Multi-Agent System: A Guiding Metaphor for the Organization of Software Development Projects

  • Lawrence Cabac
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4687)


In this work we propose the introduction of multi-agent concepts for the organization of software development projects of (especially multi-agent) application design and implementation. This is expressed by the guiding metaphor (German: Leitbild) of a multi-agent system of developers.

Team orientation and concurrent development are two aspects that are crucial in every large development project. Consequently, the organizational structure of the programming team has to take account for both. If the developed application is distributed, concurrent and team-oriented – e.g. a multi-agent application – one approach is to aim for a comparable (homomorphic) structure of a developed system and development team. We achieve this by reintroducing the multi-agent system: metaphor into the organizational structure of the development team.

Agent attributes such as autonomy, communication, cooperation, self-organization and the capacity for teamwork are transferred by the guiding metaphor back to team members. Concurrency and distribution of resources and processes is naturally supported by the guiding metaphor.

This guiding metaphor can be applied to any project organization. However, it is best suited for the organization of multi-agent application development, due to the similarity in structure.


agents guiding metaphors multi-agent system of developers Leitbild metaphor project management software development approach team organization 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N., Kinny, D.: The Gaia methodology for agent-oriented analysis and design. The International Journal of Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 3(3), 285–312 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zambonelli, F., Jennings, N., Wooldridge, M.: Developing multiagent systems: The Gaia methodology. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology 12(3), 317–370 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DeLoach, S.: Engineering organization-based multiagent systems. In: Garcia, A., Choren, R., Lucena, C., Giorgini, P., Holvoet, T., Romanovsky, A. (eds.) Software Engineering for Multi-Agent Systems IV. LNCS, vol. 3914, pp. 109–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Padgham, L., Winikoff, M.: Prometheus: A pragmatic methodology for engineering intelligent agents. In: Proceedings of the OOPSLA 2002 Workshop on Agent–Oriented Methodologies, pp. 97–108 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Petrie, C.J., Goldmann, S., Raquet, A.: Agent-based project management. In: Veloso, M.M., Wooldridge, M.J. (eds.) Artificial Intelligence Today. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1600, pp. 339–363. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Züllighoven, H.: Object-Oriented Construction Handbook. dpunkt Verlag/Co-publication with Morgan-Kaufmann, San Francisco (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lippert, M., Schmolitzky, A., Züllighoven, H.: Metaphor design spaces. In: Marchesi, M., Succi, G. (eds.) XP 2003. LNCS, vol. 2675, pp. 33–40. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wikström, K., Rehn, A.: Playing the live jazz of project management (2002), online
  10. 10.
    Mack, J.: Softwareentwicklung als Expedition: Entwicklung eines Leitbildes und einer Vorgehensweise für die professionelle Softwareentwicklung. PhD thesis, Universität Hamburg, Fachbereich Informatik (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wooldridge, M., Jennings, N.R.: Intelligent agents: Theory and practice. Knowledge Engineering Review 10(2), 115–152 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ferber, J.: Multi-agent Systems: An Introduction to Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Addison-Wesley, Harlow [u.a.] (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    WfMC: Workflow reference model (2005),
  14. 14.
    Lüde, R.v., Spresny, D., Valk, R.: Sozionik: Modellierung soziologischer Theorie. In: Lüde, R.v., Moldt, D., Valk, R. (eds.) Sozionik: Modellierung soziologischer Theorie. Reihe: Wirtschaft—Arbeit—Technik, vol. 2, pp. 9–45. Lit-Verlag, Münster, Hamburg, London (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Köhler, M., Moldt, D., Rölke, H.: Modelling the structure and behaviour of Petri net agents. In: Colom, J.-M., Koutny, M. (eds.) ICATPN 2001. LNCS, vol. 2075, pp. 224–241. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rölke, H.: Modellierung von Agenten und Multiagentensystemen—Grundlagen und Anwendungen. Agent Technology—Theory and Applications, vol. 2. Logos Verlag, Berlin (2004)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cabac, L., Moldt, D., Rölke, H.: A proposal for structuring Petri net-based agent interaction protocols. In: van der Aalst, W.M.P., Best, E. (eds.) ICATPN 2003. LNCS, vol. 2679, pp. 102–120. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kummer, O., Wienberg, F., Duvigneau, M.: Renew—The Reference Net Workshop. Release 2.1 (March 2007),
  19. 19.
    Köhler, M., Rölke, H.: Modelling mobility and mobile agents using nets within nets. In: Moldt, D. (ed.) MOCA 2002. Proceedings of the Workshop on Modelling of Objects, Components, and Agents. Computer Science Department, Aarhus University (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moldt, D.: Petrinetze als Denkzeug, Vogt-Kölln Str. 30, 22527 Hamburg, Universität Hamburg, Fachbereich Informatik, pp. 51–70 (August 2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lawrence Cabac
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Hamburg, Dept. of Informatics, Vogt-Kölln-Str. 30, D-22527 Hamburg 

Personalised recommendations