Trustworthiness in Collaboration: A Simple Hypergame with Relational Attitudes Analysis

Trust is an important factor in negotiation and business collaboration and can be achieved through mutual understanding between characters involved in this social interaction. Only a few research using mathematical modeling treated the behavioral aspect of those characters, both rationally and emotionally. The purpose of this paper is to analyze and discuss the relationship between rational and emotional aspects of mutual understanding in a collaboration. This paper adopted and modified conventional concepts of misperception and psychological phenomena of the characters by using hypergame and attitudes analysis, respectively. First, I defined collaboration in social systems in term of normal form game-theoretical model, and then by using hypergame in which each character has their own internal model, I explained how rational understanding can be achieved. Next, using attitudes analysis, I discussed how important characters’ attitude towards others are and showed that we need also a strong equilibrium of emotional understanding for a collaboration to produce trust as a result. Finally, this paper proposed a new concept of collaborative social systems equilibrium through such rigorous analysis.Keyword: Attitudes, Collaboration, Hypergame, Social Systems, Trust, Trustworthiness

Collective agency:From philosophical and logical perspectives

People inhabit a vast and intricate social network nowadays. In addition to our own decisions and actions, we confront those of various groups every day. Collective decisions and actions are more complex and bewildering compared to those made by individuals. As members of a collective, we contribute to its decisions, but our contributions may not always align with the outcome. We may also find ourselves excluded from certain groups and passively subjected to their influences without being aware of the source. We are used to being in overlapping groups and may switch identities, supporting or opposing the claims of particular groups. But rarely do we pause to think: What do we talk about when we talk about groups and their decisions?At the heart of this dissertation is the question of collective agency, i.e., in what sense can we treat a group as a rational agent capable of its action. There are two perspectives we take: a philosophical and logical one. The philosophical perspective mainly discusses the ontological and epistemological issues related to collective agency, sorts out the relevant philosophical history, and argues that the combination of a relational view of collective agency and a dispositional view of collective intentionality provides a rational and realistic account. The logical perspective is associated with formal theories of groups, it disregards the psychological content involved in the philosophical perspective, establishes a logical system that is sufficiently formal and objective, and axiomatizes the nature of a collective

Literature review and discussion on collaborative decision making approaches in industry 4.0

Nowadays, companies are faced with an increasingly higher level of competition while trying to adapt to the exigencies imposed by the Industry 4.0, regarding its usually referred dimensions and pillars, among which one that although is not so often referred is also expressing an increasing visibility and importance, related to collaboration, and more specifically to collaborative decision making and co-working. Thus, in this paper an analysis is carried out regarding the evolution of publications that have been put available over the last decade about collaborative decision making approaches, varying from approaches based on mathematical models up to the application of artificial intelligence and other kind of approaches. Moreover, a discussion about the relation between collaborative decision making, concurrent engineering and Industry 4.0 dimensions is also done.This work has been supported by FCT -Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia within the R&D Units Project Scope: UIDB/00319/2020

Attitudes and Coalitions in Brownfield Redevelopment and Environmental Management

Conflict analysis tools are applied to brownfield negotiations in order to investigate the impacts of coalition formation and a decision maker’s (DM’s) attitudes upon the successful resolution of brownfield disputes. The concepts of attitudes within the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR) is defined and subsequently are used, along with coalition analysis methods, to examine the redevelopment of the Kaufman Lofts property and the resolution of a post-development dispute involving Eaton’s Lofts, both located in downtown Kitchener, Ontario, Canada. Within the model of the Kaufman Lofts redevelopment, the project is broken down into three connected project conflicts: property acquisition, remediation selection and redevelopment; with the graph model applied to all three conflict nodes. The application of attitudes shows the impact of cooperation between local governments and private developers in the formation of a coalition that mutually benefits all parties. Coalition analysis, applied to the redevelopment selection conflict between Heritage Kitchener and the private developer in the Kaufman Lofts project, illustrates the importance of close collaboration between the local government and the developer. Systems methodologies implemented here for the examination of brownfield redevelopments are examined and contrasted with the economic and environmental tools commonly used in the redevelopment industry. Furthermore, coalition formation within GMCR is used to examine the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol, to demonstrate that formal conflict resolution methods can be utilized in other areas of environmental management

Conflicting Attitudes in Environmental Management and Brownfield Redevelopment

An enhanced attitudes methodology within the framework of the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR) is developed and applied to a range of environmental disputes, including a sustainable development conflict, an international climate change negotiation and a selection of brownfield conflicts over a proposed transfer of ownership. GMCR and the attitudes framework are first defined and then applied to a possible Sino-American climate negotiation over reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. A formal relationship between the attitudes framework and relative preferences is defined and associated mathematical theorems, which relate the moves and solution concepts used in both types of analysis, are proven. Significant extensions of the attitudes methodology are devised in the thesis. The first, dominating attitudes is a methodology by which the importance of a decision maker’s (DM’s) attitudes can be used to evaluate the strength of a given state stability. The second, COalitions and ATtitudes (COAT), is an expansion of both the attitudes and coalitions frameworks which allows one to analyze the impact of attitudes within a collaborative decision making setting. Finally, the matrix form of attitudes, is a mathematical methodology which allows complicated solution concepts to be executed using matrix operations and thus make attitudes more adaptable to a coding environment. When applied to environmental management conflicts, these innovative expansions of the attitudes framework illustrate the importance of cooperation and diplomacy in environmental conflict resolution

A complexidade da cooperação climática internacional

Although there are several collective efforts to address the problem of climate change, the main initiatives, such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, have not shown satisfactory results so far. The difficulty in engaging states into effective coordinated cooperative practices can be explained as a consequence of neoclassical rationality, given that the characterization of states as rationality-endowed entities bound them to situations like the Prisoners' Dilemma (PD) game and its related collective action dilemmas. There are models that provide ways to circumvent PD and foster cooperation among selfish rational agents, such as the application of strategies based on reciprocity (Tit-for-Tat) in iterated games. However, these approaches do not avoid the short-sighted neoclassical rationality that lies at the root of the problem. Thus, in order to develop more productive approaches to the development of global climate change policies, I present a characterization of the international political system as a complex adaptive system (CAS) and argue that this perspective, along with models based on evolutionary games rather than iterated games, provide a more promising approach.Embora existam vários esforços coletivos para enfrentar o problema das mudanças climáticas, as principais iniciativas, como o Protocolo de Quioto e o Acordo de Paris, não têm apresentado resultados satisfatórios até o momento. A dificuldade em envolver os Estados em práticas cooperativas coordenadas efetivas pode ser explicada como consequência da racionalidade neoclássica, uma vez que a caracterização dos Estados como entidades dotadas de racionalidade os vincul a situações como o jogo do Dilema do Prisioneiro (DP), bem como os dilemas da ação coletiva relacionados a esse jogo. Existem modelos que fornecem maneiras de contornar o PD e promover a cooperação entre agentes racionais egoístas, como por exemplo a aplicação de estratégias baseadas na reciprocidade (Tit-for-Tat) em jogos iterados. No entanto, essas abordagens não evitam a racionalidade neoclássica de curto prazo, que está na raiz do problema. Assim, para desenvolver abordagens mais produtivas para o desenvolvimento de políticas globais para lidar com a mudança climática, apresento uma caracterização do sistema político internacional como um sistema adaptativo complexo (CAS) e argumento que essa perspectiva, acompanhada de modelos baseados em jogos evolutivos em vez de jogos iterados, fornece uma abordagem mais promissora

Attitude-Based Strategic and Tactical Negotiations for Conflict Resolution in Construction

An innovative negotiation framework for resolving complex construction conflicts and disputes has been developed in this research. The unique feature of the proposed negotiation framework is that it takes into account the attitudes of the decision makers, which is an important human factor in construction negotiation at both the strategic and tactical levels of decision making. At the strategic level, the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR) technique has been systematically employed as a method of determining the most beneficial strategic agreement that is possible, given the competing interests and attitudes of the decision makers. At the tactical level, a previously agreed-upon strategic decision has been analyzed in depth using utility functions in order to determine the trade-offs or concessions needed for the decision makers to reach a mutually acceptable resolution of the negotiation issues. A real-life case study of a brownfield construction negotiation has been used to illustrate how the proposed methodology can be applied and to demonstrate the importance and benefits of incorporating the attitudes of the decision makers into the negotiation process to better identify the most feasible resolutions. The proposed attitude-based negotiation framework constitutes a new systems engineering methodology that will assist managers in tackling real-world controversies, particularly in the construction industry. The negotiation framework has been implemented into a convenient negotiation decision support system that automates the proposed negotiation methodology. The research is expected to improve negotiation methodologies for construction disputes, thereby saving significant amounts of time and resources. The proposed methodology may also assist decision makers in overcoming the challenges of conventional negotiation processes because the incorporation of the attitudes of the decision makers results in a more accurate identification of tradeoffs, greater recognition of the level of satisfaction of the decision makers, and enhanced generation of optimum solutions