IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v299y2022i3p1018-1032.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can holistic declaration of preferences improve a negotiation offer scoring system?

Author

Listed:
  • Wachowicz, Tomasz
  • Roszkowska, Ewa

Abstract

In this paper, we analyse the problem of determining a negotiation offer scoring system using an alternative approach to the classic direct rating (DR). We examine the effectiveness of the prenegotiation preference elicitation on the basis of holistic judgments, supported by a software decision support tool. This approach is based on rank-ordering of examples of complete offers, which is then disaggregated using the Utilités Additives (UTA) method. In a series of studies, we analyse the accuracy of the scoring systems obtained from these approaches, as well as the negotiators’ subjective evaluation of their use and usefulness. The technical capability of the various setups of the UTA-based disaggregation models to produce accurate scoring systems is verified by simulation in Study 1. The empirical applicability of the most promising UTA-based models is studied in two experiments, in which the negotiators used examples of both predefined and self-declared sets of offers (Study 2), or applied an enhanced UTA algorithm (Study 3). The enhanced algorithm used a predefined set of offers, implemented certain elements of DR, and allowed for iterative improvements of the scoring system. The results show that the UTA-based approach works in a technical sense, but empirically its performance is worse than DR unless the set of example offers is predefined. The enhanced algorithm produced a better scoring system, but users' subjective evaluations were mixed.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:299:y:2022:i:3:p:1018-1032
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2021.10.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221721008559
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.10.008?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. 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.
    2. Jacquet-Lagreze, E. & Siskos, J., 1982. "Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision-making, the UTA method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 151-164, June.
    3. Dong, Yucheng & Xu, Yinfeng & Li, Hongyi, 2008. "On consistency measures of linguistic preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 189(2), pages 430-444, September.
    4. 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.
    5. Angur, Madhukar G. & Lotfi, Vahid & Sarkis, Joseph, 1996. "A hybrid conjoint measurement and bi-criteria model for a two group negotiation problem," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 195-206, September.
    6. Kadziński, Miłosz & Tervonen, Tommi, 2013. "Robust multi-criteria ranking with additive value models and holistic pair-wise preference statements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(1), pages 169-180.
    7. 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.
    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. Beuthe, Michel & Scannella, Giuseppe, 2001. "Comparative analysis of UTA multicriteria methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(2), pages 246-262, April.
    10. 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.
    11. Gregory E. Kersten & Wojtek Michalowski & David Cray & Ian Lee, 1991. "An analytic basis for decision support in negotiations," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 743-761, October.
    12. Gregory E. Kersten & Hsiangchu Lai, 2007. "Negotiation Support and E-negotiation Systems: An Overview," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(6), pages 553-586, November.
    13. Davila, Antonio & Gupta, Mahendra & Palmer, Richard, 2003. "Moving Procurement Systems to the Internet:: the Adoption and Use of E-Procurement Technology Models," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 11-23, February.
    14. Ernest M. Thiessen & Andrea Soberg, 2003. "SmartSettle Described with the Montreal Taxonomy," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 12(2), pages 165-170, March.
    15. Kadziński, Miłosz & Cinelli, Marco & Ciomek, Krzysztof & Coles, Stuart R. & Nadagouda, Mallikarjuna N. & Varma, Rajender S. & Kirwan, Kerry, 2018. "Co-constructive development of a green chemistry-based model for the assessment of nanoparticles synthesis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 472-490.
    16. Tomasz Wachowicz & Gregory E. Kersten & Ewa Roszkowska, 2019. "How do I tell you what I want? Agent’s interpretation of principal’s preferences and its impact on understanding the negotiation process and outcomes," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 993-1032, December.
    17. Tomasz Wachowicz & Paweł Błaszczyk, 2013. "TOPSIS Based Approach to Scoring Negotiating Offers in Negotiation Support Systems," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(6), pages 1021-1050, November.
    18. Jacquet-Lagreze, Eric & Siskos, Yannis, 2001. "Preference disaggregation: 20 years of MCDA experience," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(2), pages 233-245, April.
    19. Nguyen, Nam-Ky & Miller, Alan J., 1992. "A review of some exchange algorithms for constructing discrete D-optimal designs," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 489-498, November.
    20. Ghaderi, Mohammad & Ruiz, Francisco & Agell, Núria, 2017. "A linear programming approach for learning non-monotonic additive value functions in multiple criteria decision aiding," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(3), pages 1073-1084.
    21. Christopher W. Allinson & John Hayes, 1996. "The Cognitive Style Index: A Measure of Intuition‐Analysis For Organizational Research," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 119-135, January.
    22. Jarke, Matthias & Jelassi, M. Tawfik & Shakun, Melvin F., 1987. ": Towards a negotiation support system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 314-334, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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 & Wójcik, Michał & Ciomek, Krzysztof, 2022. "Review and experimental comparison of ranking and choice procedures for constructing a univocal recommendation in a preference disaggregation setting," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    2. Zheng, Jun & Lienert, Judit, 2018. "Stakeholder interviews with two MAVT preference elicitation philosophies in a Swiss water infrastructure decision: Aggregation using SWING-weighting and disaggregation using UTAGMS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 267(1), pages 273-287.
    3. 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.
    4. Ghaderi, Mohammad & Kadziński, Miłosz, 2021. "Incorporating uncovered structural patterns in value functions construction," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    5. Vetschera, Rudolf, 2017. "Deriving rankings from incomplete preference information: A comparison of different approaches," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(1), pages 244-253.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    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. Marinakis, Vangelis & Doukas, Haris & Xidonas, Panos & Zopounidis, Constantin, 2017. "Multicriteria decision support in local energy planning: An evaluation of alternative scenarios for the Sustainable Energy Action Plan," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 1-16.
    11. Ghaderi, Mohammad & Ruiz, Francisco & Agell, Núria, 2017. "A linear programming approach for learning non-monotonic additive value functions in multiple criteria decision aiding," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(3), pages 1073-1084.
    12. 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.
    13. Cinelli, Marco & Kadziński, Miłosz & Miebs, Grzegorz & Gonzalez, Michael & Słowiński, Roman, 2022. "Recommending multiple criteria decision analysis methods with a new taxonomy-based decision support system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(2), pages 633-651.
    14. Kadziński, MiŁosz & Greco, Salvatore & SŁowiński, Roman, 2012. "Extreme ranking analysis in robust ordinal regression," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 488-501.
    15. Podinovski, Vladislav V., 2020. "Maximum likelihood solutions for multicriterial choice problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(1), pages 299-308.
    16. Guo, Mengzhuo & Zhang, Qingpeng & Liao, Xiuwu & Chen, Frank Youhua & Zeng, Daniel Dajun, 2021. "A hybrid machine learning framework for analyzing human decision-making through learning preferences," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    17. Liu, Jiapeng & Liao, Xiuwu & Kadziński, Miłosz & Słowiński, Roman, 2019. "Preference disaggregation within the regularization framework for sorting problems with multiple potentially non-monotonic criteria," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(3), pages 1071-1089.
    18. Eduarda Asfora Frej & Danielle Costa Morais & Adiel Teixeira de Almeida, 2022. "Negotiation Support Through Interactive Dominance Relationship Specification," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 591-620, June.
    19. 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.
    20. Gehrlein, Jonas & Miebs, Grzegorz & Brunelli, Matteo & Kadziński, Miłosz, 2023. "An active preference learning approach to aid the selection of validators in blockchain environments," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).

    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:299:y:2022:i:3:p:1018-1032. 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.