A software implementation and case study application of Lempp’s propositional model of conflict resolution

Abstract

PurposeThe starting point of this paper is the propositional model of conflict resolution which was presented and critically discussed in Lempp (2016). Based on this model, a software implementation, called ProCON, is introduced and applied to three scenarios. The purpose of the paper is to demonstrate how ProCON can be used by negotiators and to evaluate ProCON’s practical usefulness as an automated negotiation support system.Design/methodology/approachThe propositional model is implemented as a computer program. The implementation consists of an input module to enter data about a negotiation situation, an output module to generate outputs (e.g. a list of all incompatible goal pairs or a graph displaying the compatibility relations between goals) and a queries module to run queries on particular aspects of a negotiation situation.FindingsThe author demonstrates how ProCON can be used to capture a simple two-party, non-iterative prisoner’s dilemma, applies ProCON to a contract negotiation between a supplier and a purchaser of goods, and uses it to model the negotiations between the Iranian and six Western governments over Iran’s nuclear enrichment and stockpiling capacities.Research limitations/implicationsA limitation of the current version of ProCON arises from the fact that the computational complexity of the underlying algorithm is EXPTIME (i.e. the computing time required to process information in ProCON grows exponentially with respect to the number of issues fed into the program). This means that computing time can be quite long for even relatively small negotiation scenarios.Practical implicationsThe three case studies demonstrate how ProCON can provide support for negotiators in a wide range of multi-party, multi-issue negotiations. In particular, ProCON can be used to visualise the compatibility relations between parties’ goals, generate possible outcomes and solutions and evaluate solutions regarding the extent to which they satisfy the parties’ goals.Originality/valueIn contrast to standard game-theoretic models of negotiation, ProCON does not require users to provide data about their preferences across their goals. Consequently, it can operate in situations where no information about the parties’ goal preferences is available. Compared to game-theoretical models, ProCON represents a more general approach of looking at possible outcomes in the context of negotiations.