Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 171–184 | Cite as

An Approach to Support Negotiation Processes with Imprecise Information Multicriteria Additive Models

  • João N. ClímacoEmail author
  • Luis C. Dias


This paper discusses the possible uses of the VIP (Variable Interdependent Parameters) Analysis software and methodology in negotiation support. VIP Analysis is a decision support tool that incorporates complementary approaches to deal with the aggregation of multi-criteria performances under imprecise information. Its purpose is to support the evaluation of a discrete set of alternatives according to multi-attribute additive value functions. We propose extensions of the methodology of VIP Analysis to address explicitly the differences among the actors in terms of the weights space.


multicriteria aggregation additive utility/value models imprecise information VIP analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Contreras, I. and A. M. Mármol. (2004). “A Consensus Method for Multiple Criteria Group Decision Problems with Imprecise Information,” in C. H. Antunes and L. C. Dias (eds.), Managing Uncertainty in Decision Support Models – Proc. of 15th Mini-EURO Conference MUDSM 2004, INESC Coimbra.Google Scholar
  2. Dias, L. C. and J. N. Clímaco. (2000). “Additive Aggregation with Variable Interdependent Parameters: The VIP Analysis Software,” Journal of the Operational Research Society 51, 1070–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dias, L. C. and J. N. Clímaco. (2005). “Dealing with Imprecise Information in Group Multicriteria Decisions: A Methodology and a GDSS Architecture,” European Journal of Operational Research 160(2), 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hämäläinen, R. P. (2003). “Decisionarium – Aiding Decisions, Negotiating and Collecting Opinions on the Web,” Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 12, 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Keeney, R. L. and H. Raiffa. (1976). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoff. New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Kersten, G. E. (1985). “NEGO – Group Decision Support System,” Information and Management 8(5), 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kersten, G. E. and G. Lo. (2003). “Aspire: Integration of Negotiation Support System and Software Agents for E-Business Negotiation,” International Journal of Internet and Enterprise Management 1(3), 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kersten, G. E. and S. J. Noronha. (1999). “WWW-based Negotiation Support: Design, Implementation, and Use,” Decision Support Systems 25, 135–154.Google Scholar
  9. Kim, S. H., S. H. Choi and J. K. Kim. (1999). “An Interactive Procedure for Multi-attribute Group Decision Making with Incomplete Information: Range-based approach,” European Journal of Operational Research 118, 139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lahdelma, R. and P. Salminen. (2001). “SMAA-2: Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis for Group Decision Making,” Operations Research 49, 444–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Salo, A. A. (1995). “Interactive Decision Aiding for Group Decision Support,” European Journal of Operational Research 84, 134–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Salo, A. A. and R. P. Hämäläinen. (2001), “Preference Ratios in Multiattribute Evaluation (PRIME) – Elicitation and Decision Procedures Under Incomplete Information,” IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics – Part A: Systems and Humans 31, 533–545.Google Scholar
  13. Tavares, L. V. (2004). “A Model to Support the Search for Consensus with Conflicting Rankings: Multitrident,” International Transactions in Operational Research 11, 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Weber M. (1987). “Decision Making with Incomplete Information,” European Journal of Operational Research 28, 44–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INESC Coimbra and Faculty of EconomicsUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations