Negotiation and design: Supporting resource allocation decisions through analytical mediation

The common element of all negotiations is change. Design is the key to directing and managing change, and resource allocation is the most critical component of design. Negotiations about change are, therefore, fundamentally, negotiations about design and resource allocation. Negotiations vary along a continuum, from those in which negotiators have consonant interests (share objectives) to discordant ones (disagree about appropriate objectives). The joint distribution of all possible payoffs defines the structure of the negotiation problem—the opportunities the problem affords and constraints it imposes on negotiators. The analytical mediation approach supports the activities of an impartial, neutral third party who attempts to assist the disputants to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement. It makes use of different types of techniques to support negotiations, depending on their location along the negotiation continuum. Two case studies involving analytical mediation are reported. One case study involves a budgeting exercise, in which the negotiators’ interests were essentially consonant. The second case study involves a labor-management contract problem, in which the negotiators’ interests were highly discordant.

[1]  H. Raiffa The art and science of negotiation , 1983 .

[2]  R. Walton,et al.  A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations. , 1966 .

[3]  John Rohrbaugh,et al.  Decision conferencing for systems planning , 1991, Inf. Manag..

[4]  L. Thompson The influence of experience on negotiation performance , 1990 .

[5]  J. Rohrbaugh,et al.  Decision conferencing GDSS in environmental policy making: developing a long-term environmental plan in Hungary , 1996 .

[6]  Max H. Bazerman,et al.  Negotiating in Organizations , 1983 .

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

[8]  T. R. Stewart Chapter 2 Judgment Analysis: Procedures , 1988 .

[9]  Linus E. Schrage LINDO : an optimization modeling system , 1991 .

[10]  J. Nunamaker,et al.  Labor-management contract negotiations in an electronic meeting room: A case study , 1993 .

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

[12]  R. Hastie,et al.  Social perception in negotiation , 1990 .

[13]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[14]  A. Foroughi,et al.  NSS solutions to major negotiation stumbling blocks , 1990, Twenty-Third Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[15]  J. Mumpower Chapter 15 An Analysis of the Judgmental Components of Negotiation and a Proposed Judgmentally-Oriented Approach to Mediation , 1988 .

[16]  John Rohrbaugh Microcomputers and Strategic Decision Making , 1985 .

[17]  R. Dawes Judgment under uncertainty: The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making , 1979 .

[18]  Kim,et al.  Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement , 1986 .

[19]  Max H. Bazerman,et al.  Heuristics in Negotiation: Limitations to Effective Dispute Resolution , 1983 .

[20]  Jeryl L. Mumpower,et al.  Modeling resource allocation negotiations , 1991, Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[21]  E. Brunswik,et al.  The Conceptual Framework of Psychology , 1954 .

[22]  James K. Sebenius,et al.  The Manager as Negotiator: Bargaining for Cooperation and Competitive Gain , 1986 .

[23]  Charles Vlek,et al.  Social Decision Methodology for Technological Projects , 1989 .

[24]  L. Thompson,et al.  Social Utility and Decision Making in Interpersonal Contexts , 1989 .

[25]  L. Thompson,et al.  A method for examining learning in negotiation , 1992 .