Perspectives on representation and analysis of negotiation: Towards cognitive support systems

The rapid expansion of Decision and Negotiation Support Systems has been built mainly on decision-theoretic approaches. This has resulted in the decision maker being viewed through the lens of the problem. In this article, the focus is on the decision maker's view of the problem. Three levels of problem articulation are described. Special emphasis is placed on the needs level and the implications it carries for the cognitive and instrumental levels. The three levels of articulation, the organizational model of making decision in social settings, and the three basic approaches to decision making form the basis for computer support focused on understanding and change rather than preferences and outcomes. We argue that in the dynamic, interactive context characteristic of negotiations, a cognitive support system based on restructurable modeling provides a richer basis for support.     

SPORADIC, FLUID AND CONSTRICTED PROCESSES: THREE TYPES OF STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING IN ORGANIZATIONS[1]

Using 136 cases of strategic decision-making described by a number of variables drawn from the literature, three distinct types of decision-making processes are found. These are termed sporadic, fluid and constricted processes. They are parsimonious characterizations of decision-making processes which, given the variety of the 30 organizations from which the cases are drawn, should be generalizable to a wide range of contexts.     

IMPLANTED DECISION-MAKING: AMERICAN OWNED FIRMS IN BRITAIN [I]

decision-making processes are compared in American and British subsidiaries in Britain to investigate how far processual characteristics as distinct from structural features, may be implanted in subsidiaries abroad. Managements in the British owned subsidiaries tend to route their biggest decisions through the formalities of standing committees in conformity with customary procedures, taking a comparatively long time to do so. Managements in the American owned subsidiaries tend to rely on informally assembled working groups which help to arrive at a decision comparatively rapidly through a process which does not ostensibly follow any recognized procedure. The British mode is formal within a non-formalized customary pattern, the American mode informal within a formalized frame.