Aïdin Sumic, Emna Amdouni, Thierry Vidal, & Hedi Karray. (2022). Towards Flexibility Sharing in Multi-agent Dynamic Planning: The Case of the Health Crisis. In Rob Grace, & Hossein Baharmand (Eds.), ISCRAM 2022 Conference Proceedings – 19th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (pp. 274–284). Tarbes, France.
Abstract: Planning problems in a crisis context are a highly uncertain environment where health facilities must cooperate in providing health services to their patients. We focus on the health crisis in France due to the COVID19 pandemic. In fact, the lack of appropriate scheduling tools, resources, and communication leads hospitals to be submerged by infected patients and forced to transfer them to other hospitals. In this work we aim to provide a global solution to such planning problems to improve the current French health system. We introduce a cooperative approach called OPPIC (Operational Planning Platform for Inter-healthcare Coordination). OPPIC is based on a decentralized system, where health facilities plan is dynamic, flexible, robust to uncertainty, and respond to goals and optimization criteria. This paper proposed a first planning model to OPPIC and provided a first way of negotiation between health facilities based on their plan’s local and global flexibility.
|
Catherine Lowry Campbell, Fadi Deek, Murray Turoff, & Bartel A. Van De Walle. (2004). Measuring consensus and conflict among stakeholders in emergency response information system requirements negotiations. In B. C. B. Van de Walle (Ed.), Proceedings of ISCRAM 2004 – 1st International Workshop on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (pp. 121–126). Brussels: Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium.
Abstract: This paper introduces the experimental design we developed for the analysis of asynchronous negotiations among five different stakeholders as they work towards consensus on the functional system requirements that are needed for a common emergency response information system. We present three analytical preference models to measure the evolving consensus and conflict among the stakeholders as they modify their preferences during the negotiation. We illustrate the use of these techniques for obtaining a detailed understanding of the negotiation dynamics among the stakeholders. © Proceedings ISCRAM 2004.
|
Catherine Lowry Campbell, Bartel A. Van De Walle, & Fadi P. Deek. (2005). Asynchronous negotiation and collaboration of software requirements for an emergency response information system: An empirical investigation. In B. C. B. Van de Walle (Ed.), Proceedings of ISCRAM 2005 – 2nd International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management (pp. 5–11). Brussels: Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium.
Abstract: Negotiation and collaboration during the requirements stage of the software engineering process are fundamental to developing successful software products. Groups of stakeholders work together to come to agreement on the most important requirements to be sent forward for implementation. Distributed software engineering is becoming the norm rather than the exception, yet the requirements elicitation and definition process is normally conducted face to face. This paper describes an empirical study to investigate the relationship between structured task and specified negotiation steps within an asynchronous environment. The results reveal that these structures can have a positive impact on solution quality but a negative impact on process satisfaction, although following a negotiation sequence and task structure can help asynchronous groups come to agreement faster. Details of the experimental procedures, statistical analysis, and discussion of the results of the experiment are presented, as are suggestions for improving this work and a plan for future research.
|
Alexander Smirnov, Tatiana Levashova, & Nikolay Shilov. (2010). Ubiquitous computing in emergency: Profile-based situation response. In C. Zobel B. T. S. French (Ed.), ISCRAM 2010 – 7th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management: Defining Crisis Management 3.0, Proceedings. Seattle, WA: Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management, ISCRAM.
Abstract: Ubiquitous computing opens new possibilities to various aspects of human activities. The paper proposes an approach to emergency situation response that benefits of the ubiquitous computing. The approach is based on utilizing profiles to facilitate the coordination of the activities of the emergency response operation members. The major idea behind the approach is to represent the operation members together with information sources as a network of services that can be configured via negotiation of participating parties. Such elements as profile structure, information source model and negotiation protocol are described in detail.
|
Willem Van Santen, Catholijn M. Jonker, & Niek Wijngaards. (2009). Crisis decision making through a shared integrative negotiation mental model. In S. J. J. Landgren (Ed.), ISCRAM 2009 – 6th International Conference on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management: Boundary Spanning Initiatives and New Perspectives. Gothenburg: Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management, ISCRAM.
Abstract: Decision making during crises takes place in (multi-agency) teams, in a bureaucratic political context. As a result, the common notion that during crises decision making should be done in line with a Command & Control structure is invalid. This paper shows that the best way for crisis decision making teams in a bureaucratic political context is to follow an integrative negotiation approach as the shared mental model of decision making. This conclusion is based on an analysis of crisis decision making by teams in a bureaucratic political context. First of all this explains why in a bureaucratic political context the Command & Control adage does not hold. Secondly, this paper motivates why crisis decision making in such context can be seen as a negotiation process. Further analysis of the given context shows that an assertive and cooperative approach suits crisis decision making best.
|