IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v8y1999i1d10.1023_a1008634121147.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Negotiation Support for Multi-Party Resource Allocation: Developing Recommendation for Decreasing Transportation-Related Air Pollution in Budapest

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas A. Darling

    (Yale Gordon College of Liberal Arts, University of Baltimore)

  • Jeryl L. Mumpower

    (State University of New York at Albany)

  • John Rohrbaugh

    (State University of New York at Albany)

  • Anna Vari

    (Institute for Social Conflict Research, Hungarian Academy of Sciences)

Abstract

Decisions about how to allocate scarce resources among potential programs are common sources of conflict in both public and private life. This paper describes a case in which negotiation support was provided for a five-member task force trying to reach agreement about how to allocate limited resources among programs designed to improve the air quality in Budapest, Hungary. The intervention consisted of a series of facilitated decision conferences, plus individual interviews. The task force eventually reached agreement about a recommended package of 15 air quality management programs costing 1,500 million Hungarian forints. The research makes four significant contributions. First, it demonstrated that resource allocation models provide a useful framework for understanding and facilitating multi-party negotiation processes. Second, because resource allocation models were elicited individually for each group member before building a single group model, it was possible to analyze the five-dimensional feasible settlement space (i.e., the joint distribution of benefits for each task member for all possible resource allocation packages). Third, several innovative applications of analytical techniques (i.e., Pareto-efficiency analyses, numerical and graphical analyses of feasible settlement spaces and efficient frontiers, and analyses of task force members' investment progressions) served to improve understanding of disagreements within the group and to evaluate the quality of potential resource allocation packages. Fourth, changes in individual preferences and group agreement were assessed over time. Group members appeared to change substantially and their level of agreement to increase markedly over time.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas A. Darling & Jeryl L. Mumpower & John Rohrbaugh & Anna Vari, 1999. "Negotiation Support for Multi-Party Resource Allocation: Developing Recommendation for Decreasing Transportation-Related Air Pollution in Budapest," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 51-75, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:8:y:1999:i:1:d:10.1023_a:1008634121147
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1008634121147
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1008634121147
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1008634121147?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. Leonard Adelman, 1984. "Real-Time Computer Support for Decision Analysis in a Group Setting: Another Class of Decision Support Systems," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 75-83, April.
    2. Anna Vári & János Vecsenyi, 1992. "Experiences with Decision Conferencing in Hungary," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 72-83, December.
    3. Jeryl L. Mumpower, 1991. "The Judgment Policies of Negotiators and the Structure of Negotiation Problems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(10), pages 1304-1324, October.
    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. Lami, Isabella M. & Tavella, Elena, 2019. "On the usefulness of soft OR models in decision making: A comparison of Problem Structuring Methods supported and self-organized workshops," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(3), pages 1020-1036.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:7:p:547-569 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Mandeep K. Dhami & Henrik Olsson, 2008. "Evolution of the interpersonal conflict paradigm," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3(7), pages 547-569, October.
    4. Elena Tavella & L. Alberto Franco, 2015. "Dynamics of Group Knowledge Production in Facilitated Modelling Workshops: An Exploratory Study," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 451-475, May.

    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. 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.
    2. Donald L. Keefer & Craig W. Kirkwood & James L. Corner, 2004. "Perspective on Decision Analysis Applications, 1990–2001," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(1), pages 4-22, March.
    3. Salo, Ahti A., 1995. "Interactive decision aiding for group decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 134-149, July.
    4. Kaushal Chari & Manish Agrawal, 2007. "Multi-Issue Automated Negotiations Using Agents," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 588-595, November.
    5. Zhang, Linlan & Song, Haigang & Chen, Xueguang & Hong, Liu, 2011. "A simultaneous multi-issue negotiation through autonomous agents," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 210(1), pages 95-105, April.
    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. Pekka Salminen & Jeffrey E. Teich & Jyrki Wallenius, 1998. "The Secretary Problem Revisited - The Group Decision-Making Perspective," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 3-21, January.
    8. Teich, Jeffrey E. & Wallenius, Hannele & Wallenius, Jyrki & Zionts, Stanley, 1996. "Identifying Pareto-optimal settlements for two-party resource allocation negotiations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 93(3), pages 536-549, September.
    9. Northcraft, Gregory B. & Preston, Jared N. & Neale, Margaret A. & Kim, Peter H. & Thomas-Hunt, Melissa C., 1998. "Non-linear Preference Functions and Negotiated Outcomes," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 54-75, January.
    10. Michael Filzmoser & Rudolf Vetschera, 2008. "A Classification of Bargaining Steps and their Impact on Negotiation Outcomes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 421-443, September.
    11. Ching-Fen Lee & Pao-Long Chang, 2008. "Evaluations of Tactics for Automated Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(6), pages 515-539, November.
    12. Gregory E. Kersten & Tomasz Wachowicz & Margaret Kersten, 2016. "Competition, Transparency, and Reciprocity: A Comparative Study of Auctions and Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 693-722, July.
    13. Jeryl L. Mumpower & Jim Sheffield & Thomas A. Darling & Richard G. Milter, 2004. "The Accuracy of Post-Negotiation Estimates of the Other Negotiator's Payoff," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 259-290, May.
    14. Michael Filzmoser & Johannes R. Gettinger, 2019. "Offer and veto: an experimental comparison of two negotiation procedures," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(1), pages 83-99, May.
    15. Gregory E. Kersten, 2014. "Multiattribute Procurement Auctions: Efficiency and Social Welfare in Theory and Practice," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 215-232, December.
    16. Bragge, Johanna, 2001. "Premediation analysis of the energy taxation dispute in Finland," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 1-16, July.
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:7:p:547-569 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Mandeep K. Dhami & Henrik Olsson, 2008. "Evolution of the interpersonal conflict paradigm," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3(7), pages 547-569, October.
    19. Alice F. Stuhlmacher & Matthew V. Champagne, 2000. "The Impact of Time Pressure and Information on Negotiation Process and Decisions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(6), pages 471-491, November.
    20. Giampiero E.G. Beroggi, 2000. "An Experimental Investigation of Virtual Negotiations with Dynamic Plots," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(5), pages 415-429, September.
    21. A Morton & D Bird & A Jones & M White, 2011. "Decision conferencing for science prioritisation in the UK public sector: a dual case study," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(1), pages 50-59, January.

    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:spr:grdene:v:8:y:1999:i:1:d:10.1023_a:1008634121147. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.