Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
i.e. there is a mutual belief of
X
and
Y
about the strong delegation and about the reciprocal
awareness of it.
Like in the weak delegation, this belief could change the trustworthiness of
Y
, and also in
this case we can have two possible results (we exclude also in this case the fact that this action
does not have any influence on
Y
):
τ
i) the new trustworthiness of
Y
as for
is greater than the previous; so in this case we have
the situation given from the formula (6.11):
τ
>
trustworthiness(Y
)
0
ii) the new trustworthiness of
Y
as for
is less than the previous one; so in this case we have
the situation given from the formula (6.12):
τ
trustworthiness(Y
τ
)
<
0.
Why does
Y
's trustworthiness increase or decrease? In general, a strong delegation - if ac-
cepted and complete - increases the trustworthiness of the delegee because of its
commitment
.
This is in fact one of the motives why agents use strong delegation and count on
Y
's
'adhesion' (Section 2.8). However, it is also possible that the delegee loses motivation when
he has to do something not spontaneously but by a contract, or by a role or duty, or for
somebody else.
The important difference with the previous case is that now
X
knows that
Y
will have some
possible reactions to the delegation and consequently
X
is expecting a new trustworthiness of
Y
(Figure 6.6): in some measure even if there is an increase in
Y
's trustworthiness it is not
completely unexpected by
X
.
No Y's
trustworthiness to
evaluate
No
S-Del (X Y
τ
) ?
Yes
Y's trustworthiness is
exactly the one accorded
with X ( =0)
Has S-Del changed Y's
trustworthiness?
No
Yes
Is Y more
collaborative?
No
Learning: X
evaluates the -
Yes
Learning: X
evaluates the +
Figure 6.6
Flow-Chart resuming the different mental situations in strong-delegation
Search WWH ::
Custom Search