1 / 27

WP 8: Real Case Studies

WP 8: Real Case Studies. www.agreement-technologies.org. WP8: Real Case Studies (Leader: Vicent Botti – UPV). WP8: Real Case Studies . Goal: Test beds for the research results and algorithms developed in the theoretical work packages.

channer
Télécharger la présentation

WP 8: Real Case Studies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WP 8: Real Case Studies www.agreement-technologies.org

  2. WP8: Real Case Studies (Leader: Vicent Botti – UPV)

  3. WP8: Real Case Studies • Goal: • Test beds for the research results and algorithms developed in the theoretical work packages. • Central to this work package shall be the common methodology and tools produced in WP6. • Method: • develop all demonstrators as evolutionary prototypes; • develop the demonstrators through several iterations; • involve the Demonstration Advisory Boards as reviewers. • Guides : • (i) to help team members to join the developers’ team or show the demonstrator at any time; • (ii) ease technology transfer (from the software development and commercial perspectives). We defend that this strategy is compulsory if we intend to exploit our demonstrators as part of our technology transfer strategy Requirements Design Implementation Review

  4. M36 M0 M12 M24 M48 M60 Early Requir. Elicitation Prototype Scope First cycle Requirements/Design Implementation Review Sec. cycle Requirements/Design Implementation Review Third cycle Requirements/Design Implementation Review Prog. Guide Schedule

  5. Juan A. Rodriguez-Aguilar jar@iiia.csic.es Task 8.3: eProcurement demonstrator WP8: Real case studies AT-kickoff meeting Barcelona, February 4-5, 2008 www.agreement-technologies.org

  6. eProcurementdemonstrator Overview • Motivation and goals • Proposed scenario • Why agreement technologies? • Planning

  7. Motivation • The organisational structure of enterprises is changing • Increment of outsourced activity • From monolithic to collaborative structures that tend to reduce their size

  8. Chinese Motorbike Industry • Small companies collaborate and self-organise • They meet in online places and coffee shops • A self-organising system of design and production 8

  9. Motivation • Business partners are moving from the roles of suppliers, manufacturers, and customers to the role of collaborators • In this environment, the choice of the best business partners is critical

  10. Goals • Companies are in need for: • Support to swiftly create business collaborations that allow them to readily respond to chaning market needs • Tools that allow them to quickly react to exceptions so that their goals can still be achieved.

  11. Proposed scenario • Supply chain automation

  12. Why agreement technologies? • Negotiation • Supply chain formation and reconfiguration require agreements among self-interested partners • Trust • Fundamental to achieve robust supply chains that prevent failures • Norms and organisations • The result of agreements take the shape of norms or organisations

  13. eProcurement Advisory Board • Javier Aróstegui, Director General of iSOCO, S.A., and President of the B2B Committee of the Asociación Española de Comercio Electrónico • Mariano Tristán, Procurement Manager at Lilly Group • Xavier Salrà, Consulting Manager for the Public Sector at Hewlett-Packard • Rafel Bernadas, ITC Coordinator, Economy and Finance Departament, Generalitat de Catalunya

  14. V.Botti Task 8.2: mWater Demonstrator www.agreement-technologies.org

  15. Task 8.2: mWater Demonstrator Motivation. The mWater demonstrator addresses scenarios where there are conflicts over different basin waters, in many cases, caused by potential or actual water scarcity. Objectives. The mWater demonstrator has the goal of providing an efficient allocation of water resources based on a system of voluntary trade in water, which brings potentially large benefits to all parties involved.

  16. Why agreement technologies? • Politic Level • Behavior Simulation • Evaluation of different estrategies Agreement (Decision) Support System? Norms, Organizations, Trust, Negotiation • Water distribution management • Water flow negotiation • Time Schedule • Cost Water Flow Management System? Norms, Organizations, Trust, Negotiation

  17. mWater Advisory Board • Joaquín Andreu Álvarez, Technical Director of the Confederación Hidrográfica del Júcar. • Emeritus Professor Uri Shamir, President, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics(IUGG), Stephen and Nancy Grand Water Research Institute, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology. • Luís Garrote de Marco, Catedrático de Universidad. Departamento de Ingeniería Civil: Hidráulica y Energética. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. • Manuel Echeberría, subdirector general de programación técnica y científica, Centro de Estudio y experimentación de obras públicas.

  18. Holger Billhardt holger.billhardt@urjc.es Task 8.3: mHealth demonstrator WP8: Real case studies AT-kickoff meeting Barcelona, February 4-5, 2008 www.agreement-technologies.org

  19. mHealthdemonstrator Overview • Introduction: Aims and scope • Proposed scenario • Why agreement technologies? • Planning

  20. Introduction • WP8 Real case studies: • Objectives: • Test beds for the research results and algorithms developed in the theoretical work packages • Apply the common methodology and the toolsproduced in WP6 (Tool suite). • Based on the software architecture and the Multiagent system platform developed in WP7 • Methodology: • Evolutionary prototypes through several iterations • Demonstration Advisory board • Expected outcome: • Usable software (technology transfer) • Programmers’ and demonstrators’ guide

  21. Introduction • mHealth demonstrator: • Medical emergency assistance for people on the move • Motivation: • Requires on-the-fly agreements among heterogeneous organizations • Practical relevance • Bias towards health applications • Added value for tourist services

  22. Proposed Scenario • Alice and Bob are tourists from Germany. They carry a PDA, already equipped with the mHealth agent suite. Suddenly, Alice is seriously suffering from pain in the upper part of her body which is unknown to her. • After activation of the PDA, Alice uses the device to quickly find the nearest hospital next to them. The agent on the PDA also supplies them with information on how to get there. • The physician may require some data from Alice’ medical record. Bob contacts Alice’ home hospital, directly or through some Emergency Medical Assistance service (EMA), in order to obtain the data. • The physician is not sure about the diagnosis and wants to obtain a second opinion. He accesses a second opinion service by forwarding all information available so far. • The second opinion service provider asks some details to the local physician. They all come to the conclusion that Alice needs an urgent surgical operation. The hospital doesn’t have the required equipment, so they decide to transfer Alice to another hospital in Spain. • Bob contacts Alice’ health insurance company to inform them about the proposed treatment and to ask for the corresponding authorization. • The hospital agent contacts other hospitals in the area in order to find a suitable hospital for Alice’ treatment. Furthermore, it passes Alice’ medical data to the new hospital and arranges her transfer with a local ambulance company. • Finally, Alice is transferred and operated. After two weeks of recovery Alice uses her PDA to send a “Thank you” to all the people involved with her medical case.

  23. Why agreement technologies? • Semantics: • Ad-hoc communication between different organizations • Heterogeneous representation • languages for data and services • Heterogeneous descriptions of • services and data E.g.: medical record data exchange

  24. Why agreement technologies? • Argumentation and negotiation: • Requiresagreements among • independent organizations E.g.: find a hospital for a Alice’ treatment

  25. Why agreement technologies? • Trust: • Health is a trust sensitive domain E.g.: ask for a “second opinion”

  26. Why agreement technologies? • Norms and Organizations: • To define the relationships among participating organizations • Efficient teamwork among participants • Agreement planning E.g.: arrange Alice’ transfer to another hospital

  27. Planning • First steps: • To define the concrete application scenario • Basically in cooperation with Fuenlabrada Public Hospital • Comments/questions: • The envisioned international scenario is interesting but difficult to implement • Maybe we should concentrate on a smaller rather local scenario • Closer to “real world” • Higher possibility for technology transfer (commercial perspective) • Team: • Holger Billhardt (Leader) • PhD student • URJC team

More Related