Modeling distributive and integrative negotiations. Review and revised characterization

被引:54
作者
Kersten, GE [1 ]
机构
[1] Concordia Univ, J Molson Sch Business, Montreal, PQ, Canada
基金
加拿大自然科学与工程研究理事会;
关键词
decision support; distributive negotiation; efficiency; integrative negotiation; modelling; negotiation; negotiation analysis;
D O I
10.1023/A:1012256222803
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
The development of user-friendly negotiation support systems enabled negotiators to obtain advice directly from the system rather than via an intermediary. The emergence of e-commerce and the development of negotiating software agents further contributed to the automation of negotiation activities. These developments exposed inconsistencies in the descriptions of integrative and distributed negotiations. They also showed limitations of the existing modeling methods. These methods were designed to support negotiation experts who themselves had to make distinctions between distributive and integrative processes. Inconsistent descriptions and the lack of formal models that could be embedded in systems often contribute to a mechanical approach to negotiations compounding the difficulty in the design and development of software that can be used in real-life situations. The contradictions between the characteristics of integrative and distributive negotiations are discussed and assumptions for these two types as well as qualitative differences between them are proposed. Negotiation literature suggests that it is the negotiators' perception of the problem that leads to the their focus on either distributive or integrative conflict resolution. This may be the case for negotiations that are not supported with software. In case of the latter it is the design principles and information processing that that differentiates these two types of negotiations. Negotiation representation based on the information requirements for different types of conflict is proposed.
引用
收藏
页码:493 / 514
页数:22
相关论文
共 40 条
[1]   A DEMONSTRATION OF METHODS FOR STUDYING NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN PHYSICIANS AND HEALTH-CARE MANAGERS [J].
ALEMI, F ;
FOS, P ;
LACORTE, W .
DECISION SCIENCES, 1990, 21 (03) :633-641
[2]  
Bazerman M., 1991, NEGOTIATION ANAL, P109
[3]  
Bui T. X., 1994, Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Vol.IV: Information Systems: Collaboration Technology Organizational Systems and Technology (Cat. No.94TH0607-2), P316, DOI 10.1109/HICSS.1994.323483
[4]   Discrepant values and measures of negotiator performance [J].
Clyman, DR ;
Tripp, TM .
GROUP DECISION AND NEGOTIATION, 2000, 9 (04) :251-274
[5]   MEASURES OF JOINT PERFORMANCE IN DYADIC MIXED-MOTIVE NEGOTIATIONS [J].
CLYMAN, DR .
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 1995, 64 (01) :38-48
[6]   Generating pareto solutions in a two-party setting:: Constraint proposal methods [J].
Ehtamo, H ;
Hämäläinen, RP ;
Heiskanen, P ;
Teich, J ;
Verkama, M ;
Zionts, S .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 1999, 45 (12) :1697-1709
[7]   MODELING INTEGRATIVE, MULTIPLE ISSUE BARGAINING [J].
GUPTA, S .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 1989, 35 (07) :788-806
[8]  
Jelassi M. T., 1988, Organizational Decision Support Systems. Proceedings of the IFIP WG 8.3 Working Conference, P75
[9]  
Kelley H.H., 1966, STRATEGIC INTERACTIO
[10]  
Kersten G.E., 1999, J MULTI-CRITERIA DEC, V2, P106, DOI [10.1002/(SICI)1099-1360(199903)8:23.0.CO