Skip to main content

Towards a Transparent Deliberation Protocol Inspired from Supply Chain Collaborative Planning

  • Conference paper
Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems (IPMU 2014)

Abstract

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.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  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. Amgoud, L., Vesic, S.: A formal analysis of the role of argumentation in negotiation dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation 22, 957–978 (2012)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Baykasoglu, A., Gocken, T.: Multi-objective aggregate production planning with fuzzy parameters. Advances in Engineering Software 41(9), 1124–1131 (2010)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  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. Christopher, M.: Logistics And Supply Chain Management: Creating Value-Adding Networks. Pearson Education (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  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. Dudek, G.: Collaborative Planning in Supply Chains: A Negotiation-based Approach. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Marcotte, F., Grabot, B., Affonso, R.: Cooperation models for supply chain management. International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management 5(1), 123–153 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

Âİ 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Bannay, F., Guillaume, R. (2014). Towards a Transparent Deliberation Protocol Inspired from Supply Chain Collaborative Planning. In: Laurent, A., Strauss, O., Bouchon-Meunier, B., Yager, R.R. (eds) Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledge-Based Systems. IPMU 2014. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 443. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08855-6_34

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08855-6_34

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-08854-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-08855-6

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics