"AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF AN INTERACTIVESESSION-ORIENTED COMPUTERISED

NEGOTIATION SUPPORT SYSTEM".

by

Tamil JELASSI►and

Abbas FOROUGH1►►

N° 9I/29/TM

* Associate Professor of Information Systems, INSEAD, Boulevard de Constance,Fontainebleau 77305, Cedex, France.

** Associate Professor of Business Administration, University of Southern Indiana,8600 University Boulevard, Evansville IN, 47712, U.S.A.

Printed at INSEAD,Fontainebleau, France.

AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF AN INTERACTIVE, SESSION-ORIENTED

COMPUTERIZED NEGOTIATION SUPPORT SYSTEM (NSS)

Abbas ForoughiSchool of Business

University of Southern Indiana8600 University Boulevard

Evansville IN, 47712Bitnet: XXUSI5@INDST

Tel: (812) 465-1667

Tawfik JelassiTechnolov Management Area

-1NSEAbBoulevard de Constance

77305 Fontainebleau, FranceBitnet: JELASSI@FREIBA51

Tel: (1) 60-72-40.00

William C. PerkinsD&IS Department

Graduate School of Business,Indiana University

Bloomin gton, IN 47405Tel: (812) 855-9703

June, 1991

ABSTRACT

Negotiating is one of the four major decisional roles played by managers. In fact, resolving

conflict is said to occupy 20% of a manager's working hours. This growing frequency of negotia-

tion scenarios, coupled with the increasing complexity of the issues which need to be resolved in

a negotiation, make the possibility of computer enhancement for negotiation very appealing.

Implementations of computerized Negotiation Support Systems (NSS) in the business world,

international affairs, labor law, and in environmental and safety disputes have demonstrated their

potential for making negotiation problems more manageable and comprehensible for negotiators.

Still, pioneers in NSS research have expressed their dismay at the lack of rigorous empirical re-

search and evaluation of NSS. In particular, research is needed which will determine how and

under what circumstances negotiation processes can be enhanced by NSS support.

This paper describes empirical research into the effects of a highly structured, interactive NSS

on the outcome of face-to-face issues resolution and the attitudes of negotiators in both low and

hi gh conflict situations. In a laboratory experiment, bargaining dyads played the role of manufac-

turers negotiating a four-issue, three-year purchase agreement for an engine subcomponent in

conditions of high and low conflict of interest.

The results of the study showed that NSS support did help bar g ainers achieve significantly

hi gher joint outcomes and more balanced contracts, and that the NSS support significantly in-

creased ne gotiation time. Satisfaction was si gnificantly greater for NSS dyads in both con::ict

levels, and perceived ne g ative climate was significantly reduced in low conflict.

The implication of the results of this study is that NSS developers should keep in mind the

importance of providing users with a system with interactive qualities which not only enhance the

decision making process but also provide them with a sense of participation in reaching the solu-

tion, as was done in this study.

Key words and expressions:

Empirical Research; Negotiation; Conflict Analysis and Resolution; Negotiation Support Systems;

Computer Intervention.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Success at negotiating was once considered an "art", based on Interpersonal stalls, the ability to

convince and be convinced, the ability to employ a basketful of bargaining ploys, and the wisdom

to know when and how to use them" (Raiffa, 1982, p. 8). Guides to negotiators offered suggestions

about specific strategies, tactics and maneuvers which could help one win in a negotiation setting

(i.e., Zartman and Berman, 1982).

However, not all negotiators have the opportunity, experience or interpersonal skills to master

the "art" of negotiation. Even the most capable negotiators often find it difficult as well as risky to

rely solely on their own subjective judgments for obtaining feasible resolutions to conflict

(Antrim and Lax, 1987). Conflicts can sometimes become so complex that practical resolutions

are not reached because of the impossibility of identifying and understanding them (UNISYS,

1987). In many other cases, even if negotiating parties do reach an agreement, they may not have

achieved the best possible solution.

Since the 1960s, when computer models were first employed for the support of individual ne go-

tiating sides, interest has been growing in the possibility of using computer technology and infor-

mation systems to support negotiations (Nyhart and Goeltner, 1987). More recently, Group

Decision Support Systems (GDSS) researchers have begun developing Negotiation Support

Systems (NSS), which combine GDSS and DSS technologies to support ne gotiating parties (and

possibly a human mediator) in reaching an a greement (Jarke et al., 1987; Jarke and Jelassi, 19S6;

DeSanctis and Gallupe, 1987; Kersten, 19S5). GDSS and DSS are now being integrated in full-

features, session-oriented NSS which support the entire negotiation process (Anson and Jelassi.

19S9; Carmel and Herniter, 19S9; Forou ghi and Perkins, 1989; Forou ghi and Jelassi, 1990a.

1990b).

NSS offer potential both for enhancin g the problem solvin g process which leads to integrative

agreements and for helping alleviate the cognitive and socio-emotional stumbling blocks to suc-

cessful negotiation (see Table 1). These stumbling blocks include 1) cognitive limitations encoun-

tered in generating and evaluating solution alternatives; 2) cognitive biases such as the considera-

tion of issues one at a time, negative framing of the negotiation, win-lose mentality, premature

closure, and preference for salient, easily available solutions; and 3) socio-emotional aspects of

negotiator behavior such as face-saving behavior, ineffective communication, negotiator overcon

1

TABLE 1

MAJOR STUMBLING BLOCKS TO SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATIONSAND POSSIBLE NSS SOLUTIONS

Major 5tumblIng 11100 1 t.9 agoonefgi Net:ciliation

;partitive difficulty of determining optimal ;elution,Thecognitivedifficultyof evaluating the utilityotatternative set-tlementsfor each party anddetermining tradeoffsotten Impedessuccessful conflict resolution (Lewickl arid Utterer, 1985).

Consideration lat Neves In isolationNegotiators tend toconsider issues one at a time, In a step-wise fashion, Instead of Integrating multiple Issues into a*Ingle package so that potential tradeoffs can be recognized(Froman and Cohen, 1970: Kelley, 1966: Erickson et al., 1974).

Negative framing It in negotiationNegotiators often lrarnethe negotiation negatively by evaluat-ing their potential losses instead of considering their potentialgains. Negative framing can lead to risk-seekingbehavtorInsteedof therisk-avoldIng behavior which is conducive to finding aCooperative agreement (Tversky and Kahneman.1981; Bazer-men and Lewickl, 1983; Neale and Bazerman. 1983).

'FIXED-PIE' MentalityNegotiators often assume that their Interests are in directconflictwith the other party's interests, that theyare in competitIonfor afixed-pie of resources, and that one side will win at the expenseof the other. Negotiators may Ignore the need to cooperate endto usecreative problem solving to linden Integrative 'elution(Bazerman, 1983; Pruitt, 1981a and 1993b).

Premature closure or finalizing gf positionsNegotiators tend to prernaturay finalize their positions, oftenbefore all possible solution alternatives have been recognizedand considered (Kelley, 1966).

Preference ter available. salient information soluticnsNegotiators tend to recall anc va tue most those bits ot informa-tion which are most saerit or familiar to them iTverskyandKahneman. 1981). This rnay cause them to select either familiarerveryunusual alternative solutions because they are moreSalient, while rejecting or neglecting to consider other alterna-tives.

'FACE-SAV , NC • BehaviorNegotiators tend to avolo agreements in which they eel they are'giving In'. This face-saving cehavior may take precedence overreach ing a ).:able agreement wIththe oPCosing side (Erown•1977; Hiltroo and Rubin. 1961: Bazarrnan, 1983: Pruitt and Rubin,1985).

Ine ffective ornnitiniosiinn,Barriers to eft ect!ve communicelon suon as distraction causedby attention to onysinal ad:ears-c, el opc sing dertles.semantic diVerences. absence of teedbacK. a .1 status andpower diffe rences cnn sericusiy hinder enen.live negotiation(Lewickl and Utterer, 1965i.

Negotiato r Cve"."-":""ceNegotiate -r o ierly optimistic about the probability oftheir own r-.•—r-!Sde'nc cnrtedi(Einhorn and Hoge/nth, 1978;Fishchhort as we;i as the probability theta neutral partywill judge miner. favor (Farber, 1981). The more difficult thetask.the rr.:7e overconfident they become (Clark. 1960; Pitt.1974). The, a soar. overconfident °twinning it they do notgive in,wh.onred ...:oes the incentive to bargain and compro-miss (Nee • a- z Eazerman, 1983; Bazerman and Neale, 1983).

NenratiOn: :a'ay_on ol conflictNegotlato•5 escalate the I've lotcontlict Irrationallyandunnecessa •'Lewickl and Utterer. 1985: Bazerman,1983), often'locking In' 7. - :de-in; moves and attitudes,which may behostile, ano rr ^ , ^uino them through the negotiation process(Pillsuk and SK clnick. 1978).

fOteeible H.5.5 solutions

NSS can assistwith analytical processing of subjettivt prefer.*nee and/or external objective data and can providelech.niques based onregression analysis, multiple-criteria decisionmaking, and gametheoryto Identify high joint benefit solutlensorviable negotiating strategies (Anson and Jtlassi.1989:UNISYS, 1987; Mae& and Forough1.1989).

NSS can display an entire contract for discussion so that partic-Ipantscannogroll'among Issues,focusIng on tradeoffs amongthem Instead of arguing about single Issues Wessel andJenes,1988).

Group process structuring techniques such as the ProcessCentered Leadership Approach (Miner, 1979) can be used toestablish ruiesto govern interaction and to create a sense ofagreement, trust and fairness. Pre-negotiation modules canrequire parttesto identify their Interests in undertaking negotia-tion, thereby emphasizing the mutual benefits of negotiation(Anson and Jelassl, 1989).

NSS can aid In Integration of conflicting views during defini-tion of the problem, issues. arid alternatives by oublicly dis-playing them as separate columnar lists. Related items in the listcan be patredandpubilcly merged bythe mediator into singieItems wherever possible (Anson and Jelass1,1989). In addition,the use of analytical methods such as regression analysis.multiple criteria decision making, and game theorltechniqueswill help Identity alternative solutions beneficial to all parties

A single negotlatlontext (SNT) (Fisher,1978) consisting of anagreement which Isnot pareto optimal but is of equal va lue toboth sides can be presented as a starting point to be critic :zedand modified by the parties Weasel andJcnes. 19881. Als:.rules can be established that require consideration of all issuesbefore reaching a final agreement (Jeiassi and Jones. 1998).

The establishment of rules requiring Consideration cf ail issuesbefore reaching a final agreement will h&c prevent negotlatorsfrom considering only salient Information (JelaSsiandJores.19881. Also, NSS suggestions of possible concessions and_ orsolutions and tradeoffs can help ensure more ihoroug hoons;d-•ratIon of all pertinent Information and alternatives (Jeiassi andForough61989).

NSS can be used to suggest possible concessions each sideshould make to achieve optimal joint outcornes.which wouldpermit negotiators to compromise while still saving face( Pruittand Johnson, 1970: Brown, 1977; Rubin, 1960: 19811.

NSS can support communication among !remove zt eacn ,r.ar^?'swell as between parties. Semanticcurferences Cal be or(acted and resolved with techniques such a s •view :ntegre:on•offered by MEDIATOR NSS (Jarke and Jejassi, 19E9i. T'!'nelimas can be set on communications and r-Jles set for artic :3-tlon to prevent domination by one side. and organized fee p t. a okcan be displayed. Written wording will help fccus croup ar.r.

encouraoe preciseness. and documentthe agreerner:(Jarke andJelassi. 1986). GOSS research has shown thatcomputerized communication tends to encourage en,ua.ityparticipation and reduces the Inhibiting elects of as imme thi clpower and Influence between participants (CeSanclis and Gal.lupe, 1987).

NSS support suchas analytical processing of subjective wel-Vence and/or external objective data as wed as the determ..na-Von of possible solutions will bring a sense crrationalitt to thenegotiation and will help the negotiators make more objective.realistic judgments (DeSanctls and Gallup,. 1997).

Electronic communication focuses attention away from personali-ties and on Issues (Vogel et al., 1987; DeSanctis and Gallure.1987), thus'separatIng the people from the tarcblern' as suggestedby Fisher and Llry (1981). Individual idea generaticn canbe separated from group evaluation by using structured oroL-cprocesses which encourage equal, active participationja,sonand Jelassi, 1989).

2

fidence, and the tendency toward nonrational escalation of conflict.

Implementations of computer support in international affairs, labor law, and environmental and

safety disputes have demonstrated their potential for making negotiation problems more mana ge-

able and comprehensible for negotiators [reviews of existing NSS are contained in Nyhart and

Goeltner (1987) and Jelassi and Foroughi (1989)]. However, in many cases, the use of comput-

erized negotiation support has "occurred almost by chance when the developer of a computer

model came in to contact with someone involved in a conflict to which the model applied"

(UNISYS, 1987, p.2). Furthermore, none of these implementations has featured the use of state-

of-the-art NSS, which integrate both GDSS and DSS technologies.

Many pioneers in NSS research have expressed the need for more rigorous empirical research

in the area of NSS to determine exactly how this new technology affects negotiator behavior and

negotiation processes and outcomes (Kersten, 1987, 1988; Carmel and Herniter, 1989; Jelassi and

Foroughi, 1989; Jelassi and Jones, 1988; Jones, 1988; Jones and Jelassi, 1988; Nyhart and Goelt-

ner, 1987; UNISYS, 1987).

This paper describes an experimental investigation which attempted to answer the call for

more rigorous empirical research in the area of NSS. The purpose of the study was to provide

evidence about the capability of computer negotiation support systems to enhance the integrative

bargaining process and help negotiators overcome stumbling blocks to decision mating in negotia-

tion such as cognitive limitations, cognitive biases, and socio-emotional aspects of negotiator

behavior.

The study featured the use of an interactive, session-oriented NSS. In a laboratory expe 7: -

ment, bargaining dyads played the role of manufacturers negotiatin g a four-issue, three-ve:r

purchase agreement for an en gine subcomponent in conditions of high and low conflict of interest.

The specific variables measured included joint outcomes, contract balance, the number of alterna-

tive contracts proposed, negotiation time, and post-bargaining attitudes.

The following section presents a survey of prior NSS empirical research, followed by a discus-

sion of the unique contribution of the present study. Following this are a description of the re-

search methodology, a presentation of the hypotheses posited about the predicted effects of the

NSS support on the dependent variables, and a description of the experimental procedures. Tne

following section describes the statistical procedures, presents the results, and includes a discl:s-

3

sion and interpretation of the results for each dependent variable. This is followed by a discus-

sion of the limitations of the study, and the paper concludes with L discussion of the implications

of the results of the study and future research directions.

2.0 PRIOR NSS EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

Empirical evidence of the effects of NSS on decision making in negotiations consists of 1) brief-

ly documented case studies of real-life implementations of NSS and 2) a few laboratory studies.

2.1 Case studies

NSS case studies consist of descriptions of computer models which have been successfully used

in the support of negotiations such as legal disputes, in labor/management disputes, in US

Government agency negotiations, in national and international environmental disputes, and in

pedagogy (Nyhart and Goeltner, 1987). The case studies have presented generally positive re-

sults, both in negotiation outcomes and post-negotiator attitudes. However, many of these imple-

mentations of NSS have not been critically analyzed by the reporters or described in sufficient

detail to allow other researchers to benefit from them. Single systems have been implemented,

using different tasks, and group structures, so that no real comparison across implementations is

possible.

Furthermore, none of the systems reported on in the case studies were true NSS in the sense of

providing both GDSS and DSS support. Despite the growing interest in session-oriented NSS

which integrate DSS and GDSS technologies, the majority of existing NSS are computer models

which fall into the category of "backroom processors". According to Nunamaker, most NSS are

"single workstations with limited capability to support electronic information exchange and paral-

lel processing. Most have concentrated on providing a DSS to support the mediator or one side,

rather than providing a FTF (face-to-face) GDSS" (Nunamaker, 1989, p. 117).

21 Laboratory Studies of NSS

Very little rigorous experimental work has actually been done in the area of NSS, and in many

cases, only brief mention has been made of run-throughs and experimental trials of NSS (i.e,

UNISYS, 1987; Kersten, 1985, 1988; Cannel and Herniter, 1989).

The only reported formal NSS laboratory studies were conducted by Sainfort et al. (1987) and

4

Jones (1988). The results of two recent GDSS studies (Watson et al., 1988; Poole et al., 1988) are

also relevant to NSS research, because they used cognitive conflict tasks (McGrath, 1984) which

included elements of conflict. Table 2 presents a summary of NSS lab studies.

The NSS used in Jones' study, which provided modelling support at one step in the negotiation

process (computing and presenting an optimal solution), played a passive role and was not at all

integrated into the negotiation process itself. Sainfort et al.'s NSS provided interactive DSS

support at each step of a structured bargaining process. The two related GDSS studies by Watson

et al. (1988) and Poole et al. (1988) provided electronic communication but did not use true

mixed-motive tasks, provide a structured negotiation process or give support for analytical process-

ing. None of these NSS incorporated the full potential of NSS, that is, the capability of providing

computer support at each step in the negotiation process, electronic communication between

bargainers, computerized group process structuring techniques, and support for analytical process-

ing.

3.0 THE PRESENT STUDY

The NSS developed for use in this study represents an attempt to incorporate the full potential

of NSS. The extent of computer support in this study was expanded to provide:

a. Negotiation Process Structure

This NSS was designed to support an entire process of integrative bargaining (Kessler, 1978).

Computer support was provided at each of the five stages in the integrative bargaining process: 1)

statement of interests, 2) role reversal, 3) searching for common around, 4) generation and analy-

sis of alternative solutions, and 5) reaching agreement.

b. Additions Communication Channels

In addition to face-to-face discussion, this NSS permitted interactive input by the negotiators,

with public display of the input.

c. Group Process Structurin g Techniques

The mediator used the Problem Centered Leadership Approach suggested by Miner (1979)

which emphasizes a neutral, nonjudgmental role and equal participation of all participants, and a

computerized form of role reversal (Johnson, 1967) was used in which negotiators inputted their

perceptions of each others' viewpoints and interests.

5

Table 2 : NSS IAB STUDIES

Researchers Type of MSSSupport

Task Independent Variables Dependent Variables Results

Sainfort et Interactive Pairs resolved Type of upper:: GACCA* variables: OSS better far all out.coneal. (1981) DSS used by real-life interactive DSS vs. solution duality, iepro- measures for hioh leportarde

face-to-face Interpersonal videotape on conflict 'tenant in understanding grps. then for tow importancepairs in conflicts resolution viewed of problem and partner's groups. Videotape grans itStructured before negotiating • views, perceived useful- general proc...ced hignerconflict

resolutionProblem importance:high or low iepertance

!less of the technology, quality Solutions & improvedperceived level of reso- problem understanding. DSS

process determined from

Pre-ne;:tiation

cuestiornaire

lution of the problem, perceived as core useful,Process variables: decreased frustration love:,level of frustration, & enhanced solution gene-* of solutions ration, esoecially in h' i -generated, proportion importance groups. !tons: a::of agreement on DSS subjects a'tivet a:preferred solution consensus, but only half o

the videotape grou-os reedredconsensus.

Watson et Mutti-purpose Cognitive G:C617. size: 3 and 4 Post-meeting consensus, Post-meeting consensus I'm:-al. (1W) Levet 1 GCSS,

face-to-face

conflict task person groups.involviro all: Grow decision raking

Equality of influence,

attitudes toward thetar in CZSS 1 ranua, grou:s.GOSS users repor t ed sire

cation o' flay...s

to six terve-

tins prtlects

from a

philanthrtoic

foundation

suppo r t: C:SS vs.sonic. vs. baseline

group process. inputs int: soltion, lessperception of leaCe-,perceive: issues to te ..::2trivia:, orco:en sc,ving

process t: be less tree-.

Standable. Less fa. —

face corm:nice:ion, sere

procedure-orientation,

' greater chellenoe 1.:,. C:SS.

Poole e: al, Multi-purpose Same cognitive Croup site: 3 and I Conflict o.;:comes menu- Computer supported groucs(1?53) Levet 1 WSS, conf.i::, person ;no..—s. red by pre-post puestio focused more or rritter mat:-

face-t:-face bud-get all:-

cation tali

Croup decision rosin;

support: C: SS vs.naires: satisfaction,

post-decision consensusvials, showed more cece-scra-litation, rester exoress'o-

deve'.oxt

by Watson

e: a:. (1133)

me-i_a: vs. baselire L amount of change.

Conflict management

behavior I GZSS effects

measured by interaction

of positive effect. Est,

fewer alternatives pre oe-e-

rated, fewer charoes ofpositions, less mcwere-.:

codings. toward integrative beavi'o%

Jones (1983 Comput er

sulCestions

were presentto bargainers

after 12

4-issue

ranufact•ring

contract in

face-to-face

setting

)egotiation supoort :

computer slaws:ions

vs. no susOestions.Conflict level:

high or low conflict

Joint outcomes,

contract balance,

negotiation time,

no. of deadlocks,

pest bargaining

Computer c.c .:es:ions lee: tohigh joint outcomes only in

tow conflict. Time vas

greater with conputer

support. high conflict groupsminutes of

bargaining,

face-to-face

of interest. negotiator attitudes felt more positive climate

with corputer support. buttow conflicts did net. Lc.

conflict groups were meet

satisfied than high

conflict groups,

6

d. Support af Alternative Generation and Alternative Analysis

This NSS included a DSS, called the Negotiation Decision Support Tool (NDST), which was

used by each party individually to generate alternatives and evaluate them in terms of the number

of points to be gained for his/her side as well as by the opposing side.

e. Documentation sg.Agreements

The input, display, and refining of negotiating issues and solution alternatives served to

document the negotiation process and the agreement. Computer records and printouts provided a

permanent record of all electronic communication during the negotiation,

This research examined NSS effects in both high and low conflict, as was done in Jones (19SS)

study, but the addition of electronic communication along with the possibility of verbal exchange

and the analytical support provided by the NDST provided more evidence of the potential for NSS

to facilitate face-to-face negotiations. The decision was made to use Jones' (19SS) task so that

comparison could be made between the effects of the computer modelling support used in her

study and the NSS used in the present study, thus contributing to the start of a cumulative tradi-

tion of research in the NSS area.

4.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1 Research Design

The research design included two independent variables (level of conflict and type of ne gotia-

tion support), each with 2 treatments (high/low conflict, NSS vs. non-NSS support), thus necessi-

tatin g. a 2 x 2 random factorial design (CRF-22) with fixed-effects.

4.2 Independent Variables

Bargainin g research has revealed the importance of the amount of conflict of interest inherent

in a ne gotiation situation as a determinant of ne g otiator behavior as well as of the outcomes they

achieve (Rubin and Brown, 1975). Level of conflict of interest was chosen as an independent

variable for this study in order to examine the effectiveness of an NSS in two different bargaining

situations (low and hi gh conflict of interest).

The bargaining task chosen for this research involved negotiation between a buyer and seller

over four issues of a three-year purchase agreement for an engine subcomponent (Jones, 19S8).

The issues were unit price, purchase quantity, time of first delivery, and warranty period. Low

7

conflict treatments were simulated by assigning different weights for the issues, creating an inte-

grative bargaining situation in which mutually beneficial trade-offs were possible. High conflict

treatments featured issues for both parties being weighted similarly, creating a distributive bar-

gainin g, zero-sum situation in which one party's gain was equal to the other one's losses. For

both low and high conflict levels, point sheets were constructed for buyer and seller using these

weights. The case material included an "alternative contract", representing a contract offer by

another company, which provides the subjects with a minimum point level to achieve in the ne go-

tiation.

The experimentation took place in the Collaborative Work Support Laboratory at Indiana

University, which has decision room facilities. In the NSS treatments, negotiators and mediator

each had personal input display devices networked together via a local area network and connect-

ed to a public display screen, printer file, and file server (see Figure 1 ). Participants were seated

across from each other and had a clear view of each other and of the public display.

Two kinds of software tools were used. First, Topic Commenter, a module of the PLEXSYS

software designed by (Nunamaker et al., 1987) served as a means of electronic communication

between the bar gainers to be used for inputting their comments and proposals, displaying them on

a public screen and allowin g viewing of each others' inputs on their private screens.

The second type of software was the Negotiation Decision Support Tool, the DSS developed by

the author for supportin g alternative generation and evaluation. Each negotiator had his/her own

NDST, which consisted of a spreadsheet with two windows. Window #1, the Decision Tool, was

used by negotiators to input their own priorities for the issues as well as their perception of the

other parry's priorities based on what they learned about the other party during the statement of

interests staze. Based on the priorities input by the subjects, the Decision Tool estimated the

point structLre of the other party, generated all the possible contract alternatives (748 altogether).

and ranked tnern in descendin g order according to the joint outcome they would give. The Deci-

sion Tool then displayed the three contract alternatives which gave the highest joint outcome.

The Decision Tool was designed to display only these three contract alternatives in order to avoid

the possibili•- i,f information overload which might result from displaying too many unnecessary

contract opt

Window *2 contained a Contract Point Evaluator, which was used for alternative evaluation.

Figure 1

NEGOTIATION RM.! .57177G

O

F-.11ic S=e--_-_.

S.-Terst:r.port

<Z:::::>veo_atcr egotiator

Area Net-work Cables

9

It contained an algorithm into which the pre-set preference scores of the negotiator were built.

The negotiator could plug in alternative contracts, and the algorithm determined the total score

(for his/her side only) that could be achieved with each one.

The non-NSS treatment featured the use of the same negotiation procedure as in the NSS

treatment without the computerized support.

43 Dependent Variables

Joint utility was measured by adding buyer and seller points on the final agreement. Contract

balance measured the difference between the joint outcomes of the two bargainers in each nego-

tiating pair. Negotiation time was measured as the time needed to reach an agreement or dead-

lock, with no time limit placed on negotiators for reaching an agreement. The number of con-

tracts proposed was recorded on the computer for NSS treatments, and was determined from the

mediator's records and/or by the review of video and/or audio recordings.

Post-bargaining negotiator attitudes (perceived collaborative climate, perceived negative

climate, and satisfaction) were measured by a questionnaire (Jones, 1988) administered at the

end of the bargaining session. Davis' Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1985) assessment

tool was administered to NSS groups to measure overall evaluation, perceived ease of use and

perceived usefulness of both Topic Commenter and the NDST.

4.4 Control Variables

Group structure was controlled for, since each negotiating side consisted of one person. with

zero history in negotiating with each other. Individual differences were controlled for, s i nce

subjects were randomly assigned to the role of buyer or seller, to dyads, and dyads to experimental

treatments. The same task type was performed by all treatment dyads, the only difference being

the assignment of weights to the issues. The physical environment (IU Decision Lab) was the

same for all treatment dyads, except for the use of computer support for NSS dyads.

4.5 Hypotheses

Table 3 summarizes the predicted effects of the NSS support in this study on the problems of

cognitive limitations, cognitive biases, and socio-emotional aspects. Table 4 outlines the manner

in which this NSS support was expected to enhance the integrative bargaining process by facilitat-

ing the important conditions necessary for the achievement of integrative agreements as stipulated

10

Table 3

PREDILlED EFFECTS OF THE NSS ON NEGOTIATION STUMBLING BLOCKS

Problem Solution Measure

Cognitive DSS support for alternatives generation & evaluation joint outcomesdifficulty (Jelassi & Jones, 1988; Anson & Jelassi, 1990) contract balance

Considerationof issues

DSS is formated to guide wholistic issue consideration,which will help them reach hi gher joint outcomes

joint outcomes

one at a time (Erickson e: al., 1974).

Ne gative DSS support will give bargainers more confidence of perceived posi:iveframe getting a fair, satisfactory outcom . 1:—...& negative c . .. .. .....

(Anson & Jelassi, 1990; Forou ghi & Jelassi, 1989)

Ineffective Electronic communication provides extra channel of joint outcomescommuni- communication, encourages bargainers to clarif y theircation thoughts before inputtin g (Janke & Jelassi, 1986), and

reduces the impact of personality conflicts (Morle y &Stephenson. 1977; Vo gel et al., 1987;. DeSanctis &:'Gallupe, 1987; Kesler et al., 19S4; Siegel et al., 1986)

Prematureclosure and

DSS support ensures that bargainers find a good,integrative solution before closure

join: Outcomesj

preferencefor availablesolutions

(Arson & Jelassi, 1990)

Face-saving NSS support gives bargainers confidence and helps them satisfactionbehavior find an a greement which is good for both of them and

which v.-iii not make them lose face(Anson & Jelassi, 1990; Forou ghi & Jelassi, 1989).

Nonrational Electronic communication will depersonalize the perceiver:pos.....escalation of atmosphere and allow bargainers to focus on the & ne g ative climateconflict issues and not on personalities

(Morley & Stephenson, 1977; Vo gel et al., 1987;DeSanctis & GaLupe, 1987; Kiesler et al., 1984;Siegel et al, 19S6), the "barrier effect" of thecomputers will decrease competitiveness (Lewis &Fry, 1977), DSS support will deescalate conflictby giving bar gainers hope of reaching a goodagreement (Anson & Jelassi, 1990; Forou ghi &Jelassi, 19S9).

11

Table 4

EXPECTED FACILITATION OF THE INTEGRATIVE BARGAINING PROCESS

%%holistic Consideration of Issues

Tne DSS is formated to guide wholistic consideration of issues in the form ofcontract packages.

Problem Solving Orientation & Avoidance of Distributive behavior

Tne barrier effect of the computers will decrease competitiveness (Lewis and Fry.1977).

NSS support will give bargainers a tool to help them solve their niuttiaiproblem of reaching a good agreement.

DSS support for alternatives generation and evaluation in terms of bosh theirown possible points and the other party's will encourage them to view thebargainin g task as a joint venture.

NSS support will give bargainers confidence that they can reach an agreerhen:which is good for both of them (Anson and Jelassi, 1990; Forou ghi and Itlass:.1989).

Free Exchange of Information

Electronic communication will provide an extra channel of corn=nicatichand will encoura g e bargainers to clarify their thou ghts before inputtin g (Jar:;:and Jelassi, 1986).Electronic communication reduces the impact of personality conflic:s (N1c,7:eyand Stephenson, 1977; Vogel et al., 1987; DeSanctis and Gallupe, 1957;Kesler et al., 1984; Siegel et al., 19S6).

Electronic communication encoura ges users to express themselvesuninhibitedly (Kesler et al., 1984).

Maintenance of High Aspiration Levels

The presence of the NSS should give bargainers more codidence in theirability to reach an a greement with high joint outcomes, thus helping them tomaintain high aspiration levels.

12

by Walton and McKersie (1965).

The following hypotheses were made for the effects of the independent variables on each of the

dependent variables:

Joint Outcomes

H1.1: In the low conflict treatments, bargainers with NSS support will achieve higher joint utilitythan bargainers without computer support.

H1.2: In the high conflict treatments, bargainers with NSS support will achieve higher joint utili-ty than bargainers without computer support.

Contract Balance

H2.1: In the low conflict treatments, contract balance will be better for NSS dyads than for non-NSS dyads.

H2.2: In the high conflict treatments, contract balance will be better for NSS dyads than for non-NSS dyads.

Negotiation Time

H3.1: In the low conflict treatments, the time it takes bargainers with NSS support to reach anagreement will be longer than for dyads without NSS support.

H3.2: In the high conflict treatments, the time it takes bargainers with NSS support to reach anagreement will be longer than for dyads without NSS support.

Number of Contracts Proposed

H4.1: In the low conflict treatments, NSS-supported dyads will propose fewer contracts thanthose without computer support.

H4.2: In the high treatments, NSS-supported dyads will propose fewer contracts than thosewithout computer support.

Perceived Collaborative Climate

H5.1:In low conflict treatments, there will be no difference in the perceived collaborative climatefor NSS dyads as opposed to non-NSS dyads.

H5.2: In the high conflict treatments, perceived collaborative climate will be greater for NSSdyads than for non-NSS dyads.

Perceived Negative Climate

H6.1: In the low conflict treatments, there will be no difference in perceived negative climatebetween NSS and non-NSS dyads.

H6.2: In the high conflict treatments, perceived negative climate will be less in NSS dyadsthan in non-NSS dyads.

13

Satisfaction

H7.1: In low conflict treatments, NSS dyads will be more satisfied than non-NSS dyads.

H7.2: In high conflict treatment, NSS dyads will be more satisfied than non-NSS dyads.

4.6 Experimental Procedures

128 upper level undergraduate business student volunteers participated in this study, making 64

dyads with 16 dyads per experimental cell. To provide incentive to subjects, course credit was

offered to all participants and a monetary reward (S100) to the top pair of bargainers.

The experiment was conducted in three phases. During Phase 1, subjects filled out a consent

form, and then a ten-minute training period for Topic Commenter was given to NSS dyads, lasting

10 minutes. Subjects were then given a Phase 1 procedures sheet outlining the procedures for

the entire experiment and rules to be observed. Next, subjects were assigned randomly to the role

of buyer or seller and to experimental treatments, and were given case descriptions and a page of

confidential information about their company. After the above materials had been read by the

subjects, they were given point sheets for their respective companies. Next, subjects completed a

Point Sheet Exercise, in which they were asked to add up the points for each issue of the alterna-

tive ("third party") contract and verify that the score given at the bottom of the point sheet was

correct. Tnis was done to make sure that the subjects understood the task. At this time, a ten-

minute software trainin g for the NDST was given to NSS dyads. Subjects then filled out a pre-

negotiation questionnaire.

During Phase 2. subjects were given a Final Instructions Sheet with an Outline of the Nezotla-

tion Proces. Tney then proceeded to negotiate, and when an agreement was reached, the y signet

a final aczre:27712::: form.

During Phase 3. all subjects answered a post-bargaining attitude questionnaire, and NSS dyads

also completed Davis' (19S5) Technolo gy Acceptance Assessment Measure.

5.0 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

5.1 Statistical Analysis

The SPSS statistical package was used to perform statistical analysis of the experimental results,

using a fixed-effect two-way analysis of variance (2-way ANOVA) model for joint outcome, con-

14

tract balance, negotiation time, number of alternatives and post-bargaining negotiator attitudes.

A t distribution test was used to analyze the results of the Technology Evaluation measure (Davis,

1985).

52 Statistical Results

Table 5 shows a summary of the hypotheses and the results. NSS support improved joint

outcome, contract balance, and satisfaction in both low and high conflict treatments. Negotiation

time was longer for NSS dyads at both conflict levels. Subjects in NSS treatments in low conflict

perceived less negative climate than did those in non-NSS treatments.

TABLE 5

HYPOTHESES A_ND RESULTS

SAMPLE SIZE : 4 CELLS, 16 DYADS PER CELL, TOTAL OF 64 DYADS, TOTAL OF 12SSUBJECTS (4x16x2=128).(Note: low = low conflict, high = high conflict)

(Note: low = low conflict, high = high conflict)

HYPOTHESESMEAN Hypotheses

NON-NSS NSS Signif. SupportedJOINT OUTCOMEH1.1: low Non-NSS < low NSS 118.68 131.75 P < 0.001 YESH1.2: high Non-NSS < high NSS 100.56 101.56 P <0.05 YES

CONTRACT BALANCEH2.1: low Non-NSS < low NSS 11.56 6.50 P < 0.05 YESH2.2: high Non-NSS < high NSS 6.44 3.30 P < 0.05 YES

NEGOTIATION TIMEH3.1: low Non-NSS < low NSS 27. 5 6 46.SS P<0.001 YESH3.2: high Non-NSS < hi gh NSS 32.38 52.75 P < 0.001 YES

NUMBER OF CONTRACTS PROPOSEDH4.1: low Non-NSS > low NSS 5.75 5.69 N.S. NOH4.2: high Non-NSS > high NSS 6.50 5.75 N.S. NO

PERCEIVED COLLABORATIVE CLIMATEH5.1: low Non-NSS = low NSS 5.67 5.98 N.S. YESH5.2: high Non-NSS < high NSS 5.62 5.59 N.S. NO

PERCEIVED NEGATIVE CLIMATEH6.1: low Non-NSS = low NSS 2.71 2.17 P<0.05 NO

H6.2: high Non-NSS > high NSS 3.14 3.20 N.S. NO

SATISFACTIONH7.1: low Non-NSS < low NSS 5.30 5.63 P =0.05 YESH7.2: high Non-NSS < high NSS 4.63 5.25 P < 0.01 YES

15

5.3 Technolog Evaluation

In general, the means for both low and high conflict were positive and above the midpoint (4.0)

on the Likert scale, indicating a favorable evaluation of both the Negotiation Decision Support

Tool and Topic Commenter, with no significant differences between the technology evaluations of

low and high conflict dyads. (see Table 6)

Table 6

TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION

Software Module Low conflict High conflict

DS$

Overall Evaluation 6.08 6.10Ease of Use 6.17 5.94Usefulness 5.89 5.85

Topic Commenter

Overall Evaluation 5.00 5.44Ease of Use 6.24 5.88Usefulness 4.60 4.90

6.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

6.1 Joint Outcome

There are several explanations for the higher joint outcomes achieved by NSS dyads in both low

and high conflict. First, the wholistic consideration of issues which was facilitated and enhanced

by the Negotiation Decision Support Tool enabled subjects to consider contract packa ges instead

of one issue at a time. This substantiated the results found earlier by Erickson et al. (1974).

Second, bargaining research conducted by Fouraker and Siegel (1963) had shown that increased

knowledge about their opponent's utility or point structure enables bargainers to improve their

joint outcomes and approach or achieve pareto optimal solutions. In this study, the NDST assistec:

negotiators in estimating the number of points their opponents would gain from different contract

packages, thus increasing the amount of information they had about the utility of contracts for

their opponent. The effect of this increased knowled ge of the opponent was improved joint

16

outcomes.

A third explanation for the high joint outcomes achieved by NSS dyads in this study comes from

Jarke and Jelassi (1986), two pioneers in NSS research, who predicted that NSS would alleviate

problems of ineffective communication. The keying in of interests, comments, and contract alter-

natives would encourage participants to use more precise, unambiguous words and to consider

their actions more carefully.

Fourth, Walton and McKersie's (1965) behavioral theory of bar gaining stipulates that informa-

tion exchange is essential for the achievement of integrative agreements. This was substantiated

in inte grative bargaining research conducted by Pruitt (1981) and his colleagues. In the present

study, information exchange was enhanced by the addition of an extra line of communication

(Topic Commenter) as well as by the enhancement of alternative evaluation provided by the

NDST.

Fifth, cognitive difficulties encountered by negotiators are one of the major stumbling blocks to

the achievement of integrative agreements. In this study, the NDST supported negotiators in the

generation of alternatives with high utility for themselves and for their opponent and also in the

evaluation of contract packa ges proposed by their opponent. As was predicted by NSS researchers

(Jelassi and Jones, 1988; Anson and Jelassi, 1989), this computer support helped the subjects

overcome the cognitive difficulty of these tasks, the tendency toward premature closure, and the

preference for more available and more salient solutions, thus helpin g them achieve better joint

outcomes than non-NSS dyads.

Sixth, the results for joint outcome are consistent with the claims made by several DSS re-

searchers (Garrity, 1963; Gallagher, 1974; Keen and Scott Morton, 1978; Alter, 1980) that in

general ,:omputer support enhances decision making performance.

Seventh, another possible explanation for the hi gh joint outcomes achieved by NSS dyads comes

from both negotiation research and GDSS research, which found that electronic communication

provides a sort of "formality" which depersonalizes the negotiation and allows negotiators to

concentrate on the content of the negotiation rather than on each others' personalities (Morley

and Stephenson, 1977; Kiesler et al., 1984; Siegel et al., 1986; Vogel et al., 1987; DeSanctis and

Gallupe, 1987).

17

Jones (1988) found that in high conflict treatments, bargainers tended to ignore the computer

suggestions in favor of their own solutions, even though they were often not as good as the ones

suggested by the computer. Hiltrop and Rubin (1982) wrote that when negotiators are able to

reach consensus, they prefer to do it on their own rather than relying on their party assistance,

such as the computer suggestions presented to bargainers in Jones' research. The computer

support in the present study was integrated into the negotiation process rather than being an

outside intervention. Instead of being presented with an optimal solution as was done in Jones'

study, the subjects in this study interacted with the NDST, inputting information and using the

NDST to find a good solution. Their interaction with the NDST gave them a sense of "ownership"

for the solution which was absent in the computer support in Jones' study.

.¢2 Contract Balance

The results of the statistical analysis confirmed the hypotheses that predicted that contract

balance would be better for NSS dyads than for non-NSS dyads in both low and high conflict

conditions. Jones (1988) had hypothesized that computer support would yield better contract

balance at least in low conflict conditions, but this prediction was not confirmed by her results.

She attributed this result to the fact that bargainers often accepted settlements in which the part-

ner had many more points than they did, since they did not }mow what their bargaining partner's

points were. If they had know how many fewer point they would earn than their opponent, they

would have viewed this as a loss and would have continued trying to find an agreement which was

closer in utility for both sides.

In the present study, NSS dyads were assisted in estimating the number of points their opponent

would earn from different contract alternatives. Each negotiator entered his perception of his

partner's interest preferences as well as his own interest preferences in the NDST, which calculat-

ed the approximate number of points both he and his partner would earn from different contract

alternatives. This awareness of the approximate number of points to be earned by his partner

helped each bargainer find a contract which he felt was fair for himself, which he could accept

without losing face, and which was also fair for his opponent. With this kind of support, NSS

dyads were able to achieve agreements with significantly better contract balance than those

achieved by non-NSS dyads.

18

L,3 Negotiation Time

As was hypothesized, negotiation time was greater in NSS dyads than for non-NSS dyads at both

levels of conflict. The time involved in keying in input, waiting for the other opponent's response

to contract proposals, and using the NDST for alternative generation and evaluation increased

negotiation time.

The increased time using NSS is consistent with GDSS research, which confirms that the use of

the technology tends to extend decision time (Steeb and Johnston, 1981; Kiesler et al., 1984; Rice,

1984; Gallupe, 1985; Siegel et al., 1986). Increased negotiation time was also predicted by bar-

gaining research (Vitz and Kite, 1970), which found that typed communication increased negotia-

tion time.

It should be noted that the possibility also exists that increased negotiation time with NSS was

an artifact of unfamiliarity with the software used in the experimentation.

6.4 Number gl Contracts Proposed

The results of the statistical analysis did not confirm the hypotheses which predicted that NSS

dyads would propose fewer contract alternatives than non-NSS dyads. The rationale for these

hypotheses had been that the structured process provided to negotiators in this study for generat-

ing and evaluating alternatives would make it likely that they could come up with high quality

alternative contracts without having to generate as many alternatives as they would without the

NSS support.

The rejection of these hypotheses is very interestin g and provides insight into the psychology of

negotiator behavior which has important implications for NSS design. These results show that

despite the computer support provided for alternative generation and evaluation, negotiators still

wanted to explore alternative contracts before de ding on one. The exchange of contract propos-

als between bar gainers seems to be an important part of the bar gaining process which negotiators

do not wish to give up, even when given computer support. In Jones (1988) study, bargainers

rejected computer suggestions even when they were often better than the suggestions they had

arrived at on their own. As discussed above, this was due to the fact that they felt a sense of

"ownership" for their own suggestions which they did not feel for the computer suggestions. As

suggested by Hil trop and Rubin (1982), they preferred to reach agreement on their own instead of

19

relying on a third party intervention.

The NSS support provided in OP present study did not cause negotiators to propose fewer

contracts. The implication of this result for NSS design is that computer support should be pro-

vided to enhance but not replace the important give and take of the bargaining process which is so

essential in giving bargainers a sense of ownership with the outcome of the negotiation.

1L5 Perceived Collaborative Climate

Hypothesis H5.1, which predicted that in the low conflict treatments, there would be no differ-

ence in the perceived collaborative climate for NSS dyads as opposed to non-NSS dyads, was

confirmed by the results. The computer support did not have a significant effect on the perceived

collaborative climate due to the fact that in low conflict treatments, the bargainers' preferences for

the issues were not pitted against each other, and they were able to find substantial room for

trade-offs (Walton and McKersie, 1965; Deutsch, 1969; Pruitt, 1981). Because of this ample

bargaining room in the low conflict treatments, there was a minimum of nonrational escalation of

conflict and negative framing, and computer support did not have a significant effect on the per-

ceived collaborative climate.

However, the statistical analysis made it necessary to reject the hypothesis that in the high

conflict treatments, perceived collaborative climate would be greater for NSS dyads than for non-

NSS dyads. A plausible explanation of these results comes from the nature of the experimentation

done in this study, which involved a role-playing simulation of an actual negotiation situation.

Student subjects assumed the roles of representatives of manufacturers negotiating a contract

agreement. In the hi gh conflict treatments, their preferences for the issues were similar, makinz

their interests pitted against each other. However, the student subjects apparently did not feel the

heightened sense of conflict which would be present in a real-life negotiating situation. This is one

of the drawb3cks of laboratory studies which must simulate real conflict situations. The NSS

support probably did not increase perceived collaborative climate because the conflict usually

encountered by ne gotiators in a win-lose situation was not actually present in the high conflict

dyads in this The difficulty of simulating real negotiation behavior in a laboratory setting

has been dis,nLsed by Etizione (1969), Nicholson (1970), and Morley and Stephenson (1977), and

it is always a disadvantage of such experimental studies. The implication for NSS research is that

20

more controlled research in real-life negotiation settings is needed in which the behavior of actual

negotiators can be studied to determine the effects of NSS support.

1i¢ Perceived Negative Climate

The hypothesis that in the low conflict treatments, there would be no difference in perceived

negative climate between NSS and non-NSS dyads was, rather unexpectedly, not confirmed.

There was already room for trade-offs among the issues (Walton and McKersie, 1965; Deutsch,

1969; Pruitt, 1981) in the low conflict treatments, and it may be that the presence of the computer

support helped bargainers realize the relative ease of their task and alleviated the tendency

toward negative climate. Therefore, inflexibility and suspiciousness were at a minimum, and

negotiators did not encounter a great deal of difficulty in reaching agreement.

The hypothesis that in high conflict treatments, perceived negative climate would be significant-

ly less in NSS dyads than in non-NSS dyads was not confirmed. These results can perhaps be

explained by the nature of this experimental study, which simulated a real negotiation scenario

using business students as surrogates for actual negotiators. The subjects in the high conflict

treatments probably did not experience much negative climate to be gin with, so that there was no

truly ne gative climate which the NSS could alleviate. Perceived negative and collaborative climate

will be more relevant measures in future NSS studies using real-life negotiators in real negotiation

situations.

6.7 Satisfaction

Tne statistical analysis of the results confirmed the hypotheses which predicted that satisfac-

tion would be greater in NSS dyads in both low and high conflict treatments. Tne presence of

computer support to help solve their negotiation task appears to have given NSS dyads confidence

and to have increased their satisfaction with their outcomes as well as their own performance.

Increased satisfaction with the NSS resulted from the assistance given to the negotiators in finding

an acceptable solution which would not make them lose face (Anson and Jelassi, 1989; Foroughi

and Jelassi, 1989).

21.

7.0 LIMITATIONS OF THIS RESEARCH

Laboratory experimentation was chosen as the research method for this study because this was

the first implementation of an interactive, session-oriented NSS of this type, and the controlled,

rigorous nature of laboratory experimentation was thought to be appropriate.

However, this research study made several assumptions that may limit the generalizability of

the results. First, student subjects were used in a laboratory setting, under the assumption that

their bargaining behavior with and without computer support would provide insights into the

usefulness of NSS in actual organizational settings. Although threats to the external validity of

laboratory experimentation conducted with student subjects are obvious, such experimental set-

tings have been used in the majority of studies in the area of GDSS (Dennis et al., 1988), and

student subjects have been found to be acceptable surrogates for organizational decision makers

(Gallupe, 1985). Further justification for the use of student subjects in research on negotiation

comes from a study conducted by Siegel and Harnett (1964), which found strong similarities

between the bargaining behavior and outcomes of industrial sales personnel and college students.

The potential for experimenter bias (Campbell and Stanley, 1969) which can occur in laboratory

experimentation was largely avoided by the researcher's use of mediator scripts durin g all bargain-

ing sessions which were identical for non-NSS and NSS dyads, except for the extra instructions

given to NSS dyads concerning the use of the technology.

A second limitation of this study was the fact that only bargaining dyads were used. Tnis was

perhaps appropriate for a buy/seller task settin g, but it failed to incorporate dimensions such as

coalition formation, audience effects, and responsibility to constituents that exist in negotiating

between teams of bargainers. Third, level of conflict was "simulated" by setting up a zero-sum

game, which was assumed to produce a "high" level of conflict, and a non zero-sum game, which

was assumed to involve a "low" level of conflict. It is perhaps questionable whether actual hostile

conflict such as that in a labor-management or international negotiation setting can be simulated

in a laboratory setting with student subjects (Etizione, 1969; Nicholson, 1970; Morley and Ste-

phenson, 1977).

A fourth limitation is the fact that only one type of negotiation task, a four-issue contract

agreement for an engine subcomponent, was used in this study. The negotiation case used in this

study assumed the willingness of the negotiators to share with each other information about their

22

preferences for the issues, a situation which does not always occur in real-life negotiations. This

limited the generalizability of the results.

Fifth, this study only examined the effectiveness of a single type of NSS, and the results are not

directly generalizable to other settings in which different software and negotiation processes are

used.

Sixth, the use of both DSS and communication support in this study may have confounded the

results, making it difficult to determine if the results obtained were due to the DSS support or the

communication support alone, to both, or to the interaction of the two technologies.

Seventh, the simulated nature of this experimentation made it necessary for many important

aspects of the task to be "given", thus increasing the controlled nature of the task setting, but also

decreasing the realism achieved in this task. Two of the predetermined "givens" built into the task

materials in this study were the predetermination of points for the issues representing utility for

each bargainer and the assumption of the existence of a "zone of agreement" (Raiffa, 1982) con-

sisting of contracts whose utilities are greater than the alternative agreement (Jones, 1988).

8.0 IMPLICATIONS AND MERE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

The results of this study provided support for the predictions made by the conferees at the 196S

MIT Conference (Siegel, 1969) that the complex socio-emotional and interpersonal dynamics of

negotiation could never be "quantified" and that computers could be invaluable to human negotia-

tors but could never replace them. The interactive nature of the system used in this study not only

enabled negotiators to reach high joint outcomes and good contract balance, but also provided

them with a sense of ownership of the solution, since they had arrived at it themselves. Tnis inter-

active support, which enhanced rather than replaced the human interaction and give-and-take

which are the essence of bargaining, proved to be more beneficial than mere computer presenta-

tion of solutions, such as was provided in Jones' (1988) study. NSS developers should keep in

mind the importance of providing users with a system with interactive qualities which not onl,

enhance the decision making process but also provide them with a sense of participation in reach-

ing the solution, as was done in this study.

As discussed above, the generalizability of the results of this study is limited to some degree,

and this research project represented only a beginning in the vast amount of research which needs

23

to be conducted before we have definite answers about the effectiveness of NSS in different nego-

tiation situations. P.m instance, studies need to be conducted on the effects of NSS on 1) bargain-

ing between negotiating teams, 2) in different mixed-motive task environments, and 3) in remote

settings.

Also needed are experiments using different NSSs to solve the same problem with similar types

of users so that comparisons can be made between systems. The user interface for an NSS also

needs to be studied, as well as the role that a NSS can play in the negotiation process. More

complete knowledge of the exact role different systems can play in negotiation settings as well as

an awareness of any assumptions built into various systems which might restrict their behavior will

enable decision makers to make more rational choices of negotiation support tools (Kersten,

1987). A recent paper by Herniter et al. (1990) sets a good precedent for research in another very

important area, namely, NSS user interface issues.

Survey studies such as that conducted by Caples (Siegel, 1969) which investigated the extent of

actual use of computer support for negotiation in the 1960s are also needed to provide up-to-date

information about how computer technology is actually being used in organizations and to shed

light on the important needs of practitioners in the area of computer support for negotiation.

Most important, researchers need to study the use of NSS in real, "live" negotiation situations.

This will entail intensive analysis of the actual process of negotiation, using interaction coding

systems such as those used in Poole et al.'s (1988) GDSS study. The use of such communication

analysis mechanisms would greatly enhance the evaluation of the effects of NSS on the negotiation

process and help determine the actual potential benefits of NSS.

24

10. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alter, S.L Decision Support Systems; Current LacticeAnd Continuing Challenges. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley, 1980.

Anson, R. and Jelassi, M.T. "A Developmental Framework for Computer-Supported ConflictResolution", European Journal of Operations Management, 1989, forthcoming.

Antrim, L.N and Lax, D.A. "Support and Analysis for International Commercial Debt Negotia-tions", Working Paper Series, WP-10, Program on the Processes of International Negotiation,American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Spring 1987.

Bazerman, M. "Negotiator Judgment: A Critical Look at the Rationality Assumption", AmericanBehavioral Scientist (27) 2 (1983), 211-228.

Bazerman, M.H. and Lewicki, R.J. (Eds.) Negotiating in Organizations. Newbury Park, CA: SagePublications, 1983.

Bazerman, M.H. and Neale, M.A. "Heuristics in Negotiation: Limitations to Dispute ResolutionEffectiveness", in M.H. Bazerman and R.J. Lewicki, Negotiation in Organizations, Beverly Hills,CA: Sage, 1983, pp. 51-67.

Brown, B. R. "Facing-Saving and Face-Restoration in Negotiations", in D. Druckman (Ed.):Negotiations: Social Ps ychological Perspectives. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1977.

Campbell, D.T. and Stanley, J.C. Experimental and Ouasi-Experimental Designs for Research.Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally, 1969.

Carmel, E. and Herniter, B.C. "MEDIANSS: Conceptual Desi gn of a System for NegotiationSessions" in Proceedings of the International Conference on Information S ystems 1989 1989,Forthcoming.

Clark, F.R. "Confidence Ratings, Second-Choice Responses, and Confusion Matrices in Intelligi-bility tests", Journal of the Acoustical Societ y of America (32) (1960), 35-46.

Davis, F.D. "A Technology Assessment Model for Empirically Testing New End-User InformationSystems: Theory and Results", Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology, 1985.

Dennis, A.R., George, J.F., Jessup, L.M., Nunamaker, J.F.,Jr., and Vogel, D.R. "InformationTechnolo gy to Support Electronic Meetin gs". MIS Quarterl y (12) 4, 1988, 591-624.

DeSanctis, G. and Gallupe, R. B. "A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Sys-tems", Management Science, (33) 2 (May 1987), 589-609.

Deutsch, M. "Conflicts: Productive and Destructive". Journal of Social Issues (25) 1969, 7-41.

Einhorn, H. and Hogarth, R. "Confidence in Judgment: Persistence of the Illusion of Validity",Psychology lieK ew (85) (1978), 395-416.

Erickson, B., Holmes, J., Frey, R., Walker, L, and Thibaut, J. "Functions of a Third Part y in theResolution of Conflict: The Role of a Judge in Pretrial Conferences". Journal of Personalit y andSocial Psychology (30) (1974), 293-306.

Etizione, A. "Social Psychological Aspects of International Relations" in G. Lindzey and E. Aron-son (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psvcholoov Vol. 5. New York: Addison-Wesley, 1969, pp. 538-601.

Farber, H.S. "Divergent Expectations, Threat Strategies, and Bargaining Under Arbitration",

25

Presented to the Econometric Society, San Diego, June, 1981.

Fischhoff, B. "Debiasing" , D. Jahneman, P. Slovic, and A Tversky (Eds.) Judgment Under Uncer-tainty: Heuristics =I Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

Fisher, R. International Mediation:. A Working Guide. New York: International Peace Academy,1978.

Fisher, R. and Ury, W. Getting Lo Yes; Negotiating Agreements without Giving ID. Boston:Houghton-Mifflin, 1981.

Foroughi, A. and Jelassi, M.T. "NSS Solutions to Major Negotiation Stumbling Blocks". Proceed-ings .�J .agl 23rd Annual Hawaii International Conference sal System Sciences. Vol. IV: EmergingTechnologies and Applications Track, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, January 2-5, 1990a, pp. 2-11.

Foroughi, A. and Jelassi, M.T. "Interactive Negotiation Support Systems: Results of an Experi-mental Study." Bulletin (29) Dike TIMS/ORSA Joint National Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada,May 7-9, 1990b, p. 116.

Foroughi, A. and Perkins, W. "An Empirical Study of the Effects of Computer Negotiation Sup-port Systems (NSS) on Negotiation Outcomes and Negotiator Attitudes". Proceedings DJ theDecision Sciences Institute 20th Annual Meeting. Vol. 1 (pp. 648-650), New Orleans, LA, Nov. 20-22, 1989.

Fouraker, L.E. and Siegel, S. Bargaining Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963.

Froman, L.A. and Cohen, M.D. "Compromise and Logrolling: Comparing the Efficiency of TwoBargaining Processes", Behavioral Sciences (15) (1970), 180-183.

Galla gher, C.A. "Perceptions of the Value of a MIS". AcademvZ Management Journal (17) 1974,46, -55.

Gallupe, R.B. 'The Impact of Task Difficulty on the Use of a Group Decision Support System",Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1985.

Garrity, J. 'Top Mana g ement and Computer Profits". Harvard Business Review (41) July-Aura:st1963, 172-174, 206.

Herniter, B.C., Carmel, E., and D.R. Vo gel. "A Comparison of Visual Displays of NegotiationSupport Systems". Proceedin gs of the 2;rd Annual Hawaii International Conference on SystemSciences, Vol. IV: Emeruino Technologies and Applications Track, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, January2-5, 1990, pp. 12-21.

Hiltrop, J. M. and Rubin, J.Z. "Effects of Intervention Mode and Conflict of Interest on DisputeResolution". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (42) 4, 1982, 665-672.

Hiltrop, J.M. and Rubin, J.Z. "Position Loss and Image Loss in Bargaining." Journal of ConflictResolution 2-7 ) (1981).521-534.

Jarke, M., J::12.ssi, M.T. and Shakun, M.F. "Mediator: Towards a Negotiation Support System".European Jou rnal of Operational Research (31) 3 (1987), 314-334.

Jarke,M. an.. M.T. "View Integration in Negotiation Support Systems.", Transactions of theSixth Intern:-Mnal Conference on Decision Support Systems, Washington, D.C., (April 1986) pp.180-188.

Jelassi, M.T. and Foroughi, A. "Negotiation Support Systems: An Overview of Design Issues andExisting Soft-.1 are", Decision Support Systems: The International Journal, Special Issue on GroupDecision Support Systems, June, 1989.

26

Jelassi, M.T. and Jones, B.H. "Getting to Yes with NSS: How Computers Can Support Negotia-tions", in R.M. Lee, A. M. McCosh and P. Migliarese (Eds.), Organizational Decision SupportSystems, Amsterdam, North-Holland, pp. 75-85, 1988.

Johnson, D.W. 'The Use of Role-Reversal in Intergroup Competition". Journal _of Personality andSocial Psychology (7) 1967, 135-142.

Jones, B.H. "Analytical Negotiation: An Empirical Examination of the Effects of ComputerSupport for Different Levels of Conflict in Two-Party Bargaining." Ph.D. Dissertation, School ofBusiness, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 1988.

Jones, B.H. and Jelassi, M.T. "Computer-Supported Negotiations: Some Empirical Observations".Invited Paper to the EURQ IX/TIMS Joint International Meetings, Paris, France, July 6-8, 1988.

Keen, P.G.W. and Scott Morton, M.S. Decision Support Systems: An Organizational Perspective.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1978.

Kelley, H.H. "A Classroom Study of the Dilemnas in Interpersonal Negotiations" in K. Archibald(Ed.), Strategic Interaction And Conflict: Original Papers and Discussion. Berkeley, CA: Insti-tute of International Studies, 1966.

Kersten, G.E. "A Procedure for Negotiating Efficient and Non-Efficient Compromises", DecisionSupport Systems (4) (1988), 167-177.

Kersten, G.E. "Two Roles Decision Support Systems can Play in Negotiations". InformationProcessing and Management, (23) 6, 1987, 605-614.

Kersten, G. "NEGO - Group Decision Support System", Information and Management (8) (1985),237-246.

Kessler, S. Creative Conflict Resolution: Mediation Leader's Guide, National Institute for Profes-sional Training, 1978.

Kiesler, S., Siegel, J. and McGuire, T.W. "Social Psychological Aspects of Computer MediatedCommunication", American Psychologist (October 1984), 1123-1134.

Lewicki, R. and Litterer, J. Negotiation. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1985.

Lewis, S.A. and Fry, W.R. "Effects of Visual Access and Orientation on the Discover y of Inte gra-tive Bargaining Alternatives". Organizational Behavior and Human Performance (20) -1977, 75-92.

McGrath, J. Groups, Interaction and Performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hal1,1984.

Miner, F. "A Comparative Analysis of Three Diverse Group Decision Making Approaches",AcademyZ Management Journal (22) 1(1979), 81-93.

Morley, I. and Stephenson, G. The Social P vcl_soloz 91 Bargaining, London: Allen and Unwin,1977.

Neale, M.A. and Bazerman, M.H. "The Role of Perspective- Taking Ability in Negotiating UnderDifferent Forms of Arbitration", Industrial and Labor Relations Review (36) (1983), 378-388.

Nicholson, M. Conflict Anal ysis. London: English Universities Press, 1970.

Nunamaker, J.F., Jr. "Experience with and Future Challenges in GDSS (Group Decision SupportSystems): Preface." Decision Support Systems (5) 1989, 115-118.

27

Nunamaker, Jr., J.F. Applegate, LM., and Konsynski, B.R. "Facilitating Group Creativity withGDSS", Journal _of Management Information Systems, (3) 4 (Spring 1987), 5-19.

Nyhart, J. D. and Goeltner, C. "Computer Models as Support for Complex Negotiations", WorkingPaper Series WP-10, The Program on the Processes of International Negotiation, AmericanAcademy of Arts and Sciences, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Spring 1987.

Pilisuk, N. and Skolnick, P. "Inducing Trust: a Test of the Osgood Proposal", Journal Di Personalityan SocialYvchology, (8), 1978, 121-133.

Pitz, G.F. "Subjective Probability Distributions for Imperfectly Known Quantities", in LW. Gregg(Ed.), Knowledge and Cognition, New York: Wiley, 1974.

Poole, M.S., Holmes, M., and DeSanctis, G. "Conflict Management and Group Decision SupportSystems", Proceedings kf I,hg ACM Conference an Computer Support fol Cooperative Work,Portland, Oregon, Sept. 26-28, 1988.

Pruitt, D.G..Negotiation Behavior. New York: Acadernic,1981.

Pruitt, D.G. "Strategic Choice in Negotiation". American Behavioral Scientist (27) 2 (1983a), 167-194.

Pruitt, D.G. "Achieving Integrative Agreements" in M.H. Bazerman and R.J. Lewicki (Eds.)Negotiating in Organizations, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1983b.

Pruitt, D.G. and Johnson, D.F. "Mediation As An Aid to Face Saving in Negotiation", Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology (14) 3 (1970), 239-246.

Pruitt, D.G. and Rubin, J.Z. _Social Conflict: Escalation. Stalemate, and Settlement. New York:Random House, 1986.

Raiffa, H. Thy Art and Science of Negotiations. Cambridge, MA: Belknap/Harvard UniversityPress, 1982.

Rice, R.E. The New Media: Communication Research and Technolov. Beverly Hills: Sa2e,Publications, 1984.

Rubin, J.Z. "Experimental Research on Third-Party Intervention in Conflict: Toward SomeGeneralizations," Psychological Bulletin (87) 2 (1980), 379-391.

Rubin, J.Z. and Brown, B. The Social Psychology ..f Bargaining and Negotiation. New York:Academic Press, 1975.

Sainfort, F., Gustafson, DJ. and Bosworth, LK. "Experimental Evaluation of a Computer-basedConflict Resolution Program". Paper presented at TIMS/ORSA Joint Meeting, New Orleans, LA,May 6-8, 1987.

Sie gel, A.J. (Ed.) The Impact _of Computers pn Collective Bargaining. Cambridge, MA: TheMIT Press, 1969.

Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S. and McGuire, T. "Group Processes in Computer-MediatedCommunication", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process (37) (1986), 157-187.

Siegel, S. and Harnett, D.L. "Bargaining Behavior: A Comparison Between Mature IndustrialPersonnel and College Students". Operations Research (12) 1964, 334-343.

Steeb, R. and Johnston, S.C. "A Computer-based Interactive System for Group Decisionmaking",IEEE Transactions _on Systems Man And vbernetics (SMC-11) 8 (August, 1981), 544- 552..

28

Tversky, A. and Kahnemen, D. "The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice", Science(211) (1981), 453-458.

UNISYS Corporation, "Computer Assisted Negotiation at the American Academy of Arts andSciences", Cambridge, Massachusetts, October, 1987.

Vitz, P.0 and Kite, W.R. "Factors Affecting Conflict and Negotiation Within an Alliance". Journalkl Experimental Social Psychology (6) 1970, 233-247.

Vogel, D. Nunamaker, J., Applegate, L, Konsynsld, B. "Group Decision Support Systems: Deter-minants of Success", University of Arizona Working Paper, 1987.

Wall, J.A. "Mediation: The Effects of Mediator Proposals, Number of Issues, and Altered Negoti-ator Aspirations". Journal Management (10) 3 (1984), 293-304.

Walton, R.E. and McKersie, R.B. A Behavioral Theory pi Labor Negotiations. New York:McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965.

Watson, R., DeSanctis, G. and Poole, M.S. "Using a GDSS to Facilitate Group Consensus: SomeIntended and Unintended Consequences". MIS Ouarterly (12) 3, September 1988, 463-478.

Zartman, I.W. and Berman, M.R. The Practical Negotiator. New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress, 1982.

29

INSEAD WORKING PAPERS SERIES 88/12 Spyros MAKRIDAKIS "Business firms and managers in the 2Istcentury", February 1988

88/13 Manfred KETS DE VRIES "Alexithymia in organizational life: theorganization man revisited", February 1988.

88/14 Alain NOEL "The interpretation of strategies: a study ofthe impact of CEOs on thecorporation", March 1988.

88/15 Anil DEOLALIKAR and "The production of and returns fromLars-Hendrik ROLLER industrial innovation: an econometric

analysis for a developing country", December1987.

88/16 Gabriel HAWAWINI "Market efficiency and equity pricing:international evidence and implications forglobal investing", March 1988.

88/17 Michael BURDA "Monopolistic competition, costs of

adjustment and the behavior of Europeanemployment", September 1987.

88/18 Michael BURDA "Reflections on "Wait Unemployment" inEurope", November 1987, revised February1988.

88/19 M.J. LAWRENCE and "Individual bias in judgements ofSpyros MAKRIDAIUS confidence', March 1988.

88/20 Jean DERMINE,Damien NEVEN and

"Portfolio selection by mutual funds, anequilibrium model", March 1988.

J.F. THISSE

88/21 James TEBOUL 'De-industrialize service for quality", March1988 (88/03 Revised).

88/22 Lars-Hendrik ROLLER "Proper Quadratic Functions with anApplication to AT&T', May 1987 (RevisedMarch 1988).

1988

88/01

Michael LAWRENCE and

"Factors affecting judgemental forecasts andSpyros MAKRIDAKIS confidence intervals", January 1988.

88/02

Spyros MAKRIDAKIS

"Predicting recessions and other turningpoints", January 1988.

88/03

James TEBOUL

"De-industrialize service for quality", January1988.

88/04

Susan SCHNEIDER

"National vs. corporate culture: implicationsfor human resource management", January1988.

88/05

Charles WYPLOSZ

"The swinging dollar: is Europe out ofstep?", January 1988.

88/06

Reinhard ANGELMAR

"Les conflits dans les cannot dedistribution", January 1988.

88/07

Ingemar DIERICKX

"Competitive advantage: a resource basedand Karel COOL perspective", January 1988.

88/08

Reinhard ANGELMAR

"Issues in the study of organizationaland Susan SCHNEIDER cognition", February 1988.

88/09

Bernard SINCLAIR- "Price formation and product design throughDESGAGNE

bidd ing", February 1988.

88/10

Bernard SINCLAIR- "The robustness of some standard auction'DESGAGNE

game forms", February 1988.

88/11

Bernard SINCLAIR- "When stationary strategies are equilibriumDESGAGNE

bidding strategy: The single-crossingproperty", February 1988.

88/24

B. Eapen ECKBO and

"Information disclosure, means of payment,

Herwig LANGOHR and takeover premia. Public and Private

tender offers in France", July 1985, Sixth

revision, April 1988.

88/25

Everette S. GARDNER

"The future of forecasting", April 1988.

and Spyros MAKRIDAKIS

88/26

Sjur Didrik FLAM

"Semi-competitive Cournot equilibrium in

and Georges ZACCOUR multistage oligopolies", April 1988.

88/27

Murugappa KRISHNAN

"Entry game with resalable capacity",

Lars-Hendrik ROLLER

April 1988.

Sumantra GHOSHAL and

C. A. BARTLETT

Nareah K. MALHOTRA,

Christian PINSON and

Arun K. JAIN

"The multinational corporation as a network:

perspectives from int. Ll.izational

theory", May 1988.

"Consumer cognitive complexity and the

dimensionality of multidimensional scaling

configurations", May 1988.

88/28

88/29

88/30

Catherine C. ECKEL

"The financial fallout from Chernobyl: risk

and Theo VERMAELEN perceptions and regulatory response", May

1988.

88/31

Sumantra GHOSHAL and

"Creation, adoption, and diffusion ofChristopher BARTLm

innovations by subsidiaries of multinational

corporations", June 1988.

88/32

Kasra FERDOWS and

"International manufacturing: positioningDavid SACKRIDER plants for success", June 1988.

88/33

Mihkel M. TOMBAK

"The importance of flexihdity in

manufacturing", June 1988.

88/34 Mihkel M. TOMBAK "flexibrlity: an important dimension in

manufacturing", June 1988.

88/35 Mihkel M. TOMBAK "A strategic analysis of investment in flexible

manufacturing systems", July 1988.

88/36 Vikas TIBREWALA and "A Predictive Test of the MID Model that

Bruce BUCHANAN Controls for Non-stationarity", June 1988.

88/37 Murugappa KRISHNAN "Regulating Price-Liability Competition To

Lars-Hendrik ROLLER Improve Welfare", July 1988.

88/38 Manfred KETS DE VRIES "The Motivating Role of Envy : A Forgotten

Factor in Management", April 88.

88/39 Manfred KETS DE VRIES "The Leader as Mirror : Clinical

Reflections", July 1988.

88/40 Josef LAKONISHOK and "Anomalous price behavior around

Theo VERMAELEN repurchase tender offers", August 1988.

88/41 Charles WYPLOSZ "Assymetry in the EMS: intentional or

systemic?", August 1988.

88/42 Paul EVANS "Organizational development in the

tran.snational enterprise", June 1988.

88/43 B. SINCLAIR-DESGAGNÈ "Group decision support systems implement

Bayesian rationality", September 1988.

88/44 Easam MAHMOUD and "The state of the art and future directionsSpyros MAKRIDAKIS in combining forecasts", September 1988.

88/45 Robert KORAJCZYK "An empirical investigation of international

and Claude VIALLET asset pricing", November 1986, revised

August 1988.

88/46 Yves DOZ and "From intent to outcome: • process

Amy SHUEN framework for partnerships". August 1988.

88/47 Main BULTEZ,

Eta GUSBRECHTS,

"Asymmetric cannibalism between substitute

items listed by retailers", September 1988.

88/23 Sjur Didrik FLAM

"Equilibres de Nash-Cournot dam le morel*

and Georges ZACCOUR enrol:Oen du gar: un ens oh les solutions en

boucle ouverte et en feedback coincident",

Mars 1988.

88/58 B. SINCLAIR-DESGAGNEand Mihkel M. TOMBAK

"Reflections on 'Wait unemployment' inEurope, II", April 1988 revised September

1988.

"Information asymmetry and equity issues",September 1988.

"Managing expert systems: from inceptionthrough updating", October 1987.

"Technology, work, and the organization:the impact of expert systems", July 1988.

"Cognition and organizational analysis:who's minding the store?", September 1988.

"Whatever happened to the philosopher-king: the leader's addiction to power,September 1988.

"Strategic choke of flexible productiontechnologies and welfare implications",October 1988

"Method of moments tests of contingent

cleans asset pricing models", October 1988.

"Sze-sorted portfolios and the violation ofthe random walk hypothesis: Additional

empirical evidence and implication for testsof asset pricing models", June 1988.

"Data transferability: estimating the responseeffect of future events based on historical

analogy", October 1988.

"Assessing economic inequality", November1988.

88/59 Martin KILDUFF

88/60 Michael BURDA

88/61 Lars-Hendrik ROLLER

88/62 Cynthia VAN HULLE,Theo VERMAELEN andPaul DE WOUTERS

88/63 Fernando NASCIMENTOand Wilfried R.VANHONACKER

88/64 Kasra FERDOWS

88/65 Amoud DE MEYERand Kane FERDOWS

88/66 Nathalie DIERKENS

88/67

Paul S. ADLER andKasra FERDOWS

1989

89/01

Joyce K. BYRER andTawfik JELASSI

89/02 Louis A. LE BLANCand Tawfik JELASSI

"The interpersonal structure of decisionmaking: a social comparison approach toorganizational choke", November 1988.

"Is mismatch really the problem? Someestimates of the Chelwood Gate II modelwith US data", September 1988.

"Modelling cost structure: the Bell System

revisited", November 1988.

"Regulation, taxes and the market forcorporate control in Belgium", September1988.

"Strategic pricing of differentiated consumer

durables in a dynamic duopoly: a numerical

analysis", October 1988.

"Charting strategic roles for international

factories", December 1988.

"Quality up, technology down", October 1988

"A discussion of exact measures of

information assymetry: the example of Myers

and Mifitif model or the importance of the

asset structure of the fine , December 1988.

"The chief technology officer", December1988.

"The impact of language theories on DSSdialog", January 1989.

"DSS software selection: a multiple criteria

decision methodology", January 1989.

Philippe NAERT andPiet VANDEN ABEELE

88/48

Michael BURDA

88/49

Nathalie DIERKENS

88/50

Rob WEITZ andArnoud DE MEYER

88/51

Rob WEITZ

88/52

Susan SCHNEIDER andReinhard ANGELMAR

88/53

Manfred KETS DE VRIES

88/54

Lars-Hendrik ROLLERand Mihkel M. TOMBAK

88/55

Peter BOSSAERTSand Pierre HILLION

88/56

Pierre HILLION

88/57

Wilfried VANHONACKERand Lydia PRICE

89/03 Beth H. JONES and

Tawtik JELASSI

89/04

ICasra FERDOWS and

Arnoud DE MEYER

89/05

Martin KILDUFF and

Reinhard ANGELMAR

89/06

Mihkel M. TOMBAIC and

B. SINCLAIR-DESGAGNE

89/07

Damien J. NEVEN

89/08

Arnoud DE MEYER and

Hellmut SCHUTFE

89/09

Damien NEVEN,

Carmen MATUTES and

Marcel CORSTIENS

89/10 Nathalie DIERKENS,

Bruno GERARD and

Merle HILLION

89/11

Manfred KETS DE VRIES

and Alain NOEL

89/12

Wilfried VANHONACKER

"Negotiation support: the effects of computer

intervention and conflict level on bargaining

outcome", January 1989.

"Lasting improvement in manufacturing

performance: In search of a new theory",

January 1989.

"Shared history or shared culture? The

effects of time, culture, and performance on

institutionalization in simulated

organizations", January 1989.

"Coordinating manufacturing and business

strategies: I", February 1989.

"Structural adjustment in European retail

banking. Some view from industrial

organisation", January 1989.

"Trends in the development of technology

and their effects on the production structure

in the European Community", January 1989.

"Brand proliferation and entry deterrence",

February 1989.

"A market based approach to the valuation

of the assets is place and the growth

opportunities of the firm", December 1988.

"Understanding the leader-strategy interface:

application of the strategic relationship

interview method", February 1989.

"Estimating dynamic response models when

the data are subject to different temporal

aggregation", January 1989.

89/13 Manfred KETS DE VRIES

89/14

Reinhard ANGELMAR

89/15

Reinhard ANGELMAR

89/16

Wilfried VANHONACKER,

Donald LEHMANN and

Fareena SULTAN

89/17

Gilles AMADO,

Claude FAUCHEUX and

Andri LAURENT

89/18

Srinivasan BALAK-

RISHNAN and

Mitchell KOZA

89/19

Wilfried VANHONACKER,

Donald LEHMANN and

Fareena SULTAN

89/20

Wilfried VANHONACKER

and Russell WINER

89/21

Arnoud de MEYER and

Kasra FERDOWS

89/22

Manfred KETS DE VRIES

and Sydney PERZOW

89/23

Robert KORAJCZYIC and

Claude VIALLET

89/24

Martin IULDUFF and

Mitchel ABOLAFIA

"The impostor syndrome: a disquieting

phenomenon in organizational life", February

1989.

"Product innovation: a tool for competitive

advantage", March 1989.

"Evaluating • firm's product innovation

performance", March 1989.

"Combining related and sparse data in linear

regression models", February 1989.

"Changement organisationnel et realitOs

culturelles: contrastes franco-americains",

March 1989.

"Information asymmetry, market failure and

joint-ventures: theory and evidence",

March 1989.

"Combining related and sparse data in linear

regression models", Revised March 1989.

"A rational random behavior model of

choke", Revised March 1989.

"Influence of manufacturing improvement

programmes on performance", April 1989.

"What is the role of character in

psychoanalysis?" April 1989.

"Equity risk premia and the pricing of

foreign exchange risk" April 1989.

"The social destruction of reality:

Organitatiotud conflict as social drama"

zApril 1989.

89/25 Roger BETANCOURT andDavid GAUTSCHI

89/26

Charles BEAN,Edmond MALINVAUD,Peter BERNHOLZ,Francesco GIAVAllIand Charles WYPLOSZ

89/27

David KRACKHARDT andMartin KILDUFF

89/28 Martin KILDUFF

89/29 Robert GOGEL andJean-Claude LARRECHE

89/30 Lars-Hendrik ROLLERand Mihkel M. TOMBAK

89/31 Michael C. BURDA andStefan GERLACH

89/32 Peter HAUG andTawfik JELASSI

89/33 Bernard SINCLAIR-DESGAGNE

89/34 Sumantra GHOSHAL andNittin NOHRIA

89/35 Jean DERMINE and

Pierre HILLION

"Two essential characteristics of retailmarkets and their economic consequences"March 1989.

"Macroeconomic policies for 1992: thetransition and after", April 1989.

"Friendship patterns and culturalattributions: the control of organizationaldiversity", April 1989.

"The interpersonal structure of decisionmaking: a social comparison approach toorganizational choice", Revised April 1989.

"The battlefield for 1992: product strengthand geographic coverage", May 1989.

"Competition and Investment in flexibleTechnologies", May 1989.

"Intertenaporal prices and the US tradebalance in durable goods", July 1989.

"Application and evaluation of a multi-criteria decision support system for thedynamic selection of U.S. manufacturinglocations', May 1989.

"Design flexibility in monomonisticindustries", May 1989.

"Requisite variety versus shared values:managing corporate-division relationships inthe M-Form organisation", May 1989.

"Deposit rate ceilings and the market valueof banks: The case of France 1971-1981",May 1989.

89/36

Martin KILDUFF

89/37

Manfred KETS DE VRIES

89/38

Manfred KETS DE VRIES

89/39

Robert KORAJCZYK andClaude VIALLET

89/40

Balaji CHAKRAVARTHY

89/41 B. SINCLAIR-DESGAGNEand Nathalie DIERKENS

89/42

Robert ANSON andTawfik JELASSI

89/43 Michael BURDA

89/44

Balaji CHAKRAVARTHYand Peter LORANGE

89/45

Rob WEITZ andArnoud DE MEYER

89/46 Marcel CORSTJENS,Carmen MATUTES andDamien NEVEN

89/47

Manfred KETS DE VRIESind Christine MEAD

89/48

Damien NEVEN andLars-Hendrik ROLLER

"A dispositional approach to social networks:the case of organizational choke", May 1989.

"The organisational fool: balancing aleader's hubris", May 1989.

"The CEO blues", June 1989.

"An empirical investigation of internationalasset pricing", (Revised June 1989).

"Management systems for innovation andproductivity", June 1989.

"The strategic supply of precisions", June1989.

"A development framework for computer-supported conflict resolution". July 1989.

"A note on firing costs and severance benefitsin equilibrium unemployment", June 1989.

"Strategic adaptation in multi-businessfirms", June 1989.

"Managing expert systems: • framework andcase study", June 1989.

"Entry Encouragement", July 1989.

"The global dimension in leadership andorganization: issues and controversies", April1989.

"European integration and trade flows",August 1989.

89/49 Jean DERMINE "Home country control and mutualrecognition", July 1989. 89/62 Amoud DE MEYER

(TM)89/50 Jean DERMINE "The specialization of financial institutions,

the EEC model", August 1989. 89/63 Enver YUCESAN and

(TM) Lee SCHRUBEN

89/51 Spyros MAKRIDAKIS "Sliding simulation: a new approach to timeseries forecasting", July 1989. 89/64 Enver YUCESAN and

(TM) Lee SCHRUBEN

89/52 Arnoud DE MEYER "Shortening development cycle times: amanufacturer's perspective", August 1989. 89/65 Soumitra DUTTA and

89/53 Spyros MAKRIDAJUS "Why combining works?", July 1989.

(TM,

AC, FIN)

Piero BONISSONE

89/54 S. BALAICR1SHNAN "Organisation costs and a theory of joint 89/66 B. SINCLAIR-DESGAGNE

and Mitchell KOZA ventures", September 1989. (TM,EP)

89/55 H. SCHUTTE "Euro-Japanese cooperation in information 89/67 Peter BOSSAERTS and

technology", September 1989. (FIN) Pierre HILLION

89/56 Wilfried VANHONACKER

and Lydia PRICE

"On the practical usefulness of meta-analysisresults", September 1989.

1990

89/57 Taekwon KIM,

Lars-Hendrik ROLLER

and Mihkel TOMBAK

"Market growth and the diffusion ofmultiproduct technologies", September 1989. 90/01

TM/EP/AC

B. SINCLAIR-DESGAGNE

89/58 Lars-Hendrik ROLLER "Strategic aspects of flexible production 90/02 Michael BURDA

(EP,TM) and Mihkel TOMBAK technologies", October 1989. EP

89/59

(08)

Manfred gErs DE VRIES,Daphne ZEVAD1,

Alain NOEL and

"Locus of control and entrepreneurship: ■three-country comparative study", October1989.

90/03

TM

Arnoud DE MEYER

Mihkel TOMBAK

89/60 Enver YUCESAN and "Simulation graphs for design and analysis of 90/04 Gabriel HAWAWINI and

(TM) Lee SCHRUBEN discrete event simulation models", October FIN/EP Eric RAJENDRA

1989.

89/61 Susan SCHNEIDER and "Interpreting and responding to strategic 90/05 Gabriel HAWAWINI and

(AB) Arnoud DE MEYER issues: The impact of national culture",October 1989.

FIN/EP Bertrand JACQUILLAT

"Technology strategy and international R&Doperations", October 1989.

"Equivalence of simulations: A graphapproach", November 1989.

"Complexity of simulation models: A graphtheoretic approach", November 1989.

"MARS: A mergers and acquisitionsreasoning system", November 1989.

"On the regulation of procurement bids",November 1989.

"Market microstructure effects ofgovernment intervention in the foreignexchange market", December 1989.

"Unavoidable Mechanisms", January 1990.

"Monopolistic Competition, Costs ofAdjustment, and the Behaviour of EuropeanManufacturing Employment", January 1990.

"Management of Communication inInternational Research and Development",January 1990.

"The Transformation of the EuropeanFinancial Services Industry: FromFragmentation to Integration", January 1990.

"European Equity Markets: Toward 1992and Beyond", January 1990.

90/06 Gabriel HAWAWINI and "Integration of European Equity Markets:

FIN/EP Eric RAJENDRA Implications of Structural Change for Key

Market Participants to and Beyond 1992",

January 1990.

90/17

FIN

Nathalie DIERKENS "Information Asymmetry and Equity Issues",Revised January 1990.

90/18 Wilfried VANHONACKER "Managerial Decision Rules and the

90/07 Gabriel HAWAWINI "Stock Market Anomalies and the Pricing of MKT Estimation of Dynamic Sales Response

FIN/EP Equity on the Tokyo Stock Exchange",

January 1990.

Models", Revised January 1990.

90/19 Beth JONES and "The Effect of Computer Intervention and

90/08

TM/EP

Tawfik JELASSI and

B. SINCLAIR-DESGAGNE

"Modelling with MCDSS: What about

Ethics?", January 1990.

TM Tawfik JELASSI Task Structure on Bargaining Outcome",

February 1990.

90/09 Alberto GIOVANNINI "Capital Controls and International Trade 90/20 Tawfik JELASSI, "An Introduction to Group Decision and

EP/FIN and Jae WON PARK Fmance", January 1990. TM Gregory KERSTEN and Negotiation Support", February 1990.

Stanley ZIONTS

90/10 Joyce BRYER and "The Impact of Language Theories on DSS

TM Tawfik JELASSI Dialog", January 1990. 90/21 Roy SMITH and "Reconfiguration of the Global Securities

FIN Ingo WALTER Industry in the 1990's", February 1990.

90/11 Enver YUCESAN "An Overview of Frequency Domain

TM Methodology for Simulation Sensitivity 90/22 Ingo WALTER "European Mantis! Integration and ItsAnalysis", January 1990. FIN Implications for the United States", February

1990.

90/12 Michael BURDA "Structural Change. Unemployment Benefits

EP and High Unemployment: A U.S.-European 90/23 Damien NEVEN "EEC Integration towards 1992: SomeComparison", January 1990. EP/SM Distributional Aspects", Revised December

1989

90/13 Soumitra DUTTA and "Approximate Reasoning about Temporal

TM Shashi SHEKHAR Constraints in Real Time Planning and 90/24 Lam Tyge NIELSEN 'Positive Prices in CAPM", January 1990.Search", January 1990. FIN/EP

90/14

TM

Albert ANGEHRN and

Hans-Jakob LUTHI

"Visual Interactive Modelling and Intelligent

DSS: Putting Theory Into Practice", January

90/25

FIN/EP

Lam Tyge NIELSEN "Existence of Equilibrium in CAPM",January 1990.

1990.

90/26 Charles KADUSHIN and "Why networking Fails: Double Rinds and90/15

TM

Arnoud DE MEYER,

Dirk DESCHOOLMEESTER,

Rudy MOENAERT and

"'The Internal Technological Renewal of •

RtriDOSS Unit with • Mature Technology",

January 1990.

011/BP Michael BRIMM the Limitations of Shadow Networks",February 1990.

Jan BARBE 90/27 Abbas FOROUGHI and •IsISS Solutions to Major NegotiationTM Tawfik JELASSI Stumbling Blocks", February 1990.

90/16 Richard LEVICH and "Tax-Driven Regulatory Drag: European

FIN Ingo WALTER Financial Centers in the 1990's", January 90/28 Arnoud DE MEYER "The Manufacturing Contribution to1990. TM Innovation", February 1990.

90/40 Manfred KETS DE VRIES "Leaders on the Couch: The case of Roberto90/29 Nathalie DIERKENS "A Discussion of Correct Measures of OB Calvi", April 1990.FIN/AC Information Asymmetry", January 1990.

90/30 Lars Tyge NIELSEN "The Expected Utility of Portfolios of90/41FIN/EP

Gabriel HAWAWINI,Itzhak SWARY and

'Capital Market Reaction to theAnnouncement of Interstate Banking

FIN/EP Assets", March 1990. 1k HWAN LANG Legislation", March 1990.

90/31 David GAUTSCHI and "What Determines U.S. Retail Margins?", 90/42 Joel STECKEL and "Cross-Validating Regression Models inMKT/EP Roger BETANCOURT February 1990. MKT Wilfried VANHONACKER Marketing Research", (Revised April 1990).

90/32 Srinivasan BALAK- "Information Asymmetry, Adverse Selection 90/43 Robert KORAJCZYK and "Equity Risk Premia and the Pricing ofSM RISHNAN and

Mitchell KOZAand Joint-Veutures: Theory and Evidence",Revised, January 1990.

FIN Claude VIALLET Foreign Exchange Risk", May 1990.

90/33 Caren SIEHL, "The Role of Rites of Integration in Service 90/44 Gilles AMADO, "Organisational Change and CulturalOB David BOWEN and Delivery", March 1990. OB Claude FAUCHEUX and Realities: Franco-American Contrasts", April

Christine PEARSON Andre LAURENT 1990.

90/45 Soumitra DUTTA and "Integrating Case Based and Rule Based90/34FIN/EP

Jean DERMINE "The Gains from European Banking

Integration, a Call for a Pro-ActiveTM Piero BONISSONE Reasoning: The PossibBistic Connection",

May 1990.Competition Policy", April 1990.

90/46 Spyroa MAKRIDA1US "Exponential Smoothing: The Effect of90/35 Jae Won PARK "Changing Uncertainty and the Tune- TM and Michele HIBON Initial Values and Loss Fonctions on Post-EP Varying Rick Premia in the Term Structure

of Nominal Interest Rates", December 1988,Revised March 1990. 90/47 Lydia PRICE and

Sample Forecasting Accuracy".

"Improper Sampling in NaturalMKT Wilfried VANHONACKER Experiments: Limitations on the Use of

90/36 Arnoud DE MEYER "An Empirical Investigation of Meta-Analysis Results in %yam' nTM Manufacturing Strategies in European Updating", Revised May 1990.

Industry", April 1990.90/48 Jae WON PARK "The Information in the Term Structure of

90/37TM/OB/Sat

William CATS-BARIL "Executive Information Systems: Developingan Approach to Open the Possibles", April

EP Interest Rates: Out-of-Sample ForecastingPerformance", June 1990.

1990.90/49 Soumitra DUTTA "Approximate Reasoning by Analogy to

90/38 Wilfried VANHONACKER "Managerial Decision Behaviour and the TM Answer Null Queries", June 1990.MKT Estimation of Dynamic Sales Response

Models", (Revised February 1990). 90/50EP

Daniel COHEN andCharles WYPLOSZ

"Price and Trade Effects of Exchange Ratesfluctuations and the Design of Policy

90/39TM

Louis LE BLANC andTawlik JELASSI

'An Evaluation and Selection Methodologyfor Expert System Shells", May 1990.

Coordination", April 1990.

90/51 Michael BURDA and "Gross Labour Market Flows in Europe: 90/63 Sumantra GHOSHAL and "Organising Competitor Analysis Systems",EP Charles WYPLOSZ Some Stylized Facts", June 1990. SM Eleanor WESTNEY August 1990

90/52 Lars Tyge NIELSEN "The Utility of Infinite Menus", June 1990. 90/64 Sumantra GHOSHAL "Internal Differentiation and CorporateFIN SM Performance: Case of the Multinational

Corporation", August 1990

90/53 Michael Burda "The Consequences of German Economic

EP and Monetary Union", June 1990. 90/65 Charles WYPLOSZ "A Note on the Real Exchange Rate Effect ofEl' German Unification", August 1990

90/54 Damien NEVEN and "European Financial Regulation: A

El' Colin MEYER Framework for Policy Analysis", (Revised 90/66 Soumitra DUTTA and "Computer Support for Strategic and Tactical

May 1990). TM/SE/FIN Piero BONISSONE Planning in Mergers and Acquisitions",

September 1990

90/55 Michael BURDA and "Intertemporal Prices and the US TradeEl'

90/56

Stefan GERLACH

Damien NEVEN and

Balance", (Revised July 1990).

"The Structure and Determinants of East-West

90/67

TM/SE/FIN

Soumitra DUTTA and

Piero BONISSONE

"Integrating Prior Cases and Expert Knowledge Ina Mergers and Acquisitions Reasoning System",September 1990

EP Lars-Hendrik ROLLER Trade: A Preliminary Analysis of theManufacturing Sector", July 1990 90/611 Soumitra DUTTA "A Framework and Methodslop/ for Enhancing the

TM/SE Business Impact of Artificial Intelligence90/51 Lars Tyge NIELSEN Common Knowledge of a Multivariate Aggregate Applications", September 1990FIN/EP/ Statistic", July 1990

TM 90/69 Soumitra DUTTA "A Model for Temporal Reasoning in MedicalTM Expert Systems", September 1990

90/58 Lars Tyge NIELSEN "Common Knowledge of Price and Expected Cost

FIN/EP/TM ill an Oligopolistic Market", August 1990 90/70TM

Albert ANGEHRN "'Triple C': A Visual Interactive MCDSS",September 1990

90/59 Jean DERMINE and "Economies of Scale andFIN Lars-Hendrik ROLLER Scope in the French Mutual Funds (SICAV) 90/71 Philip PARKER and "Competitive Effects in Diffusion Models: An

Industry", August 1990 MKT Hubert GAMMON Empirical Analysis", September 1990

90/60 Pen IZ and "An Interactive Group Decision Aid for 90/72 Enver YUCESAN "Analysis of MilfiliCOV Chains Using SimulationTM Tawfik JELASSI Multiobjective Problems: An Empirical TM Graph Models", October 1990

Assessment", September 1990

90/61 Pankaj CHANDRA and "Models for the Evlauation of Manufacturing90/73

TM

Amoud DE MEYER and

Kasra FERDOWS

"Removing the Barriers in Manufacturing",October 1990

TM Mihkel TOMBAK Flexibility", August 1990

90/62 Damien NEVEN and "Public Policy Towards TV Broadcasting in the 90/74 Sumantra GHOSHAL and "Requisite Complexity: Organising Headquarters-EP Merino VAN DUK Netherlands", August 1990 SM NitM NOHRIA Subsidiary Relations in MNCs", October 1990

90/75 Roger BETANCOURT andMKT David GAUTSCH1

Wilfried VANHONACKERMKT

!OM Wilfried VANHONACKERMKT

90/78 Michael BURDA andEr Stefan GERLACH

90/79 Mil GABATM

MIN Anil GABA andTM Robert WINKLER

90/81 Tawfik JELASSITM

90/112 Chides WYPLOSZEP

90/83 Nathalie DIERKENS andturrm Bernard SINCLAIR•DESGAGNE

90/84 Philip M. PARKERMKT

9045 AM). GHOSH andMKT Vika. TIBREWALA

90/54 Olivier CADOT andEr/77N Bernard S1NCLMR-DESGAGNE

90/81 Lars Tyge NIELSEN "Existence of Equilibrium in CAPM: FurtherFIN/EP Results". December 1990

90/88 Susan C. SCHNEIDER and

• egaidoe is Orgenisatioad Analysis: Who's011/MKT Reinhard ANGELMAR Mimilog the Storer Revised, December 1990

90/89 Manfred F.R. KETS DE VR/ES Me CEO Who Couldn't Tab Straight and Other011

Tales Rom doe Beard Room; December 1990

90/90 Philip PARKER 'Price Elasticity Dysamics over the AdoptionMKT 2:recycle: An Empirical Study," December 1990

1991

91/01 Luk VAN WASSENHOVE, "Operstisad Research Cos Donor, for ManagersTAI/S114 Leonard FORTUIN end Than They Tbilkl,•

Paul VAN BEEK January 1991

91/02 Luk VAN WASSENHOVE, "Operational Research mad Faviroammet."1114/9)1 Leonard FORTUIN and lemony 1991

Paul VAN BEEK

91/03 Pekka HIETALA and •A. Implicit Dividend lamest' is Rights Issues:FIN Tinto LDYITYNIEJM Theory and Evideece,• January 1991

91/04 Lars Tyge NIELSEN •Tw►Peald Saponifies. Factor Structure sodFIN Itelenstnem,' /snooty 1991

91/05 Susan SCHNEIDER "Margin Beaudoin i• Orgamisatims,'011 Jimmy 1991

911/06 Manfred KETS DE VRIES, •Undentererfin the !.ender-Strategy laterface:OB Danny MILLER and Applitatita of the Strategic Relatiroship nook*

Main NOEL Method,' January 1990 (119111, revised April 1990)

'rte Outputs el Retail Activities: Concepts,bleasoremeat sod Evidtace •. October 1990

"blanameriel Decision Behaviour and the Mimetic*of Women Seen Rename Models",Revised October 1990

'Testis% the Kook Selman of Sales Response toAdvertising: Antregatioa-ladepeadeatbutecerrdatios use, October 1990

'Exchange Rate Dynamics and CorreacyUnification The Odra& - DM Rate',October 1990

"Inferesems with se Udine.. Noise Level is •Bemoan Process• October 1990

"Mil Survey Data is Inferences about PurchaseBeltavierse, October 1990

'Eln Present en Paton lam et Orientations des*Maas laternetifs d'Aide b Is Decision;October 1990

'Monetary Wien sad Fiscal Policy Discipline,November 1990

•Issionantiem Asymmetry and CorporateCassamicatios: Remake of a Pilot Study,November 1990

"Me Effect of Advertising os Price and Quality:The Optometric !Weary Revisited,December 1990

'Optimal Twang and Location in Competitivefdarban,• November 1990

'Prudent sad Success ie Politics,' November 1990

91/07 Olivier CADOT "Lending to Insolvent Countries: A ParadoxicalEP Story," January 1991 91/19

MKTVikas TIBREWALA and "An Aggregate Test of Purchase Regularity",Bruce BUCHANAN March 1991

91/08 Charles WYPLOSZ "Post-Reform East and West: CapitalEP Accumulation and the Labour Mobility 91/20 Darius SABAVALA and "Monitoring Short-Run Changes in Purchasing

Constraint," January 1991 MKT Vikas TIBREWALA Behaviour", March 1991

91/09 Spyros MAKRIDAIUS "What can we Learn from Failure?", February 1991 91/21 Sumantra GHOSHAL, "Interunit Communication within MNCs: The

TM SM Harry KORINE and Influence of Formal Structure Versus IntegrativeGabriel SZULANSKI Processes", April 1991

91/10 Luc Van WASSENHOVE and "Integrating Scheduling with Hatching andTM C. N. POTTS Lot-Sizing: A Review of Algorithms and 91/22 David GOOD, "EC Integration and the Structure of the Franco-

Complexity", February 1991 EP Lars-Hendrik ROLLER and American Airline Industries: Implications forRobin SICKLES Efficiency and Welfare", April 1991

91/11 Luc VAN WASSENHOVE et al. "Multi-Item Lotsizing in Capacitated Multi-StageTM Serial Systems", February 1991 91/23 Spyros MAKRIDAKIS and "Exponential Smoothing: The Effect of Initial

TM Michele HIBON Values and Loss Functions on Post-Sample

91/12 Albert ANGEHRN "Interpretative Computer Intelligence: A Link Forecasting Accuracy", April 1991 (Revision of

TM between Users, Models and Methods in DSS",February 1991

90/46)

91/24 Louis LE BLANC and "An Empirical Assessment of Choice Models for

91/13EP

Michael BURDA "Labor and Product Markets in Czechoslovakia andthe Ex-GDR: A Twin Study", February 1991

TM Tawfik JELASSI Software Evaluation and Selection", May 1991

91/25 Luk N. VAN WASSENHOVE and "Trade-Offs? What Trade-Offs?" April 1991

91/14 Roger BETANCOURT and "The Output of Retail Activities: French SM/TM Charles J. CORBETT

MKT David GAUTSCHI Evidence", February 1991

91/26 Luk N. VAN WASSENHOVE and Machine Scheduling to Minimize Total Late

91/15OB

Manfred F.R. KETS DE VRIES "Exploding the Myth about Rational Organisationsand Executives", March 1991

TM C.N. POTTS Work", April 1991

91/27 Nathalie DIERKENS "A Discussion of Correct Measures of Information

91/16 Arnoud DE MEYER and "Factories of the Future: Executive Summary of FIN Asymmetry: The Example of Myers and Whirs

TM Kasra FERDOWS et.al. the 1990 International Manufacturing FuturesSurvey", March 1991

Model or the Importance of the Asset Structure ofthe Firm", May 1991

91/17 Dirk CATTRYSSE, "Heuristics for the Discrete Lotsizing and 91/28 Philip M. PARKER "A Note on: 'Advertising and the Price and QualityTM Roelof KUIK,

Marc SALOMON and

Scheduling Problem with Setup Times", March 1991 MKT of Optometric Services', June 1991

Luk VAN WASSENHOVE

91/18 C.N. POTTS and "Approximation Algorithms for Scheduling a SingleTM Luk VAN WASSENHOVE Machine to Minimize Total Late Work",

March 1991