IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v242y2015i3p920-932.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Application of fuzzy TOPSIS to scoring the negotiation offers in ill-structured negotiation problems

Author

Listed:
  • Roszkowska, Ewa
  • Wachowicz, Tomasz

Abstract

In this paper we analyze the applicability of the TOPSIS method to support the process of building the scoring system for negotiation offers in ill-structured negotiations. When discussing the ill-structured negotiation problem we consider two major issues: the imprecisely defined negotiation space, and the vagueness of the negotiator's preferences that cannot be defined by means of crisp values. First we introduce the traditional fuzzy TOPSIS model showing the alternative ways of normalizing the data and measuring the distances, which allows to avoid the problem of ranking reversals. Then we formalize ill-structured negotiations using a model which allows the negotiation problem to be defined in a simplified way by means of the aspiration and reservation levels only. Such a definition requires changes in the traditional fuzzy TOPSIS algorithm the development of a mechanism for scoring the offers that fall outside of the negotiation space defined independently and subjectively by the negotiator. We propose three different approaches to handle this problem, that keep the scoring system stable and unchanged throughout the whole negotiation process.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:242:y:2015:i:3:p:920-932
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2014.10.050
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221714008728
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.10.050?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. De Keyser, Wim & Peeters, Peter, 1996. "A note on the use of PROMETHEE multicriteria methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(3), pages 457-461, March.
    2. Schenkerman, Stan, 1994. "Avoiding rank reversal in AHP decision-support models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 407-419, May.
    3. Suzana de Suzana Dantas Daher & Adiel Teixeira Almeida, 2012. "The Use of Ranking Veto Concept to Mitigate the Compensatory Effects of Additive Aggregation in Group Decisions on a Water Utility Automation Investment," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 185-204, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Wojtek Michalowski & Tomek Szapiro, 1992. "A Bi-Reference Procedure for Interactive Multiple Criteria Programming," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 40(2), pages 247-258, April.
    6. 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.
    7. Ernest M. Thiessen & Andrea Soberg, 2003. "SmartSettle Described with the Montreal Taxonomy," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 165-170, March.
    8. Greco, Salvatore & Mousseau, Vincent & Slowinski, Roman, 2008. "Ordinal regression revisited: Multiple criteria ranking using a set of additive value functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 191(2), pages 416-436, December.
    9. Belton, Valerie & Gear, Tony, 1983. "On a short-coming of Saaty's method of analytic hierarchies," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 228-230.
    10. Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung & Chen, Ting-Yu & Wang, Jih-Chang, 1998. "A weight-assessing method with habitual domains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(2), pages 342-367, October.
    11. Figueira, José Rui & Greco, Salvatore & Slowinski, Roman, 2009. "Building a set of additive value functions representing a reference preorder and intensities of preference: GRIP method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 195(2), pages 460-486, June.
    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. Adiel T. Almeida & Tomasz Wachowicz, 2017. "Preference Analysis and Decision Support in Negotiations and Group Decisions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 649-652, July.
    2. Ewa Roszkowska & Marzena Filipowicz-Chomko, 2020. "Measuring sustainable development in the education area using multi-criteria methods: a case study," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 28(4), pages 1219-1241, December.
    3. Ta-Chung Chu & Miroslav Kysely, 2021. "Ranking objectives of advertisements on Facebook by a fuzzy TOPSIS method," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 881-916, December.
    4. Urszula Kwast-Kotlarek & Maria Hełdak, 2019. "Evaluation of the Construction and Investment Process of a High-Pressure Gas Pipeline with Use of the Trenchless Method and Open Excavation Method. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-18, April.
    5. Yasir Ahmed Solangi & Qingmei Tan & Muhammad Waris Ali Khan & Nayyar Hussain Mirjat & Ifzal Ahmed, 2018. "The Selection of Wind Power Project Location in the Southeastern Corridor of Pakistan: A Factor Analysis, AHP, and Fuzzy-TOPSIS Application," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-26, July.
    6. 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.
    7. He, Shawei, 2022. "A time sensitive graph model for conflict resolution with application to international air carbon negotiation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(2), pages 652-670.
    8. Lubiano, María Asunción & Montenegro, Manuel & Sinova, Beatriz & de la Rosa de Sáa, Sara & Gil, María Ángeles, 2016. "Hypothesis testing for means in connection with fuzzy rating scale-based data: algorithms and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(3), pages 918-929.
    9. Joshi, Deepa & Kumar, Sanjay, 2016. "Interval-valued intuitionistic hesitant fuzzy Choquet integral based TOPSIS method for multi-criteria group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(1), pages 183-191.
    10. Sławomir Kalinowski & Aleksandra Łuczak & Adam Koziolek, 2022. "The Social Dimension of Security: The Dichotomy of Respondents’ Perceptions during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-20, January.
    11. Leandro Peçanha De Souza & Carlos Francisco Simões Gomes & Alexandre Pinheiro De Barros, 2018. "Implementation of New Hybrid AHP–TOPSIS-2N Method in Sorting and Prioritizing of an it CAPEX Project Portfolio," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 977-1005, July.
    12. Muhammad Akram & Maham Arshad, 2019. "A Novel Trapezoidal Bipolar Fuzzy TOPSIS Method for Group Decision-Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 565-584, June.
    13. Walczak, Dariusz & Rutkowska, Aleksandra, 2017. "Project rankings for participatory budget based on the fuzzy TOPSIS method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(2), pages 706-714.
    14. Ewa Roszkowska, 2020. "The extention rank ordering criteria weighting methods in fuzzy enviroment," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 30(2), pages 91-114.
    15. Solangi, Yasir Ahmed & Longsheng, Cheng & Shah, Syed Ahsan Ali, 2021. "Assessing and overcoming the renewable energy barriers for sustainable development in Pakistan: An integrated AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 209-222.

    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. Kadziński, MiŁosz & Greco, Salvatore & SŁowiński, Roman, 2012. "Extreme ranking analysis in robust ordinal regression," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 488-501.
    2. Doumpos, Michael & Zopounidis, Constantin, 2011. "Preference disaggregation and statistical learning for multicriteria decision support: A review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 209(3), pages 203-214, March.
    3. Joseph, Rémy-Robert, 2010. "Making choices with a binary relation: Relative choice axioms and transitive closures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(2), pages 865-877, December.
    4. Greco, Salvatore & Kadzinski, Milosz & Mousseau, Vincent & Slowinski, Roman, 2011. "ELECTREGKMS: Robust ordinal regression for outranking methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 214(1), pages 118-135, October.
    5. Kadziński, Miłosz & Greco, Salvatore & Słowiński, Roman, 2012. "Selection of a representative value function in robust multiple criteria ranking and choice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 217(3), pages 541-553.
    6. Hurson, Christian & Siskos, Yannis, 2014. "A synergy of multicriteria techniques to assess additive value models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(2), pages 540-551.
    7. Bous, Géraldine & Fortemps, Philippe & Glineur, François & Pirlot, Marc, 2010. "ACUTA: A novel method for eliciting additive value functions on the basis of holistic preference statements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(2), pages 435-444, October.
    8. Ciomek, Krzysztof & Kadziński, Miłosz & Tervonen, Tommi, 2017. "Heuristics for selecting pair-wise elicitation questions in multiple criteria choice problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 262(2), pages 693-707.
    9. Sobrie, Olivier & Gillis, Nicolas & Mousseau, Vincent & Pirlot, Marc, 2018. "UTA-poly and UTA-splines: Additive value functions with polynomial marginals," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 405-418.
    10. Bouchery, Yann & Ghaffari, Asma & Jemai, Zied & Dallery, Yves, 2012. "Including sustainability criteria into inventory models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 222(2), pages 229-240.
    11. Ishizaka, Alessio & Siraj, Sajid, 2018. "Are multi-criteria decision-making tools useful? An experimental comparative study of three methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 462-471.
    12. Greco, Salvatore & Mousseau, Vincent & Słowiński, Roman, 2014. "Robust ordinal regression for value functions handling interacting criteria," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 711-730.
    13. Nguyen, Duy Van, 2013. "Global maximization of UTA functions in multi-objective optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 397-404.
    14. Corrente, S. & Figueira, J.R. & Greco, S., 2021. "Pairwise comparison tables within the deck of cards method in multiple criteria decision aiding," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(2), pages 738-756.
    15. Wachowicz, Tomasz & Roszkowska, Ewa, 2022. "Can holistic declaration of preferences improve a negotiation offer scoring system?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 299(3), pages 1018-1032.
    16. Corrente, Salvatore & Figueira, José Rui & Greco, Salvatore, 2014. "The SMAA-PROMETHEE method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(2), pages 514-522.
    17. Podinovski, Vladislav V., 2020. "Maximum likelihood solutions for multicriterial choice problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(1), pages 299-308.
    18. Roy, Bernard, 2010. "Robustness in operational research and decision aiding: A multi-faceted issue," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(3), pages 629-638, February.
    19. Miller, Michael & Mattes, Katharina, 2014. "Demonstration of a multi-criteria based decision support framework for selecting PSS to increase resource efficiency," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S11/2014, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    20. 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.

    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:eee:ejores:v:242:y:2015:i:3:p:920-932. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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.