–488 (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tran, Q.N.N., Low, G.C.: Comparison of ten agent-oriented methodologies. In: Agent-oriented Methodologies, pp. 341–367. Idea Group, Hershey (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cossentino, M., Hilaire, V., Molesini, A., Seidita, V.: Handbook on Agent-Oriented Design Processes. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Padgham, L., Winikoff, M.: Developing Intelligent Agent Systems. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tran, Q.-N.N., Low, G., Williams, M.-A.: A preliminary comparative feature analysis of multi-agent systems development methodologies. In: Bresciani, P., Giorgini, P., Henderson-Sellers, B., Low, G., Winikoff, M. (eds.) AOIS 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3508, pp. 157–168. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Al-Hashel, E., Balachandran, B.M., Sharma, D.: A Comparison of Three Agent-Oriented Software Development Methodologies: ROADMAP, Prometheus, and MaSE. In: Apolloni, B., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L. (eds.) KES 2007, Part III. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4694, pp. 909–916. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dam, K.H., Winikoff, M.: Comparing agent-oriented methodologies. In: Giorgini, P., Henderson-Sellers, B., Winikoff, M. (eds.) AOIS 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3030, pp. 78–93. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bernon, C., Gleizes, M.-P., Peyruqueou, S., Picard, G.: ADELFE: A methodology for adaptive multi-agent systems engineering. In: Petta, P., Tolksdorf, R., Zambonelli, F. (eds.) ESAW 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2577, pp. 156–169. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bauer, B., Müller, J.P., Odell, J.: Agent UML: A formalism for specifying multiagent software systems. In: Ciancarini, P., Wooldridge, M.J. (eds.) AOSE 2000. LNCS, vol. 1957, pp. 91–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cossentino, M., Gaud, N., Hilaire, V., Galland, S., Koukam, A.: ASPECS: an agent-oriented software process for engineering complex systems. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 20(2), 260–304 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    DeLoach, S.A., Wood, M.F., Sparkman, C.H.: Multiagent Systems Engineering. IJSEKE 11(3), 231–258 (2001)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Abdelaziz, T., Elammari, M., Unland, R.: A Framework for the Evaluation of Agent-Oriented Methodologies. In: 4th Int. Conf. on Innovations in Information Technology, IIT 2007, pp. 491–495 (November 2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    DeLoach, S.A., Garcia-Ojeda, J.C.: O-MaSE – a customisable approach to designing and building complex, adaptive multi-agent systems. IJAOSE 4(3), 244–280 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pavón, J., Gómez-Sanz, J.: Agent oriented software engineering with INGENIAS. In: Mařík, V., Müller, J.P., Pěchouček, M. (eds.) CEEMAS 2003. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2691, pp. 394–403. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Caire, G., Coulier, W., Garijo, F., Gomez, J., Pavon, J., Leal, F., Chainho, P., Kearney, P., Stark, J., Evans, R., Massonet, P.: Agent oriented analysis using message/UML. In: Wooldridge, M.J., Weiß, G., Ciancarini, P. (eds.) AOSE 2001. LNCS, vol. 2222, pp. 119–135. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eberhardinger, B., Seebach, H., Knapp, A., Reif, W.: Towards testing self-organizing, adaptive systems. In: Merayo, M.G., de Oca, E.M. (eds.) ICTSS 2014. LNCS, vol. 8763, pp. 180–185. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Lamsweerde, A., Letier, E.: From object orientation to goal orientation: A paradigm shift for requirements engineering. In: Wirsing, M., Knapp, A., Balsamo, S. (eds.) RISSEF 2002. LNCS, vol. 2941, pp. 325–340. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cheng, B., Sawyer, P., Bencomo, N., Whittle, J.: A goal-based modeling approach to develop requirements of an adaptive system with environmental uncertainty. In: Schürr, A., Selic, B. (eds.) MODELS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5795, pp. 468–483. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ramirez, A.J., Cheng, B.H.C.: Design patterns for developing dynamically adaptive systems. In: Proc. of the Workshop on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems, SEAMS 2010, pp. 49–58. ACM, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Horling, B., Lesser, V.: A survey of multi-agent organizational paradigms. The Knowledge Engineering Review 19(04), 281–316 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Richter, U., Mnif, M., Branke, J., Müller-Schloer, C., Schmeck, H.: Towards a generic observer/controller architecture for Organic Computing. In: 36. Jahrestagung der GI. LNI, vol. 93, pp. 112–119. GI (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pinyol, I., Sabater-Mir, J.: Computational trust and reputation models for open multi-agent systems: a review. Artificial Intelligence Review 40(1), 1–25 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Seidita, V., Cossentino, M., Gaglio, S.: A repository of fragments for agent systems design. In: Proc. of the Workshop on Objects and Agents (WOA 2006), Catania, Italy, pp. 130–137 (September 2006)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cossentino, M., Gleizes, M.-P., Molesini, A., Omicini, A.: Processes engineering and AOSE. In: Gleizes, M.-P., Gomez-Sanz, J.J. (eds.) AOSE 2009. LNCS, vol. 6038, pp. 191–212. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Eclipse Foundation: Openup (2013), (accessed September 2, 2013)
  32. 32.
    Gustafsson, B.: Openup – the best of two worlds. Methods & Tools (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan-Philipp Steghöfer
    • 1
  • Hella Seebach
    • 1
  • Benedikt Eberhardinger
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Reif
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Software & Systems EngineeringAugsburg UniversityGermany

Personalised recommendations