IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wut/journl/v4y2012p121-137id1046.html

Reference points-based methods in supporting the evaluation of negotiation offers

Author

Listed:
  • Tomasz Wachowicz

  • Jakub Brzostowski

  • Ewa Roszkowska

Abstract

Scoring the negotiation template and building a scoring system for negotiation offers is a starting point for analysis of negotiation. It is usually done by means of a classical additive scoring model. Recent research confirms, however, that TOPSIS may be a good alternative to SAW-based models, since it significantly facilitates the processes of template definition and elicitation of negotiator’s preferences. Fundamental ideas of the TOPSIS, VIKOR and BIPOLAR methods have been analysed and attempts were made to hybridize some of their notions to propose an alternative method for evaluating negotiation offers.

Suggested Citation

  • Tomasz Wachowicz & Jakub Brzostowski & Ewa Roszkowska, 2012. "Reference points-based methods in supporting the evaluation of negotiation offers," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 22(4), pages 121-137.
    • Handle: RePEc:wut:journl:v:4:y:2012:p:121-137:id:1046
    DOI: 10.5277/ord120407
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ord.pwr.edu.pl/assets/papers_archive/1046%20-%20published.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.5277/ord120407?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. JosÉ Figueira & Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrogott, 2005. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-0-387-23081-8, December.
    2. Bernard Roy, 2005. "Paradigms and Challenges," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, chapter 0, pages 3-24, Springer.
    3. Kalai, Ehud & Smorodinsky, Meir, 1975. "Other Solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(3), pages 513-518, May.
    4. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    5. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    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. Ewa Roszkowska & Marzena Filipowicz-Chomko & Tomasz Wachowicz, 2020. "Using individual and common reference points to measure the performance of alternatives in multiple criteria evaluation," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 30(3), pages 77-96.
    2. Dorota Górecka & Ewa Roszkowska, 2025. "Enhancing Spatial Analysis through Reference Multi-Criteria Methods: A Study Evaluating EU Countries in terms of Sustainable Cities and Communities," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 1-42, March.

    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. Dorota Górecka & Ewa Roszkowska & Tomasz Wachowicz, 2016. "The MARS Approach in the Verbal and Holistic Evaluation of the Negotiation Template," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 1097-1136, November.
    2. Omer F. Baris, 2018. "Timing effect in bargaining and ex ante efficiency of the relative utilitarian solution," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 84(4), pages 547-556, June.
    3. Kadziński, MiŁosz & Greco, Salvatore & SŁowiński, Roman, 2012. "Extreme ranking analysis in robust ordinal regression," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 488-501.
    4. Lea Melnikovová, 2017. "Can Game Theory Help to Mitigate Water Conflicts in the Syrdarya Basin?," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 65(4), pages 1393-1401.
    5. Daniele Cassese & Paolo Pin, 2025. "Decentralized pure exchange processes on networks," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 64(3), pages 427-463, May.
    6. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & António Osório & Josep E. Peris, 2015. "From Bargaining Solutions to Claims Rules: A Proportional Approach," Games, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-7, March.
    7. Takeuchi, Ai & Veszteg, Róbert F. & Kamijo, Yoshio & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2022. "Bargaining over a jointly produced pie: The effect of the production function on bargaining outcomes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 169-198.
    8. Roszkowska, Ewa & Wachowicz, Tomasz, 2015. "Application of fuzzy TOPSIS to scoring the negotiation offers in ill-structured negotiation problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(3), pages 920-932.
    9. Hwang, Sung-Ha & Rey-Bellet, Luc, 2021. "Positive feedback in coordination games: Stochastic evolutionary dynamics and the logit choice rule," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 355-373.
    10. Yakov Babichenko & Leonard J. Schulman, 2015. "Pareto Efficient Nash Implementation Via Approval Voting," Papers 1502.05238, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2017.
    11. Roy, Bernard & Slowinski, Roman, 2008. "Handling effects of reinforced preference and counter-veto in credibility of outranking," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 188(1), pages 185-190, July.
    12. Rachmilevitch, Shiran, 2015. "Nash bargaining with (almost) no rationality," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 107-109.
    13. Arzu Kıbrıs & Özgür Kıbrıs & Mehmet Yiğit Gürdal, 2022. "Protectionist demands in globalization," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 26(3), pages 345-365, September.
    14. Craig Webb, 2010. "Agreeing to spin the subjective roulette wheel: Bargaining with subjective mixtures," Economics Discussion Paper Series 1005, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    15. Saglam, Ismail, 2022. "Two-player bargaining problems with unilateral pre-donation," MPRA Paper 115203, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Ismail Saglam, 2017. "Iterated Kalai–Smorodinsky–Nash compromise," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 40(1), pages 335-349, November.
    17. Koshevoy, G.A. & Suzuki, T. & Talman, A.J.J., 2014. "Supermodular NTU-games," Discussion Paper 2014-067, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    18. Michail Anthropelos & Nikolaos E. Frangos & Stylianos Z. Xanthopoulos & Athanasios N. Yannacopoulos, 2008. "On contingent claims pricing in incomplete markets: A risk sharing approach," Papers 0809.4781, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2012.
    19. Bas Dietzenbacher & Hans Peters, 2022. "Characterizing NTU-bankruptcy rules using bargaining axioms," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 318(2), pages 871-888, November.
    20. Fabio Galeotti & Maria Montero & Anders Poulsen, 2022. "The Attraction and Compromise Effects in Bargaining: Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2987-3007, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:wut:journl:v:4:y:2012:p:121-137:id:1046. 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: Adam Kasperski (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iopwrpl.html .

    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.