Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Holistic Preferences and Prenegotiation Preparation

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation

Abstract

One of the activities within the prenegotiation preparation phase is to create an analytical basis for decision support in negotiations. This is done by defining the structure of the negotiation problem and eliciting the negotiators’ preferences. The negotiation analysis suggests using the simplest decision support methods here, which are often based on preference aggregation paradigm, such as direct rating. Some recent experimental works, however, indicate various cognitive and technical problems that may occur when such an approach is used. Therefore, in this chapter, we discuss the issue of using an alternative approach that implements a preference disaggregation paradigm and operates with holistic preference declarations. We analyze various options that may be used for designing the holistic prenegotiation preference elicitation protocol and present the results of implementing one hybrid holistic protocol in the bilateral negotiation support system.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://web.ue.katowice.pl/enego/

  2. 2.

    The changes are technical, and were focused on determining a standardized scoring system for the negotiation template, therefore we do not discuss them in detail in this chapter.

References

  • Angur MG, Lotfi V, Sarkis J (1996) A hybrid conjoint measurement and bi-criteria model for a two group negotiation problem. Socio Econ Plan Sci 30:195–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Bana e Costa CA, Vansnick J-C (1999) The MACBETH approach: basic ideas, software, and an application. In: Meskens N, Roubens M (eds) Advances in decision analysis. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 131–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Bana e Costa C, De Corte J-M, Vansnick J-C (2016) On the mathematical foundations of MACBETH. In: Multiple criteria decision analysis. Springer, New York, pp 421–463

    Google Scholar 

  • Brans J-P (1982) L’ingénierie de la décision: l’élaboration d’instruments d’aide a la décision. Faculté des sciences de l’administration, Université Laval, Quebec City

    Google Scholar 

  • Brams SJ (2003) Negotiation Games: Applying game theory to bargaining and arbitration. Psychology Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Brzostowski J, Wachowicz T (2014) NegoManage: a system for supporting bilateral negotiations. Group Decis Negot 23:463–496

    Google Scholar 

  • Brzostowski J, Roszkowska E, Wachowicz T (2012) Using an analytic hierarchy process to develop a scoring system for a set of continuous feasible alternatives in negotiation. Oper Res Decis 22:21–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchman CW, Ackoff RL (1954) An approximate measure of value. J Oper Res Soc Am 2:172 187

    Google Scholar 

  • Corrente S, Greco S, Kadziński M, Słowiński R (2013) Robust ordinal regression in preference learning and ranking. Mach Learn 93:381–422

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C (2004) Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems. Eur J Oper Res 159:673–686

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards W, Barron FH (1994) SMARTS and SMARTER: improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 60:306–325

    Google Scholar 

  • Figueira JR, Greco S, Słowiński R (2009) Building a set of additive value functions representing a reference preorder and intensities of preference: GRIP method. Eur J Oper Res 195:460–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2008.02.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Figuera J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (2016) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art. Springer, Boston/Dordrecht/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher R, Ury WL, Patton B (2011) Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gershon ME (1981) Model choice in multi-objective decision-making in natural resource systems. Dissertation, University of Arizona

    Google Scholar 

  • Górecka D, Roszkowska E, Wachowicz T (2016) The MARS approach in the verbal and holistic evaluation of the negotiation template. Group Decis Negot 25:1097–1136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-016-9475-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greco S, Matarazzo B, Slowinski R (2001) Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis. Eur J Oper Res 129:1–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Greco S, Słowiński R, Figueira JR, Mousseau V (2010) Robust ordinal regression. In: Ehrgott M, Figueira JR, Greco S (eds) Trends in multiple criteria decision analysis. Springer US, Boston, pp 241–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Greco S, Kadziński M, SŁowiński R (2011) Selection of a representative value function in robust multiple criteria sorting. Comput Oper Res 38:1620–1637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2011.02.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guitouni A, Martel J-M (1998) Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method. Eur J Oper Res 109:501–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00073-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond JS, Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1998) Even swaps: a rational method for making trade-offs. Harv Bus Rev 76:137–149

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang C-L, Yoon K (1981) Methods for multiple attribute decision making. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobides MG, Croson DC (2001) Information policy: Shaping the value of agency relationships. Academy of Management Review 26:202–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacquet-Lagrèze E (1990) Interactive assessment of preferences using holistic judgments the PREFCALC system. In: Readings in multiple criteria decision aid. Springer, Berlin, pp 335–350

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacquet-Lagreze E, Shakun MF (1984) Decision support systems for semi-structured buying decisions. Eur J Oper Res 16:48–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(84)90313-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacquet-Lagreze E, Siskos J (1982) Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision-making, the UTA method. Eur J Oper Res 10:151–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacquet-Lagreze E, Siskos Y (2001) Preference disaggregation: 20 years of MCDA experience. Eur J Oper Res 130:233–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarke M, Jelassi MT, Shakun MF (1987) MEDIATOR: towards a negotiation support system. Eur J Oper Res 31:314–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(87)90041-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen MC, Zimmerman JL (1985) Management compensation and the managerial labor market. Journal of Accounting and Economics 7:3–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadziński M, Tervonen T (2013) Robust multi-criteria ranking with additive value models and holistic pair-wise preference statements. Eur J Oper Res 228:169–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1991) Structuring and analyzing values for multiple-issue negotiations. In: Young HP (ed) Negotiation analysis. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  • Kersten GE, Lai H (2007) Negotiation support and e-negotiation systems: an overview. Group Decis Negot 16:553–586

    Google Scholar 

  • Kersten GE, Noronha SJ (1999) WWW-based negotiation support: design, implementation, and use. Decis Support Syst 25:135–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Kersten G, Roszkowska E, Wachowicz T (2017) The heuristics and biases in using the negotiation support systems. In: Schoop M, Kilgour DM (eds) Group decision and negotiation. A socio-technical perspective. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 215–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee S, Thompson L (2011) Do agents negotiate for the best (or worst) interest of principals? Secure, anxious and avoidant principal–agent attachment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 47:681–684

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki RJ, Saunders DM, Minton JW (2003) Negotiation: readings, exercises, and cases, 4th edn. Irwin/The McGraw-Hill, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsatsinis N, Grigoroudis E (eds) (2018) Preference disaggregation in multiple criteria decision analysis: essays in honor of Yannis Siskos. Springer International Publishing, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsatsinis NF, Grigoroudis E, Siskos E (2018) Disaggregation approach to value elicitation. In: Dias LC, Morton A, Quigley J (eds) Elicitation: the science and art of structuring judgement. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 313–348

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J, Rosenhead J (2004) Problem structuring methods in action. Eur J Oper Res 152:530–554

    Google Scholar 

  • Moshkovich H, Mechitov A, Olson D (2016) Verbal decision analysis. In: Greco S, Ehrgott M, Figueira JR (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, New York, pp 605–636

    Google Scholar 

  • Mustajoki J, Hamalainen RP (2000) Web-HIPRE: global decision support by value tree and AHP analysis. INFOR J 38:208–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Parzen E (1962) On estimation of a probability density function and mode. Ann Math Stat 33:1065–1076

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson RM, Lucas GH (2001) Expanding the antecedent component of the traditional business negotiation model: pre-negotiation literature review and planning-preparation propositions. J Mark Theory Pract 9:37–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson RM, Shepherd CD (2010) Preparing to negotiate: an exploratory analysis of the activities comprising the pre-negotiation process in a buyer-seller interaction. Mark Manag J 20:66–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson R, Shepherd CD (2011) Negotiation preparation differences in selling situations: collaborative versus competitive expectations. Mark Manag J 21:103–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa H (1982) The art and science of negotiation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa H, Richardson J, Metcalfe D (2002) Negotiation analysis: the science and art of collaborative decision making. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Roszkowska E, Wachowicz T (2014a) SAW-based rankings vs. intrinsic evaluations of the negotiation offers – an experimental study. In: Zaraté P, Kersten GE, Hernández JE (eds) Group decision and negotiation. A process-oriented view. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 176–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Roszkowska E, Wachowicz T (2014b) Defining preferences and reference points – a multiple criteria decision making experiment. In: Zaraté P, Kersten GE, Hernández JE (eds) Group decision and negotiation. A process-oriented view. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 136–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Roszkowska E, Wachowicz T (2015a) Inaccuracy in defining preferences by the electronic negotiation system users. In: Kamiński B, Kersten GE, Szapiro T (eds) Outlooks and insights on group decision and negotiation. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 131–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Roszkowska E, Wachowicz T (2015b) Application of fuzzy TOPSIS to scoring the negotiation offers in ill-structured negotiation problems. Eur J Oper Res 242:920–932

    Google Scholar 

  • Roszkowska E, Wachowicz T, Kersten G (2017) Can the holistic preference elicitation be used to determine an accurate negotiation offer scoring system? A comparison of direct rating and UTASTAR techniques. In: Schoop M, Kilgour DM (eds) Group decision and negotiation. A socio-technical perspective. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 202–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy B (1996) Multicriteria methodology for decision aiding. Kluwer Academic, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy B, Bouyssou D (1993) Aide multicritère à la décision: méthodes et cas. Economica, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1:83–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL, Ergu D (2015) When is a decision-making method trustworthy? Criteria for evaluating multi-criteria decision-making methods. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 14:1171–1187

    Google Scholar 

  • Satty T (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders HH (1985) We need a larger theory of negotiation: the importance of pre-negotiating phases. Negot J 1:249–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoop M (2010) Support of complex electronic negotiations. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 409–423

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoop M, Jertila A, List T (2003) Negoisst: a negotiation support system for electronic business-to-business negotiations in e-commerce. Data Knowl Eng 47:371–401

    Google Scholar 

  • Simons T, Tripp TM (2003) The negotiation checklist. In: Lewicki RJ, Saunders DM, Minton JW, Barry B (eds) Negotiation. Reading, exercises and cases, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, pp 50–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Siskos Y, Yannacopoulos D (1985) UTASTAR: an ordinal regression method for building additive value functions. Investig Oper 5:39–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Siskos Y, Grigoroudis E, Matsatsinis NF (2005a) UTA methods. In: Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, New York, pp 297–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Siskos Y, Grigoroudis E, Matsatsinis NF (2005b) UTA methods. In: Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrogott M (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, New York, pp 297–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Słowiński R, Greco S, Matarazzo S (2002) Axiomatization of utility, outranking and decision-rule preference models for multiple-criteria classification problems under partial inconsistency with the dominance principle. Control Cybern 4:1005–1035

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiessen EM, Soberg A (2003) SmartSettle described with the Montreal taxonomy. Group Decis Negot 12:165

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson L (2015) The mind and heart of the negotiator, 6th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomlin BW (1989) The stages of prenegotiation: the decision to negotiate north American free trade. Int J 44:254–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Vetschera R (2007) Preference structures and negotiator behavior in electronic negotiations. Decis Support Syst 44:135–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Wachowicz T (2008) NegoCalc: spreadsheet based negotiation support tool with even-swap analysis. In: Climaco J, Kersten GE, Costa JP (eds) Group decision and negotiation 2008: proceedings – full papers. INESC, Coimbra, pp 323–329

    Google Scholar 

  • Wachowicz T, Błaszczyk P (2013) TOPSIS based approach to scoring negotiating offers in negotiation support systems. Group Decis Negot 22:1021–1050

    Google Scholar 

  • Wachowicz T, Roszkowska E (2020) Holistic declaration of preferences in determining the negotiation offer scoring system: an experimental study on using software supported preference disaggregation approach in individual prenegotiation preparation. Eur J Oper Res

    Google Scholar 

  • Wachowicz T, Brzostowski J, Roszkowska E (2012) Reference points-based methods in supporting the evaluation of negotiation offers. Oper Res Decis 22:1021

    Google Scholar 

  • Wachowicz T, Kersten GE, Roszkowska E (2018) Some methodological considerations for the organization and analysis of inter-and intra-cultural negotiation experiments. In: Chen Y, Kersten G, Vetschera R, Xu H (eds) Group decision and negotiation in an uncertain world. GDN 2018. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing. Springer, 315:82–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Wachowicz T, Kersten GE, Roszkowska E (2019) How do I tell you what I want? Agent’s interpretation of principal’s preferences and its impact on understanding the negotiation process and outcomes. Oper Res Int J 19:993–1032. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-018-00448-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young HP (ed) (1991) Negotiation analysis. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  • Zartman IW (1989) Prenegotiation: phases and functions. Int J 44:237–253

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Prof. Gregory Kersten from Concordia University for his inspiring contribution and support in earlier research related to measuring the accuracy of negotiation offer scoring systems in the principal-agent negotiations. The research presented in this chapter was partly supported by the grant from the Polish National Science Center (2016/21/B/HS4/01583).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Operations Research, University of Economics in Katowice, Katowice, Poland

    Tomasz Wachowicz

  2. Faculty of Economics and Finance, University of Białystok, Bialystok, Poland

    Ewa Roszkowska

Authors
  1. Tomasz Wachowicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ewa Roszkowska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomasz Wachowicz .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Wilfrid Laurier University Dept. Mathematics, Waterloo, ON, Canada

    D. Marc Kilgour

  2. University of Strathclyde Strathclyde Business School, Glasgow, UK

    Colin Eden

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Wachowicz, T., Roszkowska, E. (2020). Holistic Preferences and Prenegotiation Preparation. In: Kilgour, D., Eden, C. (eds) Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12051-1_64-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12051-1_64-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-12051-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-12051-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation