Advertisement

Socionics pp 132-154 | Cite as

Scalability, Scaling Processes, and the Management of Complexity. A System Theoretical Approach

  • Kai Paetow
  • Marco Schmitt
  • Thomas Malsch
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3413)

Abstract

This work proposes a system theoretical framework for analyzing scalability and scaling processes. Our aim is to clarify the vocabulary used in the debate on scalability issues in multi-agent systems. We, therefore, refer to the terminology of Niklas Luhmann’s sociological system theory and general complexity science. To evaluate the heuristic strength of the analytical framework, it is applied to a particular socionic model of a scalable system. Finally, we introduce some proposals for the modelling of scalable multi-agent systems from a sociological point of view. More specifically and system theoretically seen, such a scalable system has to be conceptualized as an organized multi-system system.

Keywords

Organizational Form Multiagent System Scalable System Scaling Process Socionic Model 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Paetow, K., Schmitt, M.: Das Multiagentensystem als Organisation im Medium der Technik. In: Kron, T., ed.: Luhmann modelliert: Sozionische Ansätze zur Simulation von Kommunikationssystemen. Leske+Budrich, Opladen, 55–113 (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leong, T.J., Lim, M.: Network Topology Scalability (undated), http://cva.stanford.edu/ee482/research/tjleong.pdf
  3. 3.
    N.N.: Scalability: Expand IT Capabilities to Meet Business Requirements (2002), wysiwyp://164/, http://Microsoft.com/enterprise/articles/scalability.asp
  4. 4.
    N, N.: Managing Application Services: A Progressive Approach. Manage the Service, Not the Server (undated), http://sun.com/software/cluster/wp-servicemgmt
  5. 5.
    Esposito, D.: Scalability, Sweet Scalability (2001), wysiwyg://fraContent. fraRightFrames.175..ndive/html/data03082001.asp?frame=trueGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Preckshot, G.G.: Real-Time Systems Complexity and Scalability (1993), http://fessp.llnl.gov/csrc/files/114566.pdf
  7. 7.
    Hewitt, C.E.: Towards Open Information Systems Semantics. Part I, Ch. 2. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Bandera, Texas, 121–126 MCC Technical Report Number ACT-AI-355-90 (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Woodside, M.: Metrics and Analysis of Mobile Agent Systems. In: Wagner, T., Rana, O.F. (eds.) Infrastructure for Agents, Multi-Agent Systems, and Scalable Multi-Agent Systems. Proceedings of the International Workshop for Scalable Multi-Agent Systems, Barcelona, pp. 234–245. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gerber, C.: Scalability of Multi-Agent Systems. Proposal for a Dissertation. Technical report, Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz, Saarbrücken, TM-97-02 (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brazier, F., van Steen, M., Wijgaards, N.J.E.: On MAS Scalability. In: Wagner, T., Rana, O.F., eds.: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Infrastructure for Agents, MAS, and Scalable MAS, Montreal, pp.121–126 (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Turner, P.J., Jennings, N.R.: Improving the Scalability of Multi-Agent Systems. In: Wagner, T., Rana, O.F. (eds.) Infrastructure for Agents, Multi-Agent Systems, and Scalable Multi-Agent Systems. Proceedings of the International Workshop for Scalable Multi-Agent Systems, Barcelona, pp. 246–262. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rana, O.F., Wagner, T., Greenber, M.S., Purvis, M.K.: On MAS Scalability. In: Wagner, T., Rana, O.F. (eds.) Infrastructure for Agents, Multi-Agent Systems, and Scalable Multi-Agent Systems. Proceedings of the International Workshop for Scalable Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 304–308. Springer, Barcelona (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wijngaards, N.J.E., Overeinder, B.J., van Steen, M., Brazier, F.M.T.: Supporting Internet-Scale Multi-Agent Systems (2001) http://www.iids.org/publications/bnaic2002_dke.pdf
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    Wagner, T.A., Rana, O.F. (eds.): AA-WS 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1887. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schillo, M., Bürckert, H.J., Fischer, K., Klusch, M.: Towards a Definition of Robustness for Market-Style Open Multi-Agent Systems (2000), http://www.virtosphere.de/data/publications/conferences/2001Schillo+.Robustness.AA01.pdf
  17. 17.
    Klein, M., Dellarocas, C.: Domain-Independent Exception Handling Services That Increase Robustness in Open Multi-Agent Systems (2000), http://ccs.mit.edu/ases
  18. 18.
    Weiss, G. (ed.): Distributed Artificial Intelligence Meets Machine Learning. Springer, Berlin (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Noel, R.: Scale Up in Distributed Databases: A Key Design Goal for Distributed Systems (1996), http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~noel/distr_scaleup/distributed.html
  20. 20.
    Weyuker, E.J., Avritzer, A.: A Metric for Predicting the Performance of an Application under a Growing Workload. IBM Systems Journal 41, 45–54 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Luhmann, N.: Einfache Sozialsysteme. In: Soziologische Aufklärung 2, 2nd edn., pp. 21–38. Westdeutscher Verlag (1982)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Luhmann, N.: Social Systems, 2nd edn. Stanford University Press, Stanford (1999)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kieserling, A.: Kommunikation unter Anwesenden: Studien über Interaktionssysteme. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/M. (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Luhmann, N.: Organisation und Entscheidung. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen (2000)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Baecker, D.: Organisation als System. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/M. (1999)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Byrne, D.S.: Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: An Introduction. Routledge, London (1998)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    La Porte, T.: Organized Social Complexity: Challenge to Politics and Policy. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1975)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Morin, E.: Complexity. International Social Science Journal 26, 555–582 (1974)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Weick, K.E.: The Psychology of Organizing. Addison-Wesley, New York (1979)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hamel, G., Prahalad, C.K.: Competing for the Future. Harvard University Press, Boston (1994)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Malsch, T.: Naming the Unnamable: Socionics Turn of/to Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 4, 155–186 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hillebrandt, F.: Flexible Holonen zur Aggregation höherer Ebenen künstlicher Sozialität, Talk held on the yearly summit of the socionics SPP (2002)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schillo, M., Fischer, K., Klein, C.: The Micro-Macro-Link in DAI and Sociology. In: Moss, S., Davidsson, P. (eds.) Multi-Agent Based Simulation: Second International Workshop on Multi-Agent Based Simulation, Boston (2001)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schillo, M., Fley, B., Hillebrandt, F., Hinck, D.: Self-Organization in Multiagent Systems: From Agent Interaction to Agent Organization. In: Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Modelling Artificial Societies and Hybrid Organizations MASHO, Aachen (2002), http://www.tu-harburg.de/tbg/Deutsch/Projekte/Sozionik2/UntitledFrame.htm
  35. 35.
    Lorentzen, K.F., Nickles, M.: Ordnung aus Chaos – Prolegomena zu einer Luhmann’schen Modellierung deentropisierender Strukturbildung in Multiagentensystemen. In: Kron, T. (ed.) Luhmann modelliert: Sozionische Ansätze zur Simulation von Kommunikationssystemen, pp. 55–113. Leske+Budrich, Opladen (2002)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Baecker, D.: Die Form des Unternehmens. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/M. (1993)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Luhmann, N.: Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/M. (1997)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Paetow, K., Schmitt, M.: Komplexitätsmangement durch systemische Selbstskalierung. Technical Report 9, Technology Assessment and Design, Technical University Hamburg-Harburg, Hamburg (2003)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Mintzberg, H.: The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning. Prentice Hall, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stacy, R.D.: The Science of Complexity: An Alternative Perspective for Strategic Change Processes. Strategic Management Journal 16, 477–495 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Holland, J.H.: Hidden Order: How Adaptation Builds Complexity. Helix and Perseus, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kappelhoff, P.: In: Komplexitätstheorie: Neues Paradigma für die Managmentforschung, Wuppertal, 49–101 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kai Paetow
    • 1
  • Marco Schmitt
    • 1
  • Thomas Malsch
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Technology AssessmentHamburg University of TechnologyHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations