Interaction protocols for human-driven crisis resolution processes

This work aims at providing a crisis cell with process-oriented tools to manage crisis resolutions. Indeed, the crisis cell members have to define the crisis resolution process, adapt it to face crisis evolutions, and guide its execution. Crisis resolution processes are interaction-intensive processes: they not only coordinate the performance of tasks to be undertaken on the impacted world, but they also support regulatory interactions between possibly geographically distributed crisis cell members. In order to deal with such an interweaving, this paper proposes to use Interaction Protocols to both model formal interactions and ease a cooperative adaptation and guidance of crisis resolution processes. After highlighting the benefits of Interaction Protocols to support this human and collective dimension, the paper presents a protocol meta-model for their specification. It then shows how to suitably integrate specified protocols into crisis resolution processes and how to implement this conceptual framework into a service oriented architecture

OperA/ALIVE/OperettA

Comprehensive models for organizations must, on the one hand, be able to specify global goals and requirements but, on the other hand, cannot assume that particular actors will always act according to the needs and expectations of the system design. Concepts as organizational rules (Zambonelli 2002), norms and institutions (Dignum and Dignum 2001; Esteva et al. 2002), and social structures (Parunak and Odell 2002) arise from the idea that the effective engineering of organizations needs high-level, actor-independent concepts and abstractions that explicitly define the organization in which agents live (Zambonelli 2002).Peer ReviewedPostprint (author's final draft

Gobernanza local

Depto. de Ciencia Política y de la AdministraciónFac. de Ciencias Políticas y SociologíaTRUEUnión Europeapu

Food calamities and governance; an inventory of approaches

In normal circumstances a governance structure of the food system has evolved that serves the system so as to reduce transaction costs. While its overarching conditions are often set by the government policy as to the sector, the private sector, with the help of an enabling government, has developed arrangements to its own liking. The question addressed in this review is whether this governance structure of the food system is robust enough to cover extreme events, calamities, that strike unexpectedly and may harm large sections of the system. Do normal arrangements cover part of what should be done in these circumstances, or do they perhaps hinder the application of adequate governance fit for such extreme events

Metacognition and Reflection by Interdisciplinary Experts: Insights from Cognitive Science and Philosophy

Interdisciplinary understanding requires integration of insights from different perspectives, yet it appears questionable whether disciplinary experts are well prepared for this. Indeed, psychological and cognitive scientific studies suggest that expertise can be disadvantageous because experts are often more biased than non-experts, for example, or fixed on certain approaches, and less flexible in novel situations or situations outside their domain of expertise. An explanation is that experts’ conscious and unconscious cognition and behavior depend upon their learning and acquisition of a set of mental representations or knowledge structures. Compared to beginners in a field, experts have assembled a much larger set of representations that are also more complex, facilitating fast and adequate perception in responding to relevant situations. This article argues how metacognition should be employed in order to mitigate such disadvantages of expertise: By metacognitively monitoring and regulating their own cognitive processes and representations, experts can prepare themselves for interdisciplinary understanding. Interdisciplinary collaboration is further facilitated by team metacognition about the team, tasks, process, goals, and representations developed in the team. Drawing attention to the need for metacognition, the article explains how philosophical reflection on the assumptions involved in different disciplinary perspectives must also be considered in a process complementary to metacognition and not completely overlapping with it. (Disciplinary assumptions are here understood as determining and constraining how the complex mental representations of experts are chunked and structured.) The article concludes with a brief reflection on how the process of Reflective Equilibrium should be added to the processes of metacognition and philosophical reflection in order for experts involved in interdisciplinary collaboration to reach a justifiable and coherent form of interdisciplinary integration. An Appendix of “Prompts or Questions for Metacognition” that can elicit metacognitive knowledge, monitoring, or regulation in individuals or teams is included at the end of the article