Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Published:
Information Systems Frontiers Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 participatory media. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(2), 100–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study is supported financially in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (“KAKENHI”) of the Japanese Government: No. 18,700,250 (FY 2006-2008).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hideyasu Sasaki.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sasaki, H. A computing theory for collaborative and transparent decision making under time constraint. Inf Syst Front 13, 207–220 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-009-9189-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

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

Keywords

Navigation