Can the Holistic Preference Elicitation be Used to Determine an Accurate Negotiation Offer Scoring System? A Comparison of Direct Rating and UTASTAR Techniques

  • Ewa Roszkowska
  • Tomasz WachowiczEmail author
  • Gregory Kersten
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 293)


In this paper we study the prenegotiation process of eliciting the negotiators’ preferences and building the negotiation offer scoring system. We analyze how the agents build the formal and quantitative scoring systems based on the preferential information provided by their principals. The results of the bilateral negotiation experiment conducted in Inspire negotiation system are analyzed, in which the simple direct rating technique (SMARTS-like approach) is implemented to evaluate the negotiation problem and build scoring systems. The concordance of such scoring systems with the principal’s preferences was determined using the cardinal and ordinal inaccuracy measures. Then for each agent the scoring system was determined using UTASTAR method based on the same preference structures subjectively declared for direct rating. Finally, the inaccuracy of scoring systems obtained by means of both methods was compared.


Prenegotiation preparation Negotiation offer scoring systems Preference analysis Direct rating Holistic preference elicitation UTASTAR 



This research was supported by the grant from Polish National Science Centre (2015/17/B/HS4/00941).


  1. 1.
    Edwards, W., Barron, F.H.: SMARTS and SMARTER: improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organ. Behav. Hum. 60(3), 306–325 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Figuera, J., Greco, S., Ehrgott, M. (eds.): Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art. Springer Verlag, Boston (2005). doi: 10.1007/b100605 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Górecka, D., Roszkowska, E., Wachowicz, T.: The MARS approach in the verbal and holistic evaluation of the negotiation template. Group Decis. Negot. 25(6), 1097–1136 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hammond, J.S., Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H.: Even swaps: a rational method for making trade-offs. Harvard Bus. Rev. 76(2), 137–149 (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jarke, M., Jelassi, M.T., Shakun, M.F.: MEDIATOR: towards a negotiation support system. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 31(3), 314–334 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Keeney, R.L.: Decision analysis: an overview. Oper. Res. 30(5), 803–838 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H.: Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs. Wiley, New York (1976)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kersten, G.E., Noronha, S.J.: WWW-based negotiation support: design, implementation, and use. Decis. Support Sys. 25(2), 135–154 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mustajoki, J., Hamalainen, R.P.: Web-HIPRE: global decision support by value tree and AHP analysis. INFOR J. 38(3), 208–220 (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paradis, N., Gettinger, J., Lai, H., Surboeek, M., Wachowicz, T.: E-negotiations via inspire 2.0: the system, users, management and projects. In: de Vreede, G.J. (ed.) Group Decision and Negotiations 2010 Porceedings, The Center for Collaboration Science, University of Nebraska at Omaha, pp. 155–159 (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Raiffa, H.: The Art and Science of Negotiation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1982)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Raiffa, H., Richardson, J., Metcalfe, D.: Negotiation analysis: the science and art of collaborative decision making. The Balknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roszkowska, E., Wachowicz, T.: Application of Fuzzy TOPSIS to scoring the negotiation offers in ill-structured negotiation problems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 242(5), 920–932 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roszkowska, E., Wachowicz, T.: Inaccuracy in defining preferences by the electronic negotiation system users. In: Kamiński, B., Kersten, Gregory E., Szapiro, T. (eds.) GDN 2015. LNBIP, vol. 218, pp. 131–143. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-19515-5_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Roszkowska, E., Wachowicz, T.: Analyzing the applicability of selected MCDA methods for determining the reliable scoring systems. In: Bajwa, D.S., Koeszegi, S., Vetschera, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Group Decision And Negotiation Bellingham, Western Washington University, pp. 180–187 (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Siskos, Y., Grigoroudis, E., Matsatsinis, N.F.: UTA methods. In: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, pp. 297–334. Springer, New York (2005). doi: 10.1007/0-387-23081-5_8
  17. 17.
    Siskos, Y., Yannacopoulos, D.: UTASTAR: an ordinal regression method for building additive value functions. Investigaçao Operacional 5(1), 39–53 (1985)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Spremann, K.: Agent and principal. In: Bamberg, G., Spremann, K. (eds.) Agency Theory, Information, and Incentives, pp. 3–37. Springer, Heidelberg (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thiessen, E., Shakun, M.: First nation negotiations in Canada: action research using SmartSettle. In: Kilgour, D.M., Wang, Q. (eds.) Proceedings of Wilfried Laurier University (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vetschera, R.: Preference structures and negotiator behavior in electronic negotiations. Decis. Support Sys. 44(1), 135–146 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wachowicz, T.: Decision support in software supported negotiations. J. Bus. Econ. 11(4), 576–597 (2010)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wachowicz, T.: Negotiation template evaluation with calibrated ELECTRE-TRI method. In: de Vreede, G.J. (ed.) Group Decision and Negotiations 2010, The Center for Collaboration Science, University of Nebraska at Omaha, pp. 232–238 (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Young, H.P.: Negotiation analysis. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor (1991)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ewa Roszkowska
    • 1
  • Tomasz Wachowicz
    • 2
    Email author
  • Gregory Kersten
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Economy and ManagementUniversity of BialystokBialystokPoland
  2. 2.Department of Operations ResearchUniversity of Economics in KatowiceKatowicePoland
  3. 3.John Molson School of BusinessConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations