Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 143–164

The Montreal Taxonomy for Electronic Negotiations

  • Michael Ströbel
  • Christof Weinhardt
Article

Abstract

Research in the domain of electronic negotiations is a rather new and very interdisciplinary field, which gains more and more attention due to the industry hype and momentum regarding electronic commerce and electronic markets. Negotiations in a narrow sense (not taking into account simple forms such as “hit and take”) have been identified as an advantageous coordination mechanism for the interaction of buyers and sellers in electronic markets that transcend the selling of commodities or uniform goods. Hence, support for negotiations may become a critical success factor for electronic markets, especially regarding the recent failures of many industrial ventures. This paper presents the Montreal Taxonomy, which allows not only for the exact characterisation and comparison of a broad variety of electronic negotiation designs and systems, ranging from auctions to bilateral bargaining tables, but could also lead towards a more structured approach for the design of electronic negotiations.

classification electronic auctions electronic negotiations taxonomy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alt, R., and H.-D. Zimmermann. (2001). “Guest Editors Note,” EM - Electronic Markets 11 (1).Google Scholar
  2. Bassil, S., M. Benyoucef, and D. Neumann. (2003). “A Comparison of Electronic Negotiation Systems,” Group Decision and Negotiation (forthcoming in the next special issue on e-Negotiations).Google Scholar
  3. Bichler, M., G. Kersten, and S. Strecker. (2003). “Engineering of Negotiations,” Group Decision and Negotiation (forthcoming in the next special issue on e-Negotiations).Google Scholar
  4. Bichler, M. (2003). “A Roadmap to Auction-based Negotiation Protocols for Electronic Commerce,” Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (HICSS).Google Scholar
  5. Field, S., M. Stolze, and M. Stroebel. (2000). “1st e-Negotiations Workshop - Negotiations Beyond Price,” DEXA Workshops, http://www.zurich.ibm.com/ mrs/dexa2000/.Google Scholar
  6. Gulliver, P. (1979). Disputes and Negotiations: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Guttman, R. and P. Maes. (1998). “Agent-mediated Integrative Negotiation for Retail Electronic Commerce,” Proceedings of the Workshop on Agent Mediated Electronic Trading, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  8. Hurwicz, L. (1973). “The Design of Mechanisms for Resource Allocation,” American Economic Review 63 (1), 30.Google Scholar
  9. Kersten, G., S. Noronha, and J. Teich. (2000). “Are All E-Commerce Negotiations Auctions?,” Proceedings of 5th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems (COOP). Sophia Antipolis, France.Google Scholar
  10. Kumar, M. and S. Feldman. (1998). “Business Negotiations on the Internet Proceedings of INET.” Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  11. Lomuscio, A. R., M. Wooldridge, and N. R. Jennings. (1991). “A Classification Scheme for Negotiation in Electronic Commerce,” in F. Dignum and C. Sierra (eds.), Agent Mediated Electronic Commerce. Springer LNAI 19, 33.Google Scholar
  12. Rangaswamy, A. and R. Shell. (1997). “Using Computers to Realize Joint Goals in Negotiations: Toward an Electronic Bargaining Table,” Management Science 43 (1147), 1163.Google Scholar
  13. Runge, A. (2000). Die Rolle des Electronic Contracting im elektronischen Handel. Dissertation No. 2366, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  14. Schmid, B. (1998). “Was ist neu an der digitalen Ökonomie?,” in M. Sauter and A. Hermanns (eds.), Handbuch Electronic Commerce. Munchen, Germany: Universität der Bundeswehr.Google Scholar
  15. Ströbel, M. (2000). “The Effects of Electronic Markets on Negotiation Processes,” in H. R. Hansen, M. Bichler, and H. Mahrer (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Vienna Austria, 1 (445), 452.Google Scholar
  16. Ströbel, M. (2000). “A Framework for Electronic Negotiations Based on Adjusted Winner Mediation,” Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA), IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos CA, 1020-1028.Google Scholar
  17. Tu, T., C. Seebode, F. Griffel, and W. Lamersdorf. (2001). “DynamiCS: An Actor-Based Framework for Negotiating Mobile Agents,” Electronic Commerce Research 1 (101), 107.Google Scholar
  18. Weinhardt, C. and P. Gomber. (1999). “Agent-Mediated Off-Exchange Trading,” Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii Conference on System Sciences, Maui.Google Scholar
  19. Wooldridge, M. and S. Parsons. (2001). “Issues in the Design of Negotiation Protocols for Logic-based Agent Communication,” in F. Dignum and C. Sierra (eds), Agent Mediated Electronic Commerce, Springer LNAI 70, 83.Google Scholar
  20. Wurman, P., M. Wellman, and W. Walsh. (2001). “A Parameterization of the Auction Design Space,” Games and Economic Behavior 35 (304), 338.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Ströbel
    • 1
  • Christof Weinhardt
    • 2
  1. 1.BMW GroupMunichGermany
  2. 2.Information Management and SystemsUniversität Karlsruhe (TH)Germany

Personalised recommendations