Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Electronic Negotiation and Mediation Support


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

Electronic Negotiation and Mediation Support

  1. 1. Technische Universität Wien - SS 2011Electronic Negotiationand Mediation Support General Management (330.117) Matteo Michele Damiani (1029296)
  2. 2. Electronic Negotiation and Mediation Support 2011 AbstractIn the first part this paper provides an insight into the different forms of negotiation andmediation support that have been developed to help users to automate negotiationprocesses which involve complex problems.Several definitions and classifications will be presented with the aim to clarify thedifferences in model and configuration of various systems interacting with humannegotiators.Then different NSSs and ENSs will be compared with a historical overview of the mostsignificant experiments that are described in the literature, including research results andresearch frameworks. 1
  3. 3. Electronic Negotiation and Mediation Support 2011 1. IntroductionWhat is Electronic Business? Usually referred as e-Business, it can be defined as theapplication of information and communication technologies (ICT) in support of all theactivities of business [1].Electronic commerce can be seen as one of the essential activities of e-Business andconsists in the process of buying, transferring, or exchanging products, services, and/orinformation via computer networks, including the internet [2]. All these activities can benamed also as Negotiation.Negotiation between enterprises is referred to business-to-business or B2B and includesthe processing of the electronic order, the cooperation between partners and thefacilitation in the exchanging data between companies.Electronic negotiation that is conducted between businesses and consumers is called B2Cand is related with the selling to the mass market and the handling of customer service.Electronic business systems are more relevant in B2B transactions because they should notonly supply an easy-to-use order interface, but they should help to establish complextransactions where users need to negotiate [3]. For this reason in this paper I will discusstopics related to systems which support B2B negotiation.The concepts just explained were important for the description of the environment inwhich Negotiation and Mediation Support Systems take place.The essay is structured as follows: In the next chapter I will present the different forms ofnegotiation and mediation systems, presenting also the different classifications of thesystems. Chapter 3 will present several empirical studies which have compared differentkinds of Negotiation Support Systems to understand the advantages and disadvantages.Chapter 4 has the same structure of its previous chapter but it is focused on theNegotiation Support Systems that are used on the web called Electronic NegotiationSystems. In chapter 5 two assessment models of NSS and ENS are presented.Finally in chapter 6 I will discuss what I have called the open issues. 2
  4. 4. Electronic Negotiation and Mediation Support 2011 2. Different forms of Negotiation and Mediation Support 2.1. Overview of the Support SystemsIn the literature there are several example of classification of systems that supportnegotiations. My first concern is to present the principal definitions and ideas that expertshave reached during the years and providing the state of the art situation.The roots of the software that helps the negotiations are the Decision Support Systems(DSS). The definition and scope of DSS has been migrating over the years [4]:In the 1970s Sol described DSS as "a computer based system to aid decision making".Late 1970s the DSS movement started focusing on "interactive computer-based systemswhich help decision makers to utilize data bases and models to solve ill-structuredproblems”.In the 1980s DSS provided systems that used “suitable and available technology to improveeffectiveness of managerial and professional activities";At the end of the 1980s, DSS faced a new challenge towards the design of intelligentworkstations.A Negotiation Support System (NSS) is a DSS that in addition facilities communication [5],coordination [6] between negotiators and above all it supports the negotiation processwith more help and facilities.NNSs are designed to assist negotiators in reaching mutually satisfactory decisions byproviding a means of communication and through the analysis of available information.Negotiation support may involve using a model-driven, data-driven, communications-driven, document-driven or a knowledge-driven DSS. This sub-category of computerizeddecision support systems is defined by the purpose of the system [7].An Electronic Negotiation Systems (ENS) is Internet-based system which is network-centricand relies on ever-present Internet connectivity. It allows tight integration of internal andexternal enterprise business processes (e.g. value chain and supply chain managementsystems) and a large number of people accessing systems from anyplace.Its user interface is provided by the web browsers; it is easy to understand and common tomany different applications. Internet popularity stimulated the development of thesetechnologies, including software agents and search engines [8]. 3
  5. 5. Electronic Negotiation and Mediation Support 2011Therefore an e-Negotiation System (ENS), according to Kersten’s definition: “is softwarethat employs Internet technologies, is deployed on the web, and has one or more of thefollowing capabilities” *9+:1. Supports decision- and concession-making;2. Suggests offers and agreements;3. Assesses and criticizes offers and counteroffers;4. Structures and organizes the process;5. Provides information and expertise;6. Facilitates and organizes communication;7. Aids agreement preparation;8. Provides access to negotiation knowledge; experts, mediators or facilitators.There are also ENSs software that do not use NSSs; in this category we find e-mail, chatand streaming video [10].An e-Negotiation Table (ENT) is software that provides a virtual meeting workbench(bargaining table) where the negotiators can make offers and post messages [11] (e.g.databases, SQL).A Negotiation Software Agent (NSA) is software that conducts a negotiation in favor of theinterests of his party [12]. NSAs have higher autonomy than NSSs in the decision-makingand communication activities.In my opinion this systems represent the most important and interesting systems thatsupport negotiations because they are able to substitute a large part of the duty of theuser. For this reason I will give more attention and details about this topic.According to Braun et al.: “The NSA acts for and on behalf of the principal, helping him toseek information, evaluating the principal, and communicates with the counterpart” [13].The functions of NSAs depend on the principal’s instructions which decide agent’sautonomy. “The agent may be highly specialized and may co-operate with otheragents, interact directly with the principal, or it may communicate via a DSS or a NSS thatsupports the negotiators in the construction of problem representations and in theirassessment and modification” [14].The main function of the agent could be: present offers, search information aboutcorresponding negotiation situations, collect information about the counter-parts andadvise the negotiator if pre-defined conditions are broken. 4
  6. 6. Electronic Negotiation and Mediation Support 2011“The ill-defined and ambiguous issues, decisions regarding relationship between theparties, modification of the rules and parameters are better left to the principals” *15].While both an ENS and NSA may try to help the negotiators understand the problem, aNegotiation Agent Assistant (NAA) is software that provides human negotiators withintelligent and independent advice [16]. It supplies relevant information about thecounterparts and it differs from a NSS while it helps only one party and not all thenegotiators.Figure 1 shows the different existing software systems that support negotiators. [Figure 1]: “Umbrella Picture”: Software Systems Support for NegotiationAfter introducing the general view of the Negotiation and e-Negotiation support systems;it is now important to recap the most important classifications of ENSs that the literatureoffers from different point of views. 2.2. Social and socio-technical systemsENSs can be categorized by the level of their intelligence and autonomy.The abilities of software can define two types of environment in which they operate [17]: A negotiation social system uses software as a simple tool to solve conflict. Software has no capability to start any task without the user’s specification; A negotiation social-technical system relies on software that, as a complex tool, actively supports negotiators and helps users to achieve their objectives. 5
  7. 7. Electronic Negotiation and Mediation Support 2011 2.3. Passive, active and proactive systemAnother criterion that can be used to categorized systems is their activeness or degree ofintervention [18, 19]: Passive systems: help dispersed users to interact, communicate, compute formulae and display data. They do not provide any structure for the negotiation process and they do not influence the behavior of participants to the negotiation; Active facilitation-mediation systems: helps users in formulating, evaluating and solving difficult problems. They assist negotiators structuring the process. Active systems are able to produce information to users that they did not specify; Proactive intervention-mediation system: have the same capabilities of the active systems but they also coordinate negotiators activities, suggesting and critiquing. Proactive systems intervene without the request of the negotiators. 2.4. Facilitation, mediation and supportThe following classification considers the role of software as a third party in thenegotiation process [20]. This differentiation allows us to determine 3 types ofnegotiations: Computer facilitated negotiations: use technologies like email, chat and video- conferencing to provide the coordination between negotiators. The content of the communication is not affected. We could say that the software used in this case are an extension of our physical abilities; Computer supported negotiations: rely on software that reduces the cognitive effort of the users by providing them information (e.g. simulations, graphics). These kinds of software allow negotiators to understand better the problem. Computer mediated negotiations: use software to facilitate negotiators to reach an agreement. The potential of the software is to offer a compromise that may lead towards an agreement. The last two groups of negotiations use software that extends our mental capabilities. 6
  8. 8. Electronic Negotiation and Mediation Support 2011 2.5. Phases, activities and supportA standard negotiation process may be simply categorized in three principal phases: prenegotiation, negotiation and post negotiation.The relevance in term of the amount of activities that the software covers during thephases of the negotiation process is another criterion that let us distinguish between fourdifferent types of systems [21]: Planning and preparation systems: help one user to organize the set of alternatives determining the utility functions. They are used in the pre negotiation phase when the planning has to be done; Assessment systems: they evaluate the offers proposed by the counterparts. These systems can be used during all the negotiation phases; Intervention systems: designed to support a mediator in activities like agenda setting, exchanging offers or reaching an agreement; Process systems: help users in both individual and common activities. They influence the negotiation dynamics and procedures. They can be used in a single phase or in the whole process. 7
  9. 9. Electronic Negotiation and Mediation Support 2011 3. Comparison of NSSsMy concern of this chapter is to report the most significant results of empirical studiesconducted with the aim of investigate the effects and efficacy of NSS on the outcomes ofnegotiations and on user’s attitudes.I decided to present in a more detailed way only three experiments (Jones’s, Rangaswamyand Shell’s, Lim’s) which I think are the most relevant because they gave a great contributeto the development of the literature in this field.Anyway for a complete analysis I have also reported afterwards other importantexperiments conducted with the same or quite different purposes. 3.1. Jones’s experiment (1988)Three levels of computer support were compared [22]: A comprehensive NSS (DSS component and an electronic communication component); DSS support only (no electronic communication component); No computer support.The results showed that the DSS support was similar to the comprehensive NSS inimproving the information processing aspects of the negotiation such as: joint outcomes,contract balance, and number of contract proposals.However, the comprehensive NSS had a wider spectrum of positive effects: impacting thesocio-emotional aspects of the negotiation such as reduced negative climate and increasedusers’ satisfaction as well as improving the information processing aspects.Jones was the first one to consider the degree of conflict over the negotiated issue [23]and he found that in the low conflict condition, computer suggestions led to higher jointoutcomes, but negotiators took more time. In high conflict situations, negotiatorsperceived the climate to be more collaborative with computer support than without [24]. 8
  10. 10. Electronic Negotiation and Mediation Support 2011 3.2. Rangaswamy and Shell’s experiment (1997)The experiments conducted by Rangaswamy and Shell compared four conditions [25]: No NSS; E-mail communication only; DSS-only for preparation; NSS.Subjects in the DSS condition used negotiation assistant to quantify their value functions inthe preparation stage of the negotiation, whereas subjects in the NSS condition used thesystem also to exchange contract offers and messages with the other party.The analysis of the experiment focused mainly on joint agreement. According to theresults, dyads in the NSS and DSS condition achieved significantly more integrativeagreement than face-to-face or email dyads.The negotiation process for NSS users was less friendly because they felt morecompetition, but they also realized to be more in control with the process.Although NSS and DSS dyads obtained similarly highly integrated agreements, NSS led tothe largest joint gains. There was no difference in the agreement obtained by dyads inemail and face-to-face conditions.The NSS/DSS subjects used twice the preparation time than No NSS or Email users, as theyhad to read through the operation instructions. 3.3. Lim’s experiment (2000)Lim’s experiment *26] confirmed the advantage of the NSS over face-to-face negotiation bythe reduction of cognitive efforts; but he also noticed that computer-facilitatednegotiations, with the only use of communication software, provide lower outcomes thana face-to-face negotiations. He reputes that the lack of NSS tools which focus the users’ onthe negotiation’s content lead to a premature negotiation conclusion and consequentlylow outcomes.More detailed considerations about the cited studies and other experiments results aresummarized in Table 2. 9
  11. 11. Electronic Negotiation and Mediation Support 2011[Table 2] – Part 1[Table 2] – Part 2 10
  12. 12. Electronic Negotiation and Mediation Support 2011 [Table 2] – Part 3In examining NSS research it becomes clear that existing studies do not provide a fullperspective on NSS impact [27].For instance, the literature shows inconsistent results on the usefulness of DSS.In some studies DSS led to improvements in performance, while in others there was nodifference between DSS users and non-users.One of the problems is that it is virtually impossible to resolve such differences, becausethere is usually no basis for comparison of results across studies; in fact only some studieshave similar frameworks but in general they differ.According to Kersten and Lai the conclusion is that at the moment we cannot becompletely sure when we say that NSS definitely assure positive impact on individual andjoint outcomes [28]. 11
  13. 13. Electronic Negotiation and Mediation Support 2011The reason has to be found in the lack of rigorousness that mark the experimentsconsidered as a whole. In fact NSS laboratory research exhibits considerable variations thatmight also be attributed to differences in [29]: Experimental design; Research instruments; Model/task (e.g., suitability of the NSS for the decision problem); Interface features (e.g., ease of use of NSS features); Experimental procedure (e.g., the amount of time allotted); The outcome measures themselves.A part of the experts who provided the studies that I have reported here, have proposedfixed frameworks for empirical research that could allow the comparison of NSS from anobjective point of view.Denis et al. (1988) proposed a framework focused on the outcomes, Starke andRangaswamy (2000) suggested a framework focused on the negotiation process andVetschera (2006) proposed a framework that focuses on the usability of a system duringthe negotiation.Figure 2 shows the structure of these frameworks. [Figure 2] – Key construct in NSS research 12
  14. 14. Electronic Negotiation and Mediation Support 2011 4. Comparison of ENSs 4.1. ENS SamplesThe most famous ENSs systems are: Inspire is a systems based on NSS concept designed in 1995. It provides users with the following facilities [30]:  Exchange messages;  Define discrete stages and activities of the negotiation process;  Specify preferences and create their utility functions with the conjoint analysis;  Evaluate offers;  Represent the negotiation process by the use of graphics.The Pictures 3, 4 and 5 show graphically which is the Inspire support process during thenegotiation. Figure 3 13
  15. 15. Electronic Negotiation and Mediation Support 2011 [Figure 4] [Figure 5]Aspire is an integration of Inspire (ENS) with the addition of a NAA [31]. The agentcontinuously monitors the negotiation process independently of the user activities,provides advice regarding the negotiation process and parties’ tactics and strategiesand warns the user about actions that may have negative impact on his situation. Ithas been demonstrated [32] that in negotiations supported by a NAA thepercentage of dyads who reach an agreement is higher. 14
  16. 16. Electronic Negotiation and Mediation Support 2011 4.2. Experiments about different ENSIn an experiment by Purdy and Nye (2000) [33] were compared negotiation conducted viachat, face-to-face, video and telephone. They found that chat users were less cooperativeand more competitive; in addition the time to reach an agreement was more and the jointoutcomes were inferiors. Users were less fulfilled and had a lower desire to have othersnegotiations.The result with the telephone and the video were not so definite because they had conflictresults: sometimes one system was better and other times it was the opposite.Chat and e-mail did not provide excellent outcomes and the reason could be the fact thatthey do not support the negotiation with any decision advice, they just allow theexchanging of text and messages.Another negative aspect against the chat negotiation comes from Yuan’s experiment(2003) [34] that reports how negotiators prefer to communicate with only video or audiorather than with text alone. The curiosity was that if we add video to a text-audiocommunication, the negotiation environment does not seem to improve his quality thanthe initial situation.Weber (2006) experiment [35] was focused on the Inspire system; it considered twoconfigurations of the system: one with a graphical support, the other one without.The number of parties that subscribed an agreement was the same for both the twoalternatives. The difference consisted in the number of offers that were proposed: usersthat adopted the graphical support needed shorter messages, 334 on average less that thedyads that did not have the graphical help. The reason is simple: the immediateinformation that was not available with the graphs had to be asked to the counterpart.Köszegi and Vetschera’s studies (2002) [36] focused on the relationship between thepeculiarity of a negotiator, the facilities of the system and the consequently reachedagreements. The experiment was realized with an Inspire system. They discovered that theway a subject perceives the utility of a system is influenced by different factors: Habits and culture; Previous capacity in the use of the system; Negotiation personal skill of the user.In addition they noticed that precedent negotiation experiences help the user to feel thesystem easy and friendly to use. 15
  17. 17. Electronic Negotiation and Mediation Support 2011Lai et al. (2006) [37] studied the effects of two different strategies: cooperative and non-cooperative on the negotiation outcomes.Cooperative users control the whole process and consider it more easy to accept; theconsequences are that they present less offers but more messages, they provide clearerinformation without confusing the counterpart with frequent proposes. Thus, obviouslythe percentage of successful agreements was higher for the cooperative negotiators thanfor the non-cooperative ones.Negotiations conducted with e-mail bring to more fair outcomes than face-to-face becauselet the user reflect before the answer (asynchronous reflection).On the other hand they require more time.Köszegi et al. (2006) in their research [38] compared some of the most important ENSsstudies. The general evidence of the previous studies was that ENSs lead to better jointoutcomes and high solution quality. Furthermore they noticed that precedent studiesdiscovered how ENS processes require more tactics (more preparation) about the use ofthe systems.Thus their main research purpose was to understand if better preparation (required by themost complex ENSs) leads to more competitive or more cooperative behavior.In order to answer to this doubt they compared 2 different ENSs: - SimpleNS: which barely is a communication platform (the passive system); - Inspire: which I have described in this paper too (the active facilitative-mediation system);The results of the research can be divided in two groups and can be summarized in thefollowing statements: Effect of system on Negotiation behavior: Surprisingly to the expectation, users of Inspire provided less information; while SimpleNS users put more effort in the data exchange; There was no difference in transmitting negative affective behavior between the two systems. On the other hand users of the active system exhibited a more positive affective behavior. This relevant point brings to the idea that task orientation does not counteract obligatory with socio-emotional behavior; Users of the Inspire systems presented less tactical behavior and they more often expressed positive emotions; 16
  18. 18. Electronic Negotiation and Mediation Support 2011 Negotiators supported by Inspire with use more logrolling and trade-off, thus they are able to make more package offers and as a consequence they make more concessions (with price and quality) compared with the passive systems’ users. Effect of Negotiation Behavior on Outcome: There is no correlation between distributive behavior (persuasive, use of substantiations, threats or power, single-issue offering) and the reaching of an agreement; On the contrary they found a positive correlation integrative behavior (developing creative solutions, use of logrolling, packages offering) increases the probability of an agreement. So with the Inspire system negotiators were able to reach more accords because they achieved a better relationship.This research definitely showed that Inspire system support increases effectiveness ofusers and in addition it is possible to conclude that “relationship building and expression ofpositive emotion is connected to reaching agreements [39]”.Figure 6 shows the research framework. [Figure 6]: The Research Framework 17
  19. 19. Electronic Negotiation and Mediation Support 2011 5. NSS & ENS assessmentIn this chapter I will discuss two models that can be used to evaluate theeffectiveness of both Negotiation Support Systems and Electronic NegotiationSupport Systems. 5.1. The TAM ModelThe Technology acceptance model (TAM) [40] is an assessment model that can be appliedto determine the wishing of a negotiator to use an information system.According to this model: The behavioral intention to use the system influence the actual use of the system; It is enough to expose the user for a short time to make him perceive the usefulness and the ease of use of the system; The content of the analysis are specific activities; The users belong to the same organization, so they have a common origin.Figure 7 shows the TAM model scheme. [Figure 7] - The Technology acceptance model (TAM) scheme 5.2. The AMIS modelThe assessment model of internet systems (AMIS) [41] is an upgrade of the TAM model.The model’s purpose is to analyze the web-based system success.The framework of the AMIS model differs from the TAM model because of the object ofthe analysis; In fact, while the TAM model analyzes traditional systems, the AMIS modelfocuses on web-based systems that are open to every user at any time.The basic changes brought by the AMIS model are the following: 18
  20. 20. Electronic Negotiation and Mediation Support 2011 Experienced usefulness of the system substitutes the perceived usefulness of the system; It considers the complete problem, not only simple selected tasks; The exposure of the users can be long; Web-based systems can be used by multiple users with different backgrounds so the user population may not be uniform. It is important to consider negotiators’ different individual peculiarities because they affect their experiences and ease of use with the system;Figure 8 shows the AMIS model scheme. [Figure 8] - The assessment model of internet systems (AMIS) 19
  21. 21. Electronic Negotiation and Mediation Support 2011 6. Open Issues 6.1. NSS implementation problemIt is not easy for a person to start using a support system especially if he/she has neverused it. People that usually use e-mail or telephone could be worried to learn a newsystem that maybe will change the way they work.So how is possible to convince an employee that the NSS or maybe a ENS with a NSA/NAAwill help his/her life at the workplace?There are some reasons that can be listed but essentially the main points are [42]: Negotiators must be convinced that it is enjoyable to use it; Negotiators must be sure that its use will improve performances; Their boss or colleagues think it is worth to use it; Because of the causal nature of their negotiation tasks. 6.2. The future of the Support SystemsThe great future of the NSSs is on the web market. The negotiation between buyers andsellers on the internet with the use of ENSs has the following advantages: Ubiquity of the net; Ease of use interfaces; Real time negotiation.In the 1990s some web sites were born to support the commerce on-line.They allow negotiators to find the best price in order to create a joint agreement (also theB2C market).A new business accompanied this trend, the one of the e-commerce website developer.Consultancies started to establish business units specialized in creating ecommerceplatforms and systems for both retailers (B2C) and brands (B2B).But ENSs solution moved also in other segments. One example is the success that hasonline systems supporting insurance claim negotiations. They help the parties to solveconflicts in a smarter and faster way with the clear final aim of the joint agreement. 20
  22. 22. Electronic Negotiation and Mediation Support 2011It is important to consider that the increase in the use of the internet, the explosiongrowth of the e-business/e-commerce and the new trend of mobile internet connectionwill bring new chance to study the interactions with ENS.ENSs will contribute to the solution of different types of negotiations, who knows which isthe next improvement? 21
  23. 23. Electronic Negotiation and Mediation Support 2011 Notes:[1] Wikipedia (2011)[2] Wikipedia (2011)[3] Köszegi et al. (2006a)[4] Henk Sol (1987)[5] Lim & Benbasat (1992)[6] Lai (1989); Holsapple, Lai et al. (1995)[7] Bui & Shakun (2004)[8] Kersten (2004a)[9] Kersten (2004b)[10] Lempereur (2004)[11] Kersten (2003)[12] Jennings & Faratin et al. (2001)[13] Braun et al. (2006a)[14] Braun et al. (2006b)[15] Braun et al. (2006c)[16] Chen & Kersten et al. (2004)[17] Kersten & Lai (2006a)[18] Kersten (2004c)[19] Köszegi et al. (2006b)[20] Kersten & Lai (2006b)[21] Davey & Olson (1998)[22] Jones (1988)[23] Kersten & Lai (2006c)[24] John & Yang (2004)[25] Rangaswamy & Starke (2001a)[26] Kersten & Lai (2006d)[27] Rangaswamy & Starke (2001b)[28] Kersten & Lai (2006e) 22
  24. 24. Electronic Negotiation and Mediation Support 2011[29] Rangaswamy & Starke (2001c)[30] Rangaswamy & Starke (2001d)[31] Al-Sakran & Serguievskaia (2006)[32] Kersten & Lo (2003)[33] Purdy & Nye (2000)[34] Yuan, Rose & Acher (1998)[35] Weber, Kersten & Hine (2006)[36] Köszegi , Vetschera and Kersten (2002)[37] Lai, Doong & Kao (2006)[38] Köszegi et al. (2006c)[39] Köszegi et al. (2006d)[40] Davis (1989)[41] Vetschera et al. (2003)[42] Lee et al. (2007) 23
  25. 25. Electronic Negotiation and Mediation Support 2011 References of Figures and Tables: *Figure 1+ Kersten, E. Gregory and Lai, H. (2006): “Negotiation Support and E- Negotiation Systems”, InterNeg Research Papers, p. 5. *Figure 2+ Kersten, E. Gregory and Lai, H. (2006): “Negotiation Support and E- Negotiation Systems”, InterNeg Research Papers, p. 22. *Table 2+ (Part 1, 2, 3) Rangaswamy, A. and Starke, K. (2001): “Computer-mediated Negotiations: Review and Research Opportunities”, Encyclopedia of Microcomputers, Vol.26, Marcel Inc., NY: New York, pp. 35-37. *Figure 3+ Kersten, G. E. and S. J. Noronha (1997): “Supporting International Negotiation with a WWW-Based System”, Centre for Computer Assisted Management, Carleton University, p. 6. *Figure 4+ Kersten, G. E. and S. J. Noronha (1997): “Supporting International Negotiation with a WWW-Based System”, Centre for Computer Assisted Management, Carleton University, p. 7. *Figure 5+ Kersten, G. E. and S. J. Noronha (1997): “Supporting International Negotiation with a WWW-Based System”, Centre for Computer Assisted Management, Carleton University, p. 8. [Figure 6] Köeszegi, S.T., Srnka, K.L. and E. Pesendorfer (2006): “Electronic Negotiations – A Comparison of Different Support Systems, Die Betriebswirtschaft” 66 (4), pp. 445. [Figure 7] C. M. Jackson, S. Chow, and R. A. Leitch (1997): "Toward an Understanding of the Behavioral Intention to Use an Information System," Decision Sciences, vol. 28, p. 363. *Figure 8+ Vetschera, R., G. E. Kersten and S. Köszegi (2003): “User Assessment of Internet-Based Negotiation Support Systems: An Exploratory Study”, InterNeg Research Papers, p. 12. 24
  26. 26. Electronic Negotiation and Mediation Support 2011 Bibliography: Al-Sakran, H and Serguievskaia, I (2006): “A Framework for Developing Experience Based e-Negotiation System”, Journal of Computer Science 2 (2), pp 180-184. Braun, P., J. Brzstowski, G. Kersten, J. B. Kim, R. Kowalczyk, Ryszard, S. Strecker, R. Vahidov (2006): ”e-Negotiation Systems and Software Agents: Methods, Models, and Applications”, pp. 7-8. Bui, T. X. and M. F. Shakun (2004): “Introduction Negotiation Support Systems minitrack”, p.1. Chen, E., G. E. Kersten and R. Vahidov (2004): “Agent-Support Negotiations on E- marketplace“, International Journal of Electronic Business 3(1), pp. 28-49. Davey, A. and D. Olson (1998): “Multiple Criteria Decision Making Models in Group Decision Support”, Group Decision and Negotiation 7(1), pp. 55-75. Davis, F.D. (1989): "Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology", MIS Quarterly, vol. 13, pp. 318-340. Henk , G. Sol et al. (1987): Expert systems and artificial intelligence in decision support systems: proceedings of the Second Mini Euroconference, Lunteren, The Netherlands, 17–20 November 1985, Springer pp. 1-2. Holsapple, C.W., H Lai and A. B. Whinston (1995): “Analysis of Negotiation Support System Research”, Journal of Computer Information System 35 (3), pp. 2-11. Jennings, N. R., P. Faratin, A. R. Lomuscio et al. (2001): “Automated Negotiations: Prospects, Methods and Challenges”, Group Decision and Negotiation 10(2), pp. 199-215. John Lim and Yin Ping Yang (2004): “Videoconferencing NSS and Conflict Level: An Experimental Study “, School of Computing National University of Singapore, p. 2. 25
  27. 27. Electronic Negotiation and Mediation Support 2011 Jones, B.H. (1988) Analytical negotiation: “An Empirical Examination of the Effects of Computer Support for Different Levels of Conflict in Two-party Bargaining”, Ph.D. Dissertation, School of Business Bloomington, IN, Indiana University. Kersten, G. E. (2003): “The Science and Engineering of e-Negotiation: An Introduction. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences”, pp. 27-36. Kersten, G. E. and G. Lo (2003): “Aspire: Integration of Negotiation Support Systems and Software Agents for E-business Negotiation”, International Journal of Internet and Enterprise Management 1(3), pp. 293-315. Kersten, G. E. (2004): “E-negotiation systems: Interaction of people and technologies to resolve conflicts”, pp. 3-4. Kersten, G. E. and Lai H. (2006): “Negotiation Support and E-Negotiation Systems”, InterNeg Research Papers. Köszegi, S. T., R. Vetschera and G. E. Kersten (2002): “Cultural Influences on the Use and Perception of Internet-Based NNS – An Exploratory Analysis”, International Negotiation Journal 9(1), pp. 79-109. Köszegi, S.T., Srnka, K.J. and E. Pesendorfer (2006): “Electronic Negotiations ‐ A Comparison of Different Support Systems, Die Betriebswirtschaft”, 66 (4), pp. 441‐463. Lai, H., H.-S. Doong, C.-C.Kao, et al. (2006): “Understanding Behaviour and Perception of negotiators from Their strategies”, Group Decision and negotiation 15(5), pp. 429-447. Lim, L. H. and I. Bensabat (1992): “A theoretical Perspective of negotiation Support System”, Journal of Management Information System 9, pp. 27-44. Lee, K. C., I. Kang, and J.S. Kim (2007): “Exploring the User Interface of Negotiation Support Systems from the User Acceptance Perspective”, Computers in Human Behavior 23 (1), p. 227. 26
  28. 28. Electronic Negotiation and Mediation Support 2011 Lempereur, A. (2004): “Inoovation in Teaching Negotiation: Towards a relevant Use of Multimedia Tools”. International Negotiation Journal 9 (1), pp. 141-160. Purdy, J.M. and P. Ney (2000): “The Impact of Communication Media on negotiation Outcomes”, The International Journal of Conflict Management”, 11(2), pp. 162-187. Rangaswamy, A. and Starke K. (2001): “Computer-mediated Negotiations: Review and Research Opportunities”, Encyclopedia of Microcomputers, Vol.26, Marcel Inc., New York, pp. 12-20. Vetschera, R., G. E. Kersten and S. Köszegi (2003): “User Assessment of Internet- Based Negotiation Support Systems: An Exploratory Study”, InterNeg Research Papers, pp. 9-12. Weber, M., G. E. Kersten and M.H. Hine (2006): “An Inspire ENS Graph is worth 334 Words, on Average”, Electronic Markets 16(3), pp. 186-200. Wikipedia, the free Enciclopedia (2011). Yuan, Y., J.B. Rose and N.Acher (1998): “A Web-Based Negotiation Support System”, Electronic Markets 8(3), pp 13-17. 27