Advertisement

Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 561–597 | Cite as

Mediation with Incomplete Information: Approaches to Suggest Potential Agreements

  • Paula Sarabando
  • Luís C. Dias
  • Rudolf Vetschera
Article

Abstract

In bilateral Negotiation Analysis, the literature often considers the case of complete information. In this context, since the negotiators know the value functions of both parties, it is not difficult to calculate the Pareto efficient solutions for the negotiation. Thus rational negotiators can reach agreement on this frontier. However, these approaches are not applied in practice when complete information is not available. The research question of our work is “It is possible to help negotiators achieving an efficient solution in the absence of complete information regarding the different parameters of the model?”. We propose to derive incomplete information about the preferences of negotiators from the statements they make and the offers they exchange during the negotiation process. We present and discuss three approaches that use this information in order to help a mediator proposing a better solution than the compromise the negotiators have reached or are close to reach.

Keywords

Incomplete information Negotiation Mediation Integrative negotiation Dance of the packages 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barron F, Barrett B (1996) Decision quality using ranked attribute weights. Manag Sci 42(11): 1515–1523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bous G, Fortemps P, Glineur F, Pirlot M (2010) Acuta: a novel method for eliciting additive value functions on the basis of holistic preference statements. Eur J Oper Res 206: 435–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Butler J, Jia J, Dyer JS (1997) Simulation techniques for the sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria decision models. Eur J Oper Res 103(3): 531–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Charnetski J, Soland R (1978) Multiple-attribute decision making with partial information: The comparative hypervolume criterion. Naval Res Logist Q 25: 279–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clımaco JN, Dias LC (2006) An approach to support negotiation processes with imprecise information multicriteria additive models. Group Decis Negot 15(2): 171–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dias LC, Clımaco JN (2000) Additive aggregation with variable interdependent parameters: the VIP analysis software. J Oper Res Soc 51(9): 1070–1082Google Scholar
  7. Dias LC, Clımaco JN (2005) Dealing with imprecise information in group multicriteria decisions: A methodology and a GDSS architecture. Eur J Oper Res 160: 291–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ehtamo H, Hämäläinen R, Heiskanen P, Teich J, Verkama M, Zionts S (1999) Generating Pareto solutions in a two-party setting: Constraint proposal methods. Manag Sci 45(12): 1697–1709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greco S, Mousseau V, Slowinski R (2008) Ordinal regression revisited: multiple criteria ranking using a set of additive value functions. Eur J Oper Res 191(2): 415–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heikanen P (1999) Decentralized method for computing Pareto solutions in multiparty negotiation. Eur J Oper Res 117: 578–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jacquet-Lagreze E, Siskos J (1982) Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision-making, the UTA method. Eur J Oper Res 10: 151–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Keeney R, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Kersten GE, Noronha SJ (1998) Rational agents, contract curves, and inefficient compromises. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 28(3): 326–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Korhonen P, Phillips J, Teich J, Wallenius J (1998) Are Pareto improvements always preferred by negotiators?. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 7(1): 1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lahdelma R, Hokkanen J, Salminen P (1998) SMAA—stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis. Eur J Oper Res 106(1): 137–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lahdelma R, Miettinen K, Salminen P (2003) Ordinal criteria in stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA). Eur J Oper Res 147(1): 117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lai G, Li C, Sycara K (2006) Efficient multi-attribute negotiation with incomplete information. Group Decis Negotiat 15: 511–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lai G, Sycara K (2009) A generic framework for automated multi-attribute negotiation. Group Decis Negotiat 18: 169–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lasserre JB (1983) An analytical expression and an algorithm for the volume of a convex polyhedron in R n. J Optim Theory Appl 39(3): 363–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lawrence J (1991) Polytope volume computation. Math Comput 57: 259–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mousseau V, Dias L (2004) Valued outranking relations in Electre providing manageable disaggregation procedures. Eur J Oper Res 156(2): 467–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pruitt DG (1983) Strategic choice in negotiation. Am Behav Sci 27(2): 167–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Raiffa H, Richardson J, Metcalfe D (2002) Negotiation analysis: the science and art of collaborative decision making. Belknap Press of Harvard, University Press, Cambridge (Ma)Google Scholar
  24. Sarabando P, Dias L (2009) Comparison of different rules to deal with incomplete information: perspectives of mediation. Technical report. Research Reports of INESC Coimbra, No. 2Google Scholar
  25. Sarabando P, Dias L, Vetschera R (2009) Approaches to suggest potential agreements: Perspectives of mediation with incomplete information. Technical report. Research Reports of INESC Coimbra, No.~11Google Scholar
  26. Solymosi T, Dombi J (1986) A method for determining the weights of criteria: the centralized weights. Eur J Oper Res 26: 35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Starr MK (1962) Product design and decision theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  28. Thomas KW (1992) Conflict and conflict management: reflections and update. J Organ Behav 13: 265–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Vetschera R (1997) A recursive algorithm for volume-based sensitivity analysis of linear decision models. Comput OR 24(5): 477–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vetschera R (2005) Strategic manipulation of preference information in multi-criteria group decision methods. Group Decis Negotiat 14: 393–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vetschera R (2009) Learning about preferences in electronic negotiations—a volume based measurement method. Eur J Oper Res 194: 452–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W (1986) Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Walton RE, McKersie RB (1965) A behavioral theory of labor negotiations. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Weber M (1987) Decision making with incomplete information. Eur J Oper Res 28(1): 44–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paula Sarabando
    • 1
  • Luís C. Dias
    • 2
  • Rudolf Vetschera
    • 3
  1. 1.Polytechnic Institute of Viseu and INESC CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.School of Economics and INESC CoimbraUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  3. 3.University of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations