E-negotiation versus face-to-face negotiation what has changed – if anything?

Galin, Amira; Gross, Martha; Gosalker, Gavriel

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.11.009

Cited by 89 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A literatura sobre negociações face a face procura, sobretudo, entender as diferenças entre essa modalidade de barganha e a barganha por meio eletrônico (GALIN, 2007;VANDERGRIFF, 2006). Prevalece a ideia de que barganhas face a face são mais eficientes do que a barganha por meios eletrônicos.…”

Section: Negociações Diretas (Face a Face) Versus Negociações Indiretunclassified

O uso do role-play no ensino de negociações internacionais

Onuki

Oliveira

2017

Rev. Grad. USP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMOPoucos são os trabalhos dedicados a promover um balanço sobre os principais ganhos do uso de simulações, em termos pedagógicos, no ensino de Relações e Negociações Internacionais. Prevalecem amplamente, dentre os trabalhos disponíveis, relatos qualitativos sobre procedimentos e aplicações das simulações e/ou teste de hipóteses correntes na literatura. A avaliação comparada da experiência de simulações, tomando por base um grande número de aplicações, não é comum entre os estudos do gênero. Este artigo tem por objetivo preencher tal lacuna tomando por base a experiência de ensino nessa área, apoiada pela Pró-Reitoria de Graduação da USP, com o Programa Pró-Ensino.Palavras-chave: Negociações Internacionais; Simulações; Role-Play; Teoria dos Jogos. ABSTRACTThere are few studies dedicated to giving an account of the major gains in pedagogical terms of the teaching of International Relations and Negotiations. What is widely prevalent, among the works available, are qualitative reports of procedures and applications of simulations and/or tests of the current hypotheses in the literature. Comparative evaluations of the experience of simulations, taking as a base a large number of applications, is not common in gender studies. The objective of this article is to fill in this gap, taking as a base the experience supported by the USP undergraduate administration office, with the Pró-Ensino Program.Keywords: International Negotiations; Simulations; Role-Play; Game Theory. IntroduçãoA área de Relações Internacionais tem uma longa tradição no uso de simulações como instrumento pedagógico. Particularmente difundidos são os modelos ONU de simulações, aplicados no nível secundário, em universidades e em organizações internacionais como forma de promover o conhecimento de diplomacia e o funcionamento de organizações internacionais. O Modelo PON (Project on Negotiation) desenvolvido pela Universidade de Harvard é um exemplo de sucesso internacional. Com a expansão do ensino de Relações Internacionais no Brasil, a prática de simulações passou a ser corrente também no país.A despeito dessa tradição, poucas são as investigações dedicadas a promover um balanço sobre os principais ganhos em termos pedagógicos no ensino de Relações e Negociações Internacionais.Prevalecem amplamente, dentre os trabalhos disponíveis, relatos qualitativos sobre procedimentos e aplicações das simulações e/ou teste de hipóteses correntes na literatura. A avaliação comparada da experiência de simulações, tomando por base um grande número de aplicações, não é comum entre os estudos do gênero. O presente artigo tem por objetivo preencher essa lacuna tomando por base a experiência apoiada pela Pró-Reitoria de Graduação da USP, com o Programa Pró-Ensino 2013.O artigo está dividido em duas partes, cada qual dedicada a tratar de um objetivo específico. A primeira parte volta-se à análise, com base em uma série histórica, do efeito comparado entre negociações feitas de forma direta (face a face) e indireta (por sinalização). Trata-se de avaliar, tomando a exp...

show abstract

Section: Negociações Diretas (Face a Face) Versus Negociações Indiretunclassified

O uso do role-play no ensino de negociações internacionais

Onuki

Oliveira

2017

Rev. Grad. USP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This type of negotiation requires an exchange of offers among stakeholders as in classical negotiation where stakeholders are engaged in face-to-face negotiation, because the final decision is built upon interactions among stakeholders, not calculated by a computer system. Although direct negotiation offers a better flow of information among the negotiating parties (Galin, Gross and Gosalker, 2007), this type of negotiation often leads to an ineffective outcome (Rangaswamy and Shell, 1997;Wilken, Jacob and Prime, 2013), mainly because only a limited number of stakeholders can be involved in this type of negotiation, to ensure an effective exchange of information among stakeholders. When a relatively large number of stakeholders are involved, the flow of information between them will become inefficient, and some stakeholders will influence the negotiation more than others.…”

Section: Negotiation Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Orthogonal strategy based computer-mediated negotiation: Principles and example

Susetyo

Timmermans

Vries

2018

Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous efforts to improve stakeholders’ involvement in planning and decision-making processes mostly put planners and decision makers as the ones who decide which solution is the best for the decision problems. In bottom-up planning and decision-making processes that supposedly involve stakeholders as much as possible, the most common practice is that when stakeholders have different preferences about the decision issues, supra decision makers such as planners and experts gather stakeholders’ preferences, and then, using their expertise and experience, decide what is the best choice for stakeholders. We approach the involvement of stakeholders in planning and decision-making not by relying on planners’ expertise but from a negotiation perspective. Previous works related to stakeholders’ negotiation mostly require stakeholders to engage in a face-to-face negotiation that seldom involves a computer system to improve the process. In this paper, we develop a negotiation system to support multi-issue and multi-stakeholder decision-making problems. In our approach, stakeholders do not directly interact with each other. Their proposals are submitted to a system that produces counter-proposals to reduce the differences among stakeholders’ proposals. Therefore, stakeholders do not exchange their preferences directly, but rather preference elicitations are mediated by the system. This approach is called computer-mediated negotiation. The system itself is based on the principle of an orthogonal strategy. Our computer-mediated negotiation protocol consists of two main phases. The first phase is the preference elicitation phase, which measures stakeholders’ utility functions. The second phase is the e-negotiation phase, in which stakeholders make their proposals and the computer system provides suggestions to improve them. To simulate real-world negotiations where stakeholders make proposals and counter-proposals in a series of negotiation rounds, we implemented the indifference curve approach to enable stakeholders to make incremental changes of their proposals during negotiation. The results from our experiment suggest that our method can produce an optimum solution for a multi-issue and multi-stakeholder decision problem by moving stakeholders’ proposals closer to one another.

show abstract

“…Much of the recent literature published on the subject of F2F negotiations focuses on providing a comparison to RAs (Galin, Gross et al, 2007;Gattiker, Huang et al, 2007;Graham and Requejo, 2009). According to Galin et al (2007) F2F negotiations offer a better flow of information between the negotiating parties enabling better decision making than either RAs or other supplier selection strategies.…”

Section: Reverse Auctionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Galin et al (2007) F2F negotiations offer a better flow of information between the negotiating parties enabling better decision making than either RAs or other supplier selection strategies. Research results have also shown lowered judgement accuracy, poorer outcomes, and less equal distribution of resources for computermediated interactions than for F2F interactions (Arunachalam and Dilla, 1995).…”

Section: Reverse Auctionsmentioning

confidence: 99%