Taxonomy of broker's functions in virtual enterprises

Not just with the emergence but also with the growing of the electronic market, that is, the growth of online suppliers of services and products and Internet users (potential consumers), the necessary conditions to the affirmation of the agile/virtual enterprises (A/VE) as a present and future enterprise organizational model are created. In this context, it is our understanding that the broker may have an important role in its development, namely, if the broker performs functions for the A/VE with better efficacy and efficiency. In this article, we will present first a revision of the broker’s models in a structured form. We present a taxonomy of possible broker’s functions for the broker’s actuation near the A/VE and then the classification of the literature broker’s models. This classification will permit an analysis of a broker’s model and establish a mainframe for our broker’s model according to the BM_Virtual Enterprise Architecture Reference Model (BM_VEARM).

Market of resources for virtual enterprise integration

Most definitions of virtual enterprise (VE) incorporate the idea of extended and collaborative outsourcing to suppliers and subcontractors in order to achieve a competitive response to market demands (Webster, Sugden, & Tayles, 2004). As suggested by several authors (Browne & Zhang, 1999; Byrne, 1993; Camarinha-Matos & Afsarmanesh, 1999; Cunha, Putnik, & Ávila, 2000; Davidow & Malone, 1992; Preiss, Goldman, & Nagel, 1996), a VE consists of a network of independent enterprises (resources providers) with reconfiguration capability in useful time, permanently aligned with the market requirements, created to take profit from a specific market opportunity, and where each participant contributes with its best practices and core competencies to the success and competitiveness of the structure as a whole. Even during the operation phase of the VE, the configuration can change, to assure business alignment with the market demands, traduced by the identification of reconfiguration opportunities and continuous readjustment or reconfiguration of the VE network, to meet unexpected situations or to keep permanent competitiveness and maximum performance (Cunha & Putnik, 2002, 2005a, 2005b).

Reason Maintenance Systems: Tools for Foundations-based Belief Revision

Dynamic and distributed environments are hard to model since they suffer from unexpected changes, incomplete knowledge, and conflicting perspectives and, thus, call for appropriate knowledge representation and reasoning (KRR) systems. Such KRR systems must handle sets of dynamic beliefs, be sensitive to communicated and perceived changes in the environment and, consequently, may have to drop current beliefs in face of new findings or disregard any new data that conflicts with stronger convictions held by the system. Not only do they need to represent and reason with beliefs, but also they must perform belief revision to maintain the overall consistency of the knowledge base. One way of developing such systems is to use reason maintenance systems (RMS). In this paper we provide an overview of the most representative types of RMS, which are also known as truth maintenance systems (TMS), which are computational instances of the foundations-based theory of belief revision. An RMS module works together with a problem solver. The latter feeds the RMS with assumptions (core beliefs) and conclusions (derived beliefs), which are accompanied by their respective foundations. The role of the RMS module is to store the beliefs, associate with each belief (core or derived belief) the corresponding set of supporting foundations and maintain the consistency of the overall reasoning by keeping, for each represented belief, the current supporting justifications. Two major approaches are used to reason maintenance: single-and multiple-context reasoning systems. Although in the single-context systems, each belief is associated to the beliefs that directly generated it—the justification-based TMS (JTMS) or the logic-based TMS (LTMS), in the multiple context counterparts, each belief is associated with the minimal set of assumptions from which it can be inferred—the assumption-based TMS (ATMS) or the multiple belief reasoner (MBR).