Advertisement

Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 157–173 | Cite as

An organizational model for transitional negotiations: concepts, design and applications

  • Siva Sankaran
  • Tung Bui
Article
  • 107 Downloads

Abstract

Negotiations generally tend to focus efforts on attaining optimality in single-problem contexts that are ad hoc, disparate and temporary in nature. Once negotiators reach agreement, the process usually attains closure and the long-term impact of the outcome is rarely considered. In organizational settings, decisions involving quid pro quos are, however, made on a continuous basis. Since organizational environments are constantly in flux, negotiated solutions that appeared successful on a given problem at first might no longer work out to be effective in the long run. We postulate that organizations evolve from one state to another and negotiations play an important part in these transitions. From this perspective, decision-making in organizations or between them can be modeled using sequential Markov chains that converge on homeostasis. This leads to a prescriptive approach for transitional negotiations that allow for assessment of the long-term impact of decisions and suggest acceptance of possible short-term losses in favor of the better payoffs that are to come. We provide a hydraulic dam example to illustrate the transitional aspect of decision-making over time. Based on earlier successful GDSS, we also suggest a software architecture that would allow the proposed theoretical model to be implemented as an organization negotiation support system with practical benefits.

Keywords

Group decision and negotiation Computational organizational modeling Markov decision processes Stochastic dynamic programming Cybernetics Organizational engineering Negotiation support 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are extremely grateful to the editor and the two anonymous reviewers who provided valuable rectifications and suggestions over two revisions. They also would like to thank Prof. Carson Eoyang, Naval Postgraduate School and Prof. Melvin F. Shakun, NYU for their insights into the use of stochastic modeling to support negotiation in organizations.

References

  1. Anderson P (1999) Complexity theory and organization science. Organ Sci 10:216–232Google Scholar
  2. Axtell R, Axelrod R, Esptein JM, Cohen MD (1996) Aligning simulation models: a case study and results. Comput Math Organ Theory 1(2):123–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Birge JR (1997) Stochastic programming computation and applications. INFORMS J Comput 9:111–133Google Scholar
  4. Bui T (1987) Co-oP – a multiple criteria group decision support system. Springer Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Bui T (2000) Building agent-based corporate information systems. Eur J Oper Res 122:242–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bui T, Jarke MF (1986) Communications design of Co-oP: a group decision support systems. ACM Trans Office Inform Syst 4(2):81–103Google Scholar
  7. Bui T, Lee J (1998) An agent-based framework for building DSS. Decis Support Syst 25:225–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bui T, Shakun MF (1996) Negotiation processes, evolutionary systems design and NEGOTIATOR. Group Decis Negot 5:339–353Google Scholar
  9. Burnes B (2005) Complexity theories and organizational change. Int J Manage Rev 7(2):73–90Google Scholar
  10. Cannon WB (1932) The wisdom of the body. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Carley K (2001) Computational organizational science and organizational engineering. In: Baum JC (ed) Companion to organizations. Blackwell, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  12. Carley K (2002) Intra-organizational computation and complexity. In: Baum JC (ed) Companion to organizations. Blackwell, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. Carley K, Reminga J, Borgatti S (2003) Destabilizing dynamic networks under conditions of uncertainty. IEEE KIMAS, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. Caroe CC, Romish W (2000) Stochastic lagrangian relaxation applied to power scheduling in a hydro-thermal system under uncertainty. Ann Oper Res 0:1–23Google Scholar
  15. Castella V, Gaspoz M (2005) e-NEGOTIATOR – a web-based negotiation support system, joint. Diploma Thesis, Technical University of Sierre and PRIISM, HawaiiGoogle Scholar
  16. Cohen MD, March J, Olsen JP (1972) A garbage can model of organizational choice. Admin Sci Quart 17(1):1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dow S, Earl P (eds) (1999) Contingency, complexity and the theory of the firm. Edward ElgarGoogle Scholar
  18. Ehtamo H, Hamailainen R (2001) Interactive multiple-criteria methods for reaching pareto optimal agreements in negotiations. Group Decis Negot 10:475–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Epstein J, Axtell R (1997) Growing artificial societies. Boston, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Howard R (1960) Dynamic programming and Markov processes. Technology Press-Wiley, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  21. Hutchins E (1995) Cognition in the wild. Boston, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  22. Karlin S, Taylor HM (1984) An introduction to stochastic modeling. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Kersten G, Lo G (2003) Negotiation support systems and software agents in e-business negotiations. First Int J Internet Enterprise Manage 1(3):293-315Google Scholar
  24. March J, Simon H (1958) Organizations. Wiley, New York, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Lai H, Doong HS, Kao CC, Kersten GE (2006) Negotiator’s communication, perception of their counterparts, and performance in dyadic e-negotiations. Group Decis Negot 15(5): 429–447Google Scholar
  26. Mulvey JM, Ruszczynski A (1995) A new scenario decomposition method for large scale stochastic optimization. Oper Res 43:477–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nielsen SS, Zenios SA (1993) A massively parallel algorithm for nonlinear stochastic network problems. Oper Res 41:319–337Google Scholar
  28. Parellada RJF (2002) Modeling of social organizations: necessity and possibility. Emergence 4(1&2):131–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pines D, Cowan G, Meltzer D (eds) (1999) Complexity: metaphors, models and reality. Addison-Wesley, Santa Fe Institute SeriesGoogle Scholar
  30. Puterman ML (2005) Markov decision processes: discrete stochastic dynamic programming, 1st edn. (in Paperback). Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Raiffa H, Richardson J, Metcalfe D (2003) Negotiation analysis: the science and art of collaborative decision making. Belknap Press of Harvard University, BostonGoogle Scholar
  32. Rockafellar RT, Wets R (1991) Scenarios and policy aggregation in optimization under uncertainty. Math Oper Res 16:119–147Google Scholar
  33. Sen S (2001) Stochastic programming. In: Gass S, Harris C (eds) Encyclopedia of operations research and management science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 784–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yan Y, Yen J, Bui T (2002) A multi-agent-based negotiation support system for distributed transmission cost allocation. Int J Intell Syst Account Finance Manage 10(3):187–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yuan Y, Suarga RB, Archer N (1998) A web-based negotiation support system. Int J Electr Markets 8(3):13–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.California State University NorthridgeNorthridgeUSA
  2. 2.University of Hawaii, ManoaHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations