Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 8, Issue 6, pp 511–533

Accessibility of Computer-based Simulation Models in Inherently Conflict-Laden Negotiations

  • Ilze Zigurs
  • Rene Reitsma
  • Clayton Lewis
  • Roland Hübscher
  • Cynthia Hayes
Article

Abstract

The use of computer-based simulation models has a long history in areas such as environmental planning and policy-making, and particularly in water management. Policy making in these areas is often characterized by inherent conflict among diverse stakeholders with divergent interests. Although simulation models have been shown to be helpful for such problems, they are typically under the control of a technical analyst or governmental agency and are not available to negotiators in real time. Recent trends in computer technology and user expectations raise the possibility of real-time, user-controlled models for supporting negotiation. But is such accessibility likely to be helpful? This study used a "compressed" longitudinal experiment to investigate the impacts of different scenarios of accessibility of computer-based simulation models. The task was based on a real-life problem in Colorado River water management. Results revealed no significant differences among conditions for either solution quality or satisfaction. These results suggest that the common notion of "more is better" may be inappropriate, and resources for improving computer support of negotiation might best be focused elsewhere.

computer-aided negotiation computer simulation group decision group support systems environmental conflict resource allocation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andrews, C.J. (1991) “Building Consensus on a Shoestring: The Efficacy of Packaged Models in Joint Fact-Finding,” Conference on Computers in Urban Planning and Management, Oxford, England, 371–386.Google Scholar
  2. Bazerman, M.H., Mannix, E., Sondak, H., and L. Thompson (1990) “Negotiator Behavior and Decision Processes in Dyads, Groups, and Markets.” in: J. S. Carroll (ed.), Applied Social Psychology and Organizational Settings. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Bui, T., and C. Loebbecke (1996) “Supporting Cognitive Feedback Using System Dynamics: A Demand Model of the Global System of Mobile Telecommunication,” Decision Support Systems 17(2), 83–98.Google Scholar
  4. Dennis, A.(1996). “You Can Lead a Group to Water, But You Can't Make it Think,” MIS Quarterly 20(4), 433–458.Google Scholar
  5. Dennis, A., and R.B. Gallupe (1993) “A History of Group Support Systems Empirical Research: Lessons Learned and Future Direction.” in: L. Jessup and J. Valacich (eds.), Group Support Systems: New Perspectives. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Dutton, W.H., and K.L. Kraemer (1985) Modeling as Negotiating: The Political Dynamics of Computer Models in the Policy Process. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.Google Scholar
  7. Fedra, K., E. Weigkricht, and L. Winkelbauer (1986) “A Hybrid Approach to Information and Decision Support Systems: Hazardous Substances and Industrial Risk Management,” in: IFA C Proceedings of the Conference on Economy and Artificial Intelligence, Aix-en-Provence, France.Google Scholar
  8. Gouran, D.S., C. Brown, and D.R. Henry (1978) Behavioral Correlates of Perceptions of Quality in Decision-Making Discussions,” Communication Monographs 45, 51–63.Google Scholar
  9. Green, S.G., and T.D. Taber (1980) “The Effects of Three Social Decision Schemes on Decision Group Process”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 25, 97–106.Google Scholar
  10. Jelassi, M.T., and A. Foroughi (1989) “Negotiation Support Systems: An Overview of Design Issues and Existing Software,” Decision Support Systems 5(2), 167–18 1.Google Scholar
  11. Johnson, L.E. (1990) “Computer-Aided Planning for Multiple-Purpose Reservoir Operations Policies,” AWRA Water Resources Bulletin 26, 299–311.Google Scholar
  12. Johnson, L.E. (1986) “Water Resource Management Decision Support Systems,” ASCE Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 112, 308–325.Google Scholar
  13. Kanji, G.K. (1993) 100 Statistical Tests. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Kraemer, K.L. (1985) “Modeling as Negotiating: The Political Dynamics of Computer Models in Policy Making” in Advances in Information Processing in Organizations, Vol. 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  15. Lewis, L.F., and M.F. Shakun (1996) “Using a Group Support System to Implement Evolutionary System Design,” Group Decision and Negotiation 5, 319–337.Google Scholar
  16. Lim, L., and I. Benbasat (1992- 93) “A Theoretical Perspective of Negotiation Support Systems,” Journal of Management Information Systems 9(3), 27–44.Google Scholar
  17. Loucks, D.P., J. Kindler, and K. Fedra (1985) “Interactive Water Resources Modeling and Model Use: An Overview,” Water Resources Research 21(2), 95–102.Google Scholar
  18. Mays, L.M. (ed.) (1996) Water Resources Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  19. Nunamaker, J.F., Jr., A.R. Dennis, J.S. Valacich, D.R. Vogel, and J.F. George (1991) “Electronic Meeting Systems to Support Group Work,” Communications of the ACM 34(7), 40–61.Google Scholar
  20. Nyhart, J.D., and D.K. Samarasan (1989) “The Elements of Negotiation Management,” Negotiation Journal, 43–62.Google Scholar
  21. Palmer, R.N., A.M. Keyes, and S. Fisher (1993) “Empowering Stakeholders Through Simulation in Water Resources Planning,” in: K. Hon (ed.), Water Management in the 90's: A Time for Innovation. New York: ASCE.Google Scholar
  22. Reisner, M. (1987) Cadillac Desert: The American West and its Disappearing Water. Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  23. Reitsma, R., I. Zigurs, C. Lewis, V. Wilson, and A. Sloane (1996) “Experiment with Simulation Models in Water-Resources Negotiations,” Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management Jan/Feb., 64–70.Google Scholar
  24. Samarasan, D.K. (1988) “Collaborative Modeling and Negotiation,” in; R. Allen (ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on Information Systems. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  25. Sengupta, K., and D. Te'eni (1993) “Cognitive Feedback in GDSS: Improving Control and Convergence,” MIS Quarterly 17(1), 87–113.Google Scholar
  26. Stevens, C.A., and P.N. Finlay (1996) “A Research Framework for Group Support Systems,” Group Decision and Negotiation 5, 521–543.Google Scholar
  27. Strzepek, K.M., and S.C. Chapra (1990) “Do the Right Thing,” Civil Engineering. Google Scholar
  28. Thompson, L. (1990) “Negotiation Behavior and Outcomes: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Issues,” Psychological Bulletin 108(3), 515–532.Google Scholar
  29. Thompson, L., and R. Hastie (1990) “Social Perception in Negotiation,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 47, 98–123.Google Scholar
  30. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (1980) Updating the Hoover Dam Documents; 1978. United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado.Google Scholar
  31. Winter, F.W. (1985) “An Application of Computerized Decision Tree Models in Management Union Bargaining,” Interfaces 15, 74–80.Google Scholar
  32. Zigurs, I., G. DeSanctis, and J. Billingsley (1991) “Adoption Patterns and Attitudinal Development in Computer-Supported Meetings: An Exploratory Study with SAMM,” Journal of Management Information Systems 7(4), 51–70.Google Scholar
  33. Zigurs, I., E.V. Wilson, A. Sloane, R. Reitsma, and C. Lewis (1994) “Simulation Models and Group Negotiation: Problems of Task Understanding and Computer Support,” in: Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, Hawaii, 306–315.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ilze Zigurs
    • 1
  • Rene Reitsma
    • 2
  • Clayton Lewis
    • 3
  • Roland Hübscher
    • 4
  • Cynthia Hayes
    • 5
  1. 1.College of Business and Administration, University of ColoradoBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Department of Information SystemsUniversity of St. Francis XavierAntigonishCanada
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA
  4. 4.Department of Computer Science & EngineeringUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA
  5. 5.Center for Advanced Decision Support for Water & Environmental SystemsUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations