A Negotiation Model to Support Material Selection in Concurrent Design

  • Robin Barker
  • Leigh Holloway
  • Anthony Meehan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2070)


Based upon empirical studies, this paper describes a negotiation model to support materials selection by design teams using concurrent design methodologies. The model is realised in a tool that supports designers in this task. Given a list of materials currently proposed, similar alternatives are offered to individual designers based upon both shared and private representations. Fuzzy measures of similarity are used to identify possible counter proposals. A fuzzy measure of value is used to rank these. Conventional negotiation protocols from economics or game theory did not correspond well to the negotiation behaviour of designers. Currently, the human user remains responsible for the communication of any proposal he or she wishes to make, and for the supporting argumentation.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Landauer, T. K.; The trouble with computers. Academic Press, Cambridge Ma. (1995)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smithers, T.; On knowledge level theories of the design process. in Artificial Intelligence in Design. Gero, J. S., Sudweeks, F. (eds.) Kluwer Academic Publishers. (1996) 561–579.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Huns, M. N. and Stephens, L. M.; Multiagent Systems and Societies of Agents in Multiagent Systems: A Modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Weiss, G. (ed.), MIT Press. (1999) 79–120Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barker, R., Meehan, A., Tranter, I.; A Knowledge-level Model for Concurrent Design. Applied Intelligence, 10: (1999) 113–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barker, R., Holloway, L., Mardell, J. and Meehan, A.; Supporting Knowledge-based processes using flexible intelligent agents. AAAI Spring Symposium 2000, Stanford, Ca., USA (2000).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bernaras, A. and Van de Velde, W.; Design. in Breuker, J., Van de Velde, W. (eds.) CommonKADS library for expertise modelling: reusable problem solving components. IOS Press, (1995) Chapter 8.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shiva Kumar, Suresh, S., Krishnamoorthy, C. S., Fenves, S. J.. Rajeev, S.; GENCRIT: a tool for knowledge-based critiquing in engineering design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, vol. 8, Cambridge University Press, 1994.) 239–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barker, R., Tranter, I. and Meehan, A.; Towards a knowledge-level model of concurrent design. In IEA-AIE’98, Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Engineering Applications of AI and Expert Systems, Mira, J, del Pobil, A. P., Moonis Ali (eds), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 1415; Springer-Verlag, (1998) 57–67.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Hoog, R., Martil, R., Wielinga, B. et al.; The CommonKADS Model Set, ESPRIT Project P5248: Document Id. KADS-II/WP I-II/RR/UvA/018/4.0, University of Amsterdam (1992)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barker, R. and Meehan, A.; Supporting Concurrent Design Teams with Adjustably Autonomous Agents, AAAI Spring Symposium 1999, Stanford, Ca., USA (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Holloway, L.; A methodology and support tool for environmentally conscious design and manufacture. PhD Thesis, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield S1 1WB, UK. (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Holloway, L.; Materials selection for optimal environmental impact in mechanical design. Materials & Design 19; Elsevier Science Ltd. (1998) 133–143Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wong, S. T. C.; Preference-based decision making for cooperative knowledge-based systems. ACM Trans on Information Systems, 12:4 (1994) 407–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sycara, K., Lewis, C.; Modelling group decision making and negotiation in concurrent product design. International Journal of Systems Automation 1:217–238.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ephrati, E. and Rosenschien J. S., 1996. Deriving concensus in multiagent systems. Artificial Intelligence 87 (1991) 21–74CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kraus, S. Sycara, K., Evenchick, A.; Reaching agreement through argumentation: a logical model and implementation. Artificial Intelligence 104 (1998) 1–69.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zlotkin, G., Rosenschein, J. S.; Mechanisms for automated negotiation in state oriented domains. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 5 (1996) 163–238.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zlotkin, G., Rosenschein, J. S.; Mechanism design for automated negotiation and its application to task oriented domains. Artificial Intelligence 86 (1996) 195–244.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Faratin, P., Sierra, C., Jennings, N. R.; Negotiation Decision Functions for Autonomous Agents. Int. J. of Robotics and Autonomous Systems 24 (3-4) (1997) 159–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Valverde, L.; On the structure of F-indistinguishability. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 17 (1985) 313–328 (cited in Sierra, et al 1999).MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sierra, C., Faratin, P. and Jennings, N. R.; Deliberative Automated Negotiators Using Fuzzy Similarities. Proc EUSFLAT-ESTYLF Joint Conference on Fuzzy Logic, Palma de Mallorca, Spain, (1997) 155–158Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robin Barker
    • 1
  • Leigh Holloway
    • 2
  • Anthony Meehan
    • 3
  1. 1.Bartec SystemsBarnsleyUK
  2. 2.Environmental Business NetworkUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  3. 3.Sheffield Hallam UniversitySheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations