AHP在冲突解决中的应用:一个俄罗斯-北约案例研究。

IF 3.6 4区 管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT Group Decision and Negotiation Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1007/s10726-022-09803-z
Marcel C Minutolo, Luis G Vargas, Amos N Guiora, Madhury Ray
{"title":"AHP在冲突解决中的应用:一个俄罗斯-北约案例研究。","authors":"Marcel C Minutolo,&nbsp;Luis G Vargas,&nbsp;Amos N Guiora,&nbsp;Madhury Ray","doi":"10.1007/s10726-022-09803-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this paper, we apply the Analytic Hierarchy Process approach to conflict resolution in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. We build models that illustrate the evaluation criteria, strategic and sub-criteria, and concessions for each party in this negotiation. Ratings are used to evaluate the degree to which concessions contribute or take away from successful resolution of the conflict. Afterwards, gain ratios are built to determine the benefit-cost scores so that concessions may be traded that result in equitable solutions. The approach presented here demonstrates for the first time why all concessions that parties to a conflict may offer might not trade all at once. A Max-Min optimization approach is used to maximize the gain to both parties of the conflict while minimizing the disparity in gain between the two.</p>","PeriodicalId":47553,"journal":{"name":"Group Decision and Negotiation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9559219/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Applying the AHP to Conflict Resolution: A Russia-NATO Case Study.\",\"authors\":\"Marcel C Minutolo,&nbsp;Luis G Vargas,&nbsp;Amos N Guiora,&nbsp;Madhury Ray\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10726-022-09803-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In this paper, we apply the Analytic Hierarchy Process approach to conflict resolution in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. We build models that illustrate the evaluation criteria, strategic and sub-criteria, and concessions for each party in this negotiation. Ratings are used to evaluate the degree to which concessions contribute or take away from successful resolution of the conflict. Afterwards, gain ratios are built to determine the benefit-cost scores so that concessions may be traded that result in equitable solutions. The approach presented here demonstrates for the first time why all concessions that parties to a conflict may offer might not trade all at once. A Max-Min optimization approach is used to maximize the gain to both parties of the conflict while minimizing the disparity in gain between the two.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47553,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Group Decision and Negotiation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9559219/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Group Decision and Negotiation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-022-09803-z\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Group Decision and Negotiation","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-022-09803-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文以俄乌冲突为背景,将层次分析法应用于冲突解决。我们建立模型来说明评估标准、战略标准和子标准,以及谈判各方的让步。评级用于评估让步对成功解决冲突的贡献或影响程度。然后,建立收益比率来确定收益-成本分数,以便可以交换让步,从而产生公平的解决方案。本文提出的方法首次证明了为什么冲突各方可能提供的所有让步可能不会立即全部交易。最大-最小优化方法用于最大化冲突双方的收益,同时最小化两者之间的收益差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Applying the AHP to Conflict Resolution: A Russia-NATO Case Study.

In this paper, we apply the Analytic Hierarchy Process approach to conflict resolution in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. We build models that illustrate the evaluation criteria, strategic and sub-criteria, and concessions for each party in this negotiation. Ratings are used to evaluate the degree to which concessions contribute or take away from successful resolution of the conflict. Afterwards, gain ratios are built to determine the benefit-cost scores so that concessions may be traded that result in equitable solutions. The approach presented here demonstrates for the first time why all concessions that parties to a conflict may offer might not trade all at once. A Max-Min optimization approach is used to maximize the gain to both parties of the conflict while minimizing the disparity in gain between the two.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: The idea underlying the journal, Group Decision and Negotiation, emerges from evolving, unifying approaches to group decision and negotiation processes. These processes are complex and self-organizing involving multiplayer, multicriteria, ill-structured, evolving, dynamic problems. Approaches include (1) computer group decision and negotiation support systems (GDNSS), (2) artificial intelligence and management science, (3) applied game theory, experiment and social choice, and (4) cognitive/behavioral sciences in group decision and negotiation. A number of research studies combine two or more of these fields. The journal provides a publication vehicle for theoretical and empirical research, and real-world applications and case studies. In defining the domain of group decision and negotiation, the term `group'' is interpreted to comprise all multiplayer contexts. Thus, organizational decision support systems providing organization-wide support are included. Group decision and negotiation refers to the whole process or flow of activities relevant to group decision and negotiation, not only to the final choice itself, e.g. scanning, communication and information sharing, problem definition (representation) and evolution, alternative generation and social-emotional interaction. Descriptive, normative and design viewpoints are of interest. Thus, Group Decision and Negotiation deals broadly with relation and coordination in group processes. Areas of application include intraorganizational coordination (as in operations management and integrated design, production, finance, marketing and distribution, e.g. as in new products and global coordination), computer supported collaborative work, labor-management negotiations, interorganizational negotiations, (business, government and nonprofits -- e.g. joint ventures), international (intercultural) negotiations, environmental negotiations, etc. The journal also covers developments of software f or group decision and negotiation.
期刊最新文献
GAN-Based Privacy-Preserving Intelligent Medical Consultation Decision-Making UCD–CE Integration: A Hybrid Approach to Reinforcing User Involvement in Systems Requirements Elicitation and Analysis Tasks Fostering Psychological Safety in Global Virtual Teams: The Role of Team-Based Interventions and Digital Reminder Nudges Advancing Content Synthesis in Macro-Task Crowdsourcing Facilitation Leveraging Natural Language Processing On the Combinatorial Acceptability Entropy Consensus Metric for Multi-Criteria Group Decisions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1