Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conflict Analysis Methods: The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation

Part of the book series: Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation ((AGDN,volume 4))

Abstract

Conflict Analysis is a set of techniques to model and analyze a strategic conflict, or policy problem, using models of the purposive behavior of actors. After a review of these methods, the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution, which stands out for the flexibility of its models and the breadth of its analysis, is described in detail. After an historical overview, its development is compared to other Conflict Analysis techniques, including Drama Theory (See the chapter by Bryant, this volume), and to the Non-cooperative Game Theory (Chatterjee, in this volume) that inspired them. The graph model system is prescriptive, aiming to provide a specific decision-maker with relevant and insightful strategic advice. The capacity of the graph model to generate useful advice is emphasized throughout, and illustrated using a real-life groundwater contamination dispute. The description of the graph model includes the basic modeling and analysis components of the methodology and the decision support system GMCR II that has been used to apply it, including both basic (stability) analysis and follow-up analysis. New developments ensure that the next generation of decision support based on the graph model will be much more comprehensive and powerful.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Brams SJ (1994) Theory of moves. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bryant JW (2003) The Six Dilemmas of collaboration. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  3. Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (1993) Interactive decision making: The graph model for conflict resolution. Wiley, New York NY

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fraser NM, Hipel KW (1979) Solving complex conflicts. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 9(12):805–816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Fraser NM, Hipel KW (1984) Conflict analysis: models and resolutions. North Holland, New York NY

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Peng J (2003a) A decision support system for interactive decision making, part 1: model formulation. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part C 33(1):42–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Peng J (2003b) A decision support system for interactive decision making, part 2: analysis and output interpretation. IEEE Trans Syst, Man Cybern Part C 33(1):56–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hamouda L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, (2004a) Shellfish conflict in baynes sound: a strategic perspective. Environ Manage 34(4):474–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hamouda L, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2004b) Strength of preference in the graph model for conflict resolution. Group Decis Negotiation 13(5):449–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hipel KW (2002) Conflict resolution. In: Encyclopedia of life support systems (EOLSS). EOLSS Publishers, Oxford, UK. URL http://www.eolss.net

  11. Hipel KW, Fraser NM, Cooper AF (1990) Conflict analysis of the trade in services dispute. Inf Decis Technol 16(4):347–360

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L, Peng J (1997) The decision support system gmcr in environmental conflict management. Appl Math Comput 83(2 and 3):117–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L, Peng J (2001) Strategic support for the services industry. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 48(3):458–469. Special Issue of the IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management on the topic of Technology Management in the Services Industries

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hipel KW, Obeidi A, Fang L, Kilgour DM (2009) Sustainable environmental management from a system of systems perspective. In: M Jamshidi (ed) System of systems engineering: innovations for the 21st century, Chapter. 18 Wiley, New York, NY pp 443–481

    Google Scholar 

  15. Howard N (1971) Paradoxes of rationality: theory of Metagames and Political behaviour. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  16. Howard N (1999) Confrontation analysis: how to win operations other than war. CCRP Publications, Pentagon, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  17. Inohara T, Hipel KW (2008) Coalition analysis in the graph model for conflict resolution. Syst Eng 11(4):343–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Inohara T, Hipel KW, Walker S (2007) Conflict analysis approaches for investigating attitudes and misperceptions in the war of 1812. J Syst Sci and Syst Sci Sys Eng 16(2):181–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kandel A, Zhang A (1998) Fuzzy moves. Fuzzy Sets Syst 99: 159–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2005) The graph model for conflict resolution: past, present, and future. Group Decis Negotiation 14(6):441–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kilgour DM, Hipel KW, Fang L (1987) The graph model for conflicts. Automatica 23(1):41–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kilgour DM, Hipel KW, Fang L (2001) Coalition analysis in group decision support. Group Decis Negotiation 10(2):159–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kilgour DM, Hipel KW, Fang L, Peng X (1998) Applying the decision support system gmcr ii to peace operations. In: A Woodcock, D Davis (eds) Analysis for and of the resolution of conflict. Canadian Peacekeeping Press, Cornwallis Park, NS pp 29-47

    Google Scholar 

  24. Li KW, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Fang L (2004) Preference uncertainty in the graph model for conflict resolution. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A 34(4):507–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Li KW, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Noakes DJ (2005) Integrating uncertain preferences into status quo analysis with application to an environmental conflict. Group Decis Negotiation 14(6):461–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Li KW, Karay F, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2001) Fuzzy approaches to the game of chicken. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 9(4):608–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Li KW, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2004) Status quo analysis of the flathead river conflict. Water Resour Res 40(5):1–9. W05S03. doi:10.1029/2003WR002596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Li KW, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2005) Status quo analysis in the graph model for conflict resolution. J Oper Res Soc 56: 699–707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Nash J. Equilibrium points in n-person games. (1950) Proc Nat Acad Sci 36:48–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1944) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  31. Noakes DJ, Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2003) An examination of the salmon aquaculture conflict in british columbia using the graph model for conflict resolution. Fisheries Manage Ecol 10:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Noakes DJ, Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2005) The pacific salmon treaty: a century of debate and an uncertain future. Group Decis Negotiation 14(6):501–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Obeidi A, Hipel KW (2005) Strategic and dilemma analyses of a water export conflict. INFOR 43(3):247–270

    Google Scholar 

  34. Obeidi A, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2002) Canadian bulk water exports: analyzing the sun belt conflict using the graph model for conflict resolution. Knowl Technol Policy 14(4):145–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Obeidi A, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2005a) Perception and emotion in the graph model for conflict resolution. In: IEEE Int Conf Syst Man Cybern Hawaii, pp 1126–1131

    Google Scholar 

  36. Obeidi A, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2005b) The role of emotions in envisioning outcomes in conflict analysis. Group Decis Negotiation 14(6):481–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Obeidi A, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2009a) Perceptual graph model systems. Group Decis and Negotiation 18(3):261–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Obeidi A, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2009b) Perceptual stability analysis of a graph model system. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A: Hum Syst 39(5):993–1006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Raiffa H (1982) The Art and science of negotiation. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  40. Raiffa H, Richardson J, Metcalfe D (2002) Negotiation analysis: the science and art of collaborative decision making. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  41. Xu H, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2009a) Matrix representation of solution concepts in multiple decision maker graph models. IEEE Trans on Syst Man Cybern - Part A: Syst Hum 39(1):96–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Xu H, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2009b) Multiple levels of preference in interactive strategic decisions. Discrete App Math 57: 3300–3313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Xu H, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2010) Matrix representation of conflict resolution in multiple-decision-maker graph models with preference uncertainty. Group Decis Negotiation 19 (to appear) doi: 10.1007/s10726-010-9188-4

    Google Scholar 

  44. Xu H, Li KW, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2009a) A matrix approach to status quo analysis in the graph model for conflict resolution. Appl Math Comput 212(2):470–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Xu H, Li KW, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2009b) A matrix-based approach to searching colored paths in a weighted colored multidigraph. Appl Math Comput 215:353–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Zeng DZ, Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2005) Policy stable states in the graph model for conflict resolution. Theory Decis 57: 345–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Zeng DZ, Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2006) Generalized metarationalities in the graph model for conflict resolution. Discrete Appl Math 154(16):2430–2443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Zeng DZ, Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2007) Policy equilibrium and generalized metarationalities for multiple decision-maker conflicts. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A: Syst Hum 37(4):456–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canada, N2L 3C5

    D. Marc Kilgour

  2. Department of Systems Design Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada, N2L 3C5

    Keith W. Hipel

Authors
  1. D. Marc Kilgour
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Keith W. Hipel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. Marc Kilgour .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Mathematics, Wilfrid Laurier University, University Ave. W. 75, Waterloo, N2L 3C5, Canada

    D. Marc Kilgour

  2. Strathclyde Business School, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, G4 0QU, United Kingdom

    Colin Eden

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kilgour, D.M., Hipel, K.W. (2010). Conflict Analysis Methods: The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution. In: Kilgour, D., Eden, C. (eds) Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation. Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation, vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9097-3_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation