Supporting Ill-Structured Negotiation Problems

  • Ewa Roszkowska
  • Jakub Brzostowski
  • Tomasz Wachowicz
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 502)


The negotiation is a complex decision-making process in which two or more parties talk with one another in afford to resolve their opposing interests. It can be divided into consecutive stages, namely: pre-negotiation phase involving structuring the problem and the analysis of preferences, the intention phase involving the iterative exchange of offers and counter-offers, and the postoptimization phase aiming at the improvement of the agreement obtained in the intention phase. In this chapter, we focus on the analysis of negotiators\({^\prime }\) preferences in ill-structured negotiation problems. We employ the modified FTOPSIS approach and the AHP method for determining the negotiation offers\({^\prime }\) scoring system, which allows for the easy evaluation of both the incoming offers as well as the packages under preparation. The imprecision and vagueness of the packages and option\(\text {s}{^\prime }\) descriptions is modeled by the fuzzy triangular numbers. The Analytic Hierarchy Process is used to derive the negotiation issue weights instead of directly assigning such values to the issues (a classic approach). The FTOPSIS method is used to build the final scoring system allowing for the evaluation of any potential negotiation package. The whole process of negotiation supported by the approach we proposed is illustrated with an numerical example.


negotiation support preference elicitation negotiation offers\({^\prime }\) scoring system Fuzzy TOPSIS AHP post-negotiation optimization 



This research was supported by a grant from the Polish National Science Center (DEC-2011/03/B/HS4/03857).


  1. 1.
    Chen, C.T.: Extension of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 114, 1–9 (2000)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen, Y., Kilgour, D.M., Hipel, K.W.: An extreme-distance approach to multiple criteria ranking. Math. Comput. Model. 53, 646–658 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Edwards, W.: Social utilities. Eng. Econ. Summer Symp. Series 6, 119–129 (1971)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fisher, R., Ury, W.: Getting to Yes. Penguin Books, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Faratin P.: Automated Service Negotiation between Autonomous Computational Agents Ph.D. Dissertation. University of London. Queen Mary College, Department of Electronic Engineering (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    García-Cascales, S.M., Lamata, M.T.: On rank reversal and TOPSIS method. Math. Comput. Model. 56, 123–132 (2012)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gimpel, H.: Preferences in Negotiations. The Attachement Effect. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gupta, S., Livne, Z.A.: Resolving a conflict situation with a reference outcome: an axiomatic model. Manage. Sci. 34(11), 1303–1314 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hammond, J.S., Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H.: Even Swaps: A Rational Method for Making Trade-offs. Harv. Bus. Rev. 76, 137–149 (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K.: Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Springer, Berlin (1981)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jertila, A., Schoop, M.: Electronic contracts in negotiation support systems: Challenges, design and implementation. In: Proceedings of the \(7{\rm th}\) International IEEE Conference on E-Commerce Technology (CEC 2005), Lost Alamitos. IEEE Computer Society, pp. 396–399 (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kalai, E., Smorodinsky, M.: Other solutions to Nash’s bargaining problem. Econometrica 43(3), 513–518 (1975)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H.: Decisions with Multiple Objectives. Wiley, New York (1976)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kersten, G.E., Noronha, S.J.: WWW-based negotiation support: design. Implement. Use Decis. Support Syst. 25(2), 135–154 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kwang, H., Lee.: First Course on Fuzzy Theory and Applications, Springer, Berlin (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lewicki, R.J., Saunders, D.M., Minton, J.W.: Negotiation. Readings Exercises, and Cases. Irwin McGraw-Hill, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nash, J.: The bargaining problem. Econometrica 18(2), 155–162 (1950)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Raiffa, H.: The Art and Science of Negotiation. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1982)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    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
  20. 20.
    Roszkowska, E., Wachowicz, T.: Negotiation Support with Fuzzy TOPSIS. In: Teixeira de Almeida, A., Costa Morais, D., de Franca Dantas Daher, S. (eds.) Group Decision and Negotiations 2012. Proceedings. Editoria Universitaria, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife pp. 161–174 (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Salo, A., Hamalainen, R.P.: Multicriteria decision analysis in group decision processes. In: Kilgour, D.M., Eden, C. (eds.) Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation, pp. 269–283. Springer, New York (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. N.Y., McGraw Hill, New York (1980)MATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schmid, B.F.: Elektronische maerkte—merkmale, organization und potentiale. In: Hermanns, A., Sauter, M. (eds.) Management Handbuch Electronic Commerce, pp. 31–48. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munchen (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schoop, M., Jertila, A., List, T.: Negoisst: a negotiation support system for electronic business-to business negotiations in ecommerce. Data Knowl. Eng. 47, 371–401 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stroebel, M., Weinhardt, C.: The montreal taxonomy for electronic negotiations. Group Decis. Negotiat. 12(2), 143–164 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thiessen, E.M., Soberg, A.: Smartsettle described with the montreal taxonomy. Group Decision and Negotiation 12, 165–170 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thompson, L.: The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River(1998)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thompson W.: Cooperative models of bargaining. In: Aumann R.J., Hart S., (ed.) Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, pp. 1237–1283. Tom II Elsevier, Amsterdam (1994)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wachowicz, T.: NegoCalc: Spreadsheet Based Negotiation Support Tool with Even-Swap Analysis. In: Climaco, J., Kersten, G.E., Costa, J.P. (eds.) Group Decision and Negotiation 2008: Proceedings—Full Papers, pp. 323–329. INESC, Coimbra (2008)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wachowicz, T.: Decision support in software supported negotiations. J. Bus. Econ. Manage. 11(4), 576–597 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zadeh, LA.: The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning: Part 1. Inform. Sci. 8, 199–249 (1975)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ewa Roszkowska
    • 1
  • Jakub Brzostowski
    • 2
  • Tomasz Wachowicz
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Economy and ManagementUniversity of Bialystok BialystokPoland
  2. 2.University of Leipzig Faculty of Economics and Management Information Systems InstituteLeipzigGermany
  3. 3.Department of Operations ResearchUniversity of Economics in Katowice KatowicePoland

Personalised recommendations