Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 14, Issue 6, pp 441–460 | Cite as

The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution: Past, Present, and Future

Article

Abstract

The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution is a methodology for the modeling and analysis of strategic conflicts. An historical overview of the graph model is presented, including the basic modeling and analysis components of the methodology, the decision support system GMCR II that is now used to apply it, and the recent initiatives that are currently in various stages of development. The capacity of this simple, flexible system to provide advice to decision-makers facing strategic conflicts is emphasized throughout, and illustrated using a real-life groundwater contamination dispute.

Key words

Graph Model for Conflict Resolution GMCR II strategic conflict stability equilibrium coalition analysis status quo analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Brams, S. J. (1994). Theory of Moves, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Fang, L., K. W. Hipel, and D. M. Kilgour. (1993). Interactive Decision Making: The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Fang, L., K. W. Hipel, D. M. Kilgour, and X. Peng. (2003a). “A Decision Support System for Interactive Decision Making, Part 1: Model Formulation,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C 33(1), 42–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fang, L., K. W. Hipel, D. M. Kilgour, and X. Peng. (2003b). “A Decision Support System for Interactive Decision Making, Part 2: Analysis and Output Interpretation,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C 33(1), 56–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fraser, N. M. and K. W. Hipel. (1984). Conflict Analysis: Models and Resolutions. New York: North Holland.Google Scholar
  6. Hamouda, L., D. M. Kilgour, and K. W. Hipel. (2004a). “Strength of Preference in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution,” Group Decision and Negotiation 13, 449–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hamouda, L., K. W. Hipel, and D. M. Kilgour. (2004b). “Shellfish Conflict in Baynes Sound: A Strategic Perspective,” Environmental Management 34(4), 474–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hipel, K.W. (2002). “Conflict Resolution,” Theme Overview Paper, in Conflict Resolution, Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), Oxford, UK: EOLSS Publishers, http://www.eolss.net.
  9. Hipel, K. W., Fraser, N. M., and Cooper, A. F. (1990). “Conflict Analysis of the Trade in Services Dispute,” Information and Decision Technologies 16(4), 347–360.Google Scholar
  10. Hipel, K. W., D. M. Kilgour, L. Fang, and X. Peng. (1997). “The Decision Support System GMCR II in Environmental Conflict Management,” Applied Mathematics and Computation 83(2/3), 117–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hipel, K. W., D. M. Kilgour, L. Fang, and X. Peng. (2001). “Strategic Decision Support for the Services Industry,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 48(3), 358–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Howard, N. (1971). Paradoxes of Rationality: Theory of Metagames and Political Behaviour. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Howard, N. (1999). Confrontation Analysis: How to Win Operations Other Than War. Pentagon, Washington, DC: CCRP Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Kandel, A., Y. Zhang, P. S. S. Borges. (1998). “Fuzzy Prisoner's Dilemma,” Fuzzy Econ. Rev. 3(1), 3–20.Google Scholar
  15. Kilgour, D. M., K. W. Hipel, and L. Fang (1987). “The Graph Model for Conflicts,” Automatica 23(1), 41-55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kilgour, D. M., K. W. Hipel, L. Fang, and X. Peng. (1998). “Applying the Decision Support System GMCR II to Peace Operations,” in Analysis for and of the Resolution of Conflict (A. E. R. Woodcock and D. F. Davis, eds.) Cornwallis Park, NS: Canadian Peacekeeping Press, pp. 29–47.Google Scholar
  17. Kilgour, D. M., K. W. Hipel, L. Fang, and X. Peng. (2001). “Coalition Analysis in Group Decision Support,” Group Decision and Negotiation 10(2) 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li, K. W., Hipel, K. W., Kilgour, D. M., and Fang, L. (2004a). “Preference Uncertainty in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A 34(4), 507–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li, W., F. Karray, K. W. Hipel, and D. M. Kilgour. (2001). “Fuzzy Approaches to the Game of Chicken,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 9(4), 608–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li, K. W., D. M. Kilgour, and K. W. Hipel. (2004b). “Status Quo Analysis of the Flathead River Conflict,” Water Resources Research 40, W05S03.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Li, K. W., D. M. Kilgour, and K. W. Hipel. (2005). “Status Quo Analysis in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution,” Journal of the Operational Research Society 56(6), 699–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Li, K. W., K. W. Hipel, D. M. Kilgour, and D. J. Noakes. (2006). “Integrating Uncertain Preferences into Status Quo Analysis with Application to an Environmental Conflict,” Group Decision and Negotiation (this issue).Google Scholar
  23. Noakes, D. J., L. Fang, K. W. Hipel, and D. M. Kilgour. (2003). “An Examination of the Salmon Aquaculture Conflict in British Columbia using the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution,” Fisheries Management and Ecology 10, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Noakes, D. J., L. Fang, K. W. Hipel, and D. M. Kilgour. (2006). “The Pacific Salmon Treaty: A Century of Debate and an Uncertain Future,” Group Decision and Negotiation (this issue).Google Scholar
  25. Obeidi, A., K. W. Hipel, and D. M. Kilgour. (2002). “Canadian Bulk Water Exports: Analyzing the Sun Belt Conflict using the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution,” Knowledge, Technology, and Policy 14(4), 145–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Obeidi, A., K. W. Hipel, and D. M. Kilgour. (2005). “Perception and Emotion in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution,” Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Waikoloa, HI, October 2005.Google Scholar
  27. Obeidi, A., K. W. Hipel, and D. M. Kilgour. (2006). “The Role of Emotions in Envisioning Outcomes in Conflict Analysis,” Group Decision and Negotiation (this issue).Google Scholar
  28. Raiffa, H. (1982). The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Raiffa, H., J. Richardson, and D. Metcalfe. (2002). Negotiation Analysis: The Science and Art of Collaborative Decision Making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. von Neumann, J. and O. Morgenstern. (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Zeng, D.-Z., L. Fang, K. W. Hipel and D. M. Kilgour. (2005). “Policy Stable States in the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution,” Theory and Decision 57, 345–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsWilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Department of Systems Design EngineeringUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooOntarioCanada

Personalised recommendations