Advertisement

Open Ontology-Driven Sociotechnical Systems: Transparency as a Key for Business Resiliency

  • Nicola Guarino
  • Emanuele Bottazzi
  • Roberta Ferrario
  • Giovanni Sartor
Conference paper

Abstract

Most business and social organisations can be seen nowadays as complex sociotechnical systems (STSs), including three components: technical artifacts, social artifacts, and humans. Within social artifacts, a special role have norms, which largely influence the overall system's behavior. However, norms need to be understood, interpreted, negotiated, and actuated by humans, who may of course deviate from them, or even decide to change them. STSs are therefore essentially prone to failure: critical situations are part of STS’s life, and may sometimes lead to tragic outcomes. That’s why resilience to failure must be built into such systems, and is a crucial parameter to determine their quality. We argue in this paper that, to achieve a high level of resilience, transparency is the key: actors within the system need to take a reflective stance toward the system itself. In other words, an STS must be open to its actors, which by observing and understanding its dynamics can take the appropriate initiatives in presence of unforeseen problems, possibly modifying the system at run time. Ontological models can play a crucial role in this context. However, we need to make a radical change in our modelling approach, shifting the focus of analysis from ontology-driven information systems to ontology-driven sociotechnical systems.

Keywords

Legal Norm Technical Artifact Sociotechnical System Unforeseen Problem Social Subsystem 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work has been carried within the project ICT4Law (ICT Converging on Law), funded by the Piedmont Region. The authors are indebted to Stefano Borgo, Maarten Franssen, Claudio Masolo, Marco Montali, and Laure Vieu for their precious contribution.

References

  1. 1.
    Alter, S. (2006). The Work System Method: Connecting People, Processes, and IT for Business Results. Work System Press, Larkspur, CA.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baxter, G., and I. Sommerville (2011). Socio-technical systems: From design methods to systems engineering. Interacting with Computers, 23(1):4–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chesbrough, H., and J. Spohrer (2006). A research manifesto for services science. Communications of the ACM, 49(7):35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coiera, E. (2007). Putting the technical back into socio-technical systems research. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 76:98–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Colombetti, M., N. Fornara, and M. Verdicchio (2002). The role of institutions in multiagents systems. In Workshop on Knowledge based and reasoning agents, VIII Convegno AI*IA, Siena, Italy.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dignum, V. (2004). A Model for Organizational Interaction: based on Agents, founded in Logic. PhD thesis, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Emery, F. E., and E. Trist (1960). Socio-technical systems. Management Sciences: Models & Techniques, 2:83–97.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guarino, N. (1998). Formal Ontology in Information Systems. In Guarino, N. (ed.), Formal Ontology in Information Systems. Proceedings of FOIS’98, Trento, Italy, 6-8 June 1998. Amsterdam, IOS Press: 3–15.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hart, H. L. A. (1994). The Concept of Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2nd edition.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hohfeld, W. N. (1919). Fundamental Legal Conceptions. Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn.. (2nd ed. 1964.).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kelsen, K. (1967). Pure theory of law. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kephart, J., and D. Chess (2003). The vision of autonomic computing. IEEE Computer, 36(1):41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kosanke, K., F. Vernadat, and M. Zelm (1999). Cimosa: Enterprise Engineering And Integration. Computers in Industry, 40(2–3):83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kroes, P., M. Franssen, I. van de Poel, and M. Ottens (2006). Treating Socio-Technical Systems As Engineering Systems: Some Conceptual Problems. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 23(6):803–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kroes, P. and A. Meijers (2005). Philosophy of technical artefacts. Joint Delft-Eindhoven research programme 2005–2010. Technical report.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lessig, L. (2006). Code V2. Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    MacCormick, D. N. (2007). Institutions of Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Montali, M. (2010). Specification and Verification of Declarative Open Interaction Models: A Logic-based Approach. Springer.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ottens, M., M. Franssen, P. Kroes, and I. van de Poel (2006). Modelling Infrastructures As Socio-Technical Systems. International Journal of Critical Infrastructures, 2(2):133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ross, A. (1968). Directives and Norms. Routledge, London, 1968.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Searle, R. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. The Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Simon, H. A. (1969). The Sciences of Artificial. MIT, Cambridge, Mass., 3rd edition, 1996.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Uschold, M., M. King, S. Moralee, and Y. Zorgios (1998). The Enterprise Ontology. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 13(1).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Williamson, O. E. (2000). The new institutional economics: Taking stock, looking ahead. Journal of Economic Literature, 38:595–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yu, E. S. (2009). Social modeling and i*. In A. Borgida, editor, Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications, Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicola Guarino
    • 1
  • Emanuele Bottazzi
    • 1
  • Roberta Ferrario
    • 1
  • Giovanni Sartor
    • 2
  1. 1.ISTC-CNRTrentoItaly
  2. 2.Law DepartmentEuropean University InstituteFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations