Effects of Decision Synchronization on Trust in Collaborative Networks

  • Morice DaudiEmail author
  • Jannicke Baalsrud Hauge
  • Klaus-Dieter Thoben
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 480)


In collaborative networks, individual and organizational entities encounter many disagreements over many decisions rights. These disagreements procreate conflicting preferences, which in turn, affect trustworthy amongst partners. To that end, it becomes necessary that partners assume a degree of fairness on decision rights by calibrating positions which they initially consider a final. This calibration involves synchronizing partners’ conflicting preferences to a compromise. The objective of this paper, therefore, is to analyze and evaluate the effect of both, compromised and uncompromised preferences on trust. To achieve this, a corresponding behavioral trust model is proposed and evaluated empirically using a logistics collaboration scenario. This evaluation applies a multi-agent systems simulation method. The simulation involves 360 observations with three preferences set as predictor variables. Results show that irrespective of a degree to which conflicting preferences are synchronized, a magnitude of the generated effect on trust, depends as well on other factors like transport cost and extent to which vehicles are loaded. Additionally, if other factors are kept constant, compromised preferences affects trust more positively than uncompromised ones.


Trust Collaborative networks Logistics collaboration Decision synchronization Conflicting preferences 


  1. 1.
    Robinson, R., Valeri, L., Cave, J., Starkey, T., Graux, H., Creese, S., Hopkins, P.: The Cloud Understanding the Security, Privacy and Trust Challenges. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cruijssen, F.C.A.M.: Horizontal cooperation in transport and logistics. Dissertation, Tilburg University (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Okdinawati, L., Simatupang, T.M., Sunitiyoso, Y.: A behavioral multi-agent model for Collaborative Transportation Management (CTM). In: Proceedings of T-LOG (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Simatupang, T.M., Sridharan, R.: Supply chain discontent. Bus. Process Manag. J. 11(4), 349–369 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rousseau, D.M., Sitkin, S.B., Burt, R.S., Camerer, C.: Not so different after all: a cross discipline view of trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23(3), 393–404 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sherchan, W., Nepal, S., Paris, C.: A survey of trust in social networks. ACM Comput. Surv. 45(4), 47 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schuldt, A., Gehrke, J.D., Werner, S.: Designing a simulation middleware for FIPA multiagent systems. In: Jain, L., et al. (eds.) WI-IAT 2008, pp. 109–113. IEEE Computer Society Press (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Murray-Jones, P., Howard, N.: Co-ordinated positions in a drama-theoretic confrontation: mathematical foundations for a PO decision support system. In: Proceedings of CCRTS (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bryant, J.: Drama theory: dispelling the myths. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 58(5), 602–613 (2007). Special Issue: Problem Structuring Methods IICrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bennett, P.: Confrontation analysis: prediction, interpretation or diagnosis? In analyzing conflict and its resolution. In: Proceedings of a Conference of the Institute of Mathematics and Its Application, IMA, Southend-on-Sea (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hermawan, P., Kobayashi, N., Kijima, K.: Holistic formal analysis of dilemmas of negotiation. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 25, 637–642 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laeequddin, M., Sahay, B.S., Sahay, V., Waheed, K.A.: Trust building in supply chain partners’ relationship: an integrated conceptual model. J. Manag. Dev. 31(6), 550–564 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mayer, R.C., Davis, J., Schoorman, F.D.: An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20(3), 709–734 (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Daudi, M., Baalsrud Hauge, J., Thoben, K-D.: A trust framework for agents’ interactions in collaborative logistics. In: Proceedings of Dynamics in Logistics, pp. 49–60 (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bonabeau, E.: Agent-based modeling: methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 99(3), 7280–7287 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wooldridge, M.J., Jennings, N.R.: Intelligent agents: theory and practice. Knowl. Eng. Rev. 10(2), 115–152 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    FIPA: FIPA Communicative Act Library Specification (2002).
  18. 18.
    Berndt, J.O., Herzog, O.: Anticipatory behavior of software agents in self-organizing negotiations. In: Nadin, M. (ed.) Cognitive Systems Monographs 29, 231-253. Springer, Heidelberg (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tseng, M.M., Yan, J., Cruijssen, F.: Position paper on compensation rules. In: Collaboration Concepts for Co-modality (2013).
  20. 20.
    VICS Logistics Committee.: Collaborative Transportation Management White Paper, Version 1.0. CTM sub-committee of the voluntary inter-industry commerce standards.

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Morice Daudi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jannicke Baalsrud Hauge
    • 2
    • 3
  • Klaus-Dieter Thoben
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.International Graduate School for Dynamics in Logistics (IGS)University of BremenBremenGermany
  2. 2.Bremer Institut für Produktion und Logistik at the University of BremenBremenGermany
  3. 3.School of Technology and Health, KTHRoyal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations