Analysis and Support of Organizational Performance Based on a Labeled Graph Approach

  • Mark Hoogendoorn
  • Jan Treur
  • Pınar Yolum
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 25)

Abstract

Organizational performance analysis enables organizations to uncover unexpected properties of organizations and allow them to reconsider their internal workings and provide support for this. To perform such an analysis and obtain appropriate support, in this paper organizations are modeled as labeled graphs that capture the interactions of the entities and the characteristics of those interactions, such as their content and frequency, through labels in the graph. Algebraic representations and manipulations of the labels enable analysis of a given organization. Hence, well-known phenomena, such as overloading of participants or asymmetric distribution of workload among participants can easily be detected and supported. A case study performed within the domain of incident management is described to illustrate the approach.

Keywords

Multiagent System Organizational Performance Label Graph Ambient Intelligence Support Agent 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aarts, E., Harwig, R., Schuurmans, M.: Ambient Intelligence. In: Denning, P. (ed.) The Invisible Future, pp. 235–250. McGraw Hill, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bosse, T., Jonker, C.M., van der Meij, L., Treur, J.: A Language and Environment for Analysis of Dynamics by Simulation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence Tools 16, 435–464 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bosse, T., Jonker, C.M., van der Meij, L., Sharpanskykh, A., Treur, J.: Specification and Verification of Dynamics in Agent Models. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems (2008) (in press)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Both, F., Hoogendoorn, M., Treur, J.: An Ambient Agent Model Exploiting Workflow-Based Reasoning to Recognize Task Progress. In: Aarts, E., Crowley, J.L., Ruyter, B., de, G.H., Pflaum, A., Schmidt, J., Wichert, R. (eds.) Ambient Intelligence, Proceedings of the Second European Conference on Ambient Intelligence, AmI 2008. LNCS, vol. 5355, pp. 222–239. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Colmerauer, A., Kanoui, H., Pasero, R., Roussel, P.: Un Système de Communication Homme-Machine en Français. Groupe de Recherche en Intelligence Artificielle, Université d’Aix-Marseille, Lumini (1971)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Drosten, K.: Translating algebraic specifications to Prolog programs: a comparative study. In: Grabowski, J., Lescanne, P., Wechler, W. (eds.) ALP 1988. LNCS, vol. 343, pp. 137–146. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fink, G., Krishnamoorthy, S., Kanade, A.: Naval Crew Workload Monitoring and Visualization. In: First Annual Conf. on Systems Integration, NJ (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Handley, H., Levis, A.: A Model to Evaluate the Effect of Organizational Adaptation. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory 7(1), 5–44 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hillier, F.S., Lieberman, G.J.: Introduction to Operations Research. McCraw-Hill, SF (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hoogendoorn, M.: Adaptation of Organizational Models for Multi-Agent Systems based on Max Flow Networks. In: Proceedings of the Twentieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1321–1326. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Padgham, L., Winikoff, M.: Prometheus: A Methodology for Developing Intelligent Agents. In: Giunchiglia, F., Odell, J.J., Weiss, G. (eds.) AOSE 2002. LNCS, vol. 2585, pp. 174–185. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Russell, R.S., Taylor, B.W.: Operations Management. Prentice Hall, New Jersey (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shehory, O., Sturm, A.: Evaluation of modeling techniques for agent-based systems. In: Proceedings of the Intl. Conf. on Autonomous Agents, pp. 624–631. ACM Press, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sudeikat, J., Braubach, L., Pokahr, A., Lamersdorf, W.: Evaluation of Agent Oriented Software Methodologies Examination of the Gap between Modeling and Platform. In: Odell, J.J., Giorgini, P., Müller, J.P. (eds.) AOSE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3382, pp. 126–141. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weiser, M.: Some computer science issues in ubiquitous computing. ACM SIGMOBILE Mobile Computing and Communications Review 3, 1559–1662 (1999)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zambonelli, F., Jennings, N.R., Wooldridge, M.J.: Developing Multiagent Systems: The Gaia Methodology. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 12(3) (September 2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Hoogendoorn
    • 1
  • Jan Treur
    • 1
  • Pınar Yolum
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Artificial IntelligenceVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Computer EngineeringBogazici UniversityBebekTurkey

Personalised recommendations