Abstract
In bilateral Negotiation Analysis, the literature often considers the case of complete information. In this context, since the negotiators know the value functions of both parties, it is not difficult to calculate the Pareto efficient solutions for the negotiation. Thus rational negotiators can reach agreement on this frontier. However, these approaches are not applied in practice when complete information is not available. The research question of our work is “It is possible to help negotiators achieving an efficient solution in the absence of complete information regarding the different parameters of the model?”. We propose to derive incomplete information about the preferences of negotiators from the statements they make and the offers they exchange during the negotiation process. We present and discuss three approaches that use this information in order to help a mediator proposing a better solution than the compromise the negotiators have reached or are close to reach.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barron F, Barrett B (1996) Decision quality using ranked attribute weights. Manag Sci 42(11): 1515–1523
Bous G, Fortemps P, Glineur F, Pirlot M (2010) Acuta: a novel method for eliciting additive value functions on the basis of holistic preference statements. Eur J Oper Res 206: 435–444
Butler J, Jia J, Dyer JS (1997) Simulation techniques for the sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria decision models. Eur J Oper Res 103(3): 531–546
Charnetski J, Soland R (1978) Multiple-attribute decision making with partial information: The comparative hypervolume criterion. Naval Res Logist Q 25: 279–288
Clımaco JN, Dias LC (2006) An approach to support negotiation processes with imprecise information multicriteria additive models. Group Decis Negot 15(2): 171–184
Dias LC, Clımaco JN (2000) Additive aggregation with variable interdependent parameters: the VIP analysis software. J Oper Res Soc 51(9): 1070–1082
Dias LC, Clımaco JN (2005) Dealing with imprecise information in group multicriteria decisions: A methodology and a GDSS architecture. Eur J Oper Res 160: 291–307
Ehtamo H, Hämäläinen R, Heiskanen P, Teich J, Verkama M, Zionts S (1999) Generating Pareto solutions in a two-party setting: Constraint proposal methods. Manag Sci 45(12): 1697–1709
Greco S, Mousseau V, Slowinski R (2008) Ordinal regression revisited: multiple criteria ranking using a set of additive value functions. Eur J Oper Res 191(2): 415–435
Heikanen P (1999) Decentralized method for computing Pareto solutions in multiparty negotiation. Eur J Oper Res 117: 578–590
Jacquet-Lagreze E, Siskos J (1982) Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision-making, the UTA method. Eur J Oper Res 10: 151–164
Keeney R, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New York
Kersten GE, Noronha SJ (1998) Rational agents, contract curves, and inefficient compromises. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 28(3): 326–338
Korhonen P, Phillips J, Teich J, Wallenius J (1998) Are Pareto improvements always preferred by negotiators?. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 7(1): 1–2
Lahdelma R, Hokkanen J, Salminen P (1998) SMAA—stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis. Eur J Oper Res 106(1): 137–143
Lahdelma R, Miettinen K, Salminen P (2003) Ordinal criteria in stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA). Eur J Oper Res 147(1): 117–127
Lai G, Li C, Sycara K (2006) Efficient multi-attribute negotiation with incomplete information. Group Decis Negotiat 15: 511–528
Lai G, Sycara K (2009) A generic framework for automated multi-attribute negotiation. Group Decis Negotiat 18: 169–187
Lasserre JB (1983) An analytical expression and an algorithm for the volume of a convex polyhedron in R n. J Optim Theory Appl 39(3): 363–377
Lawrence J (1991) Polytope volume computation. Math Comput 57: 259–271
Mousseau V, Dias L (2004) Valued outranking relations in Electre providing manageable disaggregation procedures. Eur J Oper Res 156(2): 467–482
Pruitt DG (1983) Strategic choice in negotiation. Am Behav Sci 27(2): 167–194
Raiffa H, Richardson J, Metcalfe D (2002) Negotiation analysis: the science and art of collaborative decision making. Belknap Press of Harvard, University Press, Cambridge (Ma)
Sarabando P, Dias L (2009) Comparison of different rules to deal with incomplete information: perspectives of mediation. Technical report. Research Reports of INESC Coimbra, No. 2
Sarabando P, Dias L, Vetschera R (2009) Approaches to suggest potential agreements: Perspectives of mediation with incomplete information. Technical report. Research Reports of INESC Coimbra, No.~11
Solymosi T, Dombi J (1986) A method for determining the weights of criteria: the centralized weights. Eur J Oper Res 26: 35–41
Starr MK (1962) Product design and decision theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs
Thomas KW (1992) Conflict and conflict management: reflections and update. J Organ Behav 13: 265–274
Vetschera R (1997) A recursive algorithm for volume-based sensitivity analysis of linear decision models. Comput OR 24(5): 477–491
Vetschera R (2005) Strategic manipulation of preference information in multi-criteria group decision methods. Group Decis Negotiat 14: 393–414
Vetschera R (2009) Learning about preferences in electronic negotiations—a volume based measurement method. Eur J Oper Res 194: 452–463
von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W (1986) Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Walton RE, McKersie RB (1965) A behavioral theory of labor negotiations. McGraw-Hill, New York
Weber M (1987) Decision making with incomplete information. Eur J Oper Res 28(1): 44–57
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sarabando, P., Dias, L.C. & Vetschera, R. Mediation with Incomplete Information: Approaches to Suggest Potential Agreements. Group Decis Negot 22, 561–597 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-012-9283-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-012-9283-9