Abstract
Decisions about how to allocate scarce resources among potential programs are common sources of conflict in both public and private life. This paper describes a case in which negotiation support was provided for a five-member task force trying to reach agreement about how to allocate limited resources among programs designed to improve the air quality in Budapest, Hungary. The intervention consisted of a series of facilitated decision conferences, plus individual interviews. The task force eventually reached agreement about a recommended package of 15 air quality management programs costing 1,500 million Hungarian forints. The research makes four significant contributions. First, it demonstrated that resource allocation models provide a useful framework for understanding and facilitating multi-party negotiation processes. Second, because resource allocation models were elicited individually for each group member before building a single group model, it was possible to analyze the five-dimensional feasible settlement space (i.e., the joint distribution of benefits for each task member for all possible resource allocation packages). Third, several innovative applications of analytical techniques (i.e., Pareto-efficiency analyses, numerical and graphical analyses of feasible settlement spaces and efficient frontiers, and analyses of task force members' investment progressions) served to improve understanding of disagreements within the group and to evaluate the quality of potential resource allocation packages. Fourth, changes in individual preferences and group agreement were assessed over time. Group members appeared to change substantially and their level of agreement to increase markedly over time.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adelman, L. (1984). “Real-time Computer Support for Decision Analysis in a Group Setting: Another Class of Decision Support Systems,” Interfaces 14, 75–83.
Andersen, D.F. and J.W.C. Rohrbaugh. (1992) “Some Conceptual and Technical Problems in Integrating Models of Judgment with Simulation Models,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 22, 21–34.
Barron, F.H. and B.E. Barrett. (1996). “Decision Quality Using Ranked Attribute Weights,” Management Science 42, 1515–l 523.
Beliczay, E., M. Bulla and A. Vari. (eds.) (1994). “Long-Term Environmental Plan of Hungary,” Környeret és Fejlödés, Special Issue. (In Hungarian, with an English summary).
Brehmer, B. and C.R.B. Joyce. (eds.) (1988). Human Judgment: The Social Judgment Theory Approach, North Holland, Amsterdam.
Carper, W.B. and T.A. Bresnick. (1981). “Strategic Planning Conferences,” Business Horizons, 32, 34–40.
Cooksey, R.W. (1996). Judgment Analysis: Theory, Methods, and Applications, New York, Academic.
Darling, T.A. and J.L. Mumpower. (1992). “Simulating Process and Outcome for Two-Party Contract Negotiations,” Control and Cybernetics, 21, 151–184.
Edwards, W. and J.R. Newman. (1986). “Multi-attribute evaluation,” in Judgment and Decision Making, (eds. H.R. Arkes and K.R. Hammond), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hammond, K.R. (1973). “The Cognitive Conflict Paradigm,” pp. 188-205, in Human Judgment and Social Interaction, (eds. L. Rappoport and D.A. Summers), Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.
Keeney, R.L. and H. Raiffa. (1976). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preference and Value Tradeoffs, Wiley, New York.
Martello, S. and P. Toth. (1990). Knapsack Problems: Algorithms and Computer Implementations, Wiley, New York.
Milter, R.G. (1986). “Resource Allocation Models and the Budgeting Process,” in New Directions for Institutional Research: Applying Decision Support Systems in Higher Education, (eds. J.W. Rohrbaugh and A.T. McCartt), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Milter, R.G. and J.W. Rohrbaugh. (1985). “Microcomputers and Strategic Decision making,” Public Productivity Review, 9, 175–189.
Mumpower, J.L. (1988). “An Analysis of the Judgmental Components of Negotiation and a Proposed Judgmentallyoriented Approach to Mediation,” pp. 465–502, in Human Judgment: The Social Judgment Theory Approach, (eds. B. Brehmer and C.R.B. Joyce), North Holland, Amsterdam.
Mumpower, J.L. (1991). “The Judgment Policies of Negotiators and the Structure of Negotiations,” Management Science, 37, 1304–1324.
Mumpower, J.L. and T.A. Darling. (1991). “A Structural Analysis of Resource Allocation Negotiations and Implications for Negotiation Support System Design,” pp. 641–649, in Proceedings of the 24th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, Vol. III, (ed. J.F. Nunamaker), IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA.
Mumpower, J.L. and J.W. Rohrbaugh. (1996). “Negotiation and Design: Supporting Resource Allocation Decisions through Analytical Mediation,” Group Decision and Negotiation, 5, 385–410.
Mumpower, J.L. S.P. Schuman and A. Zumbolo. (1988). “Analytical Mediation: An Application in Collective Bargaining,” pp. 61–73, in Organisational Decision Support Negotiation Support for Multi-Party Resource Allocation Systems, (eds. R.M. Lee, A.M. McCosh and P. Migliarese ), North Holland, Amsterdam.
Phillips, L. (1985). “Systems for Solutions,” Datamation Business, (April), 26–29.
Schuman, S.P. and J.W. Rohrbaugh. (1991). “Decision Conferencing for Systems Planning,” Information and Management, 21, 147–159.
Vari, A. and J. Veesenyi. (1992). “Experiences with Decision Conferencing in Hungary,” Interfaces, 22, 72–83.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Darling, T.A., Mumpower, J.L., Rohrbaugh, J. et al. Negotiation Support for Multi-Party Resource Allocation: Developing Recommendation for Decreasing Transportation-Related Air Pollution in Budapest. Group Decision and Negotiation 8, 51–75 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008634121147
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008634121147