A Multi-Agent System for Acquiring Transport Services



The economic crisis and the increased business environment uncertainty have led to shrinking the business figures and adopting cost-cutting programs in many industries, which had affected the service acquisition procedures. Companies asking for transport services and, also, the service providers have been improving the planning and decision making processes, asking for software systems adapted to the new business models. The multi-agent systems (MAS) represent an adequate approach in addressing these rapidly changing business needs. The chapter presents a multi-agent system, named TranServ for transport services acquisition, developed by the authors, in line with several FIPA compliant standards. In order to justify the development solution, the authors analyze several MAS standards and methodologies. For designing the system, the MASA methodology is applied. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) tree algorithm is used to model the agents’ behavior. The implementation is done on JADE Platform. The authors will continue the development of the system, improving the auction algorithm and refining the criteria for choosing the best service offers.


Romania transport networks Stratrgic account management Change management 


  1. Akbari ZO, Faraahi A (2008) Evaluation framework for agent oriented methodologies. World congress on science, engineering and technology (WCSET 2008), Paris, vol 35, pp 419–424, ISSN 2070-3740Google Scholar
  2. Bernon C, Gleizes MP, Picard G, Glize P (2002) The ADELFE methodology for an intranet system design. In: Giorgini P, Lespérance Y, Wagner G, şi Yu E (eds), AOIS-2002, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  3. Bodea C-N, Mogos R-I (2012) A multi-agent system for improving the resource allocation on programmes in higher education. IGI Global (in press)Google Scholar
  4. Bresciani P, Perini A, Giorgini P, Giunchilia F, Mylopoulos F (2004) Tropos: an agent-oriented software development methodology, autonomous agents and multi-agent systems, vol 8. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, pp 203–236Google Scholar
  5. Brinkkemper S (1996) Method engineering: engineering of information systems development methods and tools. Inf Softw Technol 38:275–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryl V, Giorgini P, Mylopoulos J (2009) Designing socio-technical systems: from stakeholder goals to social networks. Dipartimento di Ingegneria e Scienza dell’Informazione—Università degli Studi di TrentoGoogle Scholar
  7. Bussmann S, Muller J (1992) A negotiation framework for cooperating agents. In: Dean SM (ed) Proceedings of CKBSSIG, Dake Centre, University of Keele, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  8. Caire G, Coulier W, Garijo F, Gomez-Sanz J, Pavon J, Leal F, Chainho P, Kearney PE, Stark J, Evans R, Massonet P (2002) EURESCOM P907: MESSAGE—methodology for engineering systems of software agentsGoogle Scholar
  9. Caire G, Coulier W, Garijo F, Jorge G (2006) The message methodology: methodologies and software engineering for agent systems. Editura Springer, USGoogle Scholar
  10. Capgemeni Consulting (2011) Transportation management report 2011, latest insights into business drivers for transportation processes and software. Available at:
  11. Coleman D, Arnold P, Bodoff S, Dollin C, Gilchrist H (1994) Object-oriented development: the fusion method. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  12. Debenham J, Henderson-Sellers B (2003) Designing agent-based process systems— Extending the OPEN process framework. In: Plekhanova V (ed) Intelligent agent software engineering (Capitol VIII. Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, pp 160–190Google Scholar
  13. DeLoach SA (1999) Multiagent systems engineering: a methodology and language for designing agent systems. In: Proceedings of agent oriented information systems’99 (AOIS’99), Seattle, USA, pp 45–57Google Scholar
  14. DeLoach SA (2005) Multi-agent systems engineering: an overview and case study. In: Henderson-Sellers B, şi Giorgini P (eds) Agent-oriented methodologies, 11th Chapter, Hershey, PA: Idea GroupGoogle Scholar
  15. Erl T (2005) Service-oriented architecture: concepts, technology, and design. Editura Prentice Hall PTR, NJGoogle Scholar
  16. Fingar P (2010) Fractal enterprise architecture and agent-oriented BPM: can UML or BPMN model a cloud? BPTrends. Available at
  17. Godinez M, Hechler E, Koenig K, Lockwood S, Oberhofer M, Schroeck M (2010) The art of enterprise information architecture: a systems-based approach for unlocking business insight. IBM Press, USGoogle Scholar
  18. Gutierrez C, Garcia-Magariño I (2010) Detection of overworked agents in INGENIAS. 8th international conference on practical applications of agents and multiagent systems, Springer, Salamanca, pp 113–118Google Scholar
  19. Hadar I, Reinhartz-Berger I, Kuflik T, Perini A, Ricca F, Susi A (2010) An empirical study of requirements model understanding: use case vs. tropos models. 25th ACM Symposium on Applied ComputingGoogle Scholar
  20. Henderson-Sellers B, Debenham J, Tran Q.-NN, Cossentino M, Low G (2006) Identification of reusable method fragments from the PASSI agent-oriented methodology. In: Agent-oriented information systems III, lecture notes in computer science, 3529/2006, pp 95–110Google Scholar
  21. Huget M, Odell J, Bauer B (2004) The AUML Approach. In: Bergenti F, Gleizes MP, Zambonelli F (ed) Articol apărut în Methodologies and software engineering for agent systems. Editura Kluwer Academic Publichers, SUAGoogle Scholar
  22. Huhns MN, Stephens LM (1999) Multiagent systems and societies of agents. In: Weiss Gerhard (ed) Multiagent systems: a modern approach to distributed artificial intelligence. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 79–120Google Scholar
  23. Hurwitz J, Bloor R, Baroudi C, Kaufman M (2007) Service oriented architecture for dummies. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. IEEE Standards Board (1990) Standards coordinating committee of the computer society of the IEEE. IEEE standard glossary of software engineering terminology, IEEEGoogle Scholar
  25. Iglesias C, Garijo M (2008) The agent-oriented methodology MAS-CommonKADS, 2004, intelligent information technologies: concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications, Autor Vijayan Sugumaran, Oakland University, USA, publicată de Information Science Reference, IGI GlobalGoogle Scholar
  26. INS (2011) România în cifre 2011. Direcţia de editare a publicaţiilor, Institutul Naţional de Ststistică, BucureştiGoogle Scholar
  27. Kendall EA, Malkoun MT, Jiang C (1996) A methodology for developing agent based systems for enterprise integration. In: Bernus P, Nemes L (eds) Modelling and methodologies for enterprise integration. London: Chapman and HallGoogle Scholar
  28. Kinny D, Gergeff MP, Rao AS (1996) A Methodology and Techniques for Systems of BDI Agents. In: van der Velde W, Perram JW (eds) Agent breaking away, proceeding of 7th european workshop on modelling autonomous agents in a multi-agent world, MAAMAW’96, Lecture Notes in AI, vol. 1038, Springer Verlag, pp 56–71Google Scholar
  29. Kishore R, Zhang H, Ramesh R (2006) Enterprise integration using the agent paradigm: foundations of multi-agent-based integrative business information systems, Publication Journal Decision Support Systems, vol 42, issue 1, Elsevier Science Publishers B. V. AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  30. Kravari K, Kontopoulos E, Bassiliades N (2010) EMERALD: a multi-agent system for knowledge-based reasoning interoperability in the semantic web. Artificial intelligence: theories, models and applications, Lecture notes in computer scienceGoogle Scholar
  31. Kruchten P (1999) Use-case storyboards in the rational unified process. ECOOP Workshops 1999:249–250Google Scholar
  32. Mogoş RI (2010) Enterprise information architecture value optimization using intelligent agents. Articol apărut în volumul conferinţei internaţionale KM05—Knowledge management: projects, systems and technologies, 5th edn: 284–289Google Scholar
  33. Morandini M, Penserini L, Perini A (2008) Towards goal-oriented development of self-adaptive systems. In SEAMS’08: Workshop on software engineering for adaptive and self-managing systems, Leipzig, Germany, pp 9–16, New York, ACMGoogle Scholar
  34. Mullen T, Breese J (2000) Experiments in designing computational economies for mobile users. Decision Support Systems 28:1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Padgham L, Winikoff M (2002) Prometheus: A methodology for developing intelligent agents. In: Giunchiglia F, Odell J, Weiß G (eds) Agent-oriented Software Engineering III Proceedings of the International Workshop on Agent-Oriented Software Engineering: 174–185. LNCS 2585Google Scholar
  36. Padgham L, Winikoff M (2002) Prometheus: A pragmatic methodology for engineering intelligent agents. In: Debenham J, Henderson-Sellers B, Jennings N, Odell JJ (eds) Agent-oriented software engineering III Proceedings of the Workshop on Agent-oriented Methodologies at OOPSLA 2002, Noiembrie, Seattle: 97–108, Sydney: Centre for Object Technology Applications and ResearchGoogle Scholar
  37. Padgham L, Thangarajah J, Winikoff M (2008) Prometheus design tool. In: Proceedings of the 23rd AAAI conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-2008), Chicago, Illinois, USA, JulyGoogle Scholar
  38. Pavón J, Gomez-Sanz J, Fuentes R (2005) The INGENIAS methodology and tools. In Henderson-Sellers B, Giorgini P (eds) Agent-oriented methodologies (Chapter 4). Hershey, PA: Idea GroupGoogle Scholar
  39. Rumbaugh J, Blaha M, Premerlani W, Eddy F, Lorensen W (1991) Object-oriented modelling and design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  40. Schmidt DC (2006) Model-Driven Engineering. IEEE Comput 39(2):25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sturm A, Shehory O (2003) A framework for evaluating agent-oriented methodologies. In: Giorgini P, Winikoff M (eds) Proceedings of the 5th international bi-conference workshop on agent-oriented information systems, Melbourne, Australia: 60–67Google Scholar
  42. Taveter K, Wagner G (2005) Towards radical agent-oriented software engineering processes based on AOR modelling. In:Henderson-Sellers B, Giorgini P (eds) Agent-oriented methodologies, Hershey, PA: Idea GroupGoogle Scholar
  43. UN CSD-18 (2010) Romania’s national report for the 18th Session of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD-18), United Nation, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Available at:
  44. Waldspurger GA, Hogg T, Huberman B, Kephart JO, Stornetta WS (1992) Spawn: a distributed computational economy. IEEE Trans Software Eng 18(2):103–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. White JE (1996) Mobile agents white paper, general magic. Available at:
  46. Wood M, DeLoach SA (2000) An overview of the multiagent systems engineering methodology. In: Ciancarini P, Wooldridge M (eds) Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on agent-oriented software engineering (AOSE-2000): 207–222, LNCS 1957, Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  47. Wooldridge M (1997) Agent-based software engineering. IEE Proc Softw Eng 144(1):26–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wooldridge M, Jennings NR, Kinny D (1999) A methodology for agent-oriented analysis and design, International Conference on Autonomous Agents. In: Proceedings of the 3rd annual conference on Autonomous Agents, Seattle, Washington, SUA: 69–76Google Scholar
  49. Yu E (1995) Modeling strategic relationships for process reengineering, Doctoral Thesis, University of Toronto, Department of Computer Science, Toronto, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  50. Zambonelli F, Jennings N, Wooldridge M (2003) Developing multiagent systems: the Gaia methodology. ACM Trans Softw Eng Method 12(3):417–470Google Scholar
  51. Zhao Q, Zhou Z, Perry M (2007) Agent design of SmArt license management system using Gaia methodology. Computer Science Faculty Publications, University of Western OntarioGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Economic Cybernetics, Statistics and InformaticsThe Bucharest University of Economic StudiesBucharestRomania

Personalised recommendations