TOPSIS Based Approach to Scoring Negotiating Offers in Negotiation Support Systems
- 1.7k Downloads
In this paper we analyze the possibility of applying the technique for order preferences by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) to building the scoring system for negotiating offers. TOPSIS is a multiple criteria decision making method that is based on measuring distances between alternatives under consideration and two bipolar reference alternatives, a positive and negative ideal. Thus the criteria used for the evaluation of alternatives should be described using strong scales. However, in the negotiation, the issues are very often described qualitatively, which results in ordinal or even nominal variables that must be taken into consideration in offers’ evaluation process. What is more, TOPSIS may be applied to solving the discrete decision problems while the negotiation space may be defined by the means of continuous variables too. In this paper we try to modify the TOPSIS algorithm to make it applicable to negotiation support and, moreover, discuss the following methodological issues: using TOPSIS for a negotiation problem with continuous negotiation space; selecting the distance measure for adequate representation of negotiator’s preferences and measuring distances for qualitative issues. Finally, we propose a simple additional mechanism that allows for building the TOPSIS-based scoring system for negotiating offers and does not involve negotiators in time consuming and tiresome preference elicitation process. This mechanism requires from negotiators to construct examples of offers that represent some categories of quality and then by using a goal programming approach it infers all the parameters required by the TOPSIS algorithm. We also show a simple prototype software tool that applies the TOPSIS modified algorithm and may be used in electronic negotiation support.
KeywordsNegotiation support Electronic negotiation Preference analysis Scoring system for negotiating offers Continuous negotiation space TOPSIS Distance measures Goal programming
This research was partially supported by the grant of the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education (N N111 234936).
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
- Cox TF, Cox MAA (2001) Multidimentional scaling, 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
- Hellwig Z (1968) Procedure of evaluating high level manpower data and typology of countries by means of the taxonomic method. Prz Stat (Stat Rev) 15(4): 308–327Google Scholar
- Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Mousseau V (1995) Eliciting information concerning the relative importance of criteria. In: Pardalos P, Siskos Y, Zopounidis C (eds) Advances in multicriteria analysis, nonconvex optimization and its applications. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 17–43Google Scholar
- Mustajoki J, Hamalainen RP (2000) Web-HIPRE: global decision support by value tree and AHP analysis. INFOR 38(3): 208–220Google Scholar
- Paradis N, Gettinger J, Lai H, Surboeck M, Wachowicz T (2010) E-negotiations via Inspire 2.0: the system, users, management and projects. In: de Vreede GJ (ed) Group decision and negotiations 2010. Proceedings. The Center for Collaboration Science, University of Nebraska at Omaha, pp 155–159Google Scholar
- Pawełek B (2008) Analyzing the sensitivity of Jeffreys-Matusit and Canberra measures for small changes of variables’ values (text in Polish). Krak Univ Econ Res Pap 797: 143–159Google Scholar
- Raiffa H (1953) Arbitration schemes for generalized two-person games. In: Kuhn HW, Tucker AW (eds) Contributions to the theory of games, vol II. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 361–388Google Scholar
- Raiffa H (1982) The art and science of negotiation. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Raiffa H, Richardson J, Metcalfe D (2002) Negotiation analysis. The science and art of collaborative decision making. The Balknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- Simons T, Tripp TM (2003) The negotiation checklist. In: Lewiski RJ, Saunders DM, Minton JW, Barry B (eds) Negotiation. Reading, excersises and cases. 4th edn. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Thiessen EM, Shakun MF (2009) First nation negotiations in Canada: action research using SmartSettle. In: Kilgour DM, Wang Q (eds) Proceedings of GDN 2009: An International Conference on Group Decision and Negotiation, Wilfried Laurier University, TorontoGoogle Scholar
- Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1944) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Wachowicz T, Kersten GE (2009) Decisions and manners of electronic negotiation system users. In: Kłosiński KA, Biela A (eds) Proceedings of an international scientific conference “A Man And His Decisions”. John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin Press, Lublin, pp 63–74Google Scholar
- Wachowicz T (2011) Application of TOPSIS methodology to the scoring of negotiation issues measured on the ordinal scale. In: Trzaskalik T, Wachowicz T (eds) Multiple criteria decision making’10/11. Publisher of The University of Economics in Katowice, Katowice, pp 238–258Google Scholar
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.