IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rnd/arimbr/v13y2021i1p33-46.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Building an Automated win-win Negotiation Process Model

Author

Listed:
  • Latifa Ghalayini
  • Dana Deeb

Abstract

This paper builds an automated negotiation process model for integrative negotiations. The process model defines and automates the necessary phases and activities along with the integrative negotiation approach principles to create win-win outcomes that mutually satisfy negotiating parties. However, to realize this objective, the negotiation literature and theories are reviewed to determine the relevant theories for integrative negotiations that help to develop and form the basis of the process model. After investigation, it became evident that three main theories, which are Decision Theory, Rational Choice Theory and Mutual Gains Theory, contribute to building the integrative process model by setting its phases and components. The model is composed of five main phases with several sub-phases. Decision theory with mutual gains theory provides the robust process model through several phases, and rational choice theory with mutual gains theory ensures they are implemented in a fair, objective manner to come up with a satisfying win-win solution. Hence, automated negotiation processes when designed in a robust manner that is based on the theory that serves integrative approaches could lead to win-win negotiation outcomes. The foundation of the win-win negotiation process model contributes to designing win-win negotiation outcomes through structuring automated negotiation and setting its phases along with the integrative negotiation principles. It develops the negotiation field by integrating automation and the integrative approach principles in a process model.

Suggested Citation

  • Latifa Ghalayini & Dana Deeb, 2021. "Building an Automated win-win Negotiation Process Model," Information Management and Business Review, AMH International, vol. 13(1), pages 33-46.
    • Handle: RePEc:rnd:arimbr:v:13:y:2021:i:1:p:33-46
    DOI: 10.22610/imbr.v13i1(I).3162
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ojs.amhinternational.com/index.php/imbr/article/view/3162/2028
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ojs.amhinternational.com/index.php/imbr/article/view/3162
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22610/imbr.v13i1(I).3162?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. N.R. Jennings & P. Faratin & A.R. Lomuscio & S. Parsons & M.J. Wooldridge & C. Sierra, 2001. "Automated Negotiation: Prospects, Methods and Challenges," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 199-215, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nelson S. Lubguban, Jr & Lorenzo I. Balili Jr. & Maricur M. Tiomes & Glenn T. Zabate & Edroslyn J. Fernandez, 2024. "Experiences of School Leaders in Managing Entrepreneurial Behavior of Teachers: A Case Study," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 8(9), pages 3605-3621, September.
    2. Karine Lamiraud & Julien Patris & Radu Vranceanu, 2023. "Experimental evidence on the value of time and structure in market negotiations," Working Papers hal-03989514, HAL.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Melvin F. Shakun, 2005. "Multi-bilateral Multi-issue E-negotiation in E-commerce with a Tit-for-Tat Computer Agent," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 383-392, September.
    2. Sigifredo Laengle & Nikunja Mohan Modak & Jose M. Merigo & Gustavo Zurita, 2018. "Twenty-Five Years of Group Decision and Negotiation: A Bibliometric Overview," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 505-542, August.
    3. Huiye Ma & Nicole Ronald & Theo Arentze & Harry Timmermans, 2013. "Negotiating on location, timing, duration, and participant in agent-mediated joint activity-travel scheduling," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 427-451, October.
    4. Rudolf Vetschera & Michael Filzmoser & Ronald Mitterhofer, 2014. "An Analytical Approach to Offer Generation in Concession-Based Negotiation Processes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 71-99, January.
    5. Alessio R. Lomuscio & Michael Wooldridge & Nicholas R. Jennings, 2003. "A Classification Scheme for Negotiation in Electronic Commerce," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 31-56, January.
    6. Jorge E. Hernández & Josefa Mula & Raúl Poler & Andrew C. Lyons, 2014. "Collaborative Planning in Multi-tier Supply Chains Supported by a Negotiation-Based Mechanism and Multi-agent System," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 235-269, March.
    7. Jain, Vipul & Deshmukh, S.G., 2009. "Dynamic supply chain modeling using a new fuzzy hybrid negotiation mechanism," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 319-328, November.
    8. Beaudoin, D. & Frayret, J.-M. & LeBel, L., 2010. "Negotiation-based distributed wood procurement planning within a multi-firm environment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 79-93, February.
    9. John Zeleznikow, 2021. "Using Artificial Intelligence to provide Intelligent Dispute Resolution Support," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 789-812, August.
    10. Ronald, Nicole & Arentze, Theo & Timmermans, Harry, 2012. "Modeling social interactions between individuals for joint activity scheduling," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 276-290.
    11. Luis C. Dias & Rudolf Vetschera, 2022. "Two-party Bargaining Processes Based on Subjective Expectations: A Model and a Simulation Study," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 843-869, August.
    12. Arentze, Theo A., 2015. "Individuals' social preferences in joint activity location choice: A negotiation model and empirical evidence," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 76-84.
    13. Tiago Pinto & Zita Vale & Isabel Praça & E. J. Solteiro Pires & Fernando Lopes, 2015. "Decision Support for Energy Contracts Negotiation with Game Theory and Adaptive Learning," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-26, September.
    14. Michael Filzmoser & Johannes R. Gettinger, 2019. "Offer and veto: an experimental comparison of two negotiation procedures," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(1), pages 83-99, May.
    15. Lang, Fabian & Fink, Andreas & Brandt, Tobias, 2016. "Design of automated negotiation mechanisms for decentralized heterogeneous machine scheduling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(1), pages 192-203.
    16. Fabian Lang & Andreas Fink, 2015. "Learning from the Metaheuristics: Protocols for Automated Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 299-332, March.
    17. Tsegay Tesfay Mezgebe & Hind Bril El Haouzi & Guillaume Demesure & Remi Pannequin & Andre Thomas, 2020. "Multi-agent systems negotiation to deal with dynamic scheduling in disturbed industrial context," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 31(6), pages 1367-1382, August.
    18. Maxime Morge & Paolo Mancarella, 2014. "Arguing over Goals for Negotiation: Adopting an Assumption-Based Argumentation Decision Support System," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 979-1012, September.
    19. Louta, Malamati & Roussaki, Ioanna & Pechlivanos, Lambros, 2008. "An intelligent agent negotiation strategy in the electronic marketplace environment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(3), pages 1327-1345, June.
    20. Martin Meister & Kay Schröter & Diemo Urbig & Eric Lettkemann & Hans-Dieter Burkhard & Werner Rammert, 2007. "Construction and Evaluation of Social Agents in Hybrid Settings: Approach and Experimental Results of the INKA Project," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 10(1), pages 1-4.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rnd:arimbr:v:13:y:2021:i:1:p:33-46. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Muhammad Tayyab (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ojs.amhinternational.com/index.php/imbr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.