Conceptualizing the Co-evolution of Organizations and Information Systems: An Agent-Oriented Perspective

  • Ning Su
  • John Mylopoulos
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4215)


In today’s ever-transforming business environment, information systems need to evolve in concert with changes in their organizational settings. In order to help system analysts conceptualize the co-evolution of organizations and information systems, we adopt an agent-oriented perspective to develop the Tropos Evolution Modeling Process for Organizations (TEMPO). Specifically, inspired by Kauffman’s NKC model, we introduce the concept of goal interface into the traditional agent-oriented Tropos methodology; within this interface, evolution is conceptualized as a negotiation process between agents. TEMPO is illustrated with a case study that demonstrates how to evolve a retail website under new European e-commerce legislation. TEMPO is also evaluated with a small behavioral experiment, which offers additional evidence on the usefulness of the approach.


Multiagent System Customer Relationship Management Business Goal Socioeconomic System Internal Coupling 
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.
    Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J.: Tropos: An Agent-Oriented Software Development Methodology. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 8(3), 203–236 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Castro, J., Kolp, M., Mylopoulos, J.: Towards Requirements-Driven Information Systems Engineering: The Tropos Project. Information Systems 27(6), 365–389 (2002)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dardenne, A., van Lamsweerde, A., Fickas, S.: Goal-Directed Requirements Acquisition. Science of Computer Programming 20(1-2), 3–50 (1993)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    European Commission Information Society: Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on Certain Legal Aspects of Information Society Services, in Particular Electronic Commerce, in the Internal Market. Official Journal of the European Communities (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ferber, J., Gutknecht, O.: A Meta-Model for the Analysis and Design of Organizations in Multiagent Systems. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 128–135 (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fox, M.S.: Organization Structuring: Designing Large Complex Software. Technical Report CMU-CS-79-155, Computer Science Department, Carnegie-Mellon University (1979)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kolp, M., Giorgini, P., Mylopoulos, J.: Multi-Agent Architectures as Organizational Structures. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 13(1), 3–25 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gowdy, J.M.: Coevolutionary Economics: The Economy, Society and the Environment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1994)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haddawy, P., Hanks, S.: Utility Models for Goal-Directed Decision-Theoretic Planners. Computational Intelligence 14(3), 392–429 (1998)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hoyle, R.H., Harris, M.J., Judd, C.M.: Research Methods in Social Relations, 7th edn. Wadsworth (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    I.B.M.: The Vision of Autonomic Computing (2004),
  12. 12.
    Jennings, N.R.: On Agent-Based Software Engineering. Artificial Intelligence 117(2), 277–296 (2000)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jennings, N.R., Faratin, P., Lomuscio, A.R., Parsons, S., Sierra, C., Wooldridge, M.: Automated Negotiation: Prospects, Methods and Challenges. International Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation 10(2), 199–215 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kauffman, S.A.: The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1993)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    von Martial, F.: Coordinating Plans of Autonomous Agents. Springer, Berlin (1992)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miles, R.H.: Macro Organizational Behavior. Scott, Foresman and Company (1980)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Open Source E-Commerce Solutions (2004),
  18. 18.
    Pruitt, D.G.: Negotiation Behavior. Academic Press, Inc. , New York (1981)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sabetzadeh, M., Easterbrook, S.: An Algebraic Framework for Merging Incomplete and Inconsistent Views. In: 13th International Requirements Engineering Conference (2005)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Su, N., Mylopoulos, J.: Managing the Coevolution of Organizations and Information Systems. Technical Report 516, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto (2005)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tesfatsion, L.: Agent-Based Computational Economics: Growing Economies from the Bottom Up. Artificial Life 8(1), 55–82 (2002)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    UK Department of Trade and Industry: Complying with the E-commerce Regulations 2002 (2002),
  23. 23.
    Wilensky, R.: Planning and Understanding: A Computational Approach to Human Reasoning. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., Reading (1983)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Witt, U.: The Evolving Economy: Essays on the Evolutionary Approach to Economics. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Northampton Massachusetts (2003)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R., Kinny, D.: The Gaia Methodology for Agent-Oriented Analysis and Design. Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3(3), 285–312 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yu, E.: Agent Orientation as a Modelling Paradigm. Wirtschaftsinformatik 43(2), 123–132 (2001)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ning Su
    • 1
  • John Mylopoulos
    • 2
  1. 1.Leonard N. Stern School of BusinessNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations