what-when-how
In Depth Tutorials and Information
explanations of the positions and considerably limit the potential of negotiation.
he idea behind argumentation-based negotiations is precisely to give this addi-
tional information (e.g., a justification about why the partner should accept a pro-
posal) to stakeholders, helping the negotiation process by identifying part of the
support data and background information that does not get explored otherwise.
Different authors have presented applications of argumentation-based negotiation
models [Buttner 2006, Atkinson et al. 2005, Capobianco et al. 2005, Jennings et
al. 2001]. hese approaches can increase the eiciency of the negotiation process
by adding information that was not used before. By revealing new information,
the partner can be persuaded that a certain proposal is better than thought. Based
on the advantage of these approaches in systematically and effectively organizing
and conveying stakeholders' perspectives, argument-based negotiation approaches
have been our major concern in this work. One of the main limitations of these
approaches is that the stakeholder must be able to analyze the arguments and cal-
culate their value in order to better understand the relationship between the argu-
ments, or choose one best argument. his is because, although Toulmin deined the
generic and well-adopted argument structure, he proposed his views on argumen-
tation informally in loosely specifying how arguments relate to other arguments
and providing little guidance as how to evaluate the best [Zeleznikow 2002]. It is
still more intended as a way of checking and arranging arguments for overlooked
laws [Houp, Pearsall, and Tebeaux 1998] instead of directly supporting group
decision-making such as specifying the relationship between the structured argu-
ment and the governing factors in decision making (e.g., stakeholders' objectives
and perspectives).
8.2.2 Conflict Resolution Studies
he effective ways to solve the conflict problems will enhance the team productiv-
ity and improve the quality of the product. One of the critical objectives of this
proposed approach is to derive a theoretical basis that can be used to solve the dif-
ferent types of conlict during the design process. he current research approaches
on design conflict management can be generally divided into three areas accord-
ing to their theoretical backgrounds. hey are the artiicial intelligence approach,
economic and behavioral approach, and explicit engineering design models. heir
details are briefly introduced below.
Many AI researchers take the problem-solving approaches to resolve design
conlict. heir approaches build searching algorithms, capture agent dependencies,
or develop knowledge-base systems. Some of them view collaborative design as
a distributed dynamic interval constraint-satisfaction problem and develop algo-
rithms that use heuristics for distributed design [Campbell 1999, Tiwari and Gupta
1995]. Klein introduced the concept of conflict resolution expertise. His approach
used computational models that actually encode conflict resolution expertise more
explicitly and use it to maintain the dependencies during cooperative problem
