A decision support system for assessing trade-offs between ecosystem management goals: an application in Portugal

Cork oak (Quercus suber L.) and holm oak (Quercus rotundifolia) ecosystems are characteristic of Mediterranean forestry in Portugal. Even though cork is the most valuable product, these ecosystems provide multiple products and services. Assessing trade-offs between multiple goals is thus critical for the effectiveness of oak ecosystem management planning. This paper focuses on the development of a decision support system for oak ecosystems’ scenario analysis including multiple criteria. It includes an innovative decision support systems (DSS) functionality to assess trade-offs between the criteria that may support negotiation and consensus building between decision-makers and forest stakeholders. Specifically, a module that encapsulates the Feasible Goals Method/Interactive Decision Maps (FGM/IDM) technique is developed for interactive visualization of the Pareto frontier. The Pareto frontier illustrates the degree to which improving one particular criterion requires accepting sacrifices in the achievements of others. It thus provides information about trade-offs between competing decision-makers’ preferences. Results are discussed for a large-scale application encompassing over 1 million ha of cork and holm oak forest ecosystems in Southern Portugal. This study demonstrates the potential of the new DSS functionality to enhance multi-objective forest planning, namely by facilitating participation by stakeholders and providing transparency to the decision-making processesinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

The Application of UTA Method for Support Evaluation Negotiation Offers

The MCDA technique has been extensively and successfully applied for supporting decision making in negotiation processes. The mostly used techniques SAW, AHP or TOPSIS are based on direct preference information which requires from negotiator a clear and precise definition all the parameters of the preference model (e.g. issue weights, option rates, aspiration and reservation values etc.), so those techniques can be successfully applied in well-structured negotiation problems. But, many real negotiation problems are illstructured, that means that the negotiation space is imprecisely defined, and the negotiator’s preferences the vagueness or imperfect. The main purpose of this paper is to investigate the potentials and the applicability the UTA method, one of the techniques based on indirect preference information, in evaluation of negotiation offers, especially in ill-structured negotiation problems. The UTA (Jacquet-Lagreze and Siskos, 1978, 1982, 2001) is a multicriteria decision making method which is based on the linear programming model for inferring additive utility functions from a set of representative decision data. The example is also presented to elaborate and demonstrate the holistic judgment and the usefulness UTA approach for evaluation negotiation [email protected] of Economics and Management, University of BialystokBana e Costa C., Vansnick J.-C., 1999, The MACBETH approach: Basic ideas, software, and an application, [in:] Advances in Decision Analysis, N. Meskens, M. Roubens (eds.), Springer.Brzostowski J., Wachowicz T., Roszkowska E., 2012a, Using an Analytic Hierarchy Process to Develop a Scoring System for a set of Continuous Feasible Alternatives in Negotiation, “Operations Research and Decisions”, No. 4.Brzostowski J., Roszkowska E., Wachowicz T., 2012b, Supporting Negotiation by Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods, “Optimum. Studia Ekonomiczne”, nr 5 (59).Figueira J., Greco S., Słowiński R., 2009, Building a set of additive value functions representing a reference preorder and intensities of preference: GRIP method, “European Journal of Operational Research”, 195.Górecka D., Roszkowska E., Wachowicz D., 2014, MARS – a hybrid of ZAPROS and MACBETH for verbal evaluation of the negotiation template, [in:] Group Decision and Negotiation 2014, GDN 2014, Proceedings of the Joint International Conference of the INFORMS GDN Section and the EURO Working Group on DSS , P. Zaraté, G. Camilleri, D. Kamissoko, F. Amblard (eds.), Toulouse University, France.Górecka D., Roszkowska E., Wachowicz T., 2016, The MARS Appoach in the Verbal and Holistic Evaluation of the Negotiation Template, Group Decision and Negotiaion, DOI:10.1007/s10726-016-947592016.Greco S., Mousseau V., Slowiński R., 2008, Ordinal regression revisited: Multiple criteria ranking using a set of additive value functions, “European Journal of Operational Research”, 191.Jacquet-Lagrèze E., Siskos J., 1978, Une méthode de construction de fonctions d’ utilité additives explicatives d’ une préférence globale, “Cahier du LAMSADE”, 16, Université de Paris-Dauphine.Jacquet-Lagrèze E., Siskos Y., 1982, Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision making: The UTA method, “European Journal of Operational Research”, 10 (2).Jacquet-Lagrèze E., Siskos Y., 2001, Preference disaggregation: 20 years of MCDA experience, “European Journal of Operational Research”, 130 (2).Ishizaka A., Nemery P., 2013, Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Methods and Software, Wiley, United KindgdomKadziński M., Greco S., Słowiński R, 2012, Selection of a representative value function in robust multiple criteria ranking, and choice, “European Journal of Operational Research”, 217.Kersten G. E., Lai H., 2007, Negotiation support and e-negotiation systems: an overview, “Group Decis Negot”, 16(6).Kersten G. E, Noronha S. J., 1999, WWW-based negotiation support: design, implementation, and use, “Decis Support Sys”, 25(2).Larichev O. I., Moshkovich H. M., 1995, ZAPROS-LM – A method and system for ordering multiattribute alternatives, “Eur J Oper Res”, 82(3).Larichev O. I., Moshkovich H. M., 1997, Verbal decision analysis for unstructured problems, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.Moshkovich H. M., Mechitov A. I., Olson D. L., 2005, Verbal Decision Analysis, [in:] Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, J. Figueira, S. Greco, M. Ehrgott (eds.), Springer, New York.Mustajoki J., Hamalainen R. P., 2000, Web-HIPRE: Global decision support by value tree and AHP analysis, “INFOR J”, 38(3).Raiffa H., 1982, The Art and Science of Negotiation, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA).Raiffa H., Richardson J., Metcalfe D., 2002, Negotiation Analysis, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Roszkowska E., Brzostowski J., Wachowicz T., 2014a, Supporting Ill-Structured Negotiation Problems, [in:] Human-Centric Decision-Making Models for Social Sciences, P. Guo, W. Pedrycz (eds.) Springer, London.Roszkowska E., Wachowicz T., 2014, The Multi-Criteria Negotiation Analysis Based on the Membership Function, “Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric”, Mechanisms and Methods of Decision Making (ed. E. Roszkowska), 37(50).Roszkowska E., Wachowicz T., 2015a, Application of fuzzy TOPSIS to scoring the negotiation offers in ill-structured negotiation problems, “Eur J Oper Res”, 242(3).Roszkowska E., Wachowicz T., 2015b, Holistic evaluation of the negotiation template – comparing MARS and GRIP approaches, [in:] The 15th International Conference on Group Decision and Negotiation Letters, B. Kamiński, G. Kersten, P. P. Szufel, M. Jakubczyk, T. Wachowicz (eds.), Warsaw School of Economics Press, Warsaw.Roszkowska E., Wachowicz T., 2016, Negocjacje. Analiza i wspomaganie decyzji, Wolter Kluwer, WarszawaSaaty T. L., 1980, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw Hill, New York, N.Y.Siskos Y., Grigoroudis E., Matsatsinis N. F., 2005, UTA methods. Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys, Springer.Salo A., Hamalainen R. P., 2010, Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Group Decision Processes, [in:] Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation, D. M. Kilgour, C. Eden (eds.), Springer, New York.Schoop M., Jertila A., List T., 2003, Negoisst: a negotiation support system for electronic business-to-business negotiations in e-commerce, “Data & Knowledge Engineering”, 47(3).Siskos Y., Grigoroudis E., Matsatsinis N. F., 2005, UTA methods. Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys, Springer.Wachowicz T., Błaszczyk P., 2013, TOPSIS based approach to scoring negotiating offers in negotiation support systems, “Group Decision and Negotiation”, 22.Wachowicz T., Brzostowski J., Roszkowska E., 2012, Reference Points-Based Methods in Supporting the Evaluation of Negotiation Offers, “Operations Research and Decisions”, No. 4.144-1622(80)14416

Application of WINGS method to support decision making with inter-dependence of criteria in negotiations

W negocjacjach częste są sytuacje, w których przestrzeń negocjacyjna i wzorce ofert nie są jasno określone. Jeśli dodatkowo między kwestiami negocjacyjnymi mogą pojawić się zależności, wtedy tradycyjne metody, oparte na sumie ważonej ocen cząstkowych, nie są właściwe dla konstrukcji systemu ocen ofert. Jest to miejsce, w którym swoją użyteczność mogą wykazać podejścia o słabszych założeniach. W artykule zaproponowano zastosowanie metody WINGS (Weighted Influence Non-linear Gauge System) celem wsparcia podejmowania decyzji w procesie negocjacji. Metoda WINGS przedstawia ogólne podejście systemowe pomagające rozwiązywać złożone problemy, w których występują powiązane ze sobą czynniki. W szczególności metoda ta może być użyta do oceny wariantów decyzyjnych w sytuacjach, kiedy zależności między kryteriami nie mogą być pominięte. W ramach wstępnego etapu tej metody zespół negocjacyjny konstruuje, reprezentującą problem negocjacyjny, wspólną sieć konceptów (wierzchołków) i ich relacji (łuków). Taka struktura przypomina mapę poznawczą lub przyczynową. Podstawę sieci stanowią wierzchołki, które odzwierciedlają potencjalne warianty (oferty). U wierzchołka sieci leżą kwestie negocjacyjne (czyli cele, względnie odpowiadające im kryteria). We wnętrzu sieci występują wierzchołki pośrednie, tworzące ścieżki przyczynowe prowadzące od ofert do kwestii. Etap wstępny ma za zadanie pomóc zespołowi negocjacyjnemu w określeniu struktury problemu, a także wspiera proces uczenia się i zrozumienia jego istoty. Drugi, główny etap obejmuje fazę ilościową metody WINGS, pozwalającą zbudować ranking kompromisowych ofert. Użyteczność metody zilustrowano dwoma przykładami przygotowania negocjacji: zakupu partii towaru oraz wyboru systemu informatycznego typu ERP.A situation when negotiation space and templates are not clearly defined is very likely in negotiations. If it also happens that criteria cannot be regarded as independent, then no approach based on weighted additive scoring is suitable for building the offer scoring system. This is an area where other approaches with less limiting assumptions can prove useful. This paper proposes to apply the WINGS (Weighted Influence Non-linear Gauge System) method, a general systemic procedure for supporting decision making in negotiations. The WINGS method helps solve complex problems involving interrelated factors. In particular, it can be used to evaluate alternatives when the interrelations between criteria cannot be neglected. In the introductory stage, the negotiating team builds a common network of concepts (nodes) and their relations (arrows) representing the negotiation problem. This structure resembles a cognitive or causal map. The bottom nodes represent potential alternatives (offers), while the top nodes represent objectives (issues). The intermediary nodes create causal paths leading from the alternatives to the objectives. This stage helps the negotiation team to structure the problem; it also supports learning and comprehension. The main stage involves quantitative evaluations with the WINGS method that make it possible to build a ranking of compromise solutions. The usefulness of the procedure is illustrated with two examples of preparation for negotiations: the purchase of a batch of goods and the choice of an ERP system.Artykuł powstał w ramach projektu sfinansowanego ze środków Narodowego Centrum Nauki przyznanych na podstawie decyzji numer DEC-2013/09/B/HS4/[email protected]ł Informatyki i Komunikacji, Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w KatowicachBrzostowski J., Roszkowska E., Wachowicz T., 2012a, Using Multiple Criteria Decision-Making Methods in Negotiation Support, ,,Optimum. Studia Ekonomiczne”, nr 3(29).Brzostowski J., Roszkowska E., Wachowicz T., 2012b, Using an Analytic Hierarchy Process to develop a scoring system for a set of continuous feasible alternatives in negotiation, „Operations Research and Decisions”, no. 4.Górecka D., Roszkowska E, Wachowicz T., 2014, MARS – a hybrid of ZAPROS and MACBETH for verbal evaluation of the negotiation template, Group Decision and Negotiation 2014 : GDN 2014 : Proceedings of the Joint International Conference of the INFORMS GDN Section and the EURO Working Group on DSS, P. Zaraté, G. Camilleri, D. Kamissoko, F. Amblard (red.), Toulouse University, France.Górecka D., Roszkowska E., Wachowicz T., 2016, The MARS Approach in the Verbal and Holistic Evaluation of the Negotiation Template, “Group Decision and Negotiation”, DOI: 10.1007/s10726-016-9475-92016.Gürbüz T., Alptekin S. E., Işıklar Alptekin G., 2012, A hybrid MCDM methodology for ERP selection problem with interacting criteria, „Decision Support Systems”, 54, doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.05.006.Kersten G. E., Noronha S. J., 1999, WWW-based negotiation support: design, implementation, and use, „Decision Support Systems” 25, doi:10.1016/S0167-9236(99)00012-3.Kilic H.S., Zaim S., Delen D., 2014, Development of a hybrid methodology for ERP system selection: The case of Turkish Airlines, „Decision Support Systems” 66, doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2014.06.011.de Medeiros (Jr.) A., Perez G., Lex S., 2014, Using Analytic Network for Selection of Enterprise Resource Planning Systems (ERP) Aligned To Business Strategy, ,,Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management”, no. 11.Michnik J., 2013, Weighted Influence Non-linear Gauge System (WINGS) – An analysis method for the systems of interrelated components, ,,European Journal of Operational Research”, 228.Mustajoki J., Hämäläinen R. P., 1999, Web-HIPRE – Global decision support by value tree and AHP analysis, Presented at the INFOR.Systems Modelling: Theory and Practice, 2004, M. Pidd (ed.), John Wiley & Sons.Roszkowska E., Wachowicz T., 2015, Application of fuzzy TOPSIS to scoring the negotiation offers in ill-structured negotiation problems, ,,European Journal of Operational Research” 242, doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2014.10.050.Roszkowska E., Wachowicz T., 2016, Negocjacje. Analiza i wspomaganie decyzji, Wolter Kluwer, Warszawa.Saaty T. L., 2005, Theory and Applications of the Analytic Network Process. Decision Making with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.Salo A., Hämäläinen R. P., 2010, Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Group Decision Processes, [in:] Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation, D.M. Kilgour, C. Eden (eds.), Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer Netherlands.Wachowicz T., 2013, Metody wielokryterialne we wspomaganiu prenegocjacyjnego rzygotowania negocjatorów, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Katowicach, Katowice.Wei C.-C., Chien C.-F., Wang M.-J. J., 2005, An AHP-based approach to ERP system selection, ,,International Journal of Production Economics” 96, doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.03.004.Wei C.-C., Wang M.-J. J., 2004, A comprehensive framework for selecting an ERP system, ,,International Journal of Project Management” 22, doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00064-9.Wieszała P., Trzaskalik T., Targiel K., 2011, Analytic Network Process in ERP Selection, [in:] Multicriteria Decision Making’10-11, University of Economics in Katowice, Katowice.119-1341(79)11913

Requirements for building information modeling based lean production management systems for construction

Smooth flow of production in construction is hampered by disparity between individual trade teams' goals and the goals of stable production flow for the project as a whole. This is exacerbated by the difficulty of visualizing the flow of work in a construction project. While the addresses some of the issues in Building information modeling provides a powerful platform for visualizing work flow in control systems that also enable pull flow and deeper collaboration between teams on and off site. The requirements for implementation of a BIM-enabled pull flow construction management software system based on the Last Planner System™, called ‘KanBIM’, have been specified, and a set of functional mock-ups of the proposed system has been implemented and evaluated in a series of three focus group workshops. The requirements cover the areas of maintenance of work flow stability, enabling negotiation and commitment between teams, lean production planning with sophisticated pull flow control, and effective communication and visualization of flow. The evaluation results show that the system holds the potential to improve work flow and reduce waste by providing both process and product visualization at the work face

Online Dispute Resolution Through the Lens of Bargaining and Negotiation Theory: Toward an Integrated Model

[Excerpt] In this article we apply negotiation and bargaining theory to the analysis of online dispute resolution. Our principal objective is to develop testable hypotheses based on negotiation theory that can be used in ODR research. We have not conducted the research necessary to test the hypotheses we develop; however, in a later section of the article we suggest a possible methodology for doing so. There is a vast literature on negotiation and bargaining theory. For the purposes of this article, we realized at the outset that we could only use a small part of that literature in developing a model that might be suitable for empirical testing. We decided to use the behavioral theory of negotiation developed by Richard Walton and Robert McKersie, which was initially formulated in the 1960s. This theory has stood the test of time. Initially developed to explain union-management negotiations, it has proven useful in analyzing a wide variety of disputes and conflict situations. In constructing their theory, Walton and McKersie built on the contributions and work of many previous bargaining theorists including economists, sociologists, game theorists, and industrial relations scholars. In this article, we have incorporated a consideration of the foundations on which their theory was based. In the concluding section of the article we discuss briefly how other negotiation and bargaining theories might be applied to the analysis of ODR

The U.S.-Iran Track II Dialogue (20022008): Lessons Learned and Implications for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund's Grantmaking Strategy

From 2002 through 2008, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF) supported a Track II dialogue involving influential American and Iranian citizens, co-organized and co-facilitated with the UnitedNations Association of the United States of America (UNA-USA), under the able leadership of Ambassador William Luers. Recognizing that the U.S.-Iranian relationship presents perhaps the most important and troubling foreign policy challenge facing both countries, the Track II dialogue was launched in December 2002.The purpose of this paper is to examine the RBF's experience with the practice of Track II dialogues in light of other experiments with similar dialogues both as a conflict prevention and management tool and as an important component of a peacemaking strategy

New technologies and procurement and negotiation process support

The aim of this work is to present innovative IT solutions which can be widely applied in the area of procurement processes and accompanying negotiations, thereby contributing to the assessment of their practical applicability. Particular attention has been placed on Ariba Networks, a platform for procurement management. This work sources the latest literature in this field as well as research conducted in one of the largest worldwide companies operating in the Polish market of fast moving consumable goods.Preparation and printing funded by the National Agency for Research and Development under project “Kreator Innowacyjności – wparcie dla Przedsiębiorczości akademickiej

The Semantic Grid: A future e-Science infrastructure

e-Science offers a promising vision of how computer and communication technology can support and enhance the scientific process. It does this by enabling scientists to generate, analyse, share and discuss their insights, experiments and results in an effective manner. The underlying computer infrastructure that provides these facilities is commonly referred to as the Grid. At this time, there are a number of grid applications being developed and there is a whole raft of computer technologies that provide fragments of the necessary functionality. However there is currently a major gap between these endeavours and the vision of e-Science in which there is a high degree of easy-to-use and seamless automation and in which there are flexible collaborations and computations on a global scale. To bridge this practice–aspiration divide, this paper presents a research agenda whose aim is to move from the current state of the art in e-Science infrastructure, to the future infrastructure that is needed to support the full richness of the e-Science vision. Here the future e-Science research infrastructure is termed the Semantic Grid (Semantic Grid to Grid is meant to connote a similar relationship to the one that exists between the Semantic Web and the Web). In particular, we present a conceptual architecture for the Semantic Grid. This architecture adopts a service-oriented perspective in which distinct stakeholders in the scientific process, represented as software agents, provide services to one another, under various service level agreements, in various forms of marketplace. We then focus predominantly on the issues concerned with the way that knowledge is acquired and used in such environments since we believe this is the key differentiator between current grid endeavours and those envisioned for the Semantic Grid