More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

article

A computing theory for collaborative and transparent decision making under time constraint

Author:

Hideyasu SasakiAuthors Info & Claims

Information Systems Frontiers, Volume 13, Issue 2

Pages 207 - 220

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-009-9189-5

Published: 01 April 2011 Publication History

Abstract

In this paper, we present a computing theory on the accelerated critical point of selection of proper strategies between collaboration and competition and its mathematical analysis for collaborative and transparent decision making under "time constraint", i.e., cost of time pressure, which decision makers face in negotiation. Web 2.0 provides a useful digital environment to support various time-stressed human behaviors for collaborative decision making. However, little research has examined the collaborative behavior under time constraint on the Internet in its designs and implementations on electronically supported decision making. Those systems are implemented in black boxes so that we need transparent designs of decision support systems to promote collaboration by time-stressed decision makers. The essential problem on collaborative decision making under time constraint is the discovery and evaluation on the critical point of selection of proper strategies between collaboration and competition. Most of the current decision support systems accept the half of maximum acceptable time for negotiation as a critical point, a priori, though that conventional point is often late for proper decision making. The proposed theory shows that a critical point is to be accelerated at the one-third of maximum acceptable time for negotiation. We have formulated the proposed computing theory based on mathematical formulation, and checked its feasibility in its applications to a case study. The proposed theory promotes collaborative and transparent decision making in consideration of the properties of stakes under time pressure by selecting the strategy of collaboration or competition at the much earlier stage.

References

[1]

Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Fiksdahl-King, M. J. I., & Angel, S. (1977). A pattern language, towns, buildings, construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[2]

Ashenfelter, O., & Greenstone, M. (2004). Using mandated speed limits to measure the value of a statistical life. Journal of Political Economy, 112(2, Part2), 226-267.

[3]

Ba, S., Whinston, A. B., & Zhang, H. (2000). The dynamics of the electronic market: An evolutionary game approach. Information Systems Frontiers, 2(1), 31-40.

[4]

Baird, D. G., Gertner, R. H., & Picker, R. C. (1998). Game theory and the law (3rd Ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

[5]

Berne, E. (1964). Games people play: The psychology of human relationships. New York: Grove.

[6]

Bichler, M. (2000). Trading financial derivatives on the Web: An approach towards automating negotiations on OTC markets. Information Systems Frontiers, 1(4), 401-414.

[7]

Brunnermeier, M. K., Papakonstantinou, F., & Parker, J. A. (2008). An economic model of the planning fallacy: NBER working paper (No. 14228). Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.

[8]

Bull, G., Thompson, A., Searson, M., Garofalo, J., Park, J., Young, C., et al. (2008). Connecting informal and formal learning: Experiences in the age of participatorymedia. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(2), 100-107.

[9]

Chen, J. H., Chao, K. M., Godwin, N., & Soo, V. W. (2005). Combining cooperative and non-cooperative automated negotiations. Information Systems Frontiers, 7(4/5), 391-404.

Digital Library

[10]

Cheng, Z., Capretz, M. A. M., & Osano, M. (1995). A model for negotiation among agents based on the transaction analysis theory. In Proceedings of the second international symposium on autonomous decentralized systems (pp. 427-433). Silver Spring: IEEE Computer Society.

[11]

Deininger, K. W. (1993). Cooperatives and the breakup of large mechanized farms theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence: World Bank discussion papers (No. 218). Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank.

[12]

de Vreede, G. J. (2006). Collaboration engineering: Current directions and future opportunities. In Proceedings of the seventh international conference on group decision and negotiation (GDN 2006) (pp. 15-18). Karlsruhe: University of Karlsruhe Press.

[13]

de Vreede, G. J., & Briggs, R. O. (2005). Collaboration engineering: Designing repeatable processes for high-value collaborative tasks. In Proceedings of the 38th Hawaiian international conference on system science (p. 17c). Silver Spring: IEEE Computer Society.

[14]

Dror, I. E., Busemeyer, J. R., & Basola, B. (1999). Decision making under time pressure: An independent test of sequential sampling models. Memory & Cognition, 27(4), 713-725.

[15]

Fatima, S. S., Wooldridge, M. J., & Jennings, N. R. (2004). An agenda-based framework for multi-issue negotiation. Artificial Intelligence, 152(1), 1-46.

Digital Library

[16]

Fisher, R. (1991). Negotiating inside out: What are the best ways to related internal negotiations with external ones? In J. W. Breslin & J. Z. Rubin (Eds.), Negotiation theory and practice (pp. 71-79). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

[17]

Goeree, J. K., Holt, C. A., & Palfrey, T. R. (2003). Risk averse behavior in asymmetric matching pennies games. Games and Economic Behavior, 45(1), 97-113.

[18]

Gould, E. C., & Easter, M. (1998). The multisearch software case. Program on Negotiation, Harvard Law School.

[19]

Greenstein, S. (2000). The commercialization of information infrastructure as technological mediation: The internet access market. Information Systems Frontiers, 1(4), 329-348.

Digital Library

[20]

Kolfschoten, G. L., & van der Hulst, S. (2006). Collaboration process design transition to practitioners: Requirements from a cognitive load perspective. In Proceedings of the seventh international conference on group decision and negotiation (GDN 2006) (pp. 45-48). Karlsruhe: University of Karlsruhe Press.

[21]

Kriesberg, L. (1991). Timing and the initiation of de-escalation moves. In J. W. Breslin & J. Z. Rubin (Eds.), Negotiation theory and practice (pp. 223-231). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

[22]

Kriesberg, L. (2007). Timing and the initiation of de-escalation moves. Negotiation Journal, 3(4), 375-384.

[23]

Labaki, R., Pallas, V., & Bouzdine-Chameeva, T. (2006). A favourable knowledge management context: Application of the causal mapping technique. In Proceedings of the seventh international conference on group decision and negotiation (GDN 2006) (pp. 57-60). Karlsruhe: University of Karlsruhe Press.

[24]

Lax, D. A. (1985).Optimal search in negotiation analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 29(3), 456-472.

[25]

Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (1991). The power of alternatives or the limits to negotiation. In J. W. Breslin & J. Z. Rubin (Eds.), Negotiation theory and practice (pp. 97-113). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

[26]

Lee, M. S., Ratchford, B. T., & Talukdar, D. (2002). The impact of the internet on information search for automobiles. Review of Marketing Science, 1(2, Working Paper 1), 1-47.

[27]

O'Grady, L. A., Witteman, H., & Wathen, C. N. (2008). The experiential health information processing model: Supporting collaborative Web-based patient education. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 8(58), 1-22.

[28]

Olson, D. L. (2001). Rationality in information systems support to decision making. Information Systems Frontiers, 3(2), 239-248.

Digital Library

[29]

Osei-Bryson, K. M., & Ngwenyama, O. (2008). Decision models for information systems management. Information Systems Frontiers, 10(3), 277-279.

Digital Library

[30]

Raiffa, H. (1982). The art and science of negotiation: How to resolve conflicts and get the best out of bargaining. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University.

[31]

Rush, R., & Wallace, W. A. (1997). Elicitation of knowledge from multiple experts using network inference. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 9(5), 688-696.

Digital Library

[32]

Sanna, L. J., Parks, C. D., Chang, E. C., & Carter, S. E. (2005). The hourglass is half full or half empty: Temporal framing and the group planning fallacy. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9(3), 173-188.

[33]

Sasaki, H. (2008a). An evaluation method for strategic decision making on group collaboration under temporary constraints. In Proceedings of the first IEEE international symposium on advanced management of information for globalized enterprises (AMIGE 2008) (No. 10, pp. 1-5). Silver Spring: IEEE Computer Society.

[34]

Sasaki, H. (2008b). Strategic decision making on group collaboration under temporary constraints. In Proceedings of the fifth IEEE/ACM international conference on soft computing as transdisciplinary science and technology (CSTST 2008). (pp. 343-349). New York: ACM.

Digital Library

[35]

Schragenheim, E. (1997). A systematic approach to common and expected uncertainty. Journal of System Improvement, 1(2), 1-8.

[36]

Sykara, K. P. (1991). New directions in automated negotiation. In J. W. Breslin & J. Z. Rubin (Eds.), Negotiation theory and practice (pp. 9-11). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

[37]

Szirbik, N. (2002). A negotiation enabling agent based infrastructure: Composition and behavior. Information Systems Frontiers, 4(1), 85-99.

Cited By

Bang C(2018)Information systems frontiersInformation Systems Frontiers10.1007/s10796-014-9544-z17:1(217-237)Online publication date: 24-Dec-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10796-014-9544-z
Sasaki H(2010)Strategic points to minimize time cost for decision making under asynchronous time constraintsProceedings of the 2010 international conference on Web information systems engineering10.5555/2044492.2044494(1-12)Online publication date: 12-Dec-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2044492.2044494

A computing theory for collaborative and transparent decision making under time constraint

Recommendations

Collaborative and Transparent Decision Making under Temporary Constraint
ICIW '09: Proceedings of the 2009 Fourth International Conference on Internet and Web Applications and Services

In this paper, we present a computing theory and its analysis for collaborative and transparent decision making under temporary constraint, i.e., cost of time pressure which decision makers face in negotiation. We have formulated the proposed computing ...
Collaborative Decision Making

<P>A synthesis of the work of three noted authors provides a framework for collaborative decisions built on the foundation of decision analysis. A Nobel Prize winner provides a psychological foundation for the framework, an authority on harnessing the ...
A Study on Strategic Points for Decision Making Under Time Constraint
3PGCIC '10: Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on P2P, Parallel, Grid, Cloud and Internet Computing

In this study, we discuss a theory on process for decision making under time constraint which is uncommon or asynchronous among two or bilateral decision makers. The problem on time constraint is to evaluate cost of time or value of the entire duration ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Information Systems Frontiers

Information Systems Frontiers Volume 13, Issue 2

April 2011

141 pages

ISSN:1387-3326

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © Copyright © 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC.

Publisher

Kluwer Academic Publishers

United States

Publication History

Published: 01 April 2011

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

2
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 07 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Bang C(2018)Information systems frontiersInformation Systems Frontiers10.1007/s10796-014-9544-z17:1(217-237)Online publication date: 24-Dec-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10796-014-9544-z
Sasaki H(2010)Strategic points to minimize time cost for decision making under asynchronous time constraintsProceedings of the 2010 international conference on Web information systems engineering10.5555/2044492.2044494(1-12)Online publication date: 12-Dec-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2044492.2044494

View Options

View options

Figures

Tables

Media

View Issue’s Table of Contents