IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceps/v30y1996i3p195-206.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A hybrid conjoint measurement and bi-criteria model for a two group negotiation problem

Author

Listed:
  • Angur, Madhukar G.
  • Lotfi, Vahid
  • Sarkis, Joseph

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceps:v:30:y:1996:i:3:p:195-206
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0038-0121(96)00014-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Curry, David J & Menasco, Michael B, 1979. "Some Effects of Differing Information Processing Strategies on Husband-Wife Joint Decisions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 6(2), pages 192-203, Se.
    2. R. Ramesh & Mark H. Karwan & Stanley Zionts, 1989. "Preference Structure Representation Using Convex Cones in Multicriteria Integer Programming," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(9), pages 1092-1105, September.
    3. Cramton, Peter C & Tracy, Joseph S, 1994. "The Determinants of U.S. Labor Disputes," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 12(2), pages 180-209, April.
    4. Vahid Lotfi & Yong. S. Yoon & Stanley Zionts, 1997. "Aspiration-Based Search Algorithm (ABSALG) for Multiple Objective Linear Programming Problems: Theory and Comparative Tests," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(8), pages 1047-1059, August.
    5. Iz, P & Jelassi, MT, 1990. "An interactive group decision aid for multiobjective problems: An empirical assessment," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 595-604.
    6. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    7. Iz, Peri H., 1992. "Two multiple criteria group decision support systems based on mathematical programming and ranking methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(1-2), pages 245-253, August.
    8. Stanley Zionts & Jyrki Wallenius, 1983. "An Interactive Multiple Objective Linear Programming Method for a Class of Underlying Nonlinear Utility Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(5), pages 519-529, May.
    9. Sunil Gupta, 1989. "Modeling Integrative, Multiple Issue Bargaining," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(7), pages 788-806, July.
    10. Teich, Jeffrey E. & Wallenius, Hannele & Kuula, Markku & Zionts, Stanley, 1995. "A decision support approach for negotiation with an application to agricultural income policy negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 76-87, February.
    11. 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)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. G.E. Kersten & S.J. Noronha, 1998. "Negotiation and the Web: Users' Perception and Acceptance," Working Papers ir98002, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.
    2. 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.

    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. Salo, Ahti A., 1995. "Interactive decision aiding for group decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 134-149, July.
    2. Ann Davey & David Olson, 1998. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making Models in Group Decision Support," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 55-75, January.
    3. Jaume García Segarra & Miguel Ginés Vilar, 2011. "Weighted Proportional Losses Solution," ThE Papers 10/21, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    4. Michaela Draganska & Daniel Klapper & Sofia B. Villas-Boas, 2010. "A Larger Slice or a Larger Pie? An Empirical Investigation of Bargaining Power in the Distribution Channel," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 57-74, 01-02.
    5. Chwolka, Anne & Raith, Matthias G., 2001. "Group preference aggregation with the AHP - implications for multiple-issue agendas," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 176-186, July.
    6. 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.
    7. L. Monroy & V. Rubiales & A. M. Mármol, 2017. "The conservative Kalai–Smorodinsky solution for multiple scenario bargaining," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 251(1), pages 285-299, April.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Zhang, Junyi & Timmermans, Harry J. P. & Borgers, Aloys, 2005. "A model of household task allocation and time use," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 81-95, January.
    11. Harri Ehtamo & Raimo P. Hämäläinen, 2001. "Interactive Multiple‐Criteria Methods for Reaching Pareto Optimal Agreements in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(6), pages 475-491, November.
    12. Ehtamo, Harri & Kettunen, Eero & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 2001. "Searching for joint gains in multi-party negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(1), pages 54-69, April.
    13. Nikolaos Argyris & Alec Morton & José Rui Figueira, 2014. "CUT: A Multicriteria Approach for Concavifiable Preferences," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 633-642, June.
    14. Schilling, Martin S. & Mulford, Matthew, 2007. "In search of value-for-money in collective bargaining: an analytic-interactive mediation process," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 22694, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Lotfi, Vahid, 1995. "Implementing flexible automation: A multiple criteria decision making approach," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(2-3), pages 255-268, March.
    16. Sun, Minghe, 2005. "Some issues in measuring and reporting solution quality of interactive multiple objective programming procedures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 162(2), pages 468-483, April.
    17. M Köksalan & E Karasakal, 2006. "An interactive approach for multiobjective decision making," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(5), pages 532-540, May.
    18. May Tajima & Niall M. Fraser, 2001. "Logrolling Procedure for Multi-Issue Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 217-235, May.
    19. Villas-Boas, Sofia B & Klapper, Daniel & Draganska, Michaela, 2010. "A Larger Slice or a Larger Pie? Investigating Margins in the Distribution Channel," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt064044x8, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    20. Kitti, Mitri & Ehtamo, Harri, 2007. "Analysis of the constraint proposal method for two-party negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(2), pages 817-827, September.

    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:eee:soceps:v:30:y:1996:i:3:p:195-206. 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/seps .

    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.