Proceedings W113 - Special Track 18th CIB World ... - Test Input

method for generating optimal agreement, which is based on negotiators‘ feasible proposals and thespecific decision making criteria. Here is the model:Denote i as negotiator i 1,2;Denote j as issue j 1...J;Denote z as bargaining range of each issue z 1...Z;Denote xijzDenoteDenoteDenoteDenoteijas input data for contractor and clientjw as i ‘s weight on issue j where w 1, for i =1, 2;M as relative utility value for each reference choice M w x ;iijzR as reservation value i 1,2;F as feasible maximum value i 1,2;iDenote as an integer variable, where 1, 0 1, on issue jijzAssume the weightM1 jz M2 jzM 1 jzby 1 and M 2 jzzMijs Mij(s1)( i 1)Where s, ( s 1) [1,Z];M M ( i 2)ijsij(s1)ijzijijzby , the auxiliary line can be defined as:s.t. Max( M1 jz M2 jz) ijz, we can get a vector [ M 1 jz, M 2 jz], j 1...J , for every ,The utility value of efficient point on the frontier [M 1 jz,M 2 jz] in terms of jjThe optimal agreement is generated based on the three criteria:Utilitarian solution: max MNash Equilibrium:maxiijjMijzijz Mijz RijMaxi-min equity solution: max{min }F RijzijziiTo demonstrate the proposal approach and generate the results, a hypothesis data case is used herefrom the paper Construction Negotiation Online (Cheung et al 2004). This is a two-party, two-issuecase. “This construction dispute begins with the date of completion, which was 1 Jan 2001 in thecontract. But due to the delay of sub-contractor and late Architect Instruction, the completion dateshifted from 1 Jan 2001 to 1 Mar 2001. The Issues are Extension of Time (EOT), which MainContractor argued for 60 days but Architect only granted 40 days, Acceleration Cost (AccCost)which was estimated as $30,000 by Project Manager, as well as Lost and Expenses (L/E).” Fromtheir work, the issues, bargaining range and two parties‘ input data are listed in table 2, and thereservation value for contractor and client is 20 and 30 respectively. Figure 2 shows 144 possiblesolutions (6*6*4).ijzijxjz18