Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 145–164 | Cite as

The Dynamics of Negotiation in a Global Inter-Organizational Network: Findings from the Air Transport and Travel Industry

  • Jaco Appelman
  • Etiënne Rouwette
  • Sajda Qureshi


Networks of interdependent organizations, also known as network-based businesses, are being shaped by many forces. In supporting negotiations between the airlines and travel agencies locked in a principle/agent relationship wrought with tension, this paper uncovers the dynamics of negotiating in a global inter-organizational network. It provides guidelines for supporting such negotiations. Networks, as a form of interorganizational co-ordination, are becoming increasingly predominant. Knowledge on how to facilitate negotiations in global inter-organizational networks will become more valuable.

action research collaboration interorganizational networks meeting facilitation negotiation network-based organizations 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ackermann, F., and C. Eden. (2001). “Contrasting Single User and Networked Group Decision Support Systems for Strategy Making,” Group Decision and Negotiation 10(1), 47-66.Google Scholar
  2. Ackermann, F., and C. Eden. (1996). “Contrasting GDSSs and GSSs in the Context of Strategic Change; Implications for Facilitation,” Journal of Decision Systems 6(3), 221-250.Google Scholar
  3. Andersen, D. F., and G. P. Richardson. (1997). “Scripts for Group Model Building,” System Dynamics Review 13(2), 107-130.Google Scholar
  4. Clemons, E. K. (1986). “Information Systems for Sustainable Competitive Advantage,” Information and Management 11(3), 131-136.Google Scholar
  5. Coyne, K. P., and R. Dye. (1998). “Competitive Dynamics of network-based Businesses,” Harvard Business Review.Google Scholar
  6. Dean, D. L., R. E. Orwig, J. D. Lee, and D. R. Vogel. (1994). “Modeling with a Group Modeling Tool: Group Support, Model Quality, and Validation,” Proceedings of the 27th Hawaiian International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, volume IV, 214-223.Google Scholar
  7. Dean, D. L., J. D. Lee, R. E. Orwig, and D. R. Vogel. (1995). “Technological Support for Group Process Modeling,” Journal of Management Information Systems 11(3), 43-64.Google Scholar
  8. Dennis, A. R., K. T. Craig, D. R. Vogel, and J. F. Nunamaker, Jr. (1997). “Group Support Systems for Strategic Planning,” Journal of Management Information Systems 14(1), 155-184.Google Scholar
  9. de Vreede, G. J., and H. de Bruijn. (1999). “Exploring the Boundaries of Successful GSS Application: Supporting Inter-Organizational Policy Networks,” Database for Advances in Information Systems 30(3/4), 111-131.Google Scholar
  10. de Vreede, G. J. (1997-1998). “Collaborative Support for Design: Animated Electronic Meetings,” Journal of Management Information Systems 14(3), 141-164.Google Scholar
  11. de Vreede, G. J., and G. W. Dickson. (2000). “Using GSS to Support Designing Organizational Processes and Information Systems: An Action Research Study on Collaborative Business Engineering,” Group Decision and Negotiation 9(2), 161-183.Google Scholar
  12. Dickson, G. W., M. Limayem, J. E. L. Partridge, and G. DeSanctis. (1996). “Facilitating Computer Supported Meetings: A Cumulative Analysis In A Multiple Criteria Task Environment,” Group Decision and Negotiation 5(1), 51-72.Google Scholar
  13. Dyer, J., and H. Singh. (1998). “The Relational View: Co-Operative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage,” Academy of Management Review 23(4), 660-679.Google Scholar
  14. Eden, C. (1992). “On the Nature of Cognitive Maps,” Journal of Management Studies 29, 309-324.Google Scholar
  15. Eden, C. (1992). “Strategy Development as a Social Process”, Journal of Management Studies 29, 6.Google Scholar
  16. Geyskens, I., N. Kumar, J. B. E. M. Steenkamp. (1995). Generalizations About Trust in Marketing Channel Relationships Using Meta-Analysis, working Paper: Catholic University of Leuven, Department of Applied Economics.Google Scholar
  17. Jelassi, M., and A. Foroughi. (1989). “Negotiation Support Systems: An Overview of Design Issues and Existing Software,” Decision Support Systems (2), 167-182.Google Scholar
  18. Konsynski, B. R., and F. W. McFarlan. (1990). “Information Partnerships — Shared Data, Shared Scale,” Harvard Business Review September-October, 114-120.Google Scholar
  19. Kumar, N., J. D. Hibbard, and L. W. Stern. (1995). The Nature and Consequences of Marketing Channel Intermediary Commitment, working paper: report No. 94–115. Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  20. Lane, D. C. (1992). “Modelling as Learning: A Consultancy Methodology for Enhancing Learning in Management Teams,” European Journal of Operations Research 59, 64-84.Google Scholar
  21. Lewin. K. (1958). Resolving Social Conflicts. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  22. Limayem, M., J. L. Partridge, G. Dickson, and G. DeSanctis. (1993). “Enhancing GDSS Effectiveness: Automated versus Human Facilitation,” Proceedings of the 26th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA.Google Scholar
  23. Lyytinen, K., P. Maaranen, and J. Knuuttilla. (1994). “Groups Are not Always the Same: an Analysis of Group Behaviors in Electronic Meeting Systems,” Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 2, 261-284.Google Scholar
  24. McGrath, G. M., and B. Campbell. (2001). “Implementing Recommendations as a Result of a System Dynamics Intervention.” Proceedings of the 34 th of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  25. Miles, R. E., and C.C. Snow. (1992). “Causes of Failure in Network Organizations,” California Management Review (Summer), 53-72.Google Scholar
  26. Mingers, J., and A. Gill. (1997). Multimethodology: The Theory and Practice of Combining Management Science Methodologies. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Niederman, F., C. M. Beise, and P. M. Beranek. (1996). “Issues and Concerns About Computer-supported Meetings: The Facilitators Perspective,” MISQ 20(1), 1-22.Google Scholar
  28. Nooteboom, B. (2000). “Institutions and Forms of Co-ordination in Innovation Systems,” Organization Studies 21(5), 915-939.Google Scholar
  29. Nooteboom, B. (1992). “Towards a Dynamic Theory of Transactions,” Journal of Evolutionary Economics 2, 985-1010.Google Scholar
  30. Nunamaker, J., R. Grohowski, C. McGoff, D. Vogel, and B. Martz. (1990). “Implementing Electronic Meeting Systems at IBM: Lessons Learned,” MIS Quarterly.Google Scholar
  31. Nunamaker, J., R. O. Briggs, D. D. Mittleman, and P. A. Balthazard. (1996/97). “Lessons From a Dozen Years of Group Support Systems Research: A Discussion of Lab and Field Findings,” Journal of Management Information Systems 13(3), 163-207.Google Scholar
  32. Powell, W. W. (1991). “Expanding the Scope of Institutional Analysis,” in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 183-203.Google Scholar
  33. Qureshi, S., I. Bogenrieder, and K. Kumar. (2000). “Managing Participative Diversity in Virtual teams: Requirements for Collaborative Technology Support,” Proceedings of the Thirty Third Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  34. Qureshi, S. (2000). “Organizational Change through Collaborative Learning in a Network Form,” Group Decision and Negotiation 9(2), 129-147.Google Scholar
  35. Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  36. Schepers, W. (1991). “Group Decision Support Systems: an Inquiry into Theoretical and Philosophical Issues,” Doctoral Dissertation, Tilburg University, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  37. Schutz, A. et al. (1962-1996). Collected Papers. The Hague: Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  38. Sydow, J. (1998). “Understanding the Constitution of Interorganizational Trust,” in Trust Within and Between Organizations. New York: Oxford University Press, 31-64.Google Scholar
  39. Vennix, J. A. M. (1998). Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using System Dynamics, 2nd Ed. Chicester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  40. Vogel, D. R., R. E. Orwig, D. L. Dean, J. D. Lee, and C. Arthur. (1993). “Reengineering with Enterprise Analyzer,” Proceedings of the 26th Hawaiian International Conference on System Sciences. Los Alamitos CA: IEEE Computer Society Press, 127-136.Google Scholar
  41. Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in Organisations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Watson, R., G. DeSanctis, and M. Poole. (1988). “Using a GDSS to Facilitate Group Consensus: Some Intended and Unintended Consequences,” MIS Quarterly 12(3), 463-477.Google Scholar
  43. Williamson, O. E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism; Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  44. Wolstenholme, E. (1992). “The Definition and Application of a Stepwise Approach to Model Conceptualisation and Analysis,” European Journal of Operations Research 59, 123-136.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaco Appelman
    • 1
  • Etiënne Rouwette
    • 2
  • Sajda Qureshi
    • 3
  1. 1.Centre for Tourism Management, Department of Marketing ManagementRotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Methodology Department, Faculty of Policy SciencesUniversity of NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Information and Decision Sciences, Rotterdam School of ManagementErasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations