Advertisement

Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 287–310 | Cite as

Applying the Montreal Taxonomy to State of the Art E-Negotiation Systems

  • Dirk Neumann
  • Morad Benyoucef
  • Sarita Bassil
  • Julie Vachon
Article

Keywords

Montreal Taxonomy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amihud, Y., T. S. Ho, and R. A. Schwartz. (eds.). (1985). Market Making and the Changing Structure of the Securities Industry. Boston, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  2. Benyoucef, M. and K. Keller. (2000). An Evaluation of Formalisms for Negotiations in E-Commerce. Workshop on Distributed Communities on the Web, Quebec City, QC, Canada: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. Benyoucef, M., R. K. Keller, S. Lamouroux, J. Robert, and V. Trussart. (2000). Towards a Generic E-Negotiation Platform. Sixth International Conference on Re-Technologies for Information Systems, Zurich, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  4. Bichler, M. (2001). The Future of e-Commerce: Multi-Dimensional Market Mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bichler, M., G. E. Kersten, and S. Strecker, (2003). “Towards a Structured Design of Electronic Negotiations,” Group Decision and Negotiation 12 (4), 311–335 (this issue).Google Scholar
  6. Branco, F. (1997). “The Design of Multidimensional Auctions,” Rand Journal of Economics 28 (1), 63–81.Google Scholar
  7. Che, Y.-K. (1993). “Design Competition Through Multidimensional Auctions,” RAND Journal of Economics 24 (4), 668–680.Google Scholar
  8. Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research Design – Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  9. Easley, D. and M. O'Hara. (1992). “Adverse Selection and Large Trade Volume: The Implications for Market Efficiency,” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 27, 185–208.Google Scholar
  10. Ebay. (2003). www.ebay.com Google Scholar
  11. ebreviate. (2003). www.ebreviate.com.Google Scholar
  12. Friedman, M. (1953). Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hurwicz, L. (1973). “The Design of Mechanisms for Resource Allocation,” American Economic Review 63 (2), 1–30.Google Scholar
  14. Interneg. (2003). http://interneg.carleton.ca/interneg/ Google Scholar
  15. Jelassi, T. and A. Foroughi. (1989). “Negotiation Support Systems: An Overview of Design Issues and Existing Software,” Decision Support Systems: The International Journal 5, 167–181.Google Scholar
  16. Kersten, G. E. (1987). “On Two Roles Decision Support Systems Can Play in Negotiations,” Information Processing and Management 23 (5), 605–614.Google Scholar
  17. Kersten, G. E. and S. Noronha. (1999). “WWW-based Negotiation Support: Design, Implementation, and Use,” Decision Support Systems 25, 135–154.Google Scholar
  18. Klemperer, P. (2002). “What Really Matters in Auction Design,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 16 (1), 169–190.Google Scholar
  19. Krishna, V. (2002). Auction Theory. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lewicki, R. J., D. M. Saunders, and J. W. Minton. (1997). Essentials of Negotiations. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  21. Lomuscio, A. R., M. Wooldridge, and N. R. Jennings. (2000). “A Classification Scheme for Negotiation in Electronic Commerce,” in F. Dignum and C. Sierra (eds.), Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce: A European Perspective. Springer Verlag, 19–33.Google Scholar
  22. Malone, T. W., J. Yates, M. Scott, and R. J. Benjamin. (1987). “Electronic Markets and Electronic Hierarchies,” Communications of the ACM 30 (6), 484–494.Google Scholar
  23. Milgrom, P. R. and L. Ausubel. (2001). “Comments on the Second Wye River Package Bidding Conference,” Combinatorial Bidding Conference 2001.Google Scholar
  24. Milgrom, P. R. and R. Weber. (1982). “A Theory of Auctions and Competitive Bidding,” Econometrica 50, 1089–1122.Google Scholar
  25. Moai LiveExchange. www.moai.comGoogle Scholar
  26. Neumann, D., C. Holtmann, H. Gimpel, and C. Weinhardt. (2002). “Agent-Based Bidding in Electronic Markets – A Prototypical Approach,” in J. Monteiro, P. M. C. Swatman, and L. V. Tavares (eds.), Towards the Knowledge Society: e-Commerce, e-Business and e-Government. Lisbon (Portugal): Kluwer Academic Publishers, 553–569.Google Scholar
  27. Neumann, D., C. Holtmann, H. Weltzien, C. Lattemann, and C. Weinhardt. (2002). “Towards A Generic E-Market Design,” in J. Monteiro, P. M. C. Swatman, and L. V. Tavares (eds.), Towards the Knowledge Society: e-Commerce, e-Business and e-Government. Lisboa: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 289–305.Google Scholar
  28. O'Hara, M. (1997). Market Microstructure Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  29. Ozro. (2003). www.ozro.com Google Scholar
  30. Pagano, M. and A. Röell. (1996). “Transparency and Liquidity: A Comparison of Auction and Dealer Markets with Informed Trading,” Journal of Finance 51, 579–611.Google Scholar
  31. Raisch, W. D. (2001). The eMarketplace – Strategies for Success in B2B eCommerce. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  32. Rangaswamy, A. and K. Starke. (2000). “Computer-Mediated Negotiations: Review and Research Opportunities,” in A. K. a. J. G. Williams (ed.), Encyclopedia of Microcomputers. New York: Marcel Inc., 26.Google Scholar
  33. Reiter, S. (1977). “Information and Performance in the (New)2 Welfare Economics,” American Economic Review 67 (1), 226–234.Google Scholar
  34. Roth, A. E. and A. Ockenfels (2002). “Last-Minute Bidding and the Rules for Ending Second-Price Auctions: Evidence from eBay and Amazon on the Internet,” American Economic Review 92 (4), 1093–1103.Google Scholar
  35. Sandholm, T. (2002). “eMediator: A Next Generation Electronic Commerce Server,” Computational Intelligence 18 (4), 656–676.Google Scholar
  36. Smith, V. (1982). “Microeconomic Systems as an Experimental Science,” American Economic Review 72 (5), 923–955.Google Scholar
  37. Spulber, D., F. (1999). Market Microstructure: Intermediaries and the Theory of the Firm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Ströbel, M. and C. Weinhardt. (2003). “The Montreal Taxonomy for Electronic Negotiations,” Group Decision and Negotiation 12 (2), 143–164.Google Scholar
  39. Weinhardt, C. and P. Gomber. (1998). “Agent-Mediated Off-Exchange Trading,” Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  40. Wielinga, B. J., M. Akkermans, and A. T. Schreiber. (1995). “A Formal Analysis of Parametric Design,” Proceedings of the 9th Banff Knowledge Acquisition for Knowledge-Based Systems Workshop. Banff, Alberta, Canada: SRDG Publications.Google Scholar
  41. Wrigley, C. (1997). “Design Criteria for Electronic Market Servers,” Electronic Markets 7 (4), 12–16.Google Scholar
  42. Wurman, P., M. P. Wellman, and P. Walsh. (2002). “Specifying Rules for Electronic Auctions,” AI Magazine 23 (3), 15–23.Google Scholar
  43. Wurman, P., M. P. Wellman, and W. E. Walsh. (1998a). “The Michigan Internet AuctionBot: A Configurable Auction Server for Human and Software Agents,” Second International Conference on Autonomous Agents, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  44. Wurman, P., M. P. Wellman, and W. E. Walsh. (1998b). “A Parametrization of the Auction Design Space,” Games and Economic Behavior 35 (1–2), 271–303.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dirk Neumann
    • 1
  • Morad Benyoucef
    • 2
  • Sarita Bassil
    • 3
  • Julie Vachon
    • 3
  1. 1.Chair for Information Management and SystemsUniversity of KarlsruheKarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.School of ManagementUniversity of OttowaOttawaCanada
  3. 3.Département IROUniversité de MontréalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations