Dynamics of Collective Attitudes During Teamwork

1
Dynamics of Collective Attitudes During Teamwork

• Barbara Dunin-Keplicz
• Rineke Verbrugge

2
Formal theory of teamwork

• Formal characterization of motivational attitudes
  in BDI systems static theory
• intentions
• commitments
• Attitudes are considered
• on three levels individual, social, collective
• in strictly cooperative teams
• Evolution of attitudes in dynamic and / or
  unpredictable environment dynamic theory
• Static dynamic theory teamwork axioms

3
Dynamics of teamwork

• Four stage model of teamwork
• potential recognition
• team formation
• plan formation
• team action
• Reconfiguration algorithm

4
Collective attitudes

• Collective commitment obeys
• collective intention to ? within the team
• correct plan P leading to ?
• collective awareness of correctness of P
• social commitments for all actions in P
• global collective awareness about existence of
  social commitments

5
Collective attitudes

• Collective intention
• Collective commitment
• C-COMMG,P(?) ?
• C-INTG(?) ?
• constitute(?, P) ?
• C-BELG(constitute(?, P)) ?
• /\??P\/i,j?GCOMM(i, j, ?) ?
• C-BELG( /\??P\/i,j?GCOMM(i, j, ?))

6
The four levels of teamwork

• Plan generation
• input
• a group G with collective intention C-INTG(?)
• three-step process
• task division
• means-end analysis
• action allocation

7
The four levels of teamwork

• Plan generation, overall process
• realized by the sequence of actions divmeansall
• successful performance
• succ(div(?, ?)means(?, ?)all(?, P)) ?
• constitute(?, P)

8
The four levels of teamwork

• Plan generation, establishing collective
  commitment
• dial dialogue used to establish
  collective commitment
• C-INTG(?) ? constitute(?, P) ?
• succ(dial(?, G, P)) ? C-COMMG,P(?)

9
The four levels of CPS

• Plan generation, a frame axiom
• succ(div(?, ?)means(?, ?)
• all(?, P)dial(?, G, P)) ?
• div(?, ?) ? means(?, ?) ? all(?, P)

10
The four levels of teamwork

• Team action
• execution of actions according to
• C-COMMG,P(?)
• maintenance of social commitments and individual
  intentions,
• requires reconfiguration process.

11
Commitments during reconfiguration

• Maintaining collective intention in changing
  environment requires reconfiguration and leads to
  the evolution of collective commitment.
• Reconfiguration algorithm deals with failures of
  action execution.
• It is divided in a number of cases.

12
Case 1 team action succeeds

• In sequel, all properties are proved for all
  Kripke models M in which teamwork axioms hold,
  and all worlds w
• Case 1 all actions from the social plan P
  succeed
• M,w- C-COMMG,P(?) ? conf(succ(P))?
• leads to system-success

13
Case 2 an action failed

• C-COMMG,P(?) has to be dropped
• Situation is not a priori hopeless, depending on
  possibilities of action reallocation and planning

14
Case 2 team action failed, subcases

• a new action allocation succeeds (2a), or
• a new action allocation fails, and
• a failed action blocks achieving the goal (2b),
  or
• no failed action blocks achieving the goal, and
• a new means-end analysis and action allocation
  succeeds (2c), or
• new means-end analysis and action allocation
  fails, and
• a new task division, means-end analysis and
  action allocation succeeds (2d), or
• a new task division, means-end analysis and
  action allocation fails back to team formation.

15
Case 2a reallocation possible

• If
• some actions failed but
• none of them failed for an objective reason
• reallocation of these actions is possible
• Then
• a new collective commitment can be established
  based on a new plan P

16
Case 2a reallocation possible

• M,w- C-INTG(?) ? div(?,?) ? means(?,?)?
• conf(succ(all(?, P )dial(?, G, P )))
• C-COMMG,P (?)
• ? - current action sequence
• P - a new social plan

17
Case 2b some failed action blocks the main goal

• If
• at least one action necessary for achievement of
  the goal failed for an objective reason
• no agent will succeed in executing this action
• Then
• this leads to system-failure

18
Case 2c new means-end analysis possible

• If
• some actions failed
• action reallocation is not possible
• none of failed actions blocks the goal
• a new means-end analysis is possible
• Then
• a new collective commitment can be established
  based on new plan P

19
Case 2c new means-end analysis possible

• for current goal sequence ? and action sequence ?
  and for every social plan P, there are ? and P
  such that
• M,w- C-INTG(?) ? div(?, ?) ?
• conf(failed(all(?, P ))
• conf(succ(means(?, ? )all(? , P )
• dial(?, G, P )))
• C-COMMG,P (?)

20
Case 2d new task division possible

• If
• some actions failed
• neither action reallocation nor new means-end
  analysis is possible
• none of failed actions blocks the goal
• a new task division is possible
• Then
• a new collective commitment can be established
  based on new plan P

21
Case 2d new task division possible

• for current goal sequence ? and action sequence ?
  and for every social plan P and action sequence
  ? , there are ? , ? and P
  such that
• C-INTG(?) ? conf(failed(all(?, P ))
  conf(failed(means(?, ? ))
• conf(succ(div(?, ? )means(? , ? ) all(?
  , P )dial(?, G, P )))
• C-COMMG,P (?)

22
Conclusions

• Teamwork axioms
• constitute a definition of motivational attitudes
  in BDI systems static part
• constitute a specification of their evolution in
  a dynamic environment dynamic part
• may serve the system developer as a high level
  specification of the system
• High level of idealization solely strictly
  cooperative teams are considered

23
Future work

• To relax strong assumptions put on cooperative
  problem solving
• To investigate weaker and more distributed forms
  of cooperation
• To investigate non-normal multi-modal framework
  in order to prevent logical omniscience and
  side-effect problems