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.     

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.     

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.     

Negotiation support using the Decision Support System GMCR

The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution constitutes a unique and flexible approach to the representation, analysis, and understanding of strategic conflict. This methodology, as implemented in the Decision Support System GMCR, constitutes a useful tool for negotiation support. Because GMCR includes efficient algorithms for calculating the stability of states, it encourages extensive comparisons of the consequences of different models of negotiators' decision making. GMCR also facilitates modifications to the way in which the conflict is represented, encouraging sensitivity and what-if analyses. The applicability of GMCR to negotiations is discussed in general, and in the context of a specific case study in environmental conflict resolution.     

A prototype NSS based on problem structure and suggestions toward more comprehensive negogiation support

Seeking an effective approach to supporting negotiation through the use of computer technology, we have constructed a prototype negotiation support system based on the concept of problem structure. Problem structure refers to the characteristics of the feasible settlement space and efficient frontiers as defined by the joint utility distribution of negotiators' utilities. Problem structure is recognized as playing a major role in negotiation processes and outcomes. The cognitive complexity and inherent uncertainty of typical negotiations make it difficult for negotiators to effectively visualize and “navigate” the settlement space defined by the problem structure. As a result, negotiators often resort to suboptimizing heuristics which produce inefficient and/or unsatisfying outcomes. It follows that a promising approach to negotiation support is to exploit the computational speed and graphics capabilities of computer technology to make problem structure and its implications more accessible. Thus, our prototype is designed to allow negotiators to hypothesize problem structure and to explore and manipulate the resulting settlement space quickly and easily. Preliminary experimentation has demonstrated the value of this approach and has suggested areas for extended, comprehensive support. A negotiation process formalism, Cognitive Action Theory, neural network technology, and computer simulation are well-suited to providing more comprehensive support, and we suggest an architecture for delivery through NSS.     

An empirical study of an interactive,session-oriented computerized Negotiation Support System (NSS)

Negotiating is one of the four major decisional roles played by managers. In fact, resolving conflict is said to occupy 20% of a manager's working hours. This growing frequency of negotiation scenarios coupled with the increasing complexity of the issues which need to be resolved in a negotiation make the possibility of computer enhancement for negotiation very appealing. Implementations of computerized Negotiation Support Systems (NSS) in the business world, international affairs, labor law, and environmental and safety disputes have demonstrated their potential for making negotiation problems more manageable and comprehensible for negotiators. Still, pioneers in NSS research have expressed their dismay at the lack of rigorous empirical research and evaluation of NSS. In particular, research is needed which will determine how and under what circumstances negotiation processes can be enhanced by NSS support.This article describes empirical research on the effects of a highly structured, interactive NSS on the outcome of face-to-face issues resolution and the attitudes of negotiators in both low- and high-conflict situations. In a laboratory experiment, bargaining dyads played the roles of manufacturers negotiating a four-issue, three-year purchase agreement for an engine subcomponent in conditions of high and low conflict of interest. The results of the study showed that NSS support did help bargainers achieve higher joint outcomes and more balanced contracts, but that the NSS support increased negotiation time. Satisfaction was greater for NSS dyads in both conflict levels, and perceived negative climate was reduced in low conflict.One primary implication of the results of this study is that NSS developers should keep in mind the importance of providing users with a system with interactive qualities which not only enhance the decision-making process but also provide them with a sense of participation in reaching the solution, as was done in this study.     

Distributed group support systems: Social dynamics and design dilemmas

A “distributed group support system”; includes decision support tools and structures embedded within a computer‐mediated communication system rather than installed in a “decision room.”; It should support groups who are distributed in space but not time ("synchronous”; groups), as well as “asynchronous”; groups whose members participate at different times. Pilot studies conducted in preparation for a series of controlled experiments are reviewed in order to identify some of the problems of implementing such a system. Many of the means used by groups meeting in the same place at the same time to coordinate their activities are missing. Embedding decision support tools within a different communications medium and environment changes the way they “work.”; Speculations are presented about software tools and structuring or facilitation procedures that might replace the “missing”; coordination channels.     

Multiple Criteria Decision Making Models in Group Decision Support

Use of multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) models to aid the group decision process was tested. Two multiple criteria group decision support systems (MCGDSS) were studied, one using the AHP/Tchebycheff method of Iz and the other using Kersten's NEGO system. These systems were compared with a commercial GDSS, VisionQuest. VisionQuest does not include multiple criteria tools. To make the study comparable, VisionQuest was augmented with an ad hoc linear programming model that could generate solutions with specified characteristics requested by the using group. The three systems were compared on the dimensions of solution quality and decision support effectiveness.One of the hypotheses was that MCDM models would force participants to examine criteria, preferences, and aspirations more thoroughly, thus leading to decisions of better quality. Subjects using the MCGDSSs were expected to have higher mean quality and effectiveness values. However, the quality and effectiveness values of the VisionQuest/ad hoc system were found to be better on the dimension of effectiveness. Explanations for this result are included in the paper.Another hypothesis was that the AHP/Tchebycheff method of Iz, a value-oriented system, would yield more effective group support than the goal-oriented NEGO system. However, the NEGO system was found to yield solutions with better quality measures than the solutions obtained with the AHP/Tchebycheff system.Observation of the groups using the MCDM systems indicate that both the AHP/Tchebycheff and NEGO methods can be revised to enhance their effectiveness. The primary difficulty encountered with the AHP/Tchebycheff method was in the large number of pairwise comparisons required by AHP. The NEGO method can be enhanced by including specification of desired attainment levels in the first stage of the method. Both MCDM techniques have potential to benefit group decision support by giving using groups a means to design better solutions.     

The Impact of Role Training in a User-Driven Group Support System Environment

We tested the proposition that training groups to use roles would improve performance in a user-driven, GSS-supported meeting. Two methods of role training, fixed and rotated roles, were compared against a control procedure in which no formal role training was provided. In a repeated measures experiment, half of the groups completed four generate-creative tasks, while the remaining groups completed three generate-creative tasks followed by one choice-intellective task. Both role training methods were successful in reducing the time spent by groups orienting themselves to the technology, particularly in the choice-intellective task context; however, decision quality or quantity did not improve with role training.     

Electronic Meetings and Intense Group Conflict: Effects of a Policy-Modeling Performance Support System and an Audio Communication Support System on Satisfaction and Agreement

Ad-hoc decision teams were used to examine the effects of an electronic meeting system (EMS) on group satisfaction and agreement. The decision task provoked intense conflict of values. The EMS had two core features - a policy-modeling group performance support system (incorporating structured decision methods and computer-supported cognitive feedback using Multi-Attribute Utility Analysis and Social Judgment Analysis), and an audio-based group communication support system (allowed dispersed members to communicate by voice). Policy groups reached higher agreement than conventional decision-making groups, apparently due primarily to the structure for cognitive-conflict tasks that was imposed on group discussion rather than computer-supported cognitive feedback displays. Audio groups were more satisfied with the conflict process than face-to-face groups. Decision agreement was equivalent across the two media. These audio effects for a highly equivocal task represent a further challenge to media richness theory.     

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.     

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).     

A framework for communication support in group work with special reference to negotiation systems

Communication is central to all group interactions, including negotiations. Group interfaces can limit or enhance communication flows among participants. Hence, group interface design requires the identification of the communication flows among participants, which in turn requires an identification of the various dimensions of intragroup communication. This article outlines a framework to guide researchers in examining the communication needs of group members in computer-supported collaborative work (CSCW), highlighting its application to the context of negotiation. An analysis of communication flows is provided along four dimensions:concurrency, message, channel andparticipant characteristics. The framework is intended to encourage a detailed focus on key aspects of the group interface, to provide a scheme for categorizing the contributions of empirical work, and to identify factors worthy of empirical scrutiny.An earlier version of this article, A Communication-Based Framework for Group Interfaces in Computer-Supported Collaboration by F. Lim and I. Benbasat, appeared in theProceedings of the 24th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, pp. 610–620.     

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.     

Group Development (I): A Review and Synthesis of Development Models

This is the first of two parts that examine the issue of group development and its impact on the study design of group support systems (GSS). We review the various models of group development, analyze the sources of differences among these models, and synthesize common themes across various models. The paper concludes with a meta-framework for understanding group development; this framework highlights the two areas of focus that have dominated group development research in the past: group processes and outcomes. The second paper will build on the ideas developed here and discuss the implications of group development for GSS research.Previous research on group behavior suggests that groups change over time; patterns of change, referred to as group development models, have been an important area of study for the past four decades. For the first three of these decades, unitary models of group development were very popular; that is, the notion that all groups go through a certain series of predefined stages. In the last decade, however, researchers have cast doubt on such unitary models of group development. Nonsequential models that recognize the uniqueness of each group (and consequently reject the idea of a single, predetermined series of stages) have become increasingly popular. This paper examines the implications of these issues for researchers and managers of groups. It also attempts to serve as the foundation for the propositions developed in the next paper, in which the relevance of group development for GSS research and practice are discussed.     

Combining GDSS and Gaming for Decision Support

Both gaming and group (decision) support systems (GDSS) are frequently used to support decision-making and policymaking in multi-actor settings. Despite the fact that there are a number of ways in which gaming and GDSS can be used in a complementary manner, there are only sporadic examples of their combined use. No systematic overview or framework exists in which GDSS are related to the functions of gaming or vice versa. In this article, we examine, why, how and for what purpose GDSS can be used to enrich and improve gaming simulation for decision support, and vice versa. In addition to a review of examples found in the literature, four games are discussed where we combined gaming and GDSS for complex decision making in a multi actor context: incodelta, a game about transportation corridors; infrastratego, a game about a liberalizing electricity market; containers a drift, a game about the planning of a container terminal, and; dubes, a game about sustainable urban renewal. Based on the literature and these four experiences, a classification is presented of (at least) four ways in which GDSS and gaming can be used in a complementary or even mutually corrective, manner: the use of GDSS for game design, for game evaluation, for game operation and the use of gaming for research, testing and training of GDSS.     

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.     

Ethical Decision Making: A Comparison of Computer- Supported and Face-to-face Group

This study compares computer-supported groups, i.e., groups using group support systems (GSS), and face-to-face groups using ethical decision-making tasks. A laboratory experiment was conducted using five-person groups of information systems professionals. Face-to-face (FTF) and GSS groups were compared in terms of their decision outcomes and group members' reactions. The results revealed that computer-supported and face-to-face groups showed no significant difference in terms of the decision outcomes of choice shift and decision polarity. However, FTF groups reached their decisions more quickly and they were more successful in attaining group consensus than GSS groups. Subjects evaluated face-to-face communication more favorably than GSS interaction on most post-group measures related to perceived group processes and satisfaction. Despite these outcomes, some possibilities for using GSS technology in an ethical decision making context 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.