Verification and Analysis of Organisational Change

  • Mairi McCallum
  • Wamberto W. Vasconcelos
  • Timothy J. Norman
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3913)


In the engineering of multi-agent systems both the analyst and architect may benefit by thinking about the solution in terms of the roles that agents may enact and the relationships between them. The organisational structure thus produced provides an effective way to capture medium- to long-term associations and dependencies between agents. In this paper we propose a means to formally specify, verify and analyse agent organisations, capturing notions of role, obligation and delegation (of obligations). Furthermore, our framework allows change in the organisational structure to be modelled and alternative organisation specifications to be developed in order to handle the consequences of change. Our model gives rise to a suite of tools and functionalities with which engineers can specify, verify and analyse organisations, the roles of their components, their obligations and the relationships among these roles.


Organisational Change MultiAgent System Action Label Label Agent Electronic Institution 
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.
    Barbuceanu, M.: Coordinating agents by role based social constraints and conversation plans. In: Proceedings of the 14th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 16–21 (1997)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bauer, B., Muller, J.P., Odell, J.: Agent UML: A formalism for specifying multiagent interaction. In: Ciancarini, P., Wooldridge, M. (eds.) Agent-Oriented Software Engineering, pp. 91–103. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Castelfranchi, C.: Modelling social action for AI agents. Artificial Intelligence 103, 157–182 (1998)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cavedon, L., Sonenberg, L.: On social commitment, roles and preferred goals. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 80–87 (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Conte, R., Castelfranchi, C.: Cognitive and Social Action. UCL Press (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dastani, M., Dignum, V., Dignum, F.: Role-assignment in open agent societies. In: Proceedings of the Second International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 489–496 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dershowitz, N., Jouannaud, J.-P.: Rewrite Systems. In: van Leeuwen, J. (ed.) Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, vol. B, MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dignum, F., Morley, D., Sonenberg, E., Cavedon, L.: Towards socially sophisticated BDI agents. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems, pp. 111–118 (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dignum, V., Dignum, F., Sonenberg, L.: Towards dynamic reorganization of agent societies. In: ECAI Workshop on Coordinating Emergent Agent Societies (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Esteva, M.: Electronic Institutions: from specification to development. PhD thesis, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, UPC, IIIA monography, vol. 19 (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Esteva, M., Vasconcelos, W., Sierra, C., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J.A.: Verifying Norm Consistency in Electronic Institutions. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2004 Workshop on Agent Organizations: Theory and Practice, AAAI Press, San Jose, California, USA (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jones, A.J.I., Sergot, M.: A formal characterisation of institutionalised power. Journal of the Interest Group in Pure and Applied Logic 4(3), 427–443 (1996)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kollingbaum, M.J., Norman, T.J.: Norm consistency in practical reasoning agents. In: PROMAS Workshop on Programming Multiagent Systems (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    López y López, F., Luck, M.: Towards a model of the dynamics of normative multi-agent systems. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Regulated Agent-Based Social Systems: Theories and Applications at AAMAS 2002, pp. 175–193 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Carlsson, M., Ottosson, G., Carlson, B.: An open-ended finite domain constraint solver. In: Proc. Programming Languages: Implementations, Logics, and Programs (1997)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McCallum, M., Norman, T.J., Vasconcelos, W.W.: A formal model of organisations for engineering multi-agent systems. In: ECAI Workshop on Coordinating Emergent Agent Societies (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Norman, T.J., Reed, C.A.: Group delegation and responsibility. In: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 491–498 (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Swedish Institute of Computer Science. SICStus prolog,
  19. 19.
    Pacheco, O., Carmo, J.: A role based model for the normative specification of organized collective agency and agents interaction. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 6(6), 145–184 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Panzarasa, P., Jennings, N.R., Norman, T.J.: Social mental shaping: Modelling the impact of sociality on the mental states of autonomous agents. Computational Intelligence 17(4), 738–782 (2001)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Russell, S.J., Norvig, P.: Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Inc., USA (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sergot, M.: Normative positions. In: Prakken, H., McNamara, P. (eds.) Norms, Logics and Information Systems. New Studies in Deontic Logic and Computer Science, pp. 289–310. IOS Press, Amsterdam (1998)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sichman, J.S., Demazeau, Y.: On social reasoning in multi-agent systems. Revista Ibero-Americana de Inteligncia Artificial 13, 68–84 (2001)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Skarmeas, N.: Organizations through roles and agents,
  25. 25.
    Vianu, V.: Rule-Based Languages. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 19(1-2), 215–259 (1997)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R., Kinny, D.: The GAIA methodology for agent-oriented analysis and design. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3(3), 285–312 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zambonelli, F., Jennings, N.R., Wooldridge, M.: Organisational rules as an abstraction for the analysis and design of multi-agent systems. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 11(3), 303–328 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mairi McCallum
    • 1
  • Wamberto W. Vasconcelos
    • 1
  • Timothy J. Norman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations