Yousefi, S (2009) Attitude-based strategic and tactical negotiations for conflict resolution in construction. PhD thesis, University of Waterloo, USA.
Abstract
An innovative negotiation framework for resolving complex construction conflicts and disputes has been developed in this research. The unique feature of the proposed negotiation framework is that it takes into account the attitudes of the decision makers, which is an important human factor in construction negotiation at both the strategic and tactical levels of decision making. At the strategic level, the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR) technique has been systematically employed as a method of determining the most beneficial strategic agreement that is possible, given the competing interests and attitudes of the decision makers. At the tactical level, a previously agreed-upon strategic decision has been analyzed in depth using utility functions in order to determine the tradeoffs or concessions needed for the decision makers to reach a mutually acceptable resolution of the negotiation issues. A real-life case study of a brownfield construction negotiation has been used to illustrate how the proposed methodology can be applied and to demonstrate the importance and benefits of incorporating the attitudes of the decision makers into the negotiation process to better identify the most feasible resolutions. The proposed attitude-based negotiation framework constitutes a new systems engineering methodology that will assist managers in tackling real-world controversies, particularly in the construction industry. The negotiation framework has been implemented into a convenient negotiation decision support system that automates the proposed negotiation methodology. The research is expected to improve negotiation methodologies for construction disputes, thereby saving significant amounts of time and resources. The proposed methodology may also assist decision makers in overcoming the challenges of conventional negotiation processes because the incorporation of the attitudes of the decision makers results in a more accurate identification of tradeoffs, greater recognition of the level of satisfaction of the decision makers, and enhanced generation of optimum solutions.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | decision support; systems engineering; conflict resolution; conflicts; decision making; disputes; case study; concession; negotiation |
| Index terms: | human factor, decision-making, methodology, tradeoff, decision support, manager, negotiation, construction dispute, construction industry, resolution, systems engineering, graph model, conflict resolution, dispute, case study, satisfaction |
| Subjects: | dispute resolution, practitioner, data collection methods, mathematical modelling, project delivery, research methods, industry analysis, systems engineering, occupational health and safety management, conflict resolution, decision analysis |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Project Management, Health and Safety, Risk Management, Legal Issues, Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here