Advertisement

Exploring Congruence Between Organizational Structure and Task Performance: A Simulation Approach

  • Frank Dignum
  • Virginia Dignum
  • Liz Sonenberg
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3913)

Abstract

Reorganization of the structure of an organization is a crucial issue in multi-agent systems that operate in an open, dynamic environment. Ideally, autonomous agents must be able to evaluate and decide the most appropriate organization given the environment conditions. That is, there is a need for dynamic reorganization of coordination structures. In this paper, we describe how simulation studies could help to determine whether and how reorganization should take place, and present a simulation scenario that can be used to evaluate the congruence, or fit, between organizational structure and task performance. Preliminary results using a simulation environment illustrate how one can explore triggers for reorganization and compare strategies.

Keywords

MultiAgent System Organizational Performance Organizational Goal Initial Food Organizational Adaptation 
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.
    Barber, K.S., Martin, C.E.: Dynamic reorganization of decision-making groups. In: Proceedings of the 5th Autonomous Agents, pp. 513–520. ACM Press, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carley, K., 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
  3. 3.
    Cavedon, L., Sonenberg, L.: On social commitments, roles and preferred goals. In: Proceedings of the 1998 International Conference on MultiAgent Systems (ICMAS 1998), July 1998, pp. 80–87 (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Collier, N.: Repast: An extensible framework for agent simulation (2003), http://repast.sourceforge.net
  5. 5.
    Diedrich, F.J., Entin, E.E., Hutchins, S.G., Hocevar, S.P., Rubineau, B., MacMillan, J.: When do organizations need to change (part i)? coping with incongruence. In: Proc. of Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dignum, V.: A Model for Organizational Interaction: based on Agents, founded in Logic. Utrecht University, PhD Thesis (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dignum, V., Dignum, F., Sonenberg, L.: Towards dynamic organization of agent societies. In: Vouros, G. (ed.) Workshop on Coordination in Emergent Agent Societies, ECAI 2004, pp. 70–78 (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dignum, V., Dignum, F., Furtado, V., Melo, A., Sonenberg, L.: Towards a Simulation Tool for Evaluating Dynamic Reorganization of Agents Societies. In: Proc. of WS. on Socially Inspired Computing, AISB Convention (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Donaldson, L.: The Contingency Theory of Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Entin, E.E., Diedrich, F.J., Kleinman, D.L., Kemple, W.G., Hocevar, S.G., Rubineau, B., Serfaty, D.: When do organizations need to change (part ii)? incongruence in action. In: Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Entin, E.E., Serfaty, D.: Adaptive team coordination. Journal of Human Factors 41, 321–325 (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Evans, J.: Strategic flexibility for high technology manoeuvres: A conceptual framework. Journal of Management Studies 28(1), 69–89 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ferber, J., Gutknecht, O.: A meta-model for the analysis and design of organizations in multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Multi Agent Systems, pp. 128–135. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (1998)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Glasser, N., Morignot, P.: The reorganization of societies of autonomous agents. In: Boman, M., Van de Velde, W. (eds.) MAAMAW 1997. LNCS, vol. 1237, pp. 98–111. Springer, Heidelberg (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hannebauer, M.: Autonomous Dynamic Reconfiguration in Multi-Agent Systems. LNCS, vol. 2427. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Horling, B., Lesser, V.: A Survey of Multi-Agent Organizational Paradigms. Computer Science Technical Report 04-45, University of Massachusetts (May 2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jennings, N.R., Sycara, K., Wooldridge, M.: A roadmap of agent research and development. JAAMAS 1(1), 7–38 (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miles, S., Joy, M., Luck, M.: Towards a methodology for coordination mechanism selection in open systems. In: Petta, P., Tolksdorf, R., Zambonelli, F. (eds.) ESAW 2002. LNCS, vol. 2577, pp. 241–256. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nair, R., Tambe, M., Marsella, S.: Role allocation and reallocation in multiagent teams: Towards a practical analysis. In: AAMAS 2003, pp. 552–559. ACM Press, New York (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    So, Y., Durfee, E.: An organizational self-design model for organizational change. In: AAAI-1993 Workshop on AI and Theories of Groups and Organizations: Conceptual and Empirical Research, pp. 8–15 (1993)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sun, R., Naveh, I.: Simulating organizational decision-making usinga cognitively realistic model. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 7(3) (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tambe, M.: Towards flexible teamwork. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (7), 83–124 (1997)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tidhar, G., Sonenberg, L.: Engineering organization-oriented systems. In: Hexmoor, H. (ed.) Proc. of Workshop on Autonomy, Delegation and Control: From Inter-Agent to Organizations and Institutions, AAMAS (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank Dignum
    • 1
  • Virginia Dignum
    • 1
  • Liz Sonenberg
    • 2
  1. 1.ICSUtrecht UniversityThe Netherlands
  2. 2.DISUniversity of MelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations