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.     

Negotiators' Communication, Perception of Their Counterparts, and Performance in Dyadic E-negotiations

The aim of this study was to improve our understanding of negotiation strategies, behaviors, and outcomes, and the relationships between these factors based on data collected from questionnaires, actual behavior during the negotiation process implemented using e-negotiation system, and the negotiation outcomes. This study clustered the negotiators based on either the negotiators' own strategies or their thoughts about those of their partners. This resulted in a division into cooperative and noncooperative clusters. We found that the negotiators whose own strategies are less cooperative tend to submit more offers but fewer messages. However, these people consIDer that they have less control over the negotiation process compared with those who adopt a more cooperative strategy, who make fewer offers but send more messages. Those in the cooperative cluster consistently feel friendlier about the negotiation and more satisfied with the outcome and their performance. Further, there is a correlation not only between self-strategies and the thoughts about partners' strategies, but also between strategies and final agreements. Finally, the proportion of negotiations reaching agreement is larger for the cooperative cluster than for the noncooperative cluster.     

Towards a Structured Design of Electronic Negotiations

Global communication networks and advances in information technology enable the design of information systems facilitating effective formulation and efficient resolution of negotiation problems. Increasingly, these systems guide negotiators in clarifying the relevant issues, provide media for offer formulation and exchange, and help in achieving an agreement. In practice, the task of analysing, modelling, designing and implementing electronic negotiation media demands a systematic, traceable and reproducible approach. An engineering approach to media specification and construction has these characteristics. In this paper, we provide a rationale for the engineering approach that allows pragmatic adoption of economic and social sciences perspectives on negotiated decisions for the purpose of supporting and undertaking electronic negotiations. Similarities and differences of different theories that underlie on-going studies of electronic negotiations are identified. This provides a basis for integration of different theories and approaches for the specific purpose of the design of effective electronic negotiations. Drawing on diverse streams of literature in different fields such as economics, management, computer, and behavioural sciences, we present an example of an integration of three significant streams of theoretical and applied research involving negotiations, traditional auctions and on-line auctions.     

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.     

Computer-Assisted Negotiations of Water Resources Conflicts

This paper describes the algorithms within and results obtained using an interactive computer program developed to assist those involved in negotiating agreements among parties having conflicting objectives. This Interactive Computer-Assisted Negotiation Support system (ICANS) can be used during the negotiation process by opposing parties or by a professional mediator. On the basis of information provided to the program, in confidence, by each party, it can help all parties identify feasible alternatives, if any exist, that should be preferred to each party's proposal. If such alternatives do not exist, the program can help parties develop counter proposals. Through a series of iterations in which each party's input data, assumptions, and preferences may change, ICANS can aid each party in their search for a mutually acceptable and preferred agreement. This paper describes the algorithms used for analyzing preferences and for generating alternative feasible agreements. Also presented a re the results of some limited experiments involving water resource system development and use conflicts that illustrate the potential of programs such as ICANS.     

Resource Allocation through Negotiation and Compromise: A Database Approach

In this paper, a resource allocation system is modeled with relational database technology. To allocate resources through a negotiation-based system, two steps of pre-allocation and negotiated allocation have been modeled with a join procedure for two relations. These relations represent the requirements for experiential nursing practice and the availability of such experience at hospitals, respectively.The first step was implemented through a new join operation called -Distance Join. After the first step, some nursing departments and some hospitals have fully satisfied requirements or fully utilized availability. Other nursing department and hospitals have partial or no satisfaction of requirements or availability, respectively.The second step was implemented through a custom-designed implementation of a user-interface that provides coordinated negotiation among the nodes involved in the system. With the customized interface and join operation, an off-the-shelf or packaged database management system is used. Through this interface, nursing departments and hospitals negotiate until potentially all demands and availability are totally satisfied. This negotiation takes place without face-to-face meetings but with complete knowledge of the entire situation by all parties. This provides the potential for complete fulfillment of nursing experience requirements and total utilization of hospital experience availability.     

B2B Negotiation Support: The Need for a Communication Perspective

Negotiation support is an important challenge for business-to-business e-commerce that is still poorly supported in current information systems. One reason is that negotiation processes are much harder to formalize than the business processes in the fulfilment phase. The goal of this paper is to provide the basis for a formal analysis of different types of electronic negotiations which can help developers of future negotiation support systems. The analysis is performed from a communication perspective, in particular, Habermas' theory of communicative action. Using this perspective, a distinction can be made between norm-oriented, goal-oriented and document-based negotiation. Whereas traditional modeling methods take a data-oriented view, the theory of communicative action supports a communication-oriented view that provides more insight in the logic of negotiation processes. The analysis forms the basis for the negotiation support prototype implemented within the ESPRIT project MeMo (Mediating and Monitoring Electronic Commerce) which was aimed at B2B e-commerce for SMEs in Europe.     

Group Consensus: The Impact of Multiple Dialogues

The research results on group consensus have been ambiguous within the field of Group Support Systems (GSSs). Some research studies have shown that groups using multiple communication channels produce more ideas, and more unique ideas than groups using a single communication channel. In addition, a second set of research findings have shown that groups using GSSs report group members hold less consensus with the group's decision. This research studies more closely how these two characteristics; communication channel and consensus, interact. Specifically, can less consensus be a function of the choice of channels used in problem solving. The results show that groups using a single communication channel generate more actual consensus than groups using multiple communication channels. Furthermore, the single channel discussions provide more integrative comments and these integrative comments may help explain the difference in consensus. These results suggest that those striving for consensus from group members should consider production methods used to create the information that is to be used in the decision.     

How Do Ordinary Japanese Reach Consensus in Group Decision Making?: Identifying and Analyzing “Naïve Negotiation”

The purpose of this study is to investigate ways in which ordinary Japanese people negotiate in a multi-party meeting. We initially gave such a way of negotiation the tentative name of “naïve negotiation”. The analysis of the conversational data reveals three structural features of naïve negotiation: (1) at the utterance level, the participants tend to claim their opinions without providing any overt grounds, (2) at the local consensus-building level, they tend to jump to conclusions without the full examination of proposed hypotheses, (3) at the final consensus-making level, there tends to be disjunctions between discussion units. Although these features are not necessarily seen as irrational or illogical, a naïve-negotiation style can still be a trouble-source in achieving successful consensus-making. This leads us to emphasize the necessity of developing a support system for the discussants.     

Implications of Negotiation Theory for Research and Development of Negotiation Support Systems

This paper summarizes a parametric theory of negotiation as a basis forshedding light on negotiation support system possibilities. Previously, thetheory has been used to analyze prior research accomplishments in the area ofnegotiation support systems. Here, we discuss implications of the theory thatare relevant for future research and development of negotiation supportsystems. The implications are concerned with three topics: a high-levelgeneric characterization of these systems, an identification of theirpossible support functions, and a taxonomy for classifying suchsystems.     

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).     

Negotiation Support for Multi-Party Resource Allocation: Developing Recommendation for Decreasing Transportation-Related Air Pollution in Budapest

Decisions about how to allocate scarce resources among potential programs are common sources of conflict in both public and private life. This paper describes a case in which negotiation support was provided for a five-member task force trying to reach agreement about how to allocate limited resources among programs designed to improve the air quality in Budapest, Hungary. The intervention consisted of a series of facilitated decision conferences, plus individual interviews. The task force eventually reached agreement about a recommended package of 15 air quality management programs costing 1,500 million Hungarian forints. The research makes four significant contributions. First, it demonstrated that resource allocation models provide a useful framework for understanding and facilitating multi-party negotiation processes. Second, because resource allocation models were elicited individually for each group member before building a single group model, it was possible to analyze the five-dimensional feasible settlement space (i.e., the joint distribution of benefits for each task member for all possible resource allocation packages). Third, several innovative applications of analytical techniques (i.e., Pareto-efficiency analyses, numerical and graphical analyses of feasible settlement spaces and efficient frontiers, and analyses of task force members' investment progressions) served to improve understanding of disagreements within the group and to evaluate the quality of potential resource allocation packages. Fourth, changes in individual preferences and group agreement were assessed over time. Group members appeared to change substantially and their level of agreement to increase markedly over time.