□. (s-trace) The set \({\mathcal{T}}\) of s-traces is defined as follows: The length of an s-trace t is denoted by dur(t). As explicitly stated in Santos et al. On the other hand a power structure is not enough for determining accountability. n \circ[\! etc.). Steps, that is elements of Step, are denoted by \(st_{1}, st_{2}, \ldots\). what re-use is permitted. The following are validities of the framework: Proofs are given showing that countermodels are impossible. [ a_i: \overline{\alpha} ]\! The closely related and similar activities are grouped together for departments, divisions or sections. Finally, the monitoring activity, concerning the recovery functionalities of the organization, is related with the control dimension. Organizational actions are activities by means of which any collective agency can be managed. \end{aligned} $$, \(t_{1} = \left\langle st_{1}, \ldots, st_{n} \right\rangle\), \(t_{2} = \left\langle st_{1}^\prime, \ldots, st_{m}^\prime \right\rangle\), \(t_{1} \circ t_{2} = \left\langle st_{1}, \ldots, st_{n}, st_{1}^\prime, \ldots, st_{m}^\prime \right\rangle\), \(t_{1} \doublecap t_{2} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} t_{1} \ \ \hbox{if} \ \ t_{2} \in start(t_{1}) \\ t_{2} \ \ \hbox{if} \ \ t_{1} \in start(t_{2}) \\ \emptyset \ \ \hbox{otherwise} \end{array} \right.\), \(start(t) = \{ t^\prime \ | \ t^\prime = t \; or\; \exists t^{\prime\prime} \neq \emptyset \hbox{ s.t. } In other words, an agent is task-based responsible for the performance of a given action iff the event \(a_i: \alpha_i\) is part of the to-be-executed agent-based plan. (Operations on events) Let \(T_{1}, T_{2} \in {\mathcal{T}}\): \(t_{1} \circ t_{2}\) is defined as follows: if \(t_{1} = \left\langle st_{1}, \ldots, st_{n} \right\rangle\) and \(t_{2} = \left\langle st_{1}^\prime, \ldots, st_{m}^\prime \right\rangle\) then, \(t_{1} \circ t_{2} = \left\langle st_{1}, \ldots, st_{n}, st_{1}^\prime, \ldots, st_{m}^\prime \right\rangle\). A well designed structure will help both management and operation of a business. O) Given a sequential plan First, given a plan, each action component of the plan is linked to a role of the organization. RACI is an acronym derived from the four key responsibilities most typically used: responsible, accountable, consulted, and informed. These observations have precise formal counterparts. , R i Top Management must assign the responsibility … is a function that maps role names into the corresponding roles. (Blameworthiness) Blameworthiness of \(a_i \in Ag\) for \(\phi\) by performing α is defined as follows: That is to say, a When different positions are created in the organization then work is assigned to these persons. The quote from Selznick (1948) mentioned above emphasizes the importance of the coordination and control issues within organized groups. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, Royakkers L (1998) Extending deontic logic for the formalization of legal rules. 4.1, a formal semantics of the basic organizational activities of delegating, informing and monitoring is presented. The organizational members try to maximize the output of goods and services from the given inputs. and \(\alpha, \beta \in {\mathcal{A}}\). Organisational Structures & Roles Presented By : Vijayalaxmi Panchal(33) Mandar Pandeshwar(34) Jayesh Parab(35) Vishal Pasi(36) \(a,b \in Ag\), \(r,s \in AR\) There may be an expansion or diversification which required reclassification of duties and responsibilities. (Organizational structures) An organizational structure OS is a tuple: where \(Roles \cup Agents\) is the finite set of roles and agents of the organization, and R We see that in order to obtain blameworthiness the same condition determining causal responsibility is first of all required (first conjunct of the antecedent). The second step in a task allocation consists in the so-called role enactment specifying which agent of the organization plays which role. The disadvantage lies in its rigidity and the length of time needed for information to flow through the organ… and . Role Culture. We can now introduce the operations that constitute the semantic counterpart of our syntactic operators. It is nevertheless obvious that they belong to different categories of operators. If a power relation holds between roles r and s, all delegation acts performed by an agent a enacting role r on agents enacting role s succeed in creating an obligation for these agents. In: Lesser V (ed) Proceedings of ICMAS’95, San Francisco, CA, USA. is blameworthy iff it is causally responsible of V and it knew in the very previous state of the run that the performance of α would have resulted in the occurrence of V. The notion of task-based responsibility corresponds to the notion of duty and refers to what the individuals of the organization are expected to do in virtue of their roles. ]_{R}(w_{1}): M, w_{2} \models \phi \\ M,w_1 \models & K_{a}\phi \hbox{ iff } \forall w_2, w_1 {\mathcal{K}}_a w_2: M,w_2 \models \phi \\ M, w \models & @_{start} \phi \hbox{ iff } M, w_{start} \models \phi \\ M, w_{1} \models & @_{-1} \phi \hbox{ iff } \exists w_{2} \in {\mathbb{W}}, \ w_{2} \prec w_{1}: M, w_{2} \models \phi \\ M, w_{1} \models & @_{+1} \phi \hbox{ iff } \exists w_{2} \in {\mathbb{W}}, \ w_{1} \prec w_{2}: M, w_{2} \models \phi \\ M, w_{1} \models & DO(\xi_1) \hbox{ iff } \forall w_{2} \in {\mathbb{W}}, \ w_{1} \prec w_{2} \Rightarrow w_{1} \in [\! Intuitively, if there exists a coordination link between the role enacted by the informing agent and the role enacted by the recipient, and provided that the informing agents knows that the to-be-communicated content is going to be the case in the next state reached by the system \((K_a @_{+1}\phi)\), then an inform action always results in the creation of the corresponding epistemic state in the recipient. Notice that, obviously, different actions can be indexed with a same role. i And as far as these new obligations hold for plans which include the event concerning the task-based responsibility, that responsibility also holds. More technically, the definition states that, provided that the preconditions in the first clause hold, the set of state-transitions generated by a step st where event \(a: delegate(b,\alpha)\) is performed, is the subset of the state-transitions generated by the step st′ where no \(a: delegate(b,\alpha)\) takes place in which all transitions end up satisfying O(b: α). Similarly, information from lower levels will take much time in reaching at the top. has been appointed, according to the initial plan, to the performance of α”. Formula 27 deserves in particular some more words. The delegation of authority should be step by step and according to the nature of work assigned. That is why organizational structures are a first-class citizen in our framework. [ \xi ]\! This emerges clearly from the formal treatment of actions in our work and in Cholvy et al. Many people have contributed to the development of management thinking because of their creativity in a particular organizational structure. We express deontic notions making use of a reduction strategy in the classical fashion of Meyer (1988). The study of the relations between these two notions showed what are the structural requirements grounding specific notions of responsibilities and, conversely, what kind of responsibilities can be assessed on the basis of a given structure. Our aim is rather to capture those aspects that look more relevant in relation with the notions of responsibility which have been introduced in Sect. [ X: \alpha_{2} ]\!] It is based on power, information and control. \(a \not\in s\): The constraint states that if all the worlds reachable via st satisfy the violation constant, then the same worlds are reachable via a concatenation of \({\mathcal{K}}_i\) and transitions generated by s. It is easy to see that such a constraint makes Formulae 15, 16 and 17 in Table 2 valid. The second conjunct of the antecedent states something about two steps backward in the run (@−1@−1). \(a \in st\): Intuitively, the constraint guarantees that any world reachable via a concatenation of the transitions of step st and \({\mathcal{K}}_i\), is also reachable via a concatenation of \({\mathcal{K}}_i\) and the transitions generated by s. It can be proven (see Meyer and Van der Hoek 1995) that such constraint validates Formulae 12, 13 and 14 in Table 2. This means there may be employees in an organization who do not realize how vital their influence can be on safety – for better or for worse. The organization structure is also called the organization chart/organogram (Ottih, 2008). This perspective is essentially different from the work on formalization of responsibilities and other organization-related concepts presented in Cholvy et al. Sociol Forum 12:73–101, Giddens (1984) A social theory and modern sociology. (Deontics) The deontic operator for obligation O is defined as follows: For an extensive account the type of deontic logic generated by this reduction we refer to Royakkers (1998). There will be job satisfaction when persons are free to operate within prescribed limits. However, this last version is not a validity since we cannot rule out the possibility of violation constants holding also in those worlds reached via correct executions of the plan. \({\mathfrak{AccountR}}\)) Let An agent does something causally blameworthy, if it is causally responsible and if it knows that the action it performs leads to a violation which could be avoided by not performing the action. We denote the first state of the run as w Negation of sequences constitutes a delicate matter. Before publishing your articles on this site, please read the following pages: 1. Control (2004). Computer science technical report 04-45, University of Massachusetts, May 2004, Jones AJI, Sergot M (1996) A formal characterization of institutionalised power. Notice that in Dignum et al. □. These levels include the Executive level, the Strategic level, the Tactical and Operational levels, as well as the Support level. All organizations follow a model of structure. Organizational Structure. \, \, w_{2} = R(t, w_{1})\}\), $$ \begin{aligned} R(st_{1}, w_{1}) = & reach(st_{1}, w_{1}) \\ R(t_{1} \circ t_{2}, w_{1}) = & R(t_{2}, R(t_{1}, w_{1})) \end{aligned} $$, \(reach: Step \times {\mathbb{W}} \longrightarrow {\mathbb{W}}\), \(reach\left(\{ X: \hbox{skip} \}_{X \in {\mathcal{P}}^{+}(Agents)}, w\right) = w\), $$ \begin{aligned} M, w \models & Power(r,s) \hbox{ iff } R_{Power}(J(r),J(s)) \\ M, w \models & Coord(r,s) \hbox{ iff } R_{Coord}(J(r),J(s)) \\ M, w \models & Control(r,s) \hbox{ iff } R_{Control}(J(r),J(s)) \\ M, w \models & rea(a,r) \hbox{ iff } Rea(J(a),J(r)) \\ M, w_{1} \models & [ \xi ] \phi \hbox{ iff } \forall w_{2} \in [\! This is the most traditional of the organizational structures that businesses use. There is a need for horizontal, vertical and lateral communication process and it is done by a well planned structure. t^\prime \circ t^{\prime\prime} = t \}\) . (2004). One of them concerns the distribution of the necessary capabilities within the organization for agents to perform the required tasks. Organizational Development field is required to implement and oversee methodologies to strengthen employee abilities and knowledge, increase efficiency, and improve leadership to maintain the overall health of an organization. You can edit this Organizational Chart using Creately diagramming tool and include in your report/presentation/website. Notice that task division consists of two steps. ]\) and R which will be introduced in Sect. operator obeys reflexivity (\(K_b \phi \rightarrow \phi\)). When I feel a tension, I can propose a small change in the existing roles and circles. \\ [\! Box 513, 5600 MB, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, You can also search for this author in □. Responsibility issues arise any time a group of agents acts collectively in order to achieve certain objectives. are three irreflexive binary relations on Roles characterizing the Power, Coordination and Control structures. Springer, Berlin, pp 129–145, Grossi D, Dignum F, Dastani M, Royakkers L (2005) Foundations of organizational structure in multi-agent systems. Section 5 provides a formalization of some notions of responsibility and their logical relations with the notion of organizational structures is studied by means of some propositions. Working our way from the bottom to the top of the triangular, the Operational level represents the needs of the specific business unit or function and does not take into consideration cross-business unit decision making. In this view, roles are therefore placeholders within a plan description. Such issue is somehow analogous to the information issue since it concerns requirements each tasks presupposes in order to be accomplished. The result consists in a semantic framework based on dynamic logic in which all these concepts can be represented and in which various notions of responsibility find a formalization. The grouped activities can be assigned to different positions. The power structure concerns exactly the channels through which this task flow can take place: “who can (successfully) delegate to whom?”. For strategy to be successful, an organization will need to clearly define the roles and r… [ \xi_{1} ]\! The first formula can be read as “agent a Our models should thus be rich enough to give a precise semantics to all these ingredients. To realize their objective organizations needs to attribute tasks to agents according to specific plans for the realization of those objectives (see Sect. The alphabet of \({\mathcal{L}}^{ORG}\) consists first of all of a set of agent identifiers Ag (groups of agents identifiers are denoted by \(X, Y, \ldots\)), and a set AR of roles identifiers. = [\! More the number of these levels, more the delays in communication. [ \xi_{2} ]\!] The information activity, concerning instead the flow of knowledge within the group of agents, is related with the coordination dimension. If the authority is not sufficient for getting the assigned task then the work will not be completed. The organization structure should be able to incorporate new changes without altering the basic elements. The meaning of formulae \(\phi\) in a world w, given the structure M, is defined as usual. $$, $$ reach(st,w) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \{ w^\prime \ | \ w^\prime \in reach(st^\prime,w) \;\hbox{and}\; M,w^\prime \models K_b \phi \} \\ \;\hbox{if}\; M,w \models K_a @_{+1}\phi \;\hbox{and}\; M,w \models Coord(r,s) \\ \ \ \ \wedge rea(a,r) \wedge rea(b,s) \\ reach(st^\prime,w), \ \ \hbox{otherwise} \end{array} \right. Such results can provide useful hints on possible guidelines for the design of agents’ organizations exhibiting desirable properties. and \(\alpha, \beta \in {\mathcal{A}}\). ACM Press, New York, pp 690–697, Harary F (1969) Graph theory. The presence of a power structure within an organization causes a difference between the two notions of task-based and causal responsibility: ‘I may have not performed the task you delegated to me, but you were the one appointed to it’. [ X: \overline{\alpha} ]\!] The work has provided an analysis of some elementary notions of responsibility in connection with the structure of an organization. Elements of \({\mathcal{E}}\) (sets of s-traces) are denoted as \(T_{1}, T_{2}, \ldots\). In terms of our running example, suppose that the program committee has selected the following task division for the notification of acceptance: the chairman collects the submitted papers and divides the papers among the other PC members; the PC members review the papers they have received from the chairman and send their results to the chairman; the chairman makes the final decision which papers are selected for the workshop and informs the authors about the decision. This second agent is thus obliged to perform a task which belonged to the first agent. In what follows we give a formal semantics of these activities, aiming at capturing some of their essential features. [ \xi_{1} + \xi_{2} ]\!] However, this is not the only case in which a given organizational bears consequences for the assessment of responsibilities within a group. As to the dynamic operator, a sentence \([ \xi ] \phi\) is true in w iff \(\phi\) is true in every world accessible through a performance of ξ. [ X: \alpha_{1} ]\!] \end{aligned} $$, $$ DO(a: delegate(b,\beta)) \wedge \neg [a: delegate(b,\beta)] O(b:\beta) $$, $$ {\mathfrak{CausalR}}(a_i,\phi, \alpha) := @_{-1} ([a_i:\alpha]\phi \wedge \neg [\overline{a_i:\alpha}] \phi \wedge DO(a_i:\alpha)) $$, $$ \begin{aligned} {\mathfrak{Blame}}(a_i,V,\alpha) := & {\mathfrak{CausalR}}(a_i, V, \alpha) \wedge @_{-1}K_{a_i}([a_i:\alpha] V \wedge \neg [\overline{a_i:\alpha}] V \\ & \wedge DO(\overline{a_i: \alpha})). Google Scholar, Meyer J-JCh, van der Hoek W (1995) Epistemic logic for AI and computer Science, vol 41 of Cambridge tracts in theoretical computer science.
organizational structure roles and responsibilities