They formalize logically unrelated notions. In: Dignum F, Dignum V, Koenig S, Kraus S, Singh MP, Woolridge M (eds) Proceedings of AAMAS’05. We choose however not to complicate matters further and we assume in this work that all agents have the capabilities needed to perform the tasks they are appointed to. $${\mathfrak{AccountR}}$$) Let Delegation of authority must be commensurate with the responsibility assigned. Steps are therefore sets of s-sets of cardinality 2n−1 where n is the number of agents in Agents. $${\mathcal{P}}^{+}(Agents)$$ is the non-empty powerset of the finite set of actors Agents, that means the possible groups of actors. It will take more time to convey the decisions from the top to the bottom. This second agent is thus obliged to perform a task which belonged to the first agent. Notice that in Dignum et al. It brings together employees from different functional specialties and allows geographical division. The organization responds more quickly and efficiently to market needs, and focuses efforts solely on the objectives of each business un… In particular, we will consider the way the objectives of the group of agents are translated into concrete plans via task division and task allocation and the type of organizational structure in force within the group. \doublecup [\! In fact, delegation concerns the redistribution of tasks within an organization. They are defined as follows. Why should you have clearly defined roles and responsibilities within the organization?Think of a man who found out that he just won a tract of land in a lottery. are three irreflexive binary relations on Roles characterizing the Power, Coordination and Control structures. In: Kwiatkowska M, Shields MW, Thomas RM (eds) Semantics for concurrency. ]_{R}(w_{1}): M, w_{2} \models \phi \\ M,w_1 \models & K_{a}\phi \hbox{ iff } \forall w_2, w_1 {\mathcal{K}}_a w_2: M,w_2 \models \phi \\ M, w \models & @_{start} \phi \hbox{ iff } M, w_{start} \models \phi \\ M, w_{1} \models & @_{-1} \phi \hbox{ iff } \exists w_{2} \in {\mathbb{W}}, \ w_{2} \prec w_{1}: M, w_{2} \models \phi \\ M, w_{1} \models & @_{+1} \phi \hbox{ iff } \exists w_{2} \in {\mathbb{W}}, \ w_{1} \prec w_{2}: M, w_{2} \models \phi \\ M, w_{1} \models & DO(\xi_1) \hbox{ iff } \forall w_{2} \in {\mathbb{W}}, \ w_{1} \prec w_{2} \Rightarrow w_{1} \in [\! Content Guidelines 2. In Sect. Definition 5.3 has interesting consequences concerning the relation between the notion of obligation and of task-based responsibility itself which can all be expressed in our language. [ \overline{a_i:\alpha} ]\!] Tensions are gaps between the current reality and a desired one. A good structure not only facilitates communication but also brings efficiency in different segments. Plan(Ag,τ) =  a In those works a more abstract view on organizations is assumed as starting point. iff there exists a to-be-executed agent-based plan $$Plan_j(Ag,\tau) = a_1: \alpha_1 \bullet \cdots \bullet a_i:\alpha_i \bullet \cdots \bullet a_n: \alpha_n$$, that is, iff there subsists an obligation for a plan including event $$a_i: \alpha$$ as a component: where $$PL(a_i: \alpha)$$ is the set of all finite plans having event $$a_i: \alpha$$ as one of their components. •Section:The organizational level having responsibility for a major functional area of incident management (e.g., Operations, Planning, Logistics, Finance/Administration, and Intelligence/Investigations (if established)). 2 we have informally touched upon a number of activities that typically take place within an organized group of agents: delegation, information, monitor. Notice that monitor actions are performed in parallel with the to-be-monitored actions. Through the task allocation process, each atomic component of the complex action, which is intended to realize a specific objective of the organization, is allocated to one agent. However, this last version is not a validity since we cannot rule out the possibility of violation constants holding also in those worlds reached via correct executions of the plan. In what follows we will thus sometimes use DONE-expressions as abbreviations for $$@_{-1} DO (\xi)$$. That depends on the fact that after each execution of a fragment of the plan a new obligation with respect to the rest of the plan holds (see Formula 7). Working our way from the bottom to the top of the triangular, the Operational level represents the needs of the specific business unit or function and does not take into consideration cross-business unit decision making. a An organization structure should satisfy the requirements of the business. Auton Agents Multi-Agent Syst 3(3):285–312. When different positions are created in the organization then work is assigned to these persons. A systematic structure will not leave anything to chance and every activity is coordinated to perform to its maximum. These will denote the existence of power coordination and control links between roles, intuitively, that a role is under the power of another role, that a role can coordinate with another role, finally, that a role can control another role. Our models should thus be rich enough to give a precise semantics to all these ingredients. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Santos F, Carmo J, Jones A (1997) Action concepts for describing organised interaction. Normally, this “translation” of objectives into plans is described via the two steps of task division and task allocation. $$R(T,w_{1}) = \{ w_{2} \, | \, \exists t \in T \, \, s.t. (Agent-based plan) An agent-based plan \(Plan(Ag,\tau)$$ for a task τ within the set of agents Ag is a structure: As such, agent-based plans be represented in $${\mathcal{L}}^{ORG}$$ as an event expression of the form: where • ∈{;,&,+}, for all $$1 \leq i \leq n \; \alpha_i \in {\mathcal{A}}$$, $$a_i \in Ag$$ and such that: $$Plan(Ag, \tau)$$ is obtained from $$Plan(AR, \tau)$$ by substitution of the role indexes r [ X: \alpha_{1} + \alpha_{2} ]\!] did not review the papers in one week, then the achievement of the goal of the Editorial Board to notify of the results of the reviews within the deadline will not be met. $$\alpha, \beta \in {\mathcal{A}}$$. Work on organizations (especially in MAS Footnote 1) presents organizational structure as something essentially mono-dimensional, though it often, but only implicitly, considers a multiplicity of structured aspects: authority, communication, delegation, responsibility, control, power, etc. Third international workshop, FAABS 2004, Greenbelt, MD, USA, April 26–27, 2004. [ X: \alpha_{1}; \alpha_{2} ]\!] to review some papers in one week, and agent a \end{aligned} $$,$$ \begin{aligned} & \forall w_1, w_2: ((w_2 \in R(st,w_1) \Rightarrow M,w_2 \models V) \Rightarrow (\exists w_3: w_1 {\mathcal{K}}_i w_3 \\ & \& \ w_2 \in R(st, w_3))) \end{aligned} $$,$$ \alpha_1 \bullet \cdots \bullet \alpha_n $$, $$1 \leq i \leq n\;\alpha_i \in {\mathcal{A}}$$,$$ r_1: \alpha_1 \bullet \cdots \bullet r_n: \alpha_n $$,$$ rea(a_1, r_1) \wedge \cdots \wedge rea(a_i, r_i) \wedge \cdots \wedge rea(a_n, r_n) $$,$$ Plan(Ag, \tau) = \left\langle Plan(AR, \tau), Rea\right\rangle $$,$$ a_1: \alpha_1 \bullet \cdots \bullet a_n: \alpha_n $$, $$1 \leq i \leq n \; \alpha_i \in {\mathcal{A}}$$, $$M, w \models [a_1: \alpha_1 \bullet \cdots \bullet a_n: \alpha_n] \tau$$,$$ DO(a: inform(b,\phi)) \wedge \neg [a: inform(b,\phi)] \phi $$,$$ \begin{aligned} &DO(a: monitor(b,\alpha)) \wedge \neg [a: monitor(b,\alpha)] (K_a DONE(b: \alpha) \nonumber \\ & \vee (K_a \neg DONE(b: \alpha) \wedge K_a O(a: \alpha))) . A similar notion has been formalized, making use of a “bringing-it-about” modal logic, in Cholvy et al. An agent does something causally blameworthy, if it is causally responsible and if it knows that the action it performs leads to a violation which could be avoided by not performing the action. Business roles are positions that have certain sets of responsibilities. 2 the notion of organizational structure is extensively discussed and the analytical perspective presented in Grossi et al. (s-trace) The set $${\mathcal{T}}$$ of s-traces is defined as follows: The length of an s-trace t is denoted by dur(t). [ X: \overline{\alpha} ]\!] Organizational Structure, Roles, and Responsibilities: The FIRST Center management structure, outlined in Figure 2.1, has been designed to accomplish the scientific goals of the Center, while providing synergy between the thrusts, educational outreach, oversight, operational support, and integration with DOE’s core science and technology programs. Complex event expressions can be seen as the result of an instantiation process of role-based plans via role enactment configurations. Grossi, D., Royakkers, L. & Dignum, F. Organizational structure and responsibility. In Sect. - 159.65.38.93. In other words what delegate actions do, with respect to all the other actions being performed in the step, is just creating obligations, given that the necessary preconditions hold. All organizations follow a model of structure. Organizational actions are activities by means of which any collective agency can be managed. The delegation activity, concerning the flow of obligations within an organization is related with the structural dimension of power. \end{aligned} $$, $$M, w_1 \models {\mathfrak{CausalR}}(b, V, \beta) \wedge \neg(@_{-1}K_{b}([b:\beta] V \wedge \neg [\overline{b:\beta}] V \wedge DO(b:\beta)))$$, $$\exists w_2, w_3\, s.t.\, w_3 \prec w_2 \prec w_1$$, $$M, w_3 \models Coord(r,s) \wedge rea(a,r) \wedge rea(b,s) \wedge K_a @_{+1} O(b: \beta)$$,$$ \begin{aligned} & {\mathfrak{CausalR}}(b, V, \overline\beta) \wedge @_{-1}(Control(r,s) \wedge rea(a,r) \wedge rea(b,s) \\ & \wedge DO(a: monitor(b: \beta)) \rightarrow {\mathfrak{TaskR}}(a, \beta) \end{aligned} , $$[\! When a plan concerns only the performance of a single agent, organizational activities such as delegating, informing and monitoring loose their meaning since those activities just happens within the single mind of one individual agent. The transfer takes place in the form of a directed obligation (Dignum 1999) of the agent enacting the first role to the agent enacting the subordinated one. (Operations on events) Let \(T_{1}, T_{2} \in {\mathcal{T}}$$: $$t_{1} \circ t_{2}$$ is defined as follows: if $$t_{1} = \left\langle st_{1}, \ldots, st_{n} \right\rangle$$ and $$t_{2} = \left\langle st_{1}^\prime, \ldots, st_{m}^\prime \right\rangle$$ then, $$t_{1} \circ t_{2} = \left\langle st_{1}, \ldots, st_{n}, st_{1}^\prime, \ldots, st_{m}^\prime \right\rangle$$. Such a row plan does not include all the organizational actions necessary for the program committee to manage the performance of the plan itself. Analogously, if a coordination relation holds between roles r and s, all information acts performed by agents enacting role r to agents enacting role s are successful in the sense that they create knowledge in these agents. 4.1). For example, if the chairman of the Editorial Board has forgotten to inform a member a He’s going to build a house with his own hands and he will get started right away.Immediately, he went to a hardware sto… This issue has been formally investigated in Grossi et al. The following proposition shows that the occurrence of blameworthiness requires the existence of a coordination structure, which is instead not relevant for the occurrence of causal responsibility. 3 we introduce the language we are going to use and present its formal semantics. X = & \{ \hbox{skip} \}. The number of managerial levels depends upon the nature and scale of operations. In this case the relevant structural question is: who can (successfully) enable or empower whom? And in what sense precisely is it responsible?