Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
2012 | nr 3 (25) | 61--83
Tytuł artykułu

Concession-Making in Multi-Bilateral Negotiations and Multi-Attribute Auctions

Treść / Zawartość
Warianty tytułu
Decyzje o ustępstwach w wielo-dwustronnych negocjacjach oraz wielokryterialnych aukcjach
Języki publikacji
Reverse auctions and negotiations are two common procurement mechanisms. The drawback of many auctions is their sole focus on price. The drawback of negotiations is that they are sequential, slow and costly. The Internet enables multi-attribute auctions and multi- -bilateral multi-attribute negotiations efficiently. In both processes concession-making plays a key role. The paper presents typology of concessions, which has been empirically verified. The results show that: (1) bidders and negotiators use all types of permissible concessions; (2) bidders make more concessions in auctions than in negotiations; and (3) the use of singleand multiple-attribute concessions differs between auctions and negotiations. The results also show that buyers obtain the highest profit through auctions, then competitive negotiations and the lowest through cooperative negotiations. The reverse is true for the sellers.(original abstract)
Aukcje odwrotne (holenderskie) oraz negocjacje wielo-dwustronne, w których jeden nabywca negocjuje z wieloma sprzedawcami, to dwa często spotykane mechanizmy w transakcjach pomiędzy organizacjami. W artykule porównujemy odwrotne aukcje wielo- atrybutowe z wielo-dwustronnymi negocjacjami. Ustępstwa w obu procesach dotyczą zarówno cen, jak i innych atrybutów sprzedawanego produktu. Od tych ustępstw zależy uzyskanie kontraktu na sprzedaż. W artykule proponujemy oraz weryfikujemy eksperymentalnie taksonomię ustępstw, która jest oparta na dwóch kryteriach. Wyniki sugerują, że: (1) zarówno negocjatorzy, jak i uczestnicy aukcji używają wszystkich możliwych rodzajów ustępstw, (2) uczestnicy aukcji robią większe ustępstwa niż negocjatorzy, oraz (3) motywacja eksperymentatorów wpływa na zakres ustępstw uczestników. Wyniki sugerują także, iż nabywcy osiągają najwyższy zysk w aukcjach, następnie w negocjacjach kompetytywnych, a najniższy zysk w negocjacjach kooperatywnych. Dla sprzedawców najlepsze są kooperatywne negocjacje, a najgorsze aukcje.(abstrakt oryginalny)
Słowa kluczowe
Opis fizyczny
  • InterNeg Research Center J. Molson School of Business, Concordia University Montreal, Canada
  • InterNeg Research Center J. Molson School of Business, Concordia University Montreal, Canada
  • Bajari P. et al., Auctions versus negotiations in procurement: An empirical analysis, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 2009, Vol. 25(2), pp. 372-399.
  • Bateman T.S., Contingent concession strategies in dyadic bargaining, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 1980,Vol. 26(2), pp. 212-221.
  • Bichler M., An experimental analysis of multi-attribute auctions, Decision Support Systems 2000, Vol. 29(3), pp. 249-268.
  • Bichler M., Kalagnanam J., Configurable offers and winner determination in multi-attribute auctions, European Journal of Operational Research 2005, Vol. 160(2), pp. 380-394.
  • Bonaccorsi A. et al., Auctions vs. Bargaining: An Empirical Analysis of Medical Device Procurement, LEM Papers Series, Pisa, Laboratory of Economics and Management, Sant Anna School of Advanced Studies, 2000, p. 17.
  • Bottom W.P. et al., Building a pathway to cooperation: Negotiation and social exchange between principal and agent. Administrative Science Quarterly 2006, Vol. 51(1), pp. 29-58.
  • Branco F., The design of multidimensional auctions, The RAND Journal of Economics 1997, Vol. 28(1), pp. 63-81.
  • Che Y.K., Design competition through multidimensional auctions, The RAND Journal of Economics 1993, Vol. 24(4), pp. 668-680.
  • Chen E. et al., Agent-supported negotiations on e-marketplace, International Journal of Electronic Business 2005, Vol. 3(1), pp. 28-49.
  • Cialdini R.B. et al., Reciprocal concessions procedure for inducing compliance: The door-in-the-face technique, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1975, Vol. 31(2), pp. 206-215.
  • Cropanzano R., Mitchell M.S., Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review, Journal of Management 2005, Vol. 31(6), pp. 874-900.
  • Dahrendorf R., The foreign policy of the EEC, The World Today 1973, pp. 47-57.
  • Endriss U., Monotonic Concession Protocols for Multilateral Negotiation, ACM, 2006.
  • Esser J., Komorita S., Reciprocity and concession making in bargaining, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1975, Vol. 31(5), pp. 864-872.
  • Faratin P. et al., Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents, Robotics and Autonomous Systems 1998, Vol. 24, pp. 159-182.
  • Ferrin B.G., Plank R.E., Total cost of ownership models: An exploratory study, Journal of Supply Chain Management 2002, Vol. 38(3), pp. 18-29.
  • Fisher R., Ury W., Getting to Yes. Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, Penguin Books, New York 1983.
  • Follett M.P., Constructive Conflict. Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett. H.C. Metcalf and L. Urwick, Harper, New York 1940, pp. 30-49.
  • Froman Jr, L.A., Cohen M.D., Compromise and logroll: Comparing the efficiency of two bargaining processes, Behavioral Science 1970, Vol. 15(2), pp. 180-183.
  • Handfield R.B., Straight S.L., What sourcing channel is right for you?, Supply Chain Management Review 2003, Vol. 7(4), pp. 63-68.
  • Kersten G.E., E-negotiation systems: Interaction of people and technologies to resolve conflicts, The Magnus Journal of Management 2005,Vol. 1(3), pp. 71-96.
  • Kersten G.E. et al., On comparison of mechanisms of economic and social exchanges, [in:] H. Gimpel, N. Jennings, G.E. Kersten, A. Ockenfels, C. Weinhardt (Eds.), The Times Model. Negotiation, Auction and Market Engineering, Springer, Haidelberg 2008, pp. 16-43.
  • Kersten G.E. et al., A Procedure for Multiattribute Reverse Auctions with two Strategic Parameters, InterNeg Research Papers, Concordia University, Montreal 2010.
  • Kersten G.E. et al., Concession Patterns in Multi-issue Negotiations and Reverse Auctions. Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Commerce, ACM Press, Singapore 2012a.
  • Kersten G.E. et al., Negotiation and auction mechanisms: Two systems and two experiments e-life, [in:] M.J. Shaw, D. Zhang, W.T. Yue (Eds.), Web-enabled Convergence of Commerce, Work, and Social Life, Springer, New York 2012b, pp. 400-412.
  • Kersten G.E. et al., A Multiattribute Auction Procedure and Its Implementation, HICSS 45, IEEE, Hawaii 2012c.
  • Kersten G.E., Gimon D., Concession-making in multi-bilateral negotiations and multi-attribute auctions, [in:] M. Ganzha, L. Maciaszek, M. Paprzycki(Eds.), Proceedings of the Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems FedCSIS 2012, Polskie Towarzystwo Informatyczne, IEEE Computer Society Press, Warsaw, Los Alamitos, CA 2012, pp. 995-1002.
  • Kersten G.E., Noronha S.J., Rational agents, contract curves, and inefficient compromises, IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 1998, Vol. 28(3), pp. 326-338.
  • Kersten G.E., Szapiro T., Generalized approach to modeling negotiations, European Journal of Operational Research 1986, Vol. 26(1), pp. 142-149.
  • Komorita S.S., Esser J.K., Frequency of reciprocated concessions in bargaining, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1975, Vol. 32(4), pp. 699-705.
  • Kraljic P., Purchasing must become supply management, Harvard Business Review 1983, Vol. 83(5), pp. 109-117.
  • Kwon S., Weingart L.R., Unilateral concessions from the other party: Concession behavior, attributions, and negotiation judgments, Journal of Applied Psychology 2004, Vol. 89(2), pp. 263-278.
  • Lopes F., Coelho H., Concession Behaviour in Automated Negotiation, Springer Verlag, 2010.
  • McAfee R.P., McMillan J., Auctions and bidding, Journal of Economic Literature 1987, Vol. 25(2), pp. 699-738.
  • Meyer T. et al., Logical Foundations of Negotiation: Outcome, Concession and Adaptation, American Association for Artificial Intelligence, 2004.
  • Osgood C., An Alternative to War or Surrender, University of Illinois Press, Urbana 1962.
  • Pruitt D.G., Negotiation Behavior, Academic Press, New York 1981.
  • Pruitt D.G., Strategic choice in negotiation, American Behavioral Scientist 1983, Vol. 27(2), pp. 167-194.
  • Raiffa H. et al., Negotiation Analysis. The Science and Art of Collaborative Decision Making, Harvard University Press, Cambridge 2003.
  • Schneider A.K., Shattering negotiation myths: Empirical evidence on the effectiveness of negotiation style, Harvard Negotiation Law Review 2002, Vol. 7, pp. 143-403.
  • Shakun M.F., Multi-bilateral multi-issue e-negotiation in e-commerce with a tit-for-tat computer agent, Group Decision and Negotiation 2005, Vol. 14(5), pp. 383-392.
  • Siegel S. et al., Bargaining and group decision making: Experiments in bilateral monopoly, American Economic Review1961, Vol 51(3), pp. 420-421.
  • Sim K.M., Wong E.,Toward market-driven agents for electronic auction, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans 2001, Vol. 31(6), pp. 474-484.
  • Spector B., Negotiation as Learning: Pedagogy and Theory. Annual Conference of the International Studies Association, Chicago 2007.
  • Subramanian G., Negotiauctions: New Dealmaking Strategies for a Competitive Marketplace, Norton, New York 2010.
  • Subramanian G., Zeckhauser R., For sale, but how? Auctions versus negotiations, Negotiation 2004, Vol. 3-5.
  • Tajima M., Fraser N.M., Logrolling procedure for multi-issue negotiation, Group Decision and Negotiation 2001, Vol. 10(3), pp. 217-235.
  • Thomas C.J., Wilson B.J., Horizontal product differentiation in auctions and multilateral negotiations, Economica 2013 [forthcoming].
  • Thompson L., Team negotiation - an examination of integrative and distributive bargaining, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1996, Vol. 70(1), pp. 66-78.
  • Weingart L.R. et al., The impact of consideration of issues and motivational orientation on group negotiation process and outcome, Journal of Applied Psychology 1993, Vol. 78(3), pp. 504-517.
  • Weingart L.R., Knowledge matters - the effect of tactical descriptions on negotiation behavior and outcome, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1996, Vol. 70(6), pp. 1205-1217.
  • Yang al., Subjective effectiveness in agent-to-human negotiation: A frame x personality account, [in:] Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems, Springer 2010, pp. 134-149.
  • Zartman W., Negotiation as a joint decision-making process, Journal of Conflict Resolution 1977, Vol. 21(4), pp. 619-638.
Typ dokumentu
Identyfikator YADDA

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Musisz być zalogowany aby pisać komentarze.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.