Methodological Guidelines for Engineering Self-organization and Emergence

The ASCENS project deals with the design and development of complex self-adaptive systems, where self-organization is one of the possible means by which to achieve self-adaptation. However, to support the development of self-organising systems, one has to extensively re-situate their engineering from a software architectures and requirements point of view. In particular, in this chapter, we highlight the importance of the decomposition in components to go from the problem to the engineered solution. This leads us to explain and rationalise the following architectural strategy: designing by following the problem organisation. We discuss architectural advantages for development and documentation, and its coherence with existing methodological approaches to self-organisation, and we illustrate the approach with an example on the area of swarm robotics

Organization of Multi-Agent Systems: An Overview

In complex, open, and heterogeneous environments, agents must be able to reorganize towards the most appropriate organizations to adapt unpredictable environment changes within Multi-Agent Systems (MAS). Types of reorganization can be seen from two different levels. The individual agents level (micro-level) in which an agent changes its behaviors and interactions with other agents to adapt its local environment. And the organizational level (macro-level) in which the whole system changes it structure by adding or removing agents. This chapter is dedicated to overview different aspects of what is called MAS Organization including its motivations, paradigms, models, and techniques adopted for statically or dynamically organizing agents in MAS.Comment: 12 page

Institutionalization and Structuration: Studying the Links between Action and Institution

Institutional theory and structuration theory both contend that institutions and actions are inextricably linked and that institutionalization is best understood as a dynamic, ongoing process. Institutionalists, however, have pursued an empirical agenda that has largely ignored how institutions are created, altered, and reproduced, in part, because their models of institutionalization as a process are underdeveloped. Structuration theory, on the other hand, largely remains a process theory of such abstraction that it has generated few empirical studies. This paper discusses the similarities between the two theories, develops an argument for why a fusion of the two would enable institutional theory to significantly advance, develops a model of institutionalization as a structuration process, and proposes methodological guidelines for investigating the process empirically

Towards adaptive multi-robot systems: self-organization and self-adaptation

Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich.This publication is with permission of the rights owner freely accessible due to an Alliance licence and a national licence (funded by the DFG, German Research Foundation) respectively.The development of complex systems ensembles that operate in uncertain environments is a major challenge. The reason for this is that system designers are not able to fully specify the system during specification and development and before it is being deployed. Natural swarm systems enjoy similar characteristics, yet, being self-adaptive and being able to self-organize, these systems show beneficial emergent behaviour. Similar concepts can be extremely helpful for artificial systems, especially when it comes to multi-robot scenarios, which require such solution in order to be applicable to highly uncertain real world application. In this article, we present a comprehensive overview over state-of-the-art solutions in emergent systems, self-organization, self-adaptation, and robotics. We discuss these approaches in the light of a framework for multi-robot systems and identify similarities, differences missing links and open gaps that have to be addressed in order to make this framework possible

Systems thinkers think About systems education under the April 2010 (volcanic ash) clouds of Austria

The fragmented nature of systems education with multiple traditions expressed in very different ways at different institutions with ultimate confusing effects on the community of learners (students, managers, policy makers, etc), led to a group of Systems Thinkers to discuss and create generic curricula for education and learning about systems for the generalist and specialist tracks. An active network of systems educators and stakeholders who can benefit from enhanced systems education in having to deal with complex issues, was also explored. In this presentation some guidelines for designing introductory and advanced courses will be discussed. The Introduction to Systemic Thinking and Practice course is intended as an introductory course for students from all disciplines. The Advanced Systemic Thinking and Practice course is intended as a more advanced course for students who are faced with complex issues that require a trans-disciplinary and integrated approach. The designs contain a set of key systems concepts and frameworks relevant to the appropriate level, along with some indicative tools and methods which will enable students to explore the concepts. The value of a Global Network of Systems Educators will also be discussed and how this network could help to fulfil the needs of managers, policy makers and society in general. An example will be given of how the integration of this network with the UQ-UNESCO/MAB Global Learning Laboratories NET could lead to more people (decision-and policy makers in Governments, managers, businesses, etc.) having the ability to practice systems thinking – all of these contributing to Systems Thinking becoming a more mainstream part of a sustainable society

Open problems in artificial life

This article lists fourteen open problems in artificial life, each of which is a grand challenge requiring a major advance on a fundamental issue for its solution. Each problem is briefly explained, and, where deemed helpful, some promising paths to its solution are indicated

What is systemic innovation?

The term ‘systemic innovation’ is increasing in use. However, there is no consensus on its meaning: four different ways of using the term can be identified in the literature. Most people simply define it as a type of innovation where value can only be derived when the innovation is synergistically integrated with other complementary innovations, going beyond the boundaries of a single organization. Therefore, the term ‘systemic’ refers to the existence of a co-ordinated innovation system. A second, less frequent use of the term makes reference to the development of policies and governance at a local, regional or national scale to create an enabling environment for the above kind of synergistic, multi-organizational innovations. Here, ‘systemic’ means recognition that innovation systems can be enabled and/or constrained by a meta-level policy system. The third use of the term, which is growing in popularity, says that an innovation is ‘systemic’ when its purpose is to change the fundamental nature of society; for instance, to deliver on major transitions concerning ecological sustainability. What makes this systemic is acknowledgement of the existence of a systems hierarchy (systems nested within each other): innovation systems are parts of economic systems, which are parts of societal systems, and all societies exist on a single planetary ecological system. Collaboration is required across organizational and national boundaries to change the societal laws and norms that govern economic systems, which will place new enablers and constraints on innovations systems in the interests of sustainability. The fourth use of the term ‘systemic innovation’ concerns how the people acting to bring about an innovation engage in a process to support systemic thinking, and it is primarily this process and the thinking it gives rise to that is seen as systemic rather than the innovation system that they exist within or are trying to create. It is this fourth understanding of ‘systemic’ that accords with most of the literature on systems thinking published between the late 1970s and the present day. The paper offers an overview of what systems thinkers mean by ‘systemic’, and this not only enables us to provide a redefinition of ‘systemic innovation’, but it also helps to show how all three previous forms of innovation that have been described as systemic can be enhanced by the practice of systems thinking