Agreement Options on Multi Criteria Group Decision and Negotiation
This paper presents a conceptual model of agreement
options on negotiation support for civil engineering decision. The
negotiation support facilitates the solving of group choice decision
making problems in civil engineering decision to reduce the impact
of mud volcano disaster in Sidoarjo, Indonesia. The approach based
on application of analytical hierarchy process (AHP) method for
multi criteria decision on three level of decision hierarchy.
Decisions for reducing impact is very complicated since many
parties involved in a critical time. Where a number of stakeholders
are involved in choosing a single alternative from a set of solution
alternatives, there are different concern caused by differing
stakeholder preferences, experiences, and background. Therefore, a
group choice decision support is required to enable each stakeholder
to evaluate and rank the solution alternatives before engaging into
negotiation with the other stakeholders. Such civil engineering
solutions as alternatives are referred to as agreement options that are
determined by identifying the possible stakeholder choice, followed
by determining the optimal solution for each group of stakeholder.
Determination of the optimal solution is based on a game theory
model of n-person general sum game with complete information that
involves forming coalitions among stakeholders.
[1] C. Pohl, Lapindo Brantas and the Mud Volcano Sidoarjo, Indonesia.
Friends of the Earth International. 2007.
[2] X. Wang A Fuzzy Logic Based Intelligent Negotiation Agent. Master
Thesis. School of Information Technology and Engineering University
of Ottawa, Canada. 2006.
[3] A. Kelly. Decision Making using Game Theory. Cambridge University
Press. 2003.
[4] S. Kraus, J. Wilkenfeld, and G. Slotkin "Multi-agent negotiation under
time constrains". Artificial Intelligence 75, 1995 pp. 297-345.
[5] T.L. Saaty. The Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory
with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, volume IV of AHP Series. RWS
Publications, Pittsburg. 1996.
[6] P.K. Dey, "Integrated project evaluation and selection using multi
attribute decision making technique". International Journal Production
Economics 103, 2006, pp. 90-103.
[7] T. Wanyama, Decision support for COTS selection. Unpublished
dissertation. University of Calgary. 2006.
[8] J. Wang, and S. Zionts "Negotiating wisely, considerations based on
MCDM/MAUT". European Journal of Operation Research 188, 2008,
pp.191-205.
[9] M.M.R. Halfawy. A Multi Agent Collaborative Framework for
Concurrent Design of Constructed Facilities. Dissertation, the Ohio
State University, 1998.
[10] Y. Chen, and Huang. "Bi-negotiation integrated AHP in supplier
selection". Benchmarking: An International Journal 14(5), 2007, pp.
575-593.
[11] M.J. Scott. Formalizing Negotiation in Engineering Design.
Unpublished dissertation California Institute of Technology Pasadena,
1999.
[12] S. Kraus. Strategic Negotiation in Multi-agent Environment. MIT Press,
2001.
[13] M. Morge, and P. Beaune, "A Negotiation Support System Based on
Multi-agent System: Specify & Preference Relation on Arguments".
ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, 2004.
[14] T.W. Sandholm and V.R. Lesser "Coalitions among computationally
bounded agents". Artificial Intelligence, 94(1), 1997, pp. 99-137. Special
issue on Economic Principles of Multi Agent Systems.
[15] J.P. Kahan and A. Rapoport, Theories of coalition formation. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers. 1984.
[16] T. Wanyama, "Static and dynamic coalition formation in group-choice
decision making" in V. Torra, Y. Narukawa, and Y. oshida (Eds.): MDAI
2007, LNAI 4617, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. 2007. pp. 45-56.
[17] T. Wanyama and B.H. Far, "Negotiation coalitions in group-choice
multi-agent systems" AAMAS-06, Hakodate, Hokkaido, Japan. 2006.
pp.408-410.
[18] W.F. Bialas "Cooperative n-Person Stackelberg Games", Proceeding of
the 28th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, May 1998.
[19] T. Wanyama, and B.H. Far, "A protocol for multi-agent negotiation in a
group-choice decision-making". Journal of Network and Computer
Applications 30, 2007, pp.1173-1195.
[1] C. Pohl, Lapindo Brantas and the Mud Volcano Sidoarjo, Indonesia.
Friends of the Earth International. 2007.
[2] X. Wang A Fuzzy Logic Based Intelligent Negotiation Agent. Master
Thesis. School of Information Technology and Engineering University
of Ottawa, Canada. 2006.
[3] A. Kelly. Decision Making using Game Theory. Cambridge University
Press. 2003.
[4] S. Kraus, J. Wilkenfeld, and G. Slotkin "Multi-agent negotiation under
time constrains". Artificial Intelligence 75, 1995 pp. 297-345.
[5] T.L. Saaty. The Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory
with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, volume IV of AHP Series. RWS
Publications, Pittsburg. 1996.
[6] P.K. Dey, "Integrated project evaluation and selection using multi
attribute decision making technique". International Journal Production
Economics 103, 2006, pp. 90-103.
[7] T. Wanyama, Decision support for COTS selection. Unpublished
dissertation. University of Calgary. 2006.
[8] J. Wang, and S. Zionts "Negotiating wisely, considerations based on
MCDM/MAUT". European Journal of Operation Research 188, 2008,
pp.191-205.
[9] M.M.R. Halfawy. A Multi Agent Collaborative Framework for
Concurrent Design of Constructed Facilities. Dissertation, the Ohio
State University, 1998.
[10] Y. Chen, and Huang. "Bi-negotiation integrated AHP in supplier
selection". Benchmarking: An International Journal 14(5), 2007, pp.
575-593.
[11] M.J. Scott. Formalizing Negotiation in Engineering Design.
Unpublished dissertation California Institute of Technology Pasadena,
1999.
[12] S. Kraus. Strategic Negotiation in Multi-agent Environment. MIT Press,
2001.
[13] M. Morge, and P. Beaune, "A Negotiation Support System Based on
Multi-agent System: Specify & Preference Relation on Arguments".
ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, 2004.
[14] T.W. Sandholm and V.R. Lesser "Coalitions among computationally
bounded agents". Artificial Intelligence, 94(1), 1997, pp. 99-137. Special
issue on Economic Principles of Multi Agent Systems.
[15] J.P. Kahan and A. Rapoport, Theories of coalition formation. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers. 1984.
[16] T. Wanyama, "Static and dynamic coalition formation in group-choice
decision making" in V. Torra, Y. Narukawa, and Y. oshida (Eds.): MDAI
2007, LNAI 4617, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. 2007. pp. 45-56.
[17] T. Wanyama and B.H. Far, "Negotiation coalitions in group-choice
multi-agent systems" AAMAS-06, Hakodate, Hokkaido, Japan. 2006.
pp.408-410.
[18] W.F. Bialas "Cooperative n-Person Stackelberg Games", Proceeding of
the 28th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, May 1998.
[19] T. Wanyama, and B.H. Far, "A protocol for multi-agent negotiation in a
group-choice decision-making". Journal of Network and Computer
Applications 30, 2007, pp.1173-1195.
@article{"International Journal of Information, Control and Computer Sciences:59680", author = "Christiono Utomo and Arazi Idrus and Madzlan Napiah and Mohd. Faris Khamidi", title = "Agreement Options on Multi Criteria Group Decision and Negotiation", abstract = "This paper presents a conceptual model of agreement
options on negotiation support for civil engineering decision. The
negotiation support facilitates the solving of group choice decision
making problems in civil engineering decision to reduce the impact
of mud volcano disaster in Sidoarjo, Indonesia. The approach based
on application of analytical hierarchy process (AHP) method for
multi criteria decision on three level of decision hierarchy.
Decisions for reducing impact is very complicated since many
parties involved in a critical time. Where a number of stakeholders
are involved in choosing a single alternative from a set of solution
alternatives, there are different concern caused by differing
stakeholder preferences, experiences, and background. Therefore, a
group choice decision support is required to enable each stakeholder
to evaluate and rank the solution alternatives before engaging into
negotiation with the other stakeholders. Such civil engineering
solutions as alternatives are referred to as agreement options that are
determined by identifying the possible stakeholder choice, followed
by determining the optimal solution for each group of stakeholder.
Determination of the optimal solution is based on a game theory
model of n-person general sum game with complete information that
involves forming coalitions among stakeholders.", keywords = "Agreement options, AHP, agent, negotiation, multicriteria, game theory, and coalition.", volume = "3", number = "2", pages = "435-5", }