Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
15/07/08 | 1 NorMAS’08
ALIVE EU FUNDED PROJECT
Norm Dynamics in Adaptive Organisations
Huib Aldewereld, Loris Penserini, Frank Dignum, and Virginia Dignum
Universiteit Utrecht
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. [email protected]
15/07/08 | 1
ALIVE EU FUNDED PROJECT
NorMAS’08
15/07/08 | 2 NorMAS’08
ALIVE EU FUNDED PROJECT
Overview
Introduction The ALIVE project Organisational adaptivity Objectives Example Conclusions and future work
15/07/08 | 3 NorMAS’08
ALIVE EU FUNDED PROJECT
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
15/07/08 | 4 NorMAS’08
ALIVE EU FUNDED PROJECT
The ALIVE approach (2)
15/07/08 | 5 NorMAS’08
ALIVE EU FUNDED PROJECT
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)
15/07/08 | 6 NorMAS’08
ALIVE EU FUNDED PROJECT
Organisational adaptivity
3 levels:– Changes in system functionalities
e.g., services that become unavailable or are not used correctly
– Changes in environmental conditionse.g., changes (sensed symptoms) that can lead to potential
failure during the achievement of objectives
– Changes in stakeholders needse.g., changes in laws and norms that regiment particular
organisational protocols and responsibilities
Service layer adaptivity
Coordination layer adaptivity
Organisation layer adaptivity
15/07/08 | 7 NorMAS’08
ALIVE EU FUNDED PROJECT
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
15/07/08 | 8 NorMAS’08
ALIVE EU FUNDED PROJECT
Institutional vs. organisational norms
Institutional frame
Institutional norms describethe legal and illegal interactionsin the domain. Specifying an institutional frame of allowed interactions.
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
Within the institutional framean organisation is defined (in norms) increasing effectiveness and efficiency in obtaining organisational objectives
Organisation
The environment changes, thereby changing the interpretation of the institutional norms.
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.
Because of the changes in the interpretation of the institutional norms, the organisation is now in violation and has to adapt.
15/07/08 | 9 NorMAS’08
ALIVE EU FUNDED PROJECT
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
15/07/08 | 10 NorMAS’08
ALIVE EU FUNDED PROJECT
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.
15/07/08 | 11 NorMAS’08
ALIVE EU FUNDED PROJECT
An accident happens
ambulance
fire_fighting_team
police_officerSufficient information shared:
15/07/08 | 12 NorMAS’08
ALIVE EU FUNDED PROJECT
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
15/07/08 | 13 NorMAS’08
ALIVE EU FUNDED PROJECT
Scaling to GRIP 2
Mayor
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
15/07/08 | 14 NorMAS’08
ALIVE EU FUNDED PROJECT
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
15/07/08 | 15 NorMAS’08
ALIVE EU FUNDED PROJECT
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?
