Abstract
Seeking an effective approach to supporting negotiation through the use of computer technology, we have constructed a prototype negotiation support system based on the concept of problem structure. Problem structure refers to the characteristics of the feasible settlement space and efficient frontiers as defined by the joint utility distribution of negotiators' utilities. Problem structure is recognized as playing a major role in negotiation processes and outcomes. The cognitive complexity and inherent uncertainty of typical negotiations make it difficult for negotiators to effectively visualize and “navigate” the settlement space defined by the problem structure. As a result, negotiators often resort to suboptimizing heuristics which produce inefficient and/or unsatisfying outcomes. It follows that a promising approach to negotiation support is to exploit the computational speed and graphics capabilities of computer technology to make problem structure and its implications more accessible. Thus, our prototype is designed to allow negotiators to hypothesize problem structure and to explore and manipulate the resulting settlement space quickly and easily. Preliminary experimentation has demonstrated the value of this approach and has suggested areas for extended, comprehensive support. A negotiation process formalism, Cognitive Action Theory, neural network technology, and computer simulation are well-suited to providing more comprehensive support, and we suggest an architecture for delivery through NSS.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
BallmerT., and W.Brennenstuhl. (1981).Speech Act Classification: A Study in the Lexical Analysis of English Speech Activity Verbs. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
BazermanM. H., and M.Neale (1983). “Heuristic in Negotiation: Limitations to Effective Dispute Resolution.” In M.Bazerman and R.Lewicki (eds.),Negotiating in Organizations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
BrownB. R. (1970). “Face-saving Following Experimentally Induced Embarrassment,”Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 6, 255–271.
ChangM. K., and C. C.Woo. (1991). “SANP: A Communication Level Protocol for Negotiations.” Working Paper 91-MIS-013, Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, The University of British Columbia, 2053 Main Hall, Vancouver, B. C., Canada V6T 1Z2, May.
Darling, T., and J. L. Mumpower. (1990). “Modeling Cognitive Influences on the Dynamics of Negotiation.” InProceedings of the Twenty-third Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences: Emerging Technologies and Applications Track, Kona, Hawaii, January, pp. 22–30.
JelassiM. T., and A.Foroughi. (1989). “Negotiation Support Systems: An Overview of Design Issues and Existing Software,”Decision Support Systems 5(2), 167–181.
HiltropJ. M., and J. Z.Rubin. (1981). “Position Loss and Image Loss in Bargaining,”Journal of Conflict Resolution 25, 521–534.
HiltropJ. M. and J. Z.Rubin. (1982). “Effects of Intervention Mode and Conflict of Interest on Dispute Resolution,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42(4), 665–672.
JonesB. H., and M. T.Jelassi. (1990). “The Effects of Computer Intervention and Task Structure on Bargaining Outcome,”Theory and Decision 28, 355–377.
MumpowerJ. L. (1991). “The Judgement Policies of Negotiators and the Structure of Negotiation Problems,”Management Science 17(10), 1304–1324.
NealeM. A. (1984). “The Effect of Negotiation and Arbitration Cost Salience on Bargainer Behavior: The Role of Arbitrator and Constituency in Negotiator Judgment,”Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 34, 97–111.
NealeM. A., and M. H.Bazerman. (1985a). “Perspectives for Understanding Negotiation: Viewing Negotiation as a Judgmental Process,”Journal of Conflict Resolution 29, 33–55.
NealeM. A., and M. H.Bazerman. (1985b). “The Effects of Framing and Negotiator Overconfidence on Bargaining Behaviors and Outcomes,”Academy of Management Journal 28, 34–49.
RoiblatH. (1990). “Cognitive Action Theory as a Control Architecture.” In J.Meyer and S.Wilson (eds.),Proceedings of the First International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior, Paris, France. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, pp. 444–450.
RoiblatH. (1988). “A Cognitive Action Theory of Learning.” In J.Delacour and J. C. S.Levy (eds.),Systems with Learning and Memory Abilities, New York: Elsevier, pp. 13–26.
Woo, C. (1991). “Communication Tools for Facilitating the Automation of Semi-structured and Recurring Negotiation in Organizations.” InProceedings of the Second Conference on Organizational Computing, Coordination, and Collaboration, Austin, TX, February, pp. 1–23.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hill, T.R., Jones, B.H. A prototype NSS based on problem structure and suggestions toward more comprehensive negogiation support. Group Decis Negot 5, 411–432 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02404643
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02404643