Towards a Transparent Deliberation Protocol Inspired from Supply Chain Collaborative Planning

  • Florence Bannay
  • Romain Guillaume
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 443)


In this paper we propose a new deliberation process based on argumentation and bipolar decision making in a context of agreed common knowledge and priorities together with private preferences. This work is inspired from the supply chain management domain and more precisely by the “Collaborative Planning, Forecasting and Replenishment” model which aims at selecting a procurement plan in collaborative supply chains.


Decision process Argumentation Supply Chain Management 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Albrecht, M.: Supply Chain Coordination Mechanisms: New Approaches for Collaborative Planning. Lecture Notes in Eco. and Math. Systems, vol. 628. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: A formal analysis of the role of argumentation in negotiation dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation 22, 957–978 (2012)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baykasoglu, A., Gocken, T.: Multi-objective aggregate production planning with fuzzy parameters. Advances in Engineering Software 41(9), 1124–1131 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bonnefon, J., Dubois, D., Fargier, H.: An overview of bipolar qualitative decision rules. In: Della Riccia, G., Dubois, D., Kruse, R., Lenz, H.-J. (eds.) Preferences and Similarities. CISM Courses and Lectures, vol. 504, pp. 47–73. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christopher, M.: Logistics And Supply Chain Management: Creating Value-Adding Networks. Pearson Education (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Possibility theory: qualitative and quantitative aspects. In: Quantified Representation of Uncertainty and Imprecision. Handbook of Defeasible Reasoning and Uncertainty Management Systems, vol. 1, pp. 169–226. Kluwer Academic (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dudek, G.: Collaborative Planning in Supply Chains: A Negotiation-based Approach. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dung, P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357 (1995)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Guillaume, R., Grabot, B., Thierry, C.: Management of the risk of backorders in a MTO-ATO/MTS context under imperfect requirements. In: Applied Mathematical Modelling (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ireland, R.K., Crum, C.: Supply Chain Collaboration: How To Implement CPFR And Other Best Collaborative Practices. Integrated Business Management Series. J. Ross Publishing, Incorporated (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jamalnia, A., Soukhakian, M.: A hybrid fuzzy goal programming approach with different goal priorities to aggregate production planning. Comp. Ind. Eng. 56(4), 1474–1486 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lu, T.-P., Trappey, A.J.C., Chen, Y.-K., Chang, Y.-D.: Collaborative design and analysis of supply chain network management key processes model. Journal of Network and Computer Applications (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marcotte, F., Grabot, B., Affonso, R.: Cooperation models for supply chain management. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management 5(1), 123–153 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rahwan, I., Ramchurn, S.D., Jennings, N.R., McBurney, P., Parsons, S., Sonenberg, L.: Argumentation-based negotiation. Knowledge Engineering Review 18(4), 343–375 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Selim, H., Araz, C., Ozkarahan, I.: Collaborative production–distribution planning in supply chain: A fuzzy goal programming approach. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 44(3), 396–419 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., MacGregor, D.: Rational actors or rational fools? Implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics. The Journal of Socio-Economics 31, 329–342 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Walton, D.N., Krabbe, E.C.W.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany (1995)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy Sets as a Basis for a Theory of Possibility. Memorandum: Electronics Research Laboratory. College of Eng., University of California (1977)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florence Bannay
    • 1
  • Romain Guillaume
    • 1
  1. 1.IRITToulouse UniversityFrance

Personalised recommendations