Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T11:15:41.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A study of argumentation-based negotiation in collaborative design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2010

Yan Jin  and
Mathieu Geslin
Yan Jin
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA
Mathieu Geslin
Affiliation:
Honda R&D Americas, Torrance, California, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Engineering of complex systems often involves teamwork. The members of an engineering team must work together to identify design requirements, explore design spaces, generate design alternatives, and make both interactive and joint design decisions. Because of the latency of information and the disciplinary differences, it is often a difficult process for the members of a team to reach agreements when needed. Negotiation has been studied as a method for facilitating information exchange, mutual understanding, and joint decision making. An argumentation-based negotiation approach was previously proposed by the authors to support collaborative engineering design. In this paper, we present an experiment study that was conducted to evaluate the impact of this negotiation support approach on the process and the outcome of collaborative design. The results of the experiment show both positive effects and limitations of the approach.

Keywords

ArgumentationCollaborative DesignExperiment StudyNegotiation
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 24 , Issue 1: Design Computing and Cognition , February 2010 , pp. 35 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Altshuller, G.S. (1998). 40 Principles: TRIZ Keys to Technical Innovation. Worcester, MA: Technical Innovation Center Inc.Google Scholar
Antonsson, E., & Otto, K.N. (1995). Imprecision in engineering design. Journal of Mechanical Design—ASME Transactions 117(B), 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballmer, T., & Brennenstuhl, W. (1981). Speech Act Classification: A Study in the Lexical Analysis of English Speech Activity Verbs. Berlin: Springer–Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, A.H., & Gasser, L. (1988). An analysis of problems and research in DAI. In Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence (Bond, A.H., & Gasser, L., Eds.), pp. 3–35. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Evan, W.M., & McDougall, J.A. (1967). Inter-organizational conflict: a labor-management bargaining experiment. Journal of Conflict Resolution 6(4), 398–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geslin, M. (2006). An argumentation based approach to negotiation in collaborative engineering design. PhD Thesis. University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Gulliver, P.H. (1979). Disputes and Negotiations: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jennings, N.R., Parsons, S., Noriega, P., & Sierra, C. (1998). On argumentation-based negotiation. Proc. Int. Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
Jin, Y., & Geslin, M. (2009). Argumentation based negotiation for collaborative engineering design. International Journal of Collaborative Engineering 1(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jin, Y., & Lu, S. (2004). Agent-based negotiation for collaborative design decision making. Annals of the CIRP 53(1), 122–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirschman, J.S., & Greenstein, J.S. (2002). The use of groupware for collaboration in distributed student engineering design teams. Journal of Engineering Education 91(4), 403–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, M. (2000). Towards a systematic repository of knowledge about managing collaborative design conflicts. Proc. Int. Conf. AI in Design, pp. 129–146.Google Scholar
Klein, M., Sayama, H., Faratin, P., & Bar-Yam, Y. (2003). The dynamics of collaborative design: insights from complex systems and negotiation research. Concurrent Engineering Research and Applications 12(3), 201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, K., & Mistree, F. (1998). Collaborative, sequential and isolated decisions in design. Journal of Mechanical Design—ASME Transactions 120, 643–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, S., Sierra, C., & Jennings, N.R. (1998). Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation 8(3), 261–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peña-Mora, F., & Wang, C.Y. (1998). Computer-supported collaborative negotiation methodology. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 12(2), 64–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polzer, J.T. (1996). Intergroup negotiations the effects of negotiating teams. Journal of Conflict Resolution 40(4), 678–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pruitt, D.G. (1981). Negotiation Behavior—Organizational and Occupational Psychology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rahim, M.A. (1986). Managing Conflict in Organizations. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Raiffa, H., Richardson, J., & Metcalfe, D. (2002). Negotiation Analysis: The Science and Art of Collaborative Decision Making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ronsenschein, J., & Zlotkin, G. (1994). Rules of Encounter: Designing Conventions for Automated Negotiation Among Computers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Scott, M. (1997). Formalizing negotiation in engineering design. PhD Thesis. California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sycara, K.P. (1989). Multiagent compromise via negotiation. In Distributed Artificial Intelligence (Gasser, L., & Huhns, M., Eds.), Vol. 2, pp. 119–137. London: Pitman.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, S.E. (1969). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar