Attitude-Based Negotiation Methodology for the Management of Construction Disputes

A systematic negotiation methodology for construction disputes is presented to take into consideration the attitudes of negotiators at two complementary levels of decision making: strategic and tactical. At the strategic level, the proposed methodology employs the graph model for conflict resolution and helps negotiators find the most beneficial subset of solutions to the conflict. At the tactical level, the proposed methodology examines the most beneficial strategic decisions using utility functions to provide agreed-upon tradeoffs with respect to any conflicting issues. A construction case study is used to illustrate the proposed methodology and demonstrate the importance of incorporating decision makers’ attitudes into negotiation to better identify the most feasible decisions. The proposed methodology may assist negotiators with the challenges of conventional negotiation through the incorporation of decision makers’ attitudes into a range of analytical tools that will clarify interests, determine equi...

[1]  Feniosky Peña-Mora,et al.  COMPUTER-SUPPORTED COLLABORATIVE NEGOTIATION METHODOLOGY , 1998 .

[2]  Sai On Cheung,et al.  Fundamentals of Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes in Construction , 2002 .

[3]  Bill Scott,et al.  Negotiating skills in engineering and construction , 1990 .

[4]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[5]  Kathleen M. J. Harmon,et al.  Resolution of Construction Disputes: A Review of Current Methodologies , 2003 .

[6]  Robert L. Winkler,et al.  The Role of Attitude Toward Risk in Strictly Competitive Decision-Making Situations , 1978 .

[7]  D. Marc Kilgour.  The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution as a Tool for Negotiators , 2007 .

[8]  Sai On Cheung,et al.  Construction Negotiation Online , 2004 .

[9]  D. Lutz,et al.  Paradoxes of Rationality: Theory of Metagames and Political Behavior , 1973 .

[10]  P. Morris.  Introduction to Game Theory , 1994 .

[11]  Keith W. Hipel,et al.  Conflict resolution in construction disputes using the graph model , 2006 .

[12]  S. Walker,et al.  Conflict analysis approaches for investigating attitudes and misperceptions in the War of 1812 , 2007 .

[13]  Randall A. Kramer,et al.  Choice of Utility Functional Form: Its Effect on Classification of Risk Preferences and the Prediction of Farmer Decisions , 1987 .

[14]  Jeryl L. Mumpower,et al.  The judgement policies of negotiators and the structure of negotiation problems , 1991 .

[15]  Luis G. Vargas.  Conflict analysis: Models and resolutions: Niall M. FRASER and Keith W. HIPEL Volume 11 in: North-Holland Series in System Science and Engineering, North-Holland, New York, 1984, xx + 377 pages, $34.50 , 1985 .

[16]  Keith W. Hipel,et al.  The Future of Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Application Domains and Research Methods , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews).

[17]  Haim Levy,et al.  Efficient Portfolio Selection with Quadratic and Cubic Utility , 1970 .

[18]  J. Mumpower,et al.  Modeling cognitive influences on the dynamics of negotiations , 1990, Twenty-Third Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[19]  John Zeleznikow,et al.  Bargaining in the shadow of the law - using utility functions to support legal negotiation , 2007, ICAIL.

[20]  Doug Jones.  Construction Project Dispute Resolution: Options for Effective Dispute Avoidance and Management , 2006 .

[21]  Charles Leake.  Interactive Decision Making: The Graph Model for Conflict Resolution , 1993 .

[22]  Timon C. Du,et al.  Building a Multiple-Criteria Negotiation Support System , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.