Contract clause negotiation by game theory

Burato, Elisa; Cristani, Matteo

doi:10.1145/1276318.1276332

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The paper may have relevance to project management scenarios, but this is not very clear at the outset, and the paper does not delve into practical examples which are necessarily time bound, since the author is under no constraint to specify whether the scenarios are relevant to project management or not. Burato and Christani (2007) [95] present a zero-sum bargaining game to model the meaning negotiation problem in formal contract negotiation. Again, this could have applications to project management but a project management example per se is not presented, and the authors, under being no constraint to do so, do not clarify whether their modelling is relevant to project management scenarios.…”

Section: Papers Relevant To Project Management But Not Explicitly Setmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applications of Game Theory in Project Management: A Structured Review and Analysis

Piraveenan

2019

Mathematics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides a structured literature review and analysis of using game theory to model project management scenarios. We select and review thirty-two papers from Scopus, present a complex three-dimensional classification of the selected papers, and analyse the resultant citation network. According to the industry-based classification, the surveyed literature can be classified in terms of construction industry, ICT industry or unspecified industry. Based on the types of players, the literature can be classified into papers that use government-contractor games, contractor–contractor games, contractor-subcontractor games, subcontractor–subcontractor games or games involving other types of players. Based on the type of games used, papers using normal-form non-cooperative games, normal-form cooperative games, extensive-form non-cooperative games or extensive-form cooperative games are present. Also, we show that each of the above classifications plays a role in influencing which papers are likely to cite a particular paper, though the strongest influence is exerted by the type-of-game classification. Overall, the citation network in this field is sparse, implying that the awareness of authors in this field about studies by other academics is suboptimal. Our review suggests that game theory is a very useful tool for modelling project management scenarios, and that more work needs to be done focusing on project management in ICT domain, as well as by using extensive-form cooperative games where relevant.

show abstract

Section: Papers Relevant To Project Management But Not Explicitly Setmentioning

confidence: 99%

Applications of Game Theory in Project Management: A Structured Review and Analysis

Piraveenan

2019

Mathematics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Only a few works, however, have considered MN as a process; for instance, [11,5] deal with MN as an ontology alignment process, and [13,8,1,14,2] deal with negotiation issues from the point of view of game theory. In particular, a MN between two agents is similar to a Bargaining Game [10], i.e., the game in which two agents have to share, say, one dollar and do this by each making a proposal.…”

Section: Introduction: Context and Contributionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Deduction System for Meaning Negotiation

Burato

Cristani

Viganò

2011

Declarative Agent Languages and Technologies VIII

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Meaning negotiation (MN) is the general process with which agents reach an agreement about the meaning of a set of terms. We give here a general model of MN for two agents, in which each agent discusses with the other one her viewpoint by exhibiting it in an actual set of constraints on the meaning of the negotiated terms. We call this presentation of individual viewpoints an angle. The two agents do not aim at forming a common viewpoint but, instead, at agreeing about an acceptable common angle. We formalize the process of reaching such an agreement by giving a deduction system that comprises of rules that are consistent and adequate for representing MN.

show abstract

Meaning Negotiation with Defeasible Logic

Cristani

Rotolo

2017

Agent and Multi-Agent Systems: Technology and Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contract clause negotiation by game theory

Cited by 6 publications

References 22 publications

Applications of Game Theory in Project Management: A Structured Review and Analysis

Applications of Game Theory in Project Management: A Structured Review and Analysis

A Deduction System for Meaning Negotiation

Meaning Negotiation with Defeasible Logic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About