Upload
herb
View
37
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Challenges for Effective Open Virtual Organisations. Timothy J. Norman Department of Computing Science University of Aberdeen [email protected] 8th Annual International Workshop on Engineering Societies in the Agents World. Outline. Open Virtual Organisations ADEPT CONOISE/CONOISE-G - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Timothy J. Norman
Challenges for Effective Open Virtual Organisations
Timothy J. Norman
Department of Computing Science
University of [email protected]
8th Annual International Workshop on Engineering Societies in the Agents World
Timothy J. Norman
• Open Virtual Organisations– ADEPT– CONOISE/CONOISE-G– e-Institutions
• Semi-Structured Processes in Open Societies– Challenge 1: machine-readable organisations– Challenge 2: recognising the inevitability of conflict– Challenge 3: machinery for resolving conflicts
• Towards mixed initiative (Human-Agent) VOs• Conclusions
Outline
Timothy J. Norman ESAW 2007, Athens 2 of 26
Timothy J. Norman
• What are OVOs?– Open systems – components (agents) may
come and go– Organisation – system has some degree of
established structure & operation
• A tension…– Suppose some agent plays a unique role in
an organisation; that agent leaves!– Suppose a new agent appears offering a
new service; restructure the organisation?
Open Virtual Organisations
Timothy J. Norman ESAW 2007, Athens 3 of 26
Timothy J. Norman
Society vs. Process
processclosed open
society
ope
ncl
ose
d
Example 1
ADEPT
Domain: business process management.
N. R. Jennings, P. Faratin, T. J. Norman, P. O'Brien and B. Odgers (2000) Autonomous Agents for Business Process Management. Int. Journal of Applied Artificial Intelligence 14 (2) 145-189.
ADEPT
Timothy J. Norman ESAW 2007, Athens 4 of 26
Timothy J. Norman
ADEPT
IdentifyRequirementsProfile
CaptureCustomerDetails
CaptureCustomerRequirements
VetCustomer
IdentifyService
FinalCosting
ProvideQuote
CostNetwork
Survey andDesignNetwork
AnalyseRequirements
LegalReview
CustomerOK?
PortfolioItem?
Legal?
Goto A
terminate
A
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Business process Organisational structure
negotiation andservice management
DesignerAgency
SurveyTeam
QuantitySurveyor
Design teamagency
peers
Services Service-levelagreements
negotiation andservice management
Credit VettingAgency
LegalAgency
Sales teamAgency
peers
peers
peers
peers
subsidiary
subsidiary
Responsible agents
(service name Vet_Customer inputs ( CCL_Customer customer_details cli man ) outputs( CCL_Decision verdict ) guard ("") body ( sequence { check_CCL ( details = service::customer_details service::verdict = limit ) } -> ( check_CCL ) ) )
=> Service descriptions
=> Enactment through- SLA negotiation- Service & task execution- renegotiation
Timothy J. Norman ESAW 2007, Athens 5 of 26
Timothy J. Norman
+ Decentralised workflow management+ Flexibility – task/service scheduling,
automated SLA (re-)negotiation– Process fixed at design time:
– System organisation– Services
– No workflow-level operational constraints or analysis– Throughput– Service delivery times– Quality control
ADEPT: + & -
Timothy J. Norman ESAW 2007, Athens 6 of 26
Timothy J. Norman
Society vs. Process
processclosed open
society
ope
ncl
ose
d
Example 2
CONOISECONOISE-G
Domain: telecom services configuration.
T. J. Norman, A. Preece, S. Chalmers, N. R. Jennings, M. Luck, V. D. Dang, T. D. Nguyen, V. Deora, J. Shao, W. A. Gray and N. J. Fiddian. (2004). Agent-based formation of virtual organisations, Knowledge-Based Systems 17:103 111.
ADEPT
Increased system flexibility/adaptation
Timothy J. Norman ESAW 2007, Athens 7 of 26
Incr
ease
d ne
ed to
man
age
trus
t (s
ecur
ity &
priv
acy
mor
e co
mpl
ex)
Incr
ease
d he
tero
gene
ity o
f sy
stem
com
pone
nts
Timothy J. Norman
Offers received SP1 – 10 movies pcm, hourly news SP2 – hourly news SP3 – 120 texts AND 30 mins SP4 – 5 movies pcm, 30 mins
Agents may Bid as an individual Bid representing an existing VO Form a VO to bid
Agents prioritise commitments: may break a prior commitment to bid
Package required by customer Movie subscription News service >50 free text messages per month 30 free phone minutes per month
CONOISE
Quality of offers assessed
Best offer combination identified through reverse auction
Timothy J. Norman ESAW 2007, Athens 8 of 26
Timothy J. Norman
• Open system– Agents may come and go– New services (or service packages) may
be offered
• Open process– VOs exist for lifetime of service– Workflows composed of chained VOs
• No designed-in organisational structure– All agents are peers in competition– ADEPT-like workflow structure can emerge
CONOISE
Timothy J. Norman ESAW 2007, Athens 9 of 26
Timothy J. Norman
Society vs. Process
process
closed open
society
ope
ncl
ose
d
Example 3
e-Institutions
Agents may come and go
Governed by institutional rules
Process defined by institution
A. García-Camino, J.-A. Rodríguez-Aguilar, C. Sierra, and W. Vasconcelos. (2006). Norm-Oriented Programming of Electronic Institutions. Int. Joint Conf. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.
ADEPT
Let’s look a bit closer at this space
Timothy J. Norman ESAW 2007, Athens 10 of 26
Timothy J. Norman
Closed or Open Processes?
processesclosed open
society
ope
n
Institution engenders trust (but agents must trust institution)Agents not permitted to act outside the protocolSecurity and privacy of information honouredQuality control
Agents must decide who to trustFailure may affect reputation → distrustWhat can/should be done & how information is used must be agreed
e-Institutions encapsulate common episodal processes – why require agents to coordinate these at run-time?
But which e-Institution offers the coordination services required?
Challenge 1: Institutional rules/policies must be machine-understandable
e-Institutions
Timothy J. Norman ESAW 2007, Athens 11 of 26
Timothy J. Norman
Semi-Structured Processes
processclosed open
society
ope
n
e-Institutions
semi-structured
Machine-understandable institutions
M. J. Kollingbaum & T. J. Norman (2002). Supervised Interaction, AAMAS
• A language for describing contracts
contract ( LoC, role ( ?cust ) role ( ?sup ) role ( ?bank ) obl ( … ), per ( … ) … )
• Reasoning machinery to interpret and negotiate contracts
• Institutional elements to “host” contract enactment
Timothy J. Norman ESAW 2007, Athens 12 of 26
Timothy J. Norman
• Project PI (agent α) has contract with funding body, β, such that α is:
Example: eScience
Oα:pireport_results(α, R)
FX:Ypublish(D)
Fα:piclaim(X)Pα:piclaim(staff_costs)Pα:piclaim(travel)
– Obliged to report experimental results
– Forbidden from publishing source data
– Limited to spending project funds on staff and travel costs
β
α
Timothy J. Norman ESAW 2007, Athens 13 of 26
Timothy J. Norman
• Suppose α needs to sub-contract a task to generate results
• It has two options:
Example: sub-contracting
OX:Ypublish(D)
OX:Ypay(fee)we also know thatpay(X) A:R→A:R claim(X)
a. Agent γ is a publicly funded organisation that performs the task for free but requires data to be published
b. Agent δ is a private organisation that charges a fee
β
α
γ
δ
Timothy J. Norman ESAW 2007, Athens 14 of 26
Timothy J. Norman
• Regardless of what α does, it will violate the contract with β
Example: conflict
Oα:pireport_results(α, R)FX:Ypublish(D)
Fα:piclaim(X)
Pα:piclaim(staff_costs)
Pα:piclaim(travel)
β
α
γδ
1. No sub-contract
Oα:pireport_results(α, R)FX:Ypublish(D)
Fα:piclaim(X)
Pα:piclaim(staff_costs)
Pα:piclaim(travel)
Oα:pireport_results(α, R)FX:Ypublish(D)
Fα:piclaim(X)
Pα:piclaim(staff_costs)
Pα:piclaim(travel)
2. Sub-contract to γOX:Ypublish(D)
2. Sub-contract to δOX:Ypay(fee)pay(X) A:R→A:R claim(X)
Challenge 2: agents must be able to
recognise conflict situations
Timothy J. Norman ESAW 2007, Athens 15 of 26
Timothy J. Norman
• Informs agent of the implications of signing a contract (adopting the policy of an e-Institution)
• Enables focussed deliberation on what to violate, and hence what sanctions may be imposed
• Agents have social autonomy
• Could also guide conflict resolution…
Utilising Detected Conflicts
Timothy J. Norman ESAW 2007, Athens 16 of 26
Timothy J. Norman
• NoA (Kollingbaum & Norman)– Normative Architecture– Encodes possible plans and active norms in an
adapted RETE network– Efficiently identifies whether a new norm is in
conflict and what with (given options for action)
• FOUND! (Vasconcelos, Kollingbaum & Norman)– First-Order Unification for Norm Deliberation– Norms combined with constraints on their
application and domain axioms– Also tells us how the conflict can be resolved
Conflict detection mechanisms
Timothy J. Norman ESAW 2007, Athens 17 of 26
Timothy J. Norman
Example: NEO
Non-combatant Evacuation OperationReports are received of NGO workers requiring assistanceTop priority mission to evacuate NGO workersTask allocated to Team A commanderTeams A and B are different coalition partners
• Team A– Based on carrier off
coast (South)– UAVs with sensors to
provide on-going visual surveillance
– Group of helicopters within range of NGO workers
• Team B resources– Based to the North-East
on land– Group of helicopters
within range of NGO workers
– Mechanised infantry
Timothy J. Norman ESAW 2007, Athens 18 of 26
Timothy J. Norman
Example: NEO Norms
• Most effective plan: deploy UAV; assess situation; deploy helis; coordinate with UAV intelligence
• Team A operates under the following norms:– Commander is obliged to evacuate the NGO
workers (from NEO mission policy)– Team A is forbidden from sharing UAV-obtained
intelligence with other coalition partners (from coalition operations policy)
– Helicopters are forbidden from flying in bad weather (from safety policy)
Timothy J. Norman ESAW 2007, Athens 19 of 26
Timothy J. Norman
Example: NEO Enactment
• AUV is deployed• Information from flight operations:
deteriorating weather conditions• Conflict:
– Continuing with Heli operation from carrier would violate safety policy
– Delegating Heli evacuation to team B would violate coalition operations policy in sharing UAV intelligence
– Failing to continue with NEO will violate mission policy
Timothy J. Norman ESAW 2007, Athens 20 of 26
Timothy J. Norman
Need for Conflict Resolution
• Time and safety-critical scenario• Norm violation not an option• Must resolve conflict
– Automatically, or– By requesting human intervention into the
decision-making
Challenge 3: Agents should have machinery to suggest resolutions to or to automatically resolve conflicts
Timothy J. Norman ESAW 2007, Athens 21 of 26
Timothy J. Norman
Example: Conflict Resolution
• FOUND! used to identify norm conflict• FOUND! offers resolution on the basis of meta-
policy (or conflict resolution strategy) legis superioris
• Proposal presented to Team A commander:– Curtail coalition operations policy regarding UAV
intelligence sharing in this instance– Delegate Heli evacuation of NGO workers to team B– Instruct AUV intelligence group and team B Heli
group to coordinate the rescue mission
Timothy J. Norman ESAW 2007, Athens 22 of 26
Timothy J. Norman
Human-Agent Teamwork
• This example – Further demonstrates the utility of norm conflict
detection and resolution– Illustrates the need to refocus on teamwork– But not agent teamwork (ala. Cohen & Levesque;
Tambe; etc.), humans and agents working as a team
• Agents can use these techniques to aid humans in making complex decisions– Monitoring and restricting information flows– Managing and supporting trusted virtual
environments within which humans operate
Timothy J. Norman ESAW 2007, Athens 23 of 26
Timothy J. Norman
• Open Virtual Organisations need– Models of Norms/Contracts/Policies that are
machine-readable– Mechanisms to efficiently identify norm
conflicts– Mechanisms to resolve conflicts, or to
coherently present solutions to users
Summary
Timothy J. Norman ESAW 2007, Athens 24 of 26
Timothy J. Norman
Other Dimensions
processclosed open
Increased process
complexity
Timothy J. Norman ESAW 2007, Athens 25 of 26
e-InstitutionsIncreased
system scale
OVOs
This is where we
need to go!
Timothy J. Norman
• ADEPT (1995-1998) – Nick Jennings• CONOISE/CONOISE-G (2000-2006)
– Alun Preece (now Cardiff) Nir Oren (now KCL) Nick Jennings Mike Luck
• NoA (2000-2003) – Martin Kollingbaum (now CMU)
• FOUND! – Wamberto Vasconcelos (Aberdeen)
• ITA (International Technology Alliance) (2006-2016) – Wamberto Vasconcelos, Derek Sleeman, Katia Sycara (CMU), Simon Parsons (CUNY)
• ALIVE (FP7) – from 2008
Acknowledgements
Timothy J. Norman ESAW 2007, Athens 26 of 26