Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson P (1999) Complexity theory and organization science. Organ Sci 10:216–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Axtell R, Axelrod R, Esptein JM, Cohen MD (1996) Aligning simulation models: a case study and results. Comput Math Organ Theory 1(2):123–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birge JR (1997) Stochastic programming computation and applications. INFORMS J Comput 9:111–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Bui T (1987) Co-oP – a multiple criteria group decision support system. Springer Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bui T (2000) Building agent-based corporate information systems. Eur J Oper Res 122:242–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bui T, Jarke MF (1986) Communications design of Co-oP: a group decision support systems. ACM Trans Office Inform Syst 4(2):81–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Bui T, Lee J (1998) An agent-based framework for building DSS. Decis Support Syst 25:225–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bui T, Shakun MF (1996) Negotiation processes, evolutionary systems design and NEGOTIATOR. Group Decis Negot 5:339–353

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnes B (2005) Complexity theories and organizational change. Int J Manage Rev 7(2):73–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannon WB (1932) The wisdom of the body. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley K (2001) Computational organizational science and organizational engineering. In: Baum JC (ed) Companion to organizations. Blackwell, Oxford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley K (2002) Intra-organizational computation and complexity. In: Baum JC (ed) Companion to organizations. Blackwell, Oxford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Carley K, Reminga J, Borgatti S (2003) Destabilizing dynamic networks under conditions of uncertainty. IEEE KIMAS, Boston, MA

  • Caroe CC, Romish W (2000) Stochastic lagrangian relaxation applied to power scheduling in a hydro-thermal system under uncertainty. Ann Oper Res 0:1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Castella V, Gaspoz M (2005) e-NEGOTIATOR – a web-based negotiation support system, joint. Diploma Thesis, Technical University of Sierre and PRIISM, Hawaii

  • Cohen MD, March J, Olsen JP (1972) A garbage can model of organizational choice. Admin Sci Quart 17(1):1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dow S, Earl P (eds) (1999) Contingency, complexity and the theory of the firm. Edward Elgar

  • Ehtamo H, Hamailainen R (2001) Interactive multiple-criteria methods for reaching pareto optimal agreements in negotiations. Group Decis Negot 10:475–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein J, Axtell R (1997) Growing artificial societies. Boston, MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard R (1960) Dynamic programming and Markov processes. Technology Press-Wiley, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchins E (1995) Cognition in the wild. Boston, MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Karlin S, Taylor HM (1984) An introduction to stochastic modeling. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kersten G, Lo G (2003) Negotiation support systems and software agents in e-business negotiations. First Int J Internet Enterprise Manage 1(3):293-315

    Google Scholar 

  • March J, Simon H (1958) Organizations. Wiley, New York, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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): 429–447

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulvey JM, Ruszczynski A (1995) A new scenario decomposition method for large scale stochastic optimization. Oper Res 43:477–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen SS, Zenios SA (1993) A massively parallel algorithm for nonlinear stochastic network problems. Oper Res 41:319–337

    Google Scholar 

  • Parellada RJF (2002) Modeling of social organizations: necessity and possibility. Emergence 4(1&2):131–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pines D, Cowan G, Meltzer D (eds) (1999) Complexity: metaphors, models and reality. Addison-Wesley, Santa Fe Institute Series

    Google Scholar 

  • Puterman ML (2005) Markov decision processes: discrete stochastic dynamic programming, 1st edn. (in Paperback). Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, New York

  • Raiffa H, Richardson J, Metcalfe D (2003) Negotiation analysis: the science and art of collaborative decision making. Belknap Press of Harvard University, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockafellar RT, Wets R (1991) Scenarios and policy aggregation in optimization under uncertainty. Math Oper Res 16:119–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen S (2001) Stochastic programming. In: Gass S, Harris C (eds) Encyclopedia of operations research and management science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 784–789

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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):187–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan Y, Suarga RB, Archer N (1998) A web-based negotiation support system. Int J Electr Markets 8(3):13–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tung Bui.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sankaran, S., Bui, T. An organizational model for transitional negotiations: concepts, design and applications. Group Decis Negot 17, 157–173 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-007-9078-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-007-9078-6

Keywords

Navigation