Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Montreal Taxonomy for Electronic Negotiations

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

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.

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

  • Alt, R., and H.-D. Zimmermann. (2001). “Guest Editors Note,” EM - Electronic Markets 11 (1).

  • 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).

  • Bichler, M., G. Kersten, and S. Strecker. (2003). “Engineering of Negotiations,” Group Decision and Negotiation (forthcoming in the next special issue on e-Negotiations).

  • Bichler, M. (2003). “A Roadmap to Auction-based Negotiation Protocols for Electronic Commerce,” Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (HICSS).

  • Field, S., M. Stolze, and M. Stroebel. (2000). “1st e-Negotiations Workshop - Negotiations Beyond Price,” DEXA Workshops, http://www.zurich.ibm.com/ mrs/dexa2000/.

  • Gulliver, P. (1979). Disputes and Negotiations: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guttman, R. and P. Maes. (1998). “Agent-mediated Integrative Negotiation for Retail Electronic Commerce,” Proceedings of the Workshop on Agent Mediated Electronic Trading, Minneapolis.

  • Hurwicz, L. (1973). “The Design of Mechanisms for Resource Allocation,” American Economic Review 63 (1), 30.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Kumar, M. and S. Feldman. (1998). “Business Negotiations on the Internet Proceedings of INET.” Geneva, Switzerland.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Runge, A. (2000). Die Rolle des Electronic Contracting im elektronischen Handel. Dissertation No. 2366, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Weinhardt, C. and P. Gomber. (1999). “Agent-Mediated Off-Exchange Trading,” Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii Conference on System Sciences, Maui.

  • 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.

  • Wurman, P., M. Wellman, and W. Walsh. (2001). “A Parameterization of the Auction Design Space,” Games and Economic Behavior 35 (304), 338.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. BMW Group, Munich, Germany

    Michael Ströbel

  2. Information Management and Systems, Universität Karlsruhe (TH), Germany

    Christof Weinhardt

Authors
  1. Michael Ströbel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christof Weinhardt
    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

Ströbel, M., Weinhardt, C. The Montreal Taxonomy for Electronic Negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation 12, 143–164 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023072922126

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023072922126

Search

Navigation