Unbounded Rationality

The paper discusses bounded and unbounded rationality in purposeful complex adaptive systems (PCAS) modeled by the Evolutionary Systems Design (ESD) framework. Due to Herbert Simon, bounded rationality is the rationality of cognition. Unbounded rationality is the generalized rationality of connectedness represented mathematically, of spirituality, and of right decision/negotiation. Operational procedures for defining/solving and validating a problem in group decision and negotiation under unbounded rationality are discussed. With human PCAS as a focus, the paper more generally considers rationality in multiagent systems with natural and/or artificial agents.     

Right Problem Solving: Doing the Right Thing Right

This paper discusses right problem solving to define/solve a right problem for doing the right thing right. In so doing, the paper operationally considers purposeful complex adaptive systems (PCAS), Evolutionary Systems Design (ESD), group/negotiation support systems, consciousness, connectedness, spirituality, rationality, problems, and right rationality in theory and practice. System agents may be natural (human) and/or artificial.     

Modeling and supporting task-oriented group processes: Purposeful complex adaptive systems and Evolutionary Systems Design

Evolutionary Systems Design (ESD) is a universal general problem solving, formal modeling, design framework for purposeful complex adaptive systems (PCAS) and processes, i.e., task-oriented group processes. These processes constitute policy making, group decision, negotiation, and multiagent problem solving with human and/or artificial agents. ESD is also a framework for computer group support systems (GSS) that support these processes. The ESD general framework can be applied to define and solve specific problems. In this article the ESD framework is presented and illustrated by example. The article provides background for ESD computer implementations discussed in two other related articles (Lewis and Shakun 1996; Bui and Shakun 1996).     

Connectedness Problem Solving and Negotiation

Difficult polarizing problems/conflicts are pervasive in the United States and the world. Welcome to spiritual rationality/connectedness problem solving and negotiation involving spirituality and rationality, and emphasizing connectedness in problem solving. In particular, we develop CPSN-ESD—Connectedness Problem Solving and Negotiation (CPSN) through Evolutionary Systems Design (ESD)—discussing spiritual rationality/connectedness and highlighting connectedness with One and with each other as values, among others, in problem solving. In CPSN-ESD, CPSN is effected through ESD, a game-theory based, general formal systems- spirituality modeling/design framework for individual and multiagent (group) problem solving and negotiation implemented by computer technology. Problem solving is represented by an evolving problem system of purposes and their relations from the lowest-level action to the highest purpose, ultimate common ground—spirituality, connectedness with One (or a surrogate, as discussed). For an agent, an evolved problem system satisfying spiritual rationality identifies right action (a solution) producing spirituality, connectedness with One (or a surrogate). A negotiation agreement requires multiagent agreement on the action to be taken. Agents may be natural or artificial. The paper focuses mostly on human agents with ideas being applicable to other natural and artificial (computer) agents with lesser (or greater) capabilities than humans according to their built-in capabilities. Present-to-future CSPN-ESD work includes furthering support of human agents; designing spiritual agents; designing multiagent systems for connectedness capitalism; developing connectedness democracy; further research and applications on intercultural and international negotiation; work on the world connected.     

An ESD Computer Culture for Intercultural Problem Solving and Negotiation

Intercultural problem solving and negotiation involves interaction of two or more cultures. These processes may be formally modeled using the Evolutionary Systems Design (ESD) framework implemented by appropriate computer group support systems (GSS). The ESD/GSS combination provides an ESD computer culture for intercultural problem solving and negotiation in a same place/same time or telework mode. With this, players in a multicultural group can be computer supported in generating and formally representing an evolving common culture (a situational culture) with regard to the specific problem at hand - an intercultural evolving group problem representation and solution. At the same time, the ESD computer culture provides an operational cybernetic/self-organization framework for the empirical study of cultural emergence in a multicultural group. This paper uses and develops work by Shakun (1996b).     

ESD: A Formal Consciousness Model for International Negotiation

We develop the Evolutionary Systems Design (ESD) formal consciousness model for international negotiation extending the usual cognitive rationality of formal models to right rationality validated subjectively by cognition, affection, conation, holistically, and spiritually. Two subjective validation tests for right rationality are described. The purpose is to attain right negotiation agreements in international negotiation. Practice and computer implementation are discussed and applications presented. Though the ESD general formal mathematical model is an evolving difference game, in applying it to specific problems mathematical symbols are not normally used, relations between generally familiar sets of elements being expressed by tables (matrices). We believe that ESD can help close the gap between formal modeling and practice of international negotiation.     

Defining a right problem in group decision and negotiation: Feeling and evolutionary generating procedures

It is not unusual that decision makers define and solve a wrong problem. Here we develop an operational procedure for defining a right or correct problem. A problem may be represented as—a problem representation defining a problem consists of—two evolving hierarchies of relations, as discussed in the article. Rightness in a problem representation requires rightness in these relations which are beliefs held by a decision maker. Operational definition and validation of rightness in these relations, that is, retaining them as correct, is by feeling and by specified evolutionary generating procedures for examining, changing (evolving), and retaining these relations. Based on rightness in these relations, we discuss right group problem definition and solution in the general case where information is not fully shared (nonshared) among individuals in the group. Thus, our work contributes to procedural rationality—how decisions should be or are made—in individual and group decision-making and associated group decision and negotiation support systems (GDNSS).     

Multi-bilateral Multi-issue E-negotiation in E-commerce with a Tit-for-Tat Computer Agent

We discuss multi-bilateral multi-issue electronic negotiation (e-negotiation) in the context of an e-commerce marketplace system in which multiple players – buyers and sellers – conduct bilateral (pair-wise) multi-attribute negotiations followed optionally by an auction. Negotiators both make and request specific concessions. The concept of a tit-for-tat concession strategy is developed and implemented by a computer agent. The work is related to the Evolutionary Systems Design (ESD) framework for formal modeling/design of Purposeful Complex Adaptive Systems (PCAS).     

Negotiation processes,Evolutionary Systems Design,and NEGOTIATOR

A negotiation accord is often the result of an intense, laborious, and evolutionary negotiation process. During this process, disputing parties are confronted with goal, judgment, and outcome conflict. This article demonstrates the utility of a conflict resolution framework—Evolutionary Systems Design (ESD)—by using a Negotiation Support System. ESD seeks to guide negotiators to move their individual goals and judgments in such a way as to enhance the chance of achieving a common solution. As illustrated by the use of NEGOTIATOR, a multiattribute utility negotiation support system, we argue that computer mediation can prove to be an effective means to implement the ESD framework.     

United States–China Plane Collision Negotiation

On April 1, 2000 an American surveillance plane and a Chinese fighter plane collided off the coast of China. The Chinese pilot parachuted out of his aircraft but was presumed dead; his body was not found. The U.S. plane made an emergency landing at a Chinese military airfield without receiving permission. China thus had possession of the U.S. plane and crew. China said that the U.S. was responsible for the crash and demanded an apology. The U.S. expressed regret over the collision but declared it had no apology to give as the fault lay with the Chinese pilot. On April 10 with negotiation between the two countries remaining deadlocked, the author considered the problem in the Evolutionary Systems Design (ESD) framework. The article discusses the author's analysis and solution, his efforts to implement it, and the agreed solution announced by the U.S. and China on April 11.     

The Connectedness Decision Paradigm: Group Decision, Negotiation and Leadership in World Problems

We discuss connectedness, a dynamic unity relation experience. The Connectedness Decision Paradigm (CDP) is a formal, general systems-spirituality framework, technology-supported, for group decision and negotiation (GDN) and leadership in making “right” decisions. A right problem/solution is validated by a spiritual rationality validation test involving connectedness. A participant (agent) may experience connectedness with purposes (intended results). Purposes for which there is reciprocated (shared) purpose connectedness across agents constitute common ground for these agents. A basic idea is to identify and expand such common ground. Even in difficult problem solving, as with polarization, where there seems to be little or no common ground, a priori there is always the ultimate purpose common ground of connectedness with One (spirituality) from which other common ground as connectedness with the “other” can arise. Common ground can lead to additional common ground and to an agreed problem solution—itself constituting common ground—that can be tested for rightness. Our focus here is on human agents considered as spiritual purposeful complex adaptive systems in multiagent environments. The ideas are applicable to other agents with lesser or greater capabilities than humans according to their capabilities. Expanding earlier work, this commentary on CDP is also based on GDN 2012, 2013 meeting remarks by the author, as well as on a lecture, “Hope on the Edge of Chaos: The New Connectedness Paradigm in World Affairs”, Hamilton Hall, Salem, Massachusetts, February 2012. In presenting CDP, this commentary is also a call for problem solving frameworks for GDN and leadership, and solutions to world problems.     

On automated e‐business negotiations: Goal,policy, strategy,and plans of decision and action

In recent years, there has been increasing interest in automated e‐business negotiations. The automation of negotiation requires a decision model to capture the negotiation knowledge of policymakers and negotiation experts so that the decision‐making process can be carried out automatically. Current research on automated e‐business negotiations has focused on defining low‐level tactics (or negotiation rules) so that automated negotiation systems can carry out automated negotiation processes. These low‐level tactics are usually defined from a technical perspective, not from a business perspective. There is a gap between high‐level business negotiation goals and low‐level tactics. In this article, we distinguish the concepts of negotiation context, negotiation goals, negotiation strategy, and negotiation tactics and introduce a formal decision model to show the relations among these concepts. We show how high‐level negotiation goals can be formally mapped to low‐level tactics that can be used to affect the behavior of a negotiation system during the negotiation process. In business, a business organization faces different negotiation situations (or contexts) and determines different sets of goals for different negotiation contexts. In our decision model, a business policymaker sets negotiation goals from different perspectives, which are called goal dimensions. A negotiation policy is a functional mapping from a negotiation context to some quantitative measures (or goal values) for the goal dimensions to express how competitive the policymaker wants to reach that set of goals. A negotiation expert who has the experience and expertise to conduct negotiations would define the negotiation strategies needed for reaching the negotiation goals. Formally, a negotiation strategy is a functional mapping from a set of goal values to a set of decision‐action rules that implement negotiation tactics. The selected decision‐action rules can then be used to control the execution of an automated negotiation system, which conducts a negotiation on behalf of a business organization.     

Evaluating a Framework for Multi-Stakeholder Decision Support in Water Resources Management

In this paper we describe a framework for multicriteria modeling and support of multi-stakeholder decision processes. We report on its testing in the development of a new water level management policy for a regulated lake-river system in Finland. In the framework the stakeholders are involved in the decision process from the problem structuring stage to the group consensus seeking stage followed by a stage of seeking public acceptance for the policy. The framework aims at creating an evolutionary learning process. In this paper we also focus on the use of a new interactive method for finding and identifying Pareto-optimal alternatives. Role playing experiments with students are used to test the practical applicability of a negotiation support procedure called the method of improving directions. We also describe the preference programming approach for the aggregation of the stakeholder opinions in the final evaluation of alternatives and consensus seeking.     

Qualitative representations of negotiations: Tutorial on a rule-based approach

This article introduces a logic-based approach for structuring and representing negotiation problems and for supporting negotiators. It is argued that rule-based formalism allows for integrating decision-making aspects unique and specific to negotiations with general reasoning mechanisms based on rationality postulates. The discussion of the rule-based systems and its application to negotiation modeling and support is preceded by an outline of qualitative and quantitative approaches to problem representation and reasoning, and an overview of predicate calculus. The advantages and disadvantages of rule-based systems and their ability to capture complex negotiation decision processes and reasoning are also given.     

A Formal Basis for Negotiation Support System Research

A high-level theoretical model of negotiation activity is introduced as a foundation for guiding future research and development in the area of negotiation support literature. A formal model at this level is presently absent from the negotiation support systems. The model is formally expressed in terms of definitions and postulates that describe eight important negotiation parameters. Relationships between the model and research in game theory, social behavior science, and decision support systems fields are examined.     

Common Ground, Complex Problems and Decision Making

Organisations increasingly have to deal with complex problems. They often use multidisciplinary teams to cope with such problems where different team members have different perspectives on the problem, different individual knowledge and skills, and different approaches on how to solve the problem. In order to solve those problems, team members have to share their existing knowledge and construct new knowledge. Theory suggests that negotiation of common ground can positively affect team decision making on the solution of complex problems, by facilitating knowledge sharing across perspectives. In a small scale study with student groups, external representations supported by a specific negotiation ontology were used to facilitate negotiation by encouraging participants to make their beliefs and values explicit. Results showed that the external representations supported clarifying contributions to group members and increased group participation in discussions.     

Accessibility of Computer-based Simulation Models in Inherently Conflict-Laden Negotiations

The use of computer-based simulation models has a long history in areas such as environmental planning and policy-making, and particularly in water management. Policy making in these areas is often characterized by inherent conflict among diverse stakeholders with divergent interests. Although simulation models have been shown to be helpful for such problems, they are typically under the control of a technical analyst or governmental agency and are not available to negotiators in real time. Recent trends in computer technology and user expectations raise the possibility of real-time, user-controlled models for supporting negotiation. But is such accessibility likely to be helpful? This study used a "compressed" longitudinal experiment to investigate the impacts of different scenarios of accessibility of computer-based simulation models. The task was based on a real-life problem in Colorado River water management. Results revealed no significant differences among conditions for either solution quality or satisfaction. These results suggest that the common notion of "more is better" may be inappropriate, and resources for improving computer support of negotiation might best be focused elsewhere.     

A framework for thinking about Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS)

Strategic problem solving in organizations is a social process that disturbs established social relationships. Maintaining a negotiated social order is crucial to political feasibility and to emotional commitment from the participants in relation to a solution package. However, Group Decision Support Systems that attend overly to managing social order risk group think through bounded vision. This may be avoided if emotional commitment is also encouraged through participants experiencing the problem situation from multiple perspectives and in relation to alternative solution strategies. Commitment depends upon both means/ends rationality and procedural rationality. This acknowledges the balance in providing support to a group with respect to the negotiation of social order, with the more traditional group decision support for socially negotiating order out of the problem situation. This article argues that effective Group Decision Support Systems must attend to both aspects of creating order. OR modelling methods and the support that can be provided by modern micro-computers offer a new way forward—models can be toys that a group can play with together, enabling them to create knowledge as well as use it.