scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
MonographDOI

Negotiation analysis : the science and art of collaborative decision making

TL;DR: In this paper, four approaches to decision making are presented: decision analysis, negotiation analysis, template design and template evaluation, and consensus on how to achieve a shared agreement for all the parties.
Abstract: Preface Part I. Fundamentals 1. Decision Perspectives On four approaches to decision making 2. Decision Analysis On how individuals should and could decide 3. Behavioral Decision Theory On the psychology of decisions on how real people do decide 4. Game Theory On how rational beings should decide separately in interactive situations 5. Negotiation Analysis On how you should and could collaborate with others Part II. Two-Party Distributive (Win-Lose) Negotiations 6. Elmtree House On setting the stage for adversarial bargaining 7. Distributive Negotiations: The Basic Problem On the essence of noncooperative, win-lose negotiations 8. Introducing Complexities: Uncertainty On deciding to settle out of court and other problems of choice under uncertainty 9. Introducing Complexities: Time On entrapments and downward escalation on real and virtual strikes 10. Auctions and Bids On comparing different auction and competitive bidding procedures Part III. Two-Party Integrative (Win-Win) Negotiations 11. Template Design On brainstorming alone and together on deciding what must be decided 12. Template Evaluation On deciding what you need and want 13. Template Analysis (I) On finding a joint compromise for a special simple case 14. Template Analysis (II) On finding a joint compromise for the general case 15. Behavioral Realities On learning how people do negotiate in the laboratory and the real world 16. Noncooperative Others On how to tackle noncooperative adversaries Part IV. External Help 17. Mostly Facilitation and Mediation On helping with people problems 18. Arbitration: Conventional and Nonconventional On how a neutral joint analyst might help 19. What Is Fair? On principles for deciding joint outcomes 20. Parallel Negotiations On negotiating without Negotiating Part V. Many Parties 21. Group Decisions On organizing and managing groups 22. Consensus On how to achieve a shared agreement for all 23. Coalitions On the dynamics of splitting and joining subgroups 24. Voting On anomalies of collective action based on voting schemes 25. Pluralistic Parties On dealing with parties fractured by internal conflict 26. Multiparty Interventions On the role of external helpers in multiparty negotiations 27. Social Dilemmas On the conflict between self-interest and group interest References Note on Sources Index
Citations
More filters
Book
01 Jan 2008
TL;DR: The contribution of this paper is to present a tableau method that automatically decides whether a formula of the logic of acceptance is satisfiable thereby providing an automated reasoning procedure for judgement aggregation in the Logic of acceptance.
Abstract: We continue the work initiated in [1–3], where the acceptance logic, a modal logic for modelling individual and collective acceptances was introduced. This logic is aimed at capturing the concept of acceptance qua member of an institution as the kind of attitude that agents are committed to when they are “functioning as members of an institution”. Acceptance logic can also be used to model judgement aggregation: it deals with how a collective acceptance of the members of an institution about a certain fact φ is created from the individual acceptances of the members of the institution. The contribution of this paper is to present a tableau method for the logic of acceptance. The method automatically decides whether a formula of the logic of acceptance is satisfiable thereby providing an automated reasoning procedure for judgement aggregation in the logic of acceptance.

260 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examined the decision-making structure of the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 and concluded that investment in communication, trust-building, and eradication of inter-agency value differences and discrepancies is imperative.
Abstract: Decision-making in emergencies requires non-traditional approach and tools characterized by non-hierarchical structure and flexibility. The dynamic environment of disasters makes it imperative to invest in inter-sector and inter-agency cooperation and coordination. Focusing on the Emergency Management Assistance Compact's (EMAC) response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, this article examines the decision-making structure of the agreement. EMAC is an inter-state mutual aid agreement that facilitates sharing of resources during and after disasters. While EMAC's overall decision-making performance was relatively satisfactory and flawless, investment in communication, trust-building, and eradication of inter-agency value differences and discrepancies is imperative.

246 citations


Cites background from "Negotiation analysis : the science ..."

  • ...The next section focuses on decision-making in emergencies with its examination in the context of collaboration....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the CIRP community's collective efforts to establish such a scientific foundation according to the “Observation → Hypothesis → Theory” development pathway are reported.

222 citations


Cites background from "Negotiation analysis : the science ..."

  • ...4), especially negotiation analysis studies [158]....

    [...]

  • ...There also have been many studies on how multiple individuals make decisions interactively, represented by game theory research [12] and negotiation analysis [158], which provide fundamental knowledge for collaboration sciences and collaborative engineering....

    [...]

  • ...For example, the “satisfying” concept in ECN resonates with the BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) principle from negotiation research [158]....

    [...]

Book
18 Jul 2008
TL;DR: In this paper, de Souza Briggs examines efforts in six cities, in the United States, Brazil, India, and South Africa, that face the millennial challenges of rapid urban growth, economic restructuring, and investing in the next generation.
Abstract: Complexity, division, mistrust, and "process paralysis" can thwart leaders and others when they tackle local challenges. In Democracy as Problem Solving, Xavier de Souza Briggs shows how civic capacity -- the capacity to create and sustain smart collective action -- can be developed and used. In an era of sharp debate over the conditions under which democracy can develop while broadening participation and building community, Briggs argues that understanding and building civic capacity is crucial for strengthening governance and changing the state of the world in the process. More than managing a contest among interest groups or spurring deliberation to reframe issues, democracy can be what the public most desires: a recipe for significant progress on important problems. Briggs examines efforts in six cities, in the United States, Brazil, India, and South Africa, that face the millennial challenges of rapid urban growth, economic restructuring, and investing in the next generation. These challenges demand the engagement of government, business, and nongovernmental sectors. And the keys to progress include the ability to combine learning and bargaining continuously, forge multiple forms of accountability, and find ways to leverage the capacity of the grassroots and what Briggs terms the "grasstops," regardless of who initiates change or who participates over time. Civic capacity, Briggs shows, can -- and must -- be developed even in places that lack traditions of cooperative civic action.

203 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The preclinical rationale for dual pathway inhibition will be discussed within the context of the major tumor types currently being explored in ongoing clinical trials, namely malignant melanoma with BRAF or NRAS mutations, and colorectal, ovarian, pancreatic, and basal-like breast cancers.
Abstract: The PI3K/AKT/mTOR and RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathways are two of the most frequently dysregulated kinase cascades in human cancer. Molecular alterations in these pathways are implicated in tumorigenesis and resistance to anticancer therapies. The PI3K/AKT/mTOR and RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathways are known to interact with each other at several nodes, and mounting evidence suggests that dual blockade of both pathways may be required to achieve anticancer effects in certain contexts. This may include tumor types with a high frequency of RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathway activation, or situations in which dual pathway strategies may be required to overcome resistance to current targeted therapies. Several clinical studies are currently evaluating the combination of PI3K and MEK inhibitors in a variety of different cancers with certain types of molecular alterations. This review will summarize existing knowledge of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR and RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK pathways, the cross-talk between them, and the current generation of PI3K and MEK inhibitors that target them. The preclinical rationale for dual pathway inhibition will be discussed within the context of the major tumor types currently being explored in ongoing clinical trials, namely malignant melanoma with BRAF or NRAS mutations, and colorectal, ovarian, pancreatic, and basal-like breast cancers. The emerging clinical profile of PI3K and MEK inhibitor combinations, as reported in Phase I trials, will also be discussed.

195 citations