Electronic Commerce Research

, Volume 7, Issue 3–4, pp 189–220 | Cite as

Enabling assisted strategic negotiations in actual-world procurement scenarios

  • Jesús Cerquides
  • Maite López-Sánchez
  • Antonio Reyes-Moro
  • Juan A. Rodríguez-Aguilar


In the everyday business world, the sourcing process of multiple goods and services usually involves complex negotiations (via telephone, fax, etc.) that include discussion of product and service features. Nowadays, this is a high-cost process due to the scarce use of tools that streamline this negotiation process and assist purchasing managers’ decision-making. With the advent of Internet-based technologies, it has become feasible the idea of tools enabling low-cost, assisted, fluid, on-line dialogs between buyer enterprises and their providers wherever they are located. Consequently, several commercial systems to support on-line negotiations (e-sourcing tools) have been released. It is our view that there is still a need for these systems to incorporate effective decision support. This article presents the foundations of Quotes, a commercial sourcing application developed by iSOCO that, in addition to cover the whole sequence of sourcing tasks, incorporates decision support facilities based on Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques that successfully address previous limitations within a single and coherent framework. The paper focuses on the computational realization of sourcing tasks along with the decision support facilities they require. While supported negotiation events are Request for Quotations/Proposals (RFQs/RFPs) and reverse auctions, decision support facilities include offer generation, offer comparison, and optimal bid set computation (winner determination) in combinatorial negotiations. Additionally, the paper presents a compound of experiences and lessons learned when using Quotes for real sourcing processes.


Negotiation E-procurement Sourcing Auctions Artificial intelligence 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Aberdeen Group. (2002). Making e-sourcing strategic: from tactical technology to core business strategy. Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andersson, A., Tenhunen, M., & Ygge, F. (2000). Integer programming for combinatorial auction winner determination. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on multi-agent systems (ICMAS) (pp. 39–46), Boston, MA. Google Scholar
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Baas, X., & Kwakernaak, X. (1977). Rating and ranking of multiple-aspect alternatives using fuzzy sets. Automatica, 13, 47–58. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bichler, M., Kalagnanam, J., & Lee, H. S. (2002). RECO: Representation and evaluation of configurable offers. In H. K. Bhargava, N. Ye (Eds.), Computational modeling and problem solving in the networked world: interfaces in computing and optimization. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Collins, J., & Gini, M. (2001). An integer programming formulation of the bid evaluation problem for coordinated tasks. In B. Dietrich, R. V. Vohra (Eds.), IMA volumes in mathematics and its applications: Vol. 127. Mathematics of the Internet: e-auction and markets (pp. 59–74). New York: Springer. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    De Vries, S., & Vohra, R. (2001). Combinatorial auctions: a survey. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    E-negotiation group (2000). The London classification. In DEXA workshop on e-negotiations, London. Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fujishima, Y., Leyton-Brown, K., & Shoham, Y. (1999). Taming the computational complexity of combinatorial auctions: Optimal and approximate approaches. In Proceedings of the sixteenth international joint conference on artificial intelligence, IJCAI’99 (pp. 548–553). Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Godo, L., & López de Mántaras, R. (1993). Fuzzy logic. In Encyclopedia of computer science and technology (Vol. 29, pp. 211–229). Pennsylvania: Dekker. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Holte, R. C. (2001). Lecture notes in computer science : Vol. 2056. Combinatorial auctions, knapsack problems, and hill-climbing search. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoos, H. H., & Boutilier, C. (2000). Solving combinatorial auctions using stochastic local search. In Proceedings of AAAI-2000. Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jap, S. D. (2002). Online, reverse auctions: issues, themes, and prospects for the future. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(4), 506–525. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kalagnanam, J., & Parkes, D. C. (2003). Auctions, bidding and exchange design. In D. Simchi-Levi, S. D. Wu, & Z. M. Shen (Eds.), Supply chain analysis in the e-business era, Chap. 10. Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Keeney, R. L., Raiffa, H., & Meyer, R. (1993). Decision making with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Makhorin, A. (2001). GLPK–GNU linear programming toolkit. 2001
  18. 18.
    McAfee, R. P. (1995). Auction design for the real world.
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
    Reyes-Moro, A., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J. A., Cerquides, J., López-Sánchez, M., & Gutiérrez-Magallanes, D. (2002). Quotes: a negotiation tool for industrial procurement. In Fourth international conference on enterprise information systems (ICEIS 2002), Ciudad Real, Spain, 4–6 April 2002. Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reyes-Moro, A., Rodríguez-Aguilar, J. A., Cerquides, J., López-Sánchez, M., & Gutierrez-Magallanes, D. (2003). Embedding decision support in e-sourcing tools: quotes, a case study. Group Decision and Negotiation Journal, 12, 347–355. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ribeiro, R. A. (1996). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making: a review and new preference elicitation techniques. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 78, 155–181. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rothkopt, M. H., Pekec, A., & Harstad, R. M. (1995). Computationally manageable combinatorial auctions. Management Science, 44(8), 1131–1147. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sandholm, T. (2000). eMediator: a next generation electronic commerce server. In International conference on autonomous agents (AGENTS), Barcelona, Spain, 3–8 June 2000. Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sandholm, T. W. (2002). Algorithm for optimal winner determination in combinatorial auctions. Artificial Intelligence Journal, 135, 1–54. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sandholm, T., Suri, S., Gilpin, A., & Levine, D. (2002). Winner determination in combinatorial auction generalizations. In First international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS’02) (pp. 69–76), Bologna, Italy. Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sandholm, T., & Suri, S. (2006). Side constraints and non-price attributes in markets. Games and Economic Behavior, 55(2), 321–330. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stephens Inc. (2001). Internet supply chain team. Strategic sourcing: applications to turn direct materials procurement into competitive advantage. Industry Report, 30 January 2001. Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Van de Walle, B., Heitsch, S., & Faratin, P. (2001): Coping with one-to-many multi-criteria negotiations in electronic markets. In Proceedings of the second international workshop on negotiations in electronic markets: beyond price discovery, held during DEXA 2001 (pp. 747–751), Munich, Germany, September 2001. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jesús Cerquides
    • 1
  • Maite López-Sánchez
    • 1
  • Antonio Reyes-Moro
    • 2
  • Juan A. Rodríguez-Aguilar
    • 3
  1. 1.WAI Volume Visualization and AI Research Group, Departament de Matemàtica Aplicada i Anàlisi, MAiA, Facultat de MatemàtiquesUniversitat de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.ATAMA SolutionsSant Cugat del VallèsBarcelonaSpain
  3. 3.IIIA-CSIC, Artificial Intelligence Research InstituteBellaterraBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations