Using System Dynamics in Negotiation

["Peter Warrian"]

As a former union negotiator I would suggest that the most constructive use of
SD models in negotiations would be to help both sides visualize new trade offs
and mutual gains that further their joint interests. I have developed such a
model to assist labour and management groups in the construction industry
negotiate over the future of training and skill acquisition

Peter Warrian
LM Informatics
pwarrian@msn.com

[saeed@ait.ac.th (Khalid Saeed)]

You might wish to see, besides other writings:

Saeed, K., and Brooke, Kathleen. Contract Design for Profitability in Macro
Engineering Projects. System Dynamics Review. 12(3). 1996.

Khalid
saeed@ait.ac.th

Khalid Saeed
Professor and Program Coordinator
Infrastructure Planning & Management Program
School of Civil Engineering
ASIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
P.O. Box 4, Klongluang, Pathumthani, THAILAND 12120
phones: (66-2) 524-5681, (66-2) 524-5785; fax: (66-2) 524-5776
email: saeed@ait.ac.th
Visit our program website at: http://www.ipm.ait.ac.th/

[ptansy@ALPHA2.CURTIN.EDU.AU]

Hi everyone,
I was wondering if anybody has come across articles regarding the use
of SD modelling in negotiation and could you provide some references for
the article.

If articles are not available, any comment is welcome.

Thank you

Erik Tan (PTANSY@alpha2.curtin.edu.au)

["James L. Ritchie-Dunham"]

Erik wrote:

> I was wondering if anybody has come across articles regarding the use
>of SD modelling in negotiation and could you provide some references for
>the article.


Erik,

Your query is part of the subject of my doctoral research currently under
way. As you well know, much of the research to date presented in the
conflict resolution literature focuses on intuition-based solutions: (1)
to understanding the psychology of your opponent, (2) to seeing and placing
traps, and (3) to integrative solutions, as well as decision analytic
approaches to estimating the opponents BATNA and game theoretical
approaches to complex games. I believe these approaches: (a) are static,
(b) focus only on the initial conditions of the negotiation, and (c) assume
that negotiators can intuitively arrive at win-win solutions in complex
situations. From a dynamic, systemic perspective, these methods provide
only a partial picture.

My work, to be presented at the SD conference in Istanbul, focuses on
integrating system dynamics and systems thinking analytical tools with the
strong body of work already developed in decision analysis and the
behavioral sciences. I started this work as a professor of decision
sciences four years ago at the ITAM in Mexico City and am now continuing it
as a doctoral student at the University of Texas at Austin. If you are
interested, I can share more about the work that I have been doing.

If you receive any further messages from the SD community, I would also be
interested in seeing them. Thank you and good luck.

James L. Ritchie-Dunham
Doctoral Student, Decision Sciences
Department of Management Sciences and Information Systems
University of Texas at Austin
sdsg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu

President
The Strategic Decision Simulation Group (SDSG)
504 W. 35th Street
Austin, TX 78705
(512) 371-3511 tel
(512) 371-3068 fax
sdsg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~sdsg

[MOUNTS Tony]

Faculty from the University of Strathclyde, Mgmt Sci. Dept. utilized
both system dynamics and cognitive mapping in a major delay and
disruption ligitation arising from the construction of the Chunnel. Two
working papers describe elements of this work:

T. Williams, C. Eden, F. Ackermann and A. Tait ;"The Vicious Circles of
Parallelism" Working Paper 94/2

and;

F Ackermann, A Tait, C Eden and T Williams; "COPE-ing with System
Dynamics - a story about Soft and Hard OR" Working Paper 94/14

You can locate these and others in the series at:
http://www.mansci.strath.ac.uk/papers.html

Tony Mounts
City of Eugene
Tony.Mounts@ci.eugene.or.us