IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v28y2017i2p353-377.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How High Should We Go? Determining Reservation Values to Negotiate Successfully for Composite Software Services

Author

Listed:
  • Sherry X. Sun

    (Management Department, Albers School of Business and Economics, Seattle University, Seattle, Washington 98122)

  • Jing Zhao

    (City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR)

  • Sumit Sarkar

    (Naveen Jindal School of Management, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas 75080)

Abstract

In the paradigm of service-centric computing, new value-added applications can be developed dynamically and flexibly by combining and integrating existing services. While software applications are traditionally specified and implemented as a set of functions uniform to all users, this new paradigm allows the same software service to be delivered with a different price, response time, availability, and other nonfunctional attributes to accommodate different modes of use. These nonfunctional attributes together are referred to as Quality of Service (QoS). When creating a new composite service, negotiation makes it possible for a service provider to offer the service with the QoS properties customized to the needs of a user. Automated negotiation tactics require the specification of reservation values for the QoS attributes. We present a methodology that determines the reservation values a user (or broker) should use for each component service based on the user’s minimum requirements for the composite service. Our methodology maximizes the chance of reaching a successful negotiation outcome while staying within the user’s reservation values for the composite service. We show that the problem of determining the user’s reservation values for component services can be modeled as a multiobjective optimization problem and then transformed to a single-objective optimization problem using a max-min approach. The formulation can incorporate providers' different QoS preferences to increase the chance of negotiation success. We identify problem instances for which closed-form solutions can be found for the reservation values. We show how the method of setting reservation values can be incorporated into a negotiation process that uses extant concession and trade-off tactics. Simulation experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach. If some providers accept offers before the negotiation process deadline, we show that dynamically changing the reservation values for the remaining providers makes the overall negotiation process more likely to succeed.

Suggested Citation

  • Sherry X. Sun & Jing Zhao & Sumit Sarkar, 2017. "How High Should We Go? Determining Reservation Values to Negotiate Successfully for Composite Software Services," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 353-377, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:28:y:2017:i:2:p:353-377
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.2016.0678
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2016.0678
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.2016.0678?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. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1982. "Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 97-109, January.
    2. J. Leon Zhao & Mohan Tanniru & Liang-Jie Zhang, 2007. "Services computing as the foundation of enterprise agility: Overview of recent advances and introduction to the special issue," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-8, March.
    3. N.R. Jennings & P. Faratin & A.R. Lomuscio & S. Parsons & M.J. Wooldridge & C. Sierra, 2001. "Automated Negotiation: Prospects, Methods and Challenges," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 199-215, March.
    4. Sherry X. Sun & J. Leon Zhao & Jay F. Nunamaker & Olivia R. Liu Sheng, 2006. "Formulating the Data-Flow Perspective for Business Process Management," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 374-391, December.
    5. Kalyan Chatterjee & Larry Samuelson, 1988. "Bargaining Under Two-Sided Incomplete Information: The Unrestricted Offers Case," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 36(4), pages 605-618, August.
    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. Binmore, Ken & Osborne, Martin J. & Rubinstein, Ariel, 1992. "Noncooperative models of bargaining," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 7, pages 179-225, Elsevier.
    2. P. Ding & M. D. Gerst & G. Bang & M. E. Borsuk, 2015. "An Application of Automated Mediation to International Climate Treaty Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 885-903, September.
    3. Basak, Deepal, 2023. "Bargaining under almost complete information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Beaudoin, D. & Frayret, J.-M. & LeBel, L., 2010. "Negotiation-based distributed wood procurement planning within a multi-firm environment," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 79-93, February.
    6. Menezes, Flavio M., 1996. "Multiple-unit English auctions," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 671-684, December.
    7. Anita Gantner, 2007. "Bargaining, Search, and Outside Options," Working Papers 2007-16, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    8. Stefan Kohler, 2012. "Incomplete Information about Social Preferences Explains Equal Division and Delay in Bargaining," Games, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-19, September.
    9. Luis C. Dias & Rudolf Vetschera, 2022. "Two-party Bargaining Processes Based on Subjective Expectations: A Model and a Simulation Study," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 843-869, August.
    10. Nassiri-Mofakham, Faria & Huhns, Michael N., 2023. "Role of culture in water resources management via sustainable social automated negotiation," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    11. Khalid Mansour & Ryszard Kowalczyk, 2015. "An Approach to One-to-Many Concurrent Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 45-66, January.
    12. Rami Zwick & Ching Chyi Lee, 1999. "Bargaining and Search: An Experimental Study," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 8(6), pages 463-487, November.
    13. Abreu, Dilip & Pearce, David G. & Stacchetti, Ennio, 2015. "One-sided uncertainty and delay in reputational bargaining," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 10(3), September.
    14. Gabrielsen, Tommy Staahl & Roth, Stefan, 2009. "Delegated bargaining in distribution channels," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 133-141.
    15. Gantner, Anita, 2008. "Bargaining, search, and outside options," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 417-435, March.
    16. Louta, Malamati & Roussaki, Ioanna & Pechlivanos, Lambros, 2008. "An intelligent agent negotiation strategy in the electronic marketplace environment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(3), pages 1327-1345, June.
    17. Martin Bichler & Gregory Kersten & Stefan Strecker, 2003. "Towards a Structured Design of Electronic Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 311-335, July.
    18. Maurizio Zanardi, 2004. "Antidumping law as a collusive device," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 37(1), pages 95-122, February.
    19. Lohmann, Susanne, 1997. "Partisan control of the money supply and decentralized appointment powers," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 225-246, May.
    20. Matsui, Kenji, 2020. "Optimal bargaining timing of a wholesale price for a manufacturer with a retailer in a dual-channel supply chain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(1), pages 225-236.

    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:inm:orisre:v:28:y:2017:i:2:p:353-377. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.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.