Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interactive Multiple‐Criteria Methods for Reaching Pareto Optimal Agreements in Negotiations

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The common features of two interactive methods that can be used in multiple-party negotiations over continuous issues are studied. One method is based on finding jointly improving directions to the parties to move along and the other on making constraint proposals to the parties. The history and the related literature on the subject is briefly surveyed in order to position the methods within the field. The basic similarities and differences together with the possibility to use them jointly are studied from the point of view of single negotiation text concept. Potential application areas including facilitation agents in distributed artificial intelligence are suggested.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arrow, K., and G. Debreu. (1954). “Existence of Equilibrium for a Competitive Economy, ” Econometrica 22, 265–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazaraa, M. S., H. D. Sherali, and C. M. Shetty. (1993). Nonlinear Programming: Theory and Algorithms. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brams, S. J., and A. D. Taylor. (1996). Fair Division. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bronisz, P., L. Krus, and L. Lopuch. (1988). “MCBARG – A System Supporting Multicriteria Bargaining, ” Working Paper WP-88-115, IIASA, Austria.

  • Bui, T. X., and M. F. Shakun. (1996). “Negotiation Processes, Evolutionary Systems Design, and NEGOTIATOR, ” Group Decision and Negotiation 5(4–6), 339–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehtamo, H., and R. P. Hämäläinen. (1993). “A Cooperative Incentive Equilibrium for a Resource Management Problem, ” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 17, 659–678.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehtamo, H., and R. P. Hämäläinen. (1995). “Credibility of Linear Equilibrium Strategies in a Discrete Time Fishery Management Game, ” Group Decision and Negotiation 4, 27–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehtamo, H., R. P. Hämäläinen, P. Heiskanen, J. Teich, M. Verkama, and S. Zionts. (1999). “Generating Pareto Solutions in a Two-Party Setting: Constraint Proposal Methods, ” Management Science 45(12), 1697–1709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehtamo, H., E. Kettunen, and R. P. Hämäläinen. (2001). “Searching for Joint Gains in Multi-Party Negotiations, ” European Journal of Operational Research 130(1), 54–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehtamo, H., J. Ruusunen, and R. P. Hämäläinen. (1989). “A Hierarchical Approach to Bargaining in Power Pool Management, ” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 34(6), 666–669.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehtamo, H., M. Verkama, and R. P. Hämäläinen. (1992). “On Contracting under Incomplete Information Using Linear Proposals, ” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Dynamic Games and Applications. Grimentz, Switzerland, pp. 128–133.

  • Ehtamo, H., M. Verkama, and R. P. Hämäläinen. (1996). “On Distributed Computation of Pareto Solutions for Two Decision Makers, ” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part A: Systems and Humans 26(4), 498–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehtamo, H., M. Verkama, and R. P. Hämäläinen. (1999). “How to Select Fair Improving Directions in a Negotiation Model over Continuous Issues, ” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part C: Applications and Reviews 29(1), 26–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fershtman C. (1990). “The Importance of the Agenda in Bargaining, ” Games and Economic Behavior 2, 224–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R., and W. Ury. (1981). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

  • Fukuyama, K., D. M. Kilgour, and K. W. Hipel. (1994). “Systematic Policy Development to Ensure Compliance to Environmental Regulations, ” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 24(9), 1289–1305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geoffrion, A. M., J. S. Dyer, and A. Feinberg. (1972). “An Interactive Approach for Multi-Criterion Optimization with an Application to Operation of an Academic Department, ” Management Science 19, 357–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guttman, R., A. Moukas, and P. Maes. (2000). “Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce: A Survey, ” Knowledge Engineering Review (to appear) (Downloadable at http://ecommerce.media.mit.edu/publications.html).

  • Haimes, Y. Y., K. Tarvainen, T. Shima, and J. Thadathil. (1990). Hierarchical Multiobjective Analysis of Large-Scale Systems. New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heiskanen, P. (1999a). “Decentralized Method for Computing Pareto Solutions in Multi-Party Negotiations, ” European Journal of Operational Research 117, 578–590.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heiskanen, P. (1999b). “Generating Pareto-Optimal Boundary Points in Multi-Party Negotiations Using Constrain Proposal Method, ” Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration Working papers W-229.

  • Heiskanen, P., H. Ehtamo, and R. P. Hämäläinen. (2001). “Constraint Proposal Method for Computing Pareto Solutions in Multi-Party Negotiations, ” European Journal of Operational Research (to appear).

  • Hämäläinen, R. P., E Kettunen, M. Marttunen, and H. Ehtamo. (2001). “Evaluating a Framework for Multi-Stakeholder Decision Support in Water Resources Management, ” Group Decision and Negotiation(to appear); An earlier version: “Towards Decision and Negotiation Support in Multi-Stakeholder Development of Lake Regulation Policy, ” Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1999, (http://dlib.computer.org/conferen/hicss/0001/pdf/00011065.pdf).

  • Kalai, E., and M. Smorodinsky. (1975). “Other Solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem, ” Econometrica 43, 513–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kersten, G. E. (1985). “NEGO-Group Decision Support System, ” Information and Management 8, 237–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kersten, G. E. (1997). “Support for Group Decisions and Negotiations – An Overview, ” in J. Climaco (ed.), Multicriteria Analysis, Proc. of the XIth Int. Conf. on MCDM, August 1994. Coimbra, Portugal: Springer, pp. 332–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kersten, G. E., and S. J. Noronha. (1999). “Supporting International Negotiation with a WWW-Based System, ” Decision Support Systems 25, 135–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kettunen, E., R. P. Hämäläinen, and H. Ehtamo. (1998). “Joint Gains – Negotiation Support in the Internet, ” Computer Software, Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology, Finland. (http:// www.joingains.hut.fi).

    Google Scholar 

  • Korhonen, P., H. Moskowitz, J. Wallenius, and S. Zionts. (1986). “An Interactive Approach to Multiple Criteria Optimization with Multiple Decision-Makers, ” Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 33, 589–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korhonen, P., N. Oretskin, J. Teich, and J. Wallenius. (1995). “The Impact of a Biased Starting Position in a Single Negotiation Text Type mediation, ” Group Decision and Negotiation 4, 357–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korhonen, P. J., and J. Wallenius. (1990). “Supporting Individuals in Group Decision-Making with an Application to Resource Pooling Within the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance, ” Theory and Decision 28, 313–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korhonen, P., J. Wallenius, and S. Zionts. (1979). “A Bargaining Model for Solving the Multiple Criteria Problem, ” in G. Fandel, and T. Gal (eds.), Proceedings of the Third International MCDM Conference. Bonn: Königswinter.

  • Kuula, M. (1990). “RAMONA – Version 0.1: An Interactive Multiple Objective Negotiation Support System, ” Computer Program, Helsinki School of Economics, Finland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuula, M. (1998). “Solving Intra-Company Conflicts Using the RAMONA-Interactive Negotiation Support System, ” Group Decision and Negotiation 7, 447–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mumpower, J. (1988). “An Analysis of the Judgmental Components of Negotiation and a Proposed Judgmentally-Oriented Approach to Mediation, ” Human Judgment: The SJT View, 465–502.

  • Myerson, R. B. (1997). Game Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nash, J. F. (1950). “The Bargaining Problem, ” Econometrica 18, 155–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, D. K. (1976). “Cartel Problems, ” The American Economic Review 66, 835–844.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ponsati, C., and J. Watson. (1997). “Multiple-Issue Bargaining and Axiomatic Solutions, ” International Journal of Game Theory 26, 501–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa, H. (1982). The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge, MA: Belknap/Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raith, M. G., and A. Welzel. (1998). “Adjusted Winner: An Algorithm for Implementing Bargaining Solutions in Multi-Issue Negotiations, ” Working Paper, Institute of Mathematical Economics, University of Bielefeld, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajabi, S., K. W. Hipel, and D. M. Kilgour. (1997). “Multiple Criteria Water Supply Planning, ” Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 4, October 1997, Orlando, FL, 3484–3489.

  • Sebenius, J. K. (1983). “Negotiation Arithmetic: Adding and Subtracting Issues and Parties, ” International Organization 37, 281–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shakun, M. F. (1988). Evolutionary Systems Design: Policy Making Under Complexity and Group Decision Support Systems. Oakland, CA: Holden-Day.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shakun, M. F. (1996). “Modeling and Supporting Task-Oriented Group Processes: Purposeful Complex Adaptive Systems and Evolutionary Systems Design, ” Group Decision and Negotiation 5(4–6), 305–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, J. (1986). “Non-Cooperative Bargaining Theory: An Introduction, ” Review of Economic Studies, LIII, 709–724.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teich, J. E., H. Wallenius, M. Kuula, and S. Zionts. (1995). “A Decision Support Approach for Negotiation with an Application to Agricultural Income Policy Negotiations, ” European Journal of Operational Research 81, 76–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teich, J. E., H. Wallenius, and J. Wallenius. (1994). “Advances in Negotiation Science, ” Yöneylem Arastirmasi Dergisi/Transactions on Operational Research 6, 55–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teich, J. E., H. Wallenius, J. Wallenius, and S. Zionts. (1996). “Identifying Pareto-Optimal Settlements for Two-Party Resource Allocation Negotiations, ” European Journal of Operational Research 93, 536–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teich, J. E. (1991). Decision Support for Negotiation. Ph.D. Dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.

  • Varian, H. R. (1992). Microeconomic Analysis, 3rd edition. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verkama, M., R. P. Hämäläinen, and H. Ehtamo. (1992). “Multi-Agent Interaction Processes: From Oligopoly Theory to Decentralized Artificial Intelligence, ” Group Decision and Negotiation 2, 137–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verkama, M., H. Ehtamo, and R. P. Hämäläinen. (1996). “Distributed Computation of Pareto Solutions in n-Player Games, ” Mathematical Programming 74, 29–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, P.-L. (1985). Multiple-Criteria Decision Making. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zoutendijk, G. (1960). Methods of Feasible Directions: A Study in Linear and Non-Linear Programming. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology, P.O. Box 1100, 02015 HUT, Finland

    Harri Ehtamo

  2. Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology, P.O. Box 1100, 02015 HUT, Finland

    Raimo P. Hämäläinen

Authors
  1. Harri Ehtamo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raimo P. Hämäläinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ehtamo, H., Hämäläinen, R.P. Interactive Multiple‐Criteria Methods for Reaching Pareto Optimal Agreements in Negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation 10, 475–491 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012297813663

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012297813663

Search

Navigation