Advertisement

Formal Analysis of Meeting Protocols

  • Catholijn M. Jonker
  • Martijn Schut
  • Jan Treur
  • Pınar Yolum
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3415)

Abstract

Organizations depend on regular meetings to carry out their everyday tasks. When carried out successfully, meetings offer a common medium for participants to exchange ideas and make decisions. However, many meetings suffer from unfocused discussions or irrelevant dialogues. Within Social Science sometimes general, informal meeting guidelines are formulated. To study meetings in detail, we first formalize general properties for meetings and a generic meeting protocol for the role interactions in meetings that is coherent with such guidelines. In the context of a case study, an example meeting is simulated based on this protocol. The properties are verified in this simulated trace. These properties are also validated by verifying them against a formalisation of empirical data of a real meeting in the same context. A comparison of the two traces reveals that a real meeting is more robust in the sense by exception violations of the protocol may occur, and these exceptions are handled effectively without damaging the success of the meeting. Given this observation, a more refined protocol is specified that includes exception-handling strategies. Based on this refined protocol a meeting is simulated that closely resembles the real meeting.

Keywords

Organization Property Refined Protocol Agenda Item Role Interaction Meeting Participant 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Creighton, J.L.: Using Group Process Techniques to Improve Meeting Effectiveness, http://www.effectivemeetings.com/teams/teamwork/creighton.asp
  2. 2.
    Croston, J.D., Goulding, H.B.: The Effectiveness of Communication at Meetings: A Case Study. Operational Research Quarterly 17(1), 47–57 (1966)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jonker, C.M., Schut, M., Treur, J., Yolum, P.: Formal Analysis of Meeting Protocols. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Artificial Intelligence. Technical Report (2004), Available at http://www.few.vu.nl/~wai/Papers/TR2004-meeting.pdf
  4. 4.
    Jonker, C.M., Treur, J.: Treur Compositional Verification of Multi-Agent Systems: a Formal Analysis of Pro-activeness and Reactiveness. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems 11, 51–92 (2002)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Niederman, F., Beise, C.M., Beranek, P.M.: Issues and Concerns about Computer-Supported Meetings: The Facilitator’ s Perspective. MIS Quarterly 20(1), 1–22 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Serman, C.B., Basili, V.R.: Communication and Organization: An Empirical Study of Discussion in Inspection Meetings. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 24(6), 559–572 (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kevin Wolf. The Makings of a Good Meeting (October 2002), Available at: http://members.dcn.org/kjwolf

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catholijn M. Jonker
    • 1
  • Martijn Schut
    • 1
  • Jan Treur
    • 1
    • 2
  • Pınar Yolum
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Artificial IntelligenceVrije Universiteit AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversiteit UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations