An Agent-Based Model for Hierarchical Organizations

  • Luis Erasmo Montealegre Vázquez
  • Fabiola López y López
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4386)


Hierarchical structures have been widely used by human organizations because they provide the natural means to delegate tasks, to reduce communication lines and to control the activities performed into them. This has motivated the development of different approaches to automate many of the activities that take place in hierarchical organizations. Recent frameworks, such as Gaia, Aalaadin, HarmonIA and OperA, among others, have considered the agent paradigm to do so without taking into account that organizations are dynamic entities that evolve with the time and, consequently, agents must adapt to changes. Here we develop a model for flexible and open hierarchical organizations where agents can dynamically adapt themselves to organizational changes.


Multiagent System Autonomous Agent Hierarchical Organization Organizational Goal Norm Compliance 
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.
    Luck, M., McBurney, P., Shehory, O., Willmott, S.: Agent Technology: Computing as Interaction (A Roadmap for Agent Based Computing). AgentLink (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ferber, J., Gutknecht, O.: A meta-model for the analysis and design of organizations in multi-agent systems. In: ICMAS 1998. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 128–135 (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hannoun, M., Boissier, O., Sichman, J.S., Sayettat, C.: MOISE: An organizational model for multi-agent systems. In: Monard, M.C., Sichman, J.S. (eds.) SBIA 2000 and IBERAMIA 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1952, pp. 156–165. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    DeLoach, S.A., Wood, M.F., Sparkman, C.H.: Multiagent systems engineering. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 11(3), 231–258 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zambonelli, F., Jennings, N.R., Wooldridge, M.: Developing multiagent systems: The gaia methodology. ACM Transaction on Software Engineering Methodology 12(3), 317–370 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gonzalez-Palacios, J., Luck, M.: A framework for patterns in gaia: A case-study with organisations. In: Odell, J.J., Giorgini, P., Müller, J.P. (eds.) AOSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3382, pp. 174–188. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vázquez-Salceda, J.: Thesis: The role of norms and electronic institutions in multi-agent systems applied to complex domains. The harmonia framework. AI Communications 16(3), 209–212 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dignum, V.: A model for organizational interaction: based on agents, founded in logic. PhD thesis, Utrecht University (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carley, K.M., Gasser, L.: Computational organization theory. In: Weiss, G. (ed.) Multiagent systems: A modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence, pp. 299–330. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    López, F., Luck, M., d’ Inverno, M.: A normative framework for agent-based systems. In: NorMAS 2005: Proceedings of the Symposium on Normative Multiagent Systems, The Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behaviour, pp. 24–35 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    López, F., Luck, M.: A model of normative multi-agent systems and dynamic relationships. In: Lindemann, G., Moldt, D., Paolucci, M. (eds.) RASTA 2002. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2934, pp. 259–280. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gama, E.: In: Bases para el Análisis de los Puestos. Manual Moderno, ch. 4, pp. 59–89 (1992)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chiavenato, I.: Teoría Clásica de la Administración. In: Introducción a la Teoría General de la Administración, pp. 88–112. McGraw-Hill, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chiavenato, I.: Teoría Neoclásica de la Administración. In: Introducción a la Teoría General de la Administración, pp. 201–250. McGraw-Hill, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chiavenato, I.: Implicaciones de la Teoría de las Relaciones Humanas. In: Introducción a la Teoría General de la Administración, pp. 141–196. McGraw-Hill, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I., Booch, G.: Unified Modeling Language Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    López, F., Luck, M., d’ Inverno, M.: Constraining autonomy through norms. In: AAMAS 2002. Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 674–681. ACM Press, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    López, F., Luck, M.: Modelling norms for autonomous agents. In: Chavez, E., Favela, J., Mejia, M., Oliart, A. (eds.) ENC 2003. Proceedings of the Fourth Mexican International Conference on Computer Science, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 238–245. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    López, F., Arenas, A.: An architecture for autonomous normative agents. In: ENC 2004. Proceedings of the Fifth Mexican International Conference in Computer Science, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 96–103. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Felicíssimo, C., Choren, R., Briot, J.P., Lucena, C.: Supporting regulatory dynamics in open mas. LNCS, vol. 4386, pp. 140–155. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Montealegre, L.: Modelado de organizaciones jerárquicas usando sistemas multiagentes normativos. Master’s thesis, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    López, F., Luck, M., d’Inverno, M.: Normative agent reasoning in dynamic societies. In: Jennings, N., Sierra, C., Sonenberg, L., Tambe, M. (eds.) AAMAS 2004. Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 732–739. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2004)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boella, G., van der Torre, L.: Contracts as legal institutions in organizations of autonomous agents. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 948–955 (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sandholm, T., Lesser, V.: Leveled-commitment contracting: A backtracking instrument for multiagent systems. AI Magazine 23(3), 89–100 (2002)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kendall, E.: Agent roles and role models: New abstractions for intelligent agent system analysis and design. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Intelligent Agents in Information and Process Management, Bremen, Germany (September 1998)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Russell, S., Norving, P.: Artificial Intelligence. A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Aldewereld, H., Vázquez-Salceda, J., Dignum, F., Meyer, J.: Verifying norm compliancy of protocols. In: Boissier, O., Padget, J., Dignum, V., Lindemann, G., Matson, E., Ossowski, S., Sichman, J.S., Vázquez-Salceda, J. (eds.) Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Multi-Agent Systems. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3913, pp. 127–141. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hermoso, R., Billhardt, H., Ossowski, S.: Integrating trust in virtual organisations. LNCS, vol. 4386, pp. 17–29. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luis Erasmo Montealegre Vázquez
    • 1
  • Fabiola López y López
    • 1
  1. 1.Facultad de Ciencias de la Computación, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla 

Personalised recommendations