814 From Operational Dashboards to E-Business Figure 4. Agent interaction context Contract Prepared Sudatel- Contracting agent handles prepares prepares handles Company- Contracting agent Sudatel-Contracting Package Company-Contracting Package Figure 5. Agent interaction framework Company- Contracting agent Sudatel- Contracting agent Knowledge Base Evaluation Mechanism accessibility, reconfiguration and update Agent’s and data modeling Semantic & ontological considerations Agent Ecosystem and organizational structure 815 From Operational Dashboards to E-Business Figure 6. Sudatel-Contracting “comment” capability Evaluate Comments Sudatel-Contracting Agent [Sudatel-contracting Package] Figure 7. “Evaluate comment: DEP” Evaluate comment (capability) Evaluate comment (event) Evaluate comment (plan) handles handles uses 816 From Operational Dashboards to E-Business of the contracting parties to acquire, share, DQGUHFRQ¿JXUHGDWD 2. Corporate knowledge base and agent-spe - FL¿FGDWDEDVHVWRIDFLOLWDWHLQWHUDFWLRQDQG data processing. Data and knowledge bases are directly linked to the models used by agents (as individuals or groups) as well as to the dynamics of the ecosystem and inter- action of the entire multiagent organization. It is also governed by some ontological and semiological artifacts. 3. An evaluation mechanism embedded into the agent’s knowledge engine to guide ef- ¿FLHQWI XQFWLRQ L QJZLWK L QWKHH QW L UHFRQWH[W of multiagent data processing. In addition to the concept of functional pack- ages, interactions among agents are also viewed in WHUPVRI³FRPPHQWV´WKDWGHVFULEHWKHH[FKDQJH of ideas and terms of trading, among others. As shown in Figure 6 the Sudatel-contracting-capa- bility-hierarchy handles a capability named, for H[DPSOH³HYDOXDWHFRPPHQWV´DVVRFLDWHGZLWK [Sudatel-Contracting package]. The implementation of such capability de- SHQGVRQWKHVXEVHWVRIWKH¿QDOGDWDHYHQWSODQ HLDJUDP'(3WKDWXVHVDQ³HYDOXDWHFRPPHQW´ SODQWRLPSOHPHQWWKH³HYDOXDWHFRPPHQW´HYHQW as shown in Figure 7. ,WVKRXOG DOVR EH QRWLFHG WKDW ³HYDOXDWLQJ D comment” demands an evaluation mechanism as shown in Figure 5. The same process is applied for the activities ODEHOHG ³VHQGLQJ IHHGEDFN´ ³UHTXHVWLQJ IHHG- EDFN´ DQG ³JHWWLQJ FRPPHQWV´DPRQJ DJHQWV )LJXUHEHORZGHVFULEHVDGLDJUDPIRUWKH³UH- questing feedback.” All events can then be completed based on different data types using alternative reasoning DQGSRVWLQJPHWKRGV$³UHTXHVWIHHEDFN´HYHQW for example, can be implemented using the fol- lowing syntax: Figure 8. “Request feedback: EDP” Request Feedback (event) Request Feedback (capability) send "feedback request" commands (Plan) Request Feedback (event) handles uses sends handles posts 817 From Operational Dashboards to E-Business RequestFeedback (data type variable) { Fines = f; Message.”RequestFeedback “+data type variable; } Then posting can be done using a reasoning method as follows: @send (ev.package name, ev1.package name1 (ev.data variable)); DISCUSSION The unprecedented transformations exhibited in the digital market urge enterprises to augment technological developments and improve their competitive advantages. The use of multiple tools and techniques offers a considerable advantage with regards to the process of modeling e-busi- ness architectures and processes. While available approaches are focusing on technological integra- tion of traditional business activities, they offer limited functionality in modeling enterprise-wide processes as they tend to visualize the enterprise as an isolated entity. Based on the need for sophis- ticated integration and coordination mechanisms in the digital marketplace, e-business practices build on horizontal interconnections between net- works and coupling of value chains (Xirogiannis & Glykas, 2007). The use of multiagent technology to enhance the process of electronic contract formulation and the enhancement of electronic negotiation VXSSRUWVWKHPLJUDWLRQIURP³FRQYHQWLRQDO´WR contemporary e-business models and strategies by advocating. Because change is the key challenge in contemporary e-business (Jackson & Harris, 2003; Phan, 2003), enterprises could move from WKHTXDGUDQWRI³SURYLGLQJLQIRUPDWLRQ´WRVWDNH- holders and users in a supply chain to Web-based interactions oriented towards the development and GHSOR\PHQWRI³HQDEOHUV´OLNHHOHFWURQLFSD\PHQW and contracting and understand their consequen- cies on existing business strategies. Because the proposed framework is based on the integrated functionality of multiple au- tonomous and semiautonomous agents capable of modeling routine and time-consuming e-busi- ness processes (Albrecht, Dean & Hansen, 2003), 6XGDWHO FRXOG HQMR\ WKH EHQH¿WV RI LPSURYHG transaction processing and collective decision making utilizing large amounts of pre-existing concrete knowledge. 7KHSURSRVHGPXOWLDJHQWIUDPHZRUNLVÀH[LEOH enough to be extended to include additional agents, learning mechanisms and agent-oriented capabili- ties necessary for addressing complex contractual interactions. By giving agents the ability to do cross-referencing of contracting information, they can potentially improve the outcome of contract formulation processes. While such functionalities FRXOGSRWHQWLDOO\LPSURYHWKHRYHUDOOV\VWHPHI¿- ciency, it also enables decision makers to improve their e-business strategies and models as well as their capacity to make interventions and accom- modate unpredicted changes that take place at the destination of each agent. Such interventions aim DWUH¿QLQJHEXVLQHVVUHODWHGGHFLVLRQVWDNHQE\ agents and/or their owners) while considering the complexities associated with modeling the entire process of contract formulation. Incorporating multiagent technologies at the backbone of enabling (e-payment and contracting) platforms allows Sudatel to investigate its capabil- ity to strategically manage technology-intensive acquisitions by addressing implementation related issues such as programming, representation, and integration. The effectiveness of Sudatel to model interactions associated with the process of elec- tronic contract formulation improves its capacity to create conducive environments for the inclusion of the interests of different contracting companies originating from different countries with varying legal and trading regulations. Because the struc- ture of the multiagent framework is designed in a reasonably domain independent, the robustness of its agent and agent interaction models can be improved by understanding (and learning from) 818 From Operational Dashboards to E-Business the dynamics of individual negotiation behavior of different agents on the behavior of other ones as well as on the overall behavior of the multiagent system as a whole. Because electronic contracting in Sudatel and other similar application domains as a part of an integrated e-business, models and strategies emphasis should be made on data management and integration. Preserving the integrity of corporate (sharable) database, data processing methods and information retrieval, and update algorithms assumes considerable importance because it affects the availability of management information. Particularly in developing countries, gaps experienced in time series of data originate from the nature of data and the applications using them. Some data types, such as those making up the spatial repository of the corporate database, DUHGLI¿FXOWWRXSGDWHEHFDXVHWKH\DUHSUHVHQWHG in map formats that require different processes to convert them into usable forms from raster to digital images. Data management issues also relate to addressing complexities associated with database inclusion dependencies in order to allow ÀH [ L ELO LW \ D QGWKHL QFOX VLR Q RI G LI IH UHQW³VFKH P D´ necessary for electronic negotiation, learning, and reconciliation. Because the mechanism depends mainly on the use of Internet technology, there are other factors that affect the contribution of electronic contracting to e-business processes. One of the most important of these factors is content be- cause the Internet enables parties to capture vast amounts of content at a very low cost (Lumpkin & Gregory, 2004) in the form of feedback and expertise and consequently supports the formula- tion of electronic contracts. CONCLUSION This article presented a typical approach for the formulation of electronic contracts to support the formulation and implementation of alternative e- business strategies and models using multiagent technologies. The approach proposed a new do- main-based mechanism to supplement the current phases of status analysis and objectives setting of a typical electronic contract. While the framework contributes to the infrastructure of electronic com- merce it also aims at improving the competitive advantage of Sudatel and its responsiveness. By using multiagent systems, the proposed mecha- nism drew a causal representation (based on the LGHQWL¿FDWLRQRIDUROHDQGWDVNPDWUL[RIWKH principles of electronic contract formulation. Therefore, their use simulates the operational HI¿FLHQF\RIFRPSOH[HEXVLQHVVPRGHOVDQGWKH ability of decision makers to precisely understand WKHTXDQWL¿HGLPSDFWRIVWUDWHJLFFKDQJHDVVRFL- ated with the deployment of these models. However, the proposed mechanism should not b e r e g a r d e d o n l y a s a n e f f e c t i v e e - b u s i n e s s m o d e l - ing support tool but also as a strategic framework IRU HQWHUSULVHV WR PLJUDWH IURP ³RSHUDWLRQDO dashboards” guided by ready made contracts to LQWHOOLJHQW SDUWLFLSDWLYH DQG VLWXDWLRQVSHFL¿F contract formulation processes. Its main purpose, therefore, is to drive strategic change activities rather than limit itself to qualitative simulations. Moreover, it should not be seen as an end as a single decision aid but rather as a means for setting a course for continuous strategic alignment. While forecasts show that international trade will continue to be more and more fragmented, labor and knowledge intensive and customer-cen- tered, the deployment of information and com- munication technologies as enablers is expected WRFRQWLQXHWR³UHVKDSH´HOHFWURQLFEXVLQHVV WUDQVDFWLRQV7KHPLJUDWLRQIURP³WUDGLWLRQDO´WR ³HOH F W U R Q L F ´ F R Q W UD F W V S U H V H U YH V W K H E D V L F HO H P H Q W V of the traditional contract (offer, acceptance, and compensation) and, at the same time, dictates new axioms for deciding on the place, timing, form of making an offer, acceptance styles, and presen- tation. Although electronic traders are worried about the uncertainties associated with electronic contracting, the unprecedented advancements 819 From Operational Dashboards to E-Business LQWKH¿OHGRIDUWL¿FLDOLQWHOOLJHQFHFRPSXWLQJ paradigms (mainly mobile, ubiquitous, and intel- ligent), and programming languages are expected to relax architectural considerations. REFERENCES Albrecht, C.C., Dean, D.D., & Hansen, J.V. (2003). Using situation calculus for e-business agents. Expert Systems with Applications, 24, 391-397. Andrew, C., Sagnika, S., & Shao, B.M. (2006). Strategies for effective Web services adoption for dynamic e-businesses. Decision Support Systems, 42(2), 789-809. Angelov, S., & Grefen, P. (2001). B2B econtract handling: A survey of projects, papers and standards. CTIT Technical Reports, 01(21). University of Twente. Retrieved February 12, 2007, from http://www.ub.utwente.nl/webdocs/ ctit/1/0000005e.pdf Angelov, S., & Grefen, P. (2004). The business case for B2B e-contracting. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Electronic Commerce ICEC04: Towards a New Services Landscape (pp. 31-40). Delft, The Netherlands. Baum, M.S., & Perrit, H.H. (1991). Electronic contracting, publishing, and EDI law. John Wiley & Sons. Boella, G., & van der Torre, L. (2004, July 19-23). Contracts as legal institutions in organizations of autonomous agents. In Proceedings of AAMAS’04, New York. Chrysovalantou, M., & Petrakis, E. (2004). Busi- ness-to-business electronic marketplaces: Joining a public or creating a private. International Jour- nal of Finance and Economics, 9, 99-112. Daniel, B. (2003). Electronic contracting in cross-media environments. Retrieved February 12, 2007, from http://VirtualGoods.tu-ilmenau. de/2003/econtractingmedis.pdf Daoud, F. (1998). A business contracting model for TINA architecture. International Journal of Electronic Markets, 8(3), 10. Dellarocas, C. (2001). Negotiated shared context and social control in open multiagent systems. In R. Conte & C. Dellarocas (Eds.), Social order in MAS. Kluwer. Dutta, S., & Segev, A. (1999). Transforming business in the market space. In Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Science. El Fallah-Seghrouchni, A., Degirmenciyan, C.I., & Marc, F. (2004, July 19-23). Modelling, control and validation of multi-agent plans in dynamic context. In Proceedings of AAMAS’04, New York. E r v i n , R . (2 0 0 2) . C h a i n s o f c o m m i t m e n t s o f t wa r e architecture. ACM SIGecom Exchanges, 3(1). Gasmelseid, T. (in press). Engineering multiagent systems. Encyclopedia of information ethics and security. Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Goodchild, A., Charles, H., & Zoran, M. (2002, June 5-6). Business contracts for B2B. In Proceed- ings of the CAISE*00 Workshop on Infrastruc- ture for Dynamic Business-to-Business Service Outsourcing, Stockholm, Sweden. Griffel, F., Boger, M., Weinreich, H., Lamersdorf, W., & Merz, M. (1998). Electronic contracting with COSMOS: How to establish, negotiate and execute electronic contracts on the Internet. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Workshop (EDOC ’98). Griffel, F., Tu, T., Münke, M., Merz, M., Lamer- sdorf, W., & da Silva, M. (1997, October 20-24). Electronic contract negotiation as an application niche for mobile agents. In Proceedings of the 1st 820 From Operational Dashboards to E-Business International Workshop on Enterprise Distributed Object Computing. Grosof, B.N. (2001). Representing e-business rules for rules for the Semantic Web: Situated courteous logic programs in RuleML. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Information Technology. Grosof, B.N., Labrou, Y., & Chan, H.Y. (1999). A declarative approach to business rules in contracts: Courteous logic programs in XML. In Proceed- ings of the 1st ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC-99). Guttman, R., Moukas, H., Alexandros, G., & Maes, P. (1998). Agent-mediated electronic com- merce: A survey. Knowledge Engineering Review, 13(3), 1-18. Jackson, P., & Harris, L. (2003). E-business and organizational change. Reconciling traditional values with business transformation. J. of Org. Change Management, 16(5), 497-511. Klusch, M. (2001). Information agent technology for the Internet: A survey. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 36(3), 337-372. Koetsier, M., Paul, G., & Jochem, V. (2000). &RQWUDFWV IRU FURVVRUJDQL]DWLRQDO ZRUNÀRZ management. In Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Electronic Commerce and Web Technologies (pp. 110-121). London. Lai, X., Manfred, A., Jeusfeld, A., & Paul, G. (2005). Detection tests for identifying violators of multi-party contracts. ACM SIGecom Exchanges, 5(3), 19-28. Lee, J.K., & Lee, W. (1998). An intelligent agent-based competitive contract process: UNI- KAGENT. International Journal of Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance & Management, 7, 91-105. Lindemann, M., & Runge, A. (1997). Permanent IT-support in electronic commerce transactions. Electronic Market Architectures, International Journal of Electronic Markets, 7(1). Lumpkin, G.T., & Gregory, G.D. (2004). E-busi- ness strategies and Internet business models: How the Internet adds value. Organizational Dynamics, 33(2), 161-173. Lundberg, M., Goldkuhl, G., & Nilsson, N. (1978). Information systems development: A systematic approach. Royal Institute of Technology and University of Stockholm, Dept of Information Processing and Computer Science, Stockholm, Sweden. Merz, M., Frank, G., Tuan, T., Stefan, M., Harald, W., Marko, B., & Winfried, L. (1998). Supporting electronic commerce transactions with contract- ing services. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 7(4), 249-274. Milosevic, Z. (1995). Enterprise aspects of open distributed systems. Doctoral thesis, University of Queensland, Australia. Milosevic, Z., & Bond, A. (1995). Electronic com- merce on the Internet: What is still missing? In Proceedings of the 5th Conference of the Internet Society (pp. 245-254). Pacheco, O., & Carmo, J. (2003). A role based PRGHO RI QRUPDWLYH VSHFL¿FDWLRQ RI RUJDQL]HG collective agency and agents’ interaction. Au- tonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 6, 145-184. Phan, D.D. (2003). E-business development for competitive advantages: A case study. Informa- tion and Management, 40, 581-590. Reeves, D.M., Benjamin, N., Grosof, M., Wellman, P., & Chan, H.Y. (1999). Towards a declarative language for negotiating executable contracts (IBM Research Report RC 21476 (96914)). Reeves, D.M., Wellman, M.P., & Grosof, B.N. (2002). Automated negotiation from declarative contract descriptions (Working Paper 4188-01, 821 From Operational Dashboards to E-Business eBusiness@MIT;114). MIT Sloan School of Management. Runge, A. (1998). The need for supporting elec- tronic commerce transactions with electronic contracting systems. Electronic Markets, 8(1). Runge, A., Schopp, B., & Stanoevska-Slabeva, K. (1999). The management of business transactions through electronic contracts. In Proceedings of the 10 th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA’99), Florence, Italy. Sallé, M. (2002). An agent-based framework for the automation of contractual relationships. In Proceedings of the AAAI-2002 Workshop on Agent-Based Technologies for B2B Electronic Commerce, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Sallé, M., & Bartolini, C. (2004). Management by contract. Palo Alto, CA: Trusted Systems Laboratory, HP Laboratories. Schmid, B.F., & Lindemann, M. (Eds.). (1998). Proceedings of the 31st Annual Hawaii Interna- tional Conference on Systems Science, HICCS’98 (pp. 193-201). Verdicchio, M., & Colombetti, M. (2002). Com- mitments for agent-based supply chain manage- ment. ACM SIGecom Exchanges, 3(1). Wu, D., & Sun, Y. (2002). Cooperation in multi- agent bidding. Decision Support Systems, 33(3), 335-347. Xirogiannis, G., & Glykas, M. (2007). Intelligent modeling of e-business maturity. Expert Systems with Applications, 32(2), 687-702. This work was previously published in International Journal of E-Business Research, Vol. 3, Issue 3,, edited by I. Lee, pp. 74- 94, copyright 2007 by IGI Publishing (an imprint of IGI Global). 822 Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. Chapter 3.10 E-Commerce Agents and Payment Systems Sheng-Uei Guan National University of Singapore, Singapore INTRODUCTION An emerging outcome of the popularization of the Internet is the electronic commerce and payment systems, which present great opportunities for businesses, reduce transaction costs, and provide faster transaction time. Research has been con- ducted with new technologies, like mobile Internet used by business models (Baek & Hong, 2003). However, before using the Internet, it is essential to provide security in transferring monetary value over the Internet. Quite a number of protocols have been proposed for these secure payment systems, including NetBill, NetCheque, Open Market, iKP, Millicent, SET (Sherift & Serhrouchni, 1998), E- Cash (Brands, 1995), NetCash, CAFÉ (Mjolsnes & Michelson, 1997), EMV cards (Khu-Smith & Mitchell, 2002), and so forth. These systems are designed to meet diverse requirements, each with particular attributes. Automation and intelligence is another issue that poses challenges in the development of e-com- merce. Agent technology has been incorporated into the area of e-commerce to provide automa- tion and intelligence for the e-trade process. Agent is a software program, which is capable of accomplishing tasks autonomously on behalf of its user. Agents must provide highly trustworthy consistency and fault tolerance to avoid eavesdrop- ping and fraud. Also, they should have roaming capability so as to extend their capabilities well beyond the limitations of owners’ computers. This article will discuss some related components under the Secure Agent Fabrication, Evolution, and Roaming (SAFER) architecture (Guan & Hua, 2003; Guan & Yang, 2004; Guan & Zhu, 2002; Ng, Guan, & Zhu, 2002; Zhu, Guan, Yang, & Ko, 2000) and propose an agent-based payment scheme for SAFER. Different types of electronic payment sys- tems have been developed to meet their diverse requirements, which generally include integrity, DXWKRUL]DWLRQ FRQ¿GHQWLDOLW\ DYDLODELOLW\ DQG reliability for security requirements (Asokan & Johnson, 1997). Payment systems can be classi- ¿HGLQDYDULHW\RIZD\VDFFRUGLQJWRWKHLUFKDU- acteristics (Dahab & Ferreira, 1998), such as the exchange model (cash like, check like or hybrid), 823 E-Commerce Agents and Payment Systems FHQWUDODXWKRULW\FRQWDFWRQOLQHRURIÀLQHKDUG- ZDUHUHTXLUHPHQWVVSHFL¿FRUJHQHUDOSD\PHQW amount (micropayment), and so forth. Among all the available payment schemes in the market, e-cash is one of the best in terms of VHFXULW\ÀH[LELOLW\DQGIXOODQRQ\PLW\E-cash is a cash-like online system that uses electronic coins as tokens. E-cash has its unique advantages, VXFKDVÀH[LELOLW\LQWHJULW\DQGIXOODQRQ\PLW\ that cannot be found in electronic check and credit card-based systems. It uses cryptographic techniques to provide full anonymity. The agent based payment scheme for SAFER adopts some similar principles and concepts of e-cash. Software Agents in E-Commerce Attributes of Agent-Based Systems for Electronic Commerce Agents are bits of software performing routine tasks, typically in the background, on behalf of the XVHU*DWKHULQJ¿OWHULQJDQGSUHVHQWLQJLQIRUPD- WLRQDUHVRPHRIWKHVPDOODQGZHOOGH¿QHGWDVNV given to simple agents. An agent distinguishes itself from any other software by its intelligence. ,QWHOOLJHQWDJHQWVDUHFDSDEOHRI³WKLQNLQJ´DQG producing intelligent feedback (Guan & Yang, 1999; Guan, Zhu, & Maung, 2004). Agents are increasing in the degree and sophistication of automation, on both the buyer’s and the seller’s sides, commerce becomes much more dynamic, personalized, and context sensitive. These changes FDQEHEHQH¿FLDOWRERWKWKHEX\HUVDQGVHOOHUV (He, Jennings, & Leung, 2003). The requirement for continuity and autonomy derives from the desire that an agent be able to carry out activities in a manner that is responsive to changes in the environment, without requir- ing constant human guidance or intervention. According to (Bradshaw, 1997), agents have the following attributes, as shown in Table 1. There are several software agent prototypes under development, which will be capable of doing even more on behalf of buyers and sellers. One is Kasbah, wherein agents would proactively seek out potential sellers and negotiate with them on the buyer’s behalf, making the best possible GHDOEDVHGRQDVHWRIFRQVWUDLQWVVSHFL¿HGE\WKH buyer, including the highest acceptable price and a transaction completion date. (Chavz & Maes, 1996). A disadvantage of this software agent is WKDWLWDOZD\VDFFHSWVWKH¿UVWRIIHUWKDWFDQPHHW its asking price, when there might be even better Table 1. Attributes of software agents Attribute Description Reactivity The ability to selectively sense an act Autonomy Goal-directness, proactive and self-starting behavior Collaborative Behavior Can work in concert with other agents to achieve a common goal Communication Ability The ability to communicate with persons and other agents Personality The capability of manifesting the attributes of a believable character such as emotion Temporal continuity Persistence of identity and state over long periods of time Adaptivity Being able to learn and improve with experience Mobility Being able to migrate in a self-directed way from one host platform to another . WKHTXDGUDQWRI³SURYLGLQJLQIRUPDWLRQ´WRVWDNH- holders and users in a supply chain to Web-based interactions oriented towards the development and GHSORPHQWRI³HQDEOHUV´OLNHHOHFWURQLFSDPHQW and contracting and understand their consequen- cies. Conference on Electronic Commerce ICEC04: Towards a New Services Landscape (pp. 31-40). Delft, The Netherlands. Baum, M.S., & Perrit, H.H. (1991). Electronic contracting, publishing, and EDI. Because electronic contracting in Sudatel and other similar application domains as a part of an integrated e-business, models and strategies emphasis should be made on data management and integration.