A modal action logic based framework for organization specification and analysis

  • Filipe Santos
  • José Carmo
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1126)


This paper proposes a logic-oriented framework for the specification and analysis of organizations. Within this framework, an organization is seen as a multi-agent society where each agent has some “capabilities” and where agents interact according to some forms of “institutionalized power relations”. Modal action logics, of the type developed in the Philosophy area, are used to reason about agent's agency and interaction.

In spite of its simplicity (and limitations), the proposed framework allows us to deal, at an appropriate level of abstraction, with some fundamental issues in an organization, like the responsibility for some task, task decomposition, etc. Moreover, it can be used to support the automation of some aspects of the organization's activity and interaction with external users, being already possible to use a workbench to answer questions like “can agent x ensure task A?”, “what should x do to obtain task A?”, and “to whom should a user go (in e.g. a public service) to solve problem A?”.

The workbench uses a tableaux theorem proving method extended with some additional rules to deal with the proposed classical action modalities.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Skarmeas, N.: Modeling Organizations using Roles and Agents. In: Proc. 5th Hellenic Conference on Informatics, Athens (1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Normatics: the characterization of computer systems and complex organizations as normative systems, ESPRIT III BRA proposal (1991)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jones, A., Sergot, M.: Formal Specification of Security Requirements using the Theory of Normative Positions. In: Proc. European Symposium on Research in Computer Security (ESORICS'92), LNCS 648, Springer (1992) 103–121Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jones, A., Sergot, M.: A formal characterization of Institutionalized Power. Journal of the IGPL (to appear)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Santos, F., Carmo, J.: Indirect Action, Influence and Responsibility. In: Brown M, Carmo J (eds). Deontic Logic, Agency and Normative Systems. Springer, Workshops in Computing Series (1996) 194–215Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harel, D.: Dynamic logic. In: Gabbay D, Guenthner F (eds) Handbook of philosophical logic II. D. Reidel, Dordrecht (1984) 497–604Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Meyer, J.-J. Ch.: A Different Approach to Deontic Logic: Deontic Logic Viewed as a Variant of Dynamic Logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 29 (1988) 109–136Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chellas, B.: The logical form of imperatives. Perry Lane Press (1969)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kanger, S.: Law and logic. Theoria 38 (1972)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pörn, I.: The logic of power. Blackwell, Oxford (1970)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pörn, I.: Action theory and social science: some formal models. Synthese Library 120, D. Reidel, Dordrecht (1977)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lindahl, L.: Position and change — a study in law and logic. Synthese Library 112, D. Reidel, Dordrecht (1977)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Belnap, N.: Backwards and forwards in the modal logic of agency. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 2 (1989) 777–807Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Belnap, N., Perloff, M.: In the realm of agents. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 9 (1993) 25–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Elgesem, D.: Action theory and modal logic. PhD thesis, Dept. of Philosophy, University of Oslo (1993)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Segerberg, K.: Bringing it about. Journal of Philosophical Logic 18(4) (1989) 327–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chellas, B.: Modal logic — an introduction. Cambridge University Press (1980)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hilpinen, R. (ed): Deontic logic: introductory and systematic readings. D. Reidel, Dordrecht (1971)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hilpinen, R. (ed): New Studies in Deontic Logic. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1981Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meyer J-J Ch, Wieringa R (eds). Proc. first international workshop on deontic logic in computer science (DEON'91). Amsterdam (1991)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jones, A., Sergot, M. (eds): Proc. second international workshop on deontic logic in computer science (DEON'94). Complex 1/94, NRCCL, Oslo (1994)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brown, M., Carmo, J. (eds): Deontic Logic, Agency and Normative Systems. Springer, Workshops in Computing Series, Sesimbra (1996)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fitting, M.: First-Order Logic and Automated Theorem Proving. Springer-Verlag (1990)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tan, Y., Torre, L.: Representing Deontic reasoning in a Diagnostic Framework. In: Proc. Workshop on Legal Applications of Logic Programming (ICLP'94), Genova (1994)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ramos, P., Fiadeiro, J.: Diagnosis in Organizational Process Design. (submitted for publication)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Filipe Santos
    • 1
  • José Carmo
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Management ScienceISCTELisboa CodexPortugal
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsISTLisboa CodexPortugal

Personalised recommendations