An empirical study of an interactive, session-oriented computerized Negotiation Support System (NSS)

Abstract

Abstract.Negotiating is one of the four major decisional roles played by managers. In fact, resolving conflict is said to occupy 20% of a manager's working hours. This growing frequency of negotiation scenarios coupled with the increasing complexity of the issues which need to be resolved in a negotiation make the possibility of computer enhancement for negotiation very appealing. Implementations of computerized Negotiation Support Systenls (NSS) in the business world, international affairs, labor law, and environmental and safety disputes have demonstrated their potential for making negotiation problems more manageable and comprehensible for negotiators. Still, pioneers in NSS research have expressed their dismay at the lack of rigorous empirical research and evaluation of NSS. In particular, research is needed which will determine how and under what circumstances negotiation processes can be enhanced by NSS support.This article describes empirical research on the effects of a highly structured, interactive NSS on the outcome of face-to-face issues resolution and the attitudes of negotiators in both low-and high-conflict situations. In a laboratory experiment, bargaining dyads played the roles of manufacturers negotiating a four-issue, three-year purchase agreement for an engine subcomponent in conditions of high and low conflict of interest. The results of the study showed that NSS support did help bargainers achieve higher joint outcomes and more balanced contracts, but that the NSS support increased negotiation time. Satisfaction was greater for NSS dyads in both conflict levels, and perceived negative climate was reduced in low conflict.One primary implication of the results of this study is that NSS developers should keep in mind the importance of providing users with a system with interactive qualities which not only enhance the decision-making process but also provide them with a sense of participation in reaching the solution, as was done in this study.

Negotiator Satisfaction in NSS-Facilitated Negotiation

“…Consistently, Oliver et al (1994) found that the difference between negotiators expectations and outcomes is significantly correlated with negotiator satisfaction. In Foroughi et al (1995) experiment, it showed that NSS supported dyads achieved greater satisfaction than Non-NSS dyads. NSS dyads reported greater satisfaction than the DSS only and Non-NSS dyads in Delaney et al (1997) study.…”

“…In addition to the complexity of negotiation itself, to identify and achieve optimal outcomes may also be hindered by negotiators' limited information processing capacity and capability, cognitive biases, and socio-emotional obstacles (Bazerman et al 1985;Foroughi et al 1995). The challenges of negotiation and the cognitive limitations of human negotiators have led researchers to pursue computer support in the form of NSS (Goh et al 2000).…”

Towards using computational methods for real-time negotiations in electronic commerce

“…If such situations are examined carefully, it can be seen that their complexity lies mainly in the difficulty of identifying exact or close matches between counter-party needs and objectives, in the discrimination of preferences, and, finally, in making choices among alternatives (Foroughi et al, 1995). Furthermore, the overall underlying European Journal of Operational Research 145 (2003) [232][233][234][235][236][237][238] www.elsevier.com/locate/dsw business goals require the simultaneous consideration of a variety of issues, thus making negotiations more complex or even impossible (Jarke et al, 1987).…”

Ups and Downs: Emotional Dynamics in Negotiations and Their Effects on (In)Equity

“…The degree of economic (in)equity of the exchanged offers is captured by the difference in payoffs between the two negotiators, referred to as contract balance (Foroughi et al 1995). It reflects the degree to which an offer is disproportionately more advantageous to one side and the degree to which negotiators claim value for themselves compared to what they offer to the counterpart.…”

“…As discussed above, the contract balance is defined as the difference between the utility scores of the two negotiators and has been widely used as an economic measure of (in)equity in negotiation research (Foroughi et al 1995). An outcome is Pareto efficient when no alternative agreement is available leaving one negotiator better off while not making the other negotiator worse off.…”