Business Modeling via Commitments

  • Pankaj R. Telang
  • Munindar P. Singh
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5907)


Existing computer science approaches to business modeling offer low-level abstractions such as data and control flows, which fail to capture the business intent underlying the interactions that are central to real-life business models. In contrast, existing management science approaches are high-level but not only are these semiformal, they are also focused exclusively on managerial concerns such as valuations and profitability.

This paper proposes a novel business metamodel based on commitments that considers additional agent-oriented concepts, specifically, goals and tasks. It proposes a set of business patterns and algorithms for checking model completeness and verification of agent interactions. Unlike traditional models, our approach marries rigor and flexibility, providing a crisp notion of correctness and compliance independent of specific executions.


Business Model MultiAgent System Call Center Business Partner Business Relationship 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Andersson, B., Bergholtz, M., Edirisuriya, A., Ilayperuma, T., Johannesson, P., Gordijn, J., Grégoire, B., Schmitt, M., Dubois, E., Abels, S., Hahn, A., Wangler, B., Weigand, H.: Towards a reference ontology for business models. In: Embley, D.W., Olivé, A., Ram, S. (eds.) ER 2006. LNCS, vol. 4215, pp. 482–496. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J.: Tropos: An agent-oriented software development methodology. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 8(3), 203–236 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    BRG. The business motivation model (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Browne, S., Kellett, M.: Insurance (motor damage claims) scenario. In: Document Identifier D1.a, CrossFlow Consortium (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Desai, N., Chopra, A.K., Singh, M.P.: Amoeba: A methodology for modeling and evolution of cross-organizational business processes. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, TOSEM (in press, 2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R., Vlissides, J.: Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software. Professional Computing Series. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1995)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gordijn, J., Wieringa, R.: A value-oriented approach to E-business process design. In: Eder, J., Missikoff, M. (eds.) CAiSE 2003. LNCS, vol. 2681, pp. 390–403. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Singh, M.P.: An ontology for commitments in multiagent systems: Toward a unification of normative concepts. Artificial Intelligence and Law 7, 97–113 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weigand, H., Dignum, V., Meyer, J.-J.C., Dignum, F.: Specification by refinement and agreement: Designing agent interaction using landmarks and contracts. In: Petta, P., Tolksdorf, R., Zambonelli, F. (eds.) ESAW 2002. LNCS, vol. 2577, pp. 257–269. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yolum, P., Singh, M.P.: Enacting protocols by commitment concession. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (AAMAS), pp. 116–123 (May 2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pankaj R. Telang
    • 1
  • Munindar P. Singh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations