Gezicht op Delft, Johannes Vermeer

HuCom08 - First International Working Conference on Human Factors and Computational Models in Negotiation (2008)

Human Factors and Computational Models in Negotiation

December 8 - 9, 2008

           Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

Invited Speakers

  • Gregory Kersten, Concordia University, Canada

    Title: From Personality to Style: The Six Concepts Characterizing Human Negotiators
    There is vast literature coming from social sciences on the socio-psychological traits and other characteristics that influence people's behavior in general and negotiators' in particular. In this talk I describe a model that puts together the various negotiators' characterizations. The model has six levels. The first three: personality, orientation and approach describe negotiators in terms of their view of and attitude towards conflict situations. The other three: strategy, tactic and style are problem-specific describing the actual implementation of the higher levels.
    Personality is a socio-psychological description of a person's inner-self, while style is an outer description largely comprising perceptions of those with whom the person interacts, and of external observers. Style is a description of the personality that manifests itself in a given time, place and context. Personality and style are two extremes on the spectrum of the constructs characterizing negotiators.
    Orientation and approach, like personality, are general characteristics that can be used to describe a negotiator. They differ in the degree of specificity, but this specificity does not pertain to any particular negotiation situation, instead it describes typical classes of situations. Strategy is a guideline or a framework that shapes the negotiator's actions. Tactics are subordinated to strategies. They define the way these actions are undertaken, embellished and presented to other participants.

  • Carles Sierra, IIIA-CSIC, Spain

    Title: Information-based Negotiation
    Abstract: Successful negotiators prepare themselves by determining their position along five dimensions: Legitimacy, Options, Goals, Independence, and Commitment, (LOGIC). We introduce a negotiation model based on these dimensions and on two primitive concepts: intimacy (degree of closeness) and balance (degree of fairness). The intimacy is a pair of matrices that evaluate both an agent's contribution to the relationship and its opponent's contribution each from an information view and from a utilitarian view across the five LOGIC dimensions.
    The balance is the difference between these matrices. A relationship strategy maintains a target intimacy for each relationship that an agent would like the relationship to move towards in future. The negotiation strategy maintains a set of Options that are in-line with the current intimacy level, and then tactics wrap the Options in argumentation with the aim of attaining a successful deal and manipulating the successive negotiation balances towards the target intimacy. Summary measures if trust and reputation are also discussed.

  • Gwendolyn Kolfschoten

    Title: Consensus Building from a Collaboration Engineering Perspective
    Abstract: In many groups, decisions cannot be made by fiat because no single person has sufficient expertise, resources, or power to mandate the cooperation of others. When success-critical stakeholders are not in hierarchical relationships, then one may not be able to require others to go along with a proposal. Even when hierarchical relationships exist, it is often in the interests of a superior to obtain the consent of subordinates whose contributions are critical to the success of an effort. In such multi actor situations, groups must reach consensus in order to proceed and succeed. When looking at consensus in a broader perspective of negotiation, commitment, choice and decision making, many methods and approaches are available, but the choice between techniques and approaches is challenging. A lack of consensus or disagreement often surfaces in a conflict or at least challenging situation with many stakeholders. In this presentation we will present a diagnostic tool to show different sources of disagreement and different objects of disagreements when groups seek consensus. Based on this diagnostic a more deliberate choice for consensus building methods can be chosen.