1 / 15

Norm Dynamics in Adaptive Organisations

15/07/08 | 1. NorMAS’08. Norm Dynamics in Adaptive Organisations. Huib Aldewereld , Loris Penserini, Frank Dignum, and Virginia Dignum Universiteit Utrecht huib@cs.uu.nl, loris@cs.uu.nl, dignum@cs.uu.nl. virginia@cs.uu.nl. ALIVE EU FUNDED PROJECT. Overview. Introduction

myrna
Télécharger la présentation

Norm Dynamics in Adaptive Organisations

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. 15/07/08| 1 NorMAS’08 Norm Dynamics in Adaptive Organisations Huib Aldewereld, Loris Penserini, Frank Dignum, and Virginia Dignum Universiteit Utrecht huib@cs.uu.nl, loris@cs.uu.nl, dignum@cs.uu.nl. virginia@cs.uu.nl ALIVE EU FUNDED PROJECT

  2. Overview • Introduction • The ALIVE project • Organisational adaptivity • Objectives • Example • Conclusions and future work

  3. The ALIVE approach • Creating meaningful service compositions • Taking a top-down point of view • Allowing system flexibility • Splitting the design process in three separate layers • Service layer: augments service models to make components aware of their social context • Coordination layer: specifying patterns of interaction • Organisational layer: specifying organisational rules that govern interaction

  4. The ALIVE approach (2)

  5. Benefits of the ALIVE method • Mapping human organisations to service-based solutions • Development layers allows for: • Traceability (why is something done in this way on this level?) • Adaptivity(moving up in abstraction to solve problems at a specific level)

  6. Organisational adaptivity • 3 levels: • Changes in system functionalities • e.g., services that become unavailable or are not used correctly • Changes in environmental conditions • e.g., changes (sensed symptoms) that can lead to potential failure during the achievement of objectives • Changes in stakeholders needs • e.g., changes in laws and norms that regiment particular organisational protocols and responsibilities Service layer adaptivity Coordination layer adaptivity Organisation layer adaptivity

  7. Objectives • Capturing reorganisation and organisational adaptivity in norms • Environments change, ergo organisations that cater to this environment need to change/adapt • A distinction: • Institutional norms (domain norms) do not change • Organisational norms do change

  8. Institutional vs. organisational norms Institutional norms describethe legal and illegal interactionsin the domain. Specifying an institutional frame of allowed interactions. Within the institutional framean organisation is defined (in norms) increasing effectiveness and efficiency in obtaining organisational objectives The environment changes, thereby changing the interpretation of the institutional norms. Because of the changes in the interpretation of the institutional norms, the organisation is now in violation and has to adapt. Institutional frame Organisation

  9. Example: a disaster waiting to happen • Example domain: Dutch Crisis Management • GRIP Levels • GRIP 0: routine accident • GRIP 1: small incidents (typically limited to a city) • GRIP 2: large scale incidents (typically crossing city borders) • GRIP 3: disasters/incidents concerning multiple regions/provinces • GRIP 4: a disaster with an impact or consequences on a national scale

  10. Crisis Management Domain Norms • The crisis management task: • Prevent excessive casualties • Prevent excessive damage to the infrastructure • Adequate coordination is required for the correct execution of the crisis management task. • Sufficient information should be shared between parties involved in the execution of the crisis management task.

  11. An accident happens ambulance fire_fighting_team police_officer Sufficient information shared:

  12. Scaling to GRIP 1 Change to any cardinality restrictions on roles Violation: coordination is not adequate anymore Change to coordination structure implies change toinformation exchange CTPI is formed from the heads of thedifferent incident handling forces onlocation

  13. Scaling to GRIP 2 Disaster now spreads beyond the incident scene Mayor becomes new executive commanderCTPI has to adapt (single-headed command structureat incident location): CoRT is formed Information exchange needs to adapt Mayor

  14. And onwards to disaster proportions • Scaling to GRIP 3 involves a coordination and information exchange change because two (or more) cities are now involved • If required, the provincial government can be included in the information exchange, but they have no (executive) control/authority on this scale • Scaling to GRIP 4 changes executive control to the provincial government (or the Minister of Internal Affairs) • Changes to structure are similar to the change from GRIP 1 to GRIP 2

  15. Conclusions and future work • Preliminary results • Institutional norms vs. organisational norms • Institutional norms do not change, the interpretation of the institutional facts changes • Preliminary formalisation in Description Logic • To be done: • When do changes happen? • How can the changes in the (organisational) norms be automatically applied?

More Related