Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide a feature‐based characterization of version control systems (VCSs), providing an overview about the state‐of‐the‐art of versioning systems dedicated to modeling artifacts.

Based on a literature study of existing approaches, a description of the features of versioning systems is established. Special focus is set on three‐way merging which is an integral component of optimistic versioning. This characterization is employed on current model versioning systems, which allows the derivation of challenges in this research area.

The results of the evaluation show that several challenges need to be addressed in future developments of VCSs and merging tools in order to allow the parallel development of model artifacts.

Making model‐driven engineering (MDE) a success requires supporting the parallel development of model artifacts as is done nowadays for text‐based artifacts. Therefore, model versioning capabilities are a must for leveraging MDE in practice.

The paper gives a comprehensive overview of collaboration features of VCSs for software engineering artifacts in general, discusses the state‐of‐the‐art of systems for model artifacts, and finally, lists urgent challenges, which have to be considered in future model versioning system for realizing MDE in practice.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a complete theory of grey conflict analysis model based on grey game and the graph model for conflict resolution and also, to illustrate a case of “prisoner's dilemma” in the traditional grey game as an example.

Based on the theories of grey game and graph model for conflict resolution, this paper concentrates on the model of grey conflict analysis in a case of two players under the condition of symmetrical loss information. By analyzing decision makers, strategies, states, graph model and grey potential, and the number of decision makers' steps, the pure strategy Nash equilibrium is extended to grey potential‐general metarationality, grey potential‐symmetrical metarationality, and grey potential‐sequential stability. Meanwhile, the logical relationships between solutions are discussed. A specific case study is carried out to illustrate how the proposed grey conflict analysis model is used in practice.

The results in this paper indicate that more stable solutions are found when one considers the grey potential‐general metarationality, the grey potential‐symmetrical metarationality, and the grey potential‐sequential stability, and then solve the paradox of “prisoner's dilemma”.

This new grey conflict analysis model could be used to provide useful information for policy makers during existing conflicts or negotiations among parties or enterprises.

The paper succeeds in constructing a new grey conflict analysis model, in which the solution concepts are studied; and the two‐player grey game will be extended to n‐players in the near future.

The purpose of this paper is to propose a strategic conflict analysis, based on the graph model for conflict resolution (GMCR), that is applied to information technology outsourcing (ITO) in a real-world software development and implementation process in Brazil.

Because the idea of this study is to answer “why” the ITO conflicts occur and “how” they can be avoided, the case study methodology was adopted. The software GMCR II was used to analyze the interactions between an IT vendor and an IT client.

The results suggest that a lack of relational governance is a critical issue that could be handled to improve the interaction between those involved.

The main results are restricted to the case study and cannot be generalized. Moreover, a specific limitation of this paper pertains to the use of the GMCR and the consequent difficulty for IT vendors and IT clients to work with a large number of actions and to set preferences for several states of conflict.

The strategic analysis of outsourcing conflicts provides a holistic view of the current situation that may assist the client and vendor in future decisions and identify guidelines to ensure successful ITO. Therefore, this paper provides an effective guide for clients and vendors to better manage conflicts and establish a contingency vision to avoid such disputes.

The ITO conflict is analyzed using the GMCR, considering both perspectives of the outsourcing process (vendors and clients).

The 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.

The 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.

The 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.

A 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.

The 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.

In 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.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the extent to which formal logic can be applied to conflict analysis and resolution. It is motivated by the idea that conflicts can be understood as inconsistent sets of interests.

A simple propositional model, based on propositional logic, which can be used to analyze conflicts, has been introduced and four algorithms have been presented to generate possible solutions to a conflict. The model is illustrated by applying it to the conflict between the Obama administration and the Syrian Government in September 2013 over the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons programme.

The author shows how different solutions, such as compromises, minimally invasive solutions or solutions compatible with certain pre-defined norms, can be generated by the model. It is shown how the model can operate in situations where the game-theoretic model fails due to a lack of information about the parties’ utility values.

The model can be used as a theoretical framework for future experimental research and/or to trace the course of particular conflict scenarios.

The model can be used as the basis for building software applications for conflict resolution practitioners, such as negotiators or mediators.

While the idea of using logic to analyse the structure of conflicts and generate possible solutions is not new to the field of conflict studies, the model presented in this paper provides a novel way of understanding conflicts for both researchers and practitioners.

This paper aims to develop a Petri net model for analyzing the quality conflict and its resolution of a complex product. The result aims to assist decision makers (DMs) to properly select their activities when a quality conflict has happened.

According to the features of Petri net and conflict analysis theory, a novel Petri net for conflict analysis (PNCA) is designed which contains transition and preference labels to describe DMs' decision activities and profit comparisons. Additionally, a generating approach is proposed, which can help DMs to construct a PNCA. Furthermore, based on players' bounded rationality, the equilibrium of PNCA is studied to provide scientific supports for DMs' decision‐making. A case study on an aircraft production system is conducted to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of the new model, which furnishes a fresh perspective on the supply chain quality management of a complex product.

A new methodology is proposed for the domain of conflict analysis, which is easier to understand and improves the operation efficiency. What is more important, DMs can clearly be aware of their following choices according to the corresponding transition information.

The paper contributes to conflict analysis theory by designing a new model and develops a new graph model for managing the supply chain quality of a complex product.

A flexible decision technology called the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR) is applied to a generic aquaculture conflict to illustrate how GMCR can be used to systematically investigate a wide range of conflicts arising in aquaculture in order to obtain meaningful strategic insights and thereby assist in making informed decisions in aquaculture development. To emphasize the importance of being able to resolve aquaculture controversies, a review of the global economic impacts of the aquaculture industry is provided and the key stakeholders who may be involved in aquaculture disputes along with their legitimate interests are identified. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The GMCR methodology comprises two main stages: modeling and analysis. During the modeling stage, key decision makers (DMs), the options under each DM’s control and each DM’s relative preferences over feasible states are identified based on a thorough background investigation to a given dispute. Within the analysis stage, solution concepts that describe key characteristics of human behavior under conflict are utilized to determine resolutions that could occur when DMs interact under pure competition and cooperatively. Interpretation of the equilibrium results provides meaningful strategic insights for better understanding which strategies a given DM could select as the conflict evolves over time.

The results demonstrate how difficult it can be to balance the interests of different key stakeholders in aquaculture development. In all possible resolutions identified in the generic aquaculture conflict, at least two DMs among First Nations, environmental group and residents (Res) would object to the expansion of aquaculture activities due to the assumption that the government would choose to appease one stakeholder at a time. They also reflect the need for a useful tool box of decision technologies for addressing the vast range of challenges that could arise in the important area of marine economics and management.

The GMCR methodology possesses several unique and key original capabilities in comparison to other conflict analysis models. First, it only requires limited information to calibrate a conflict model. Second, it contains a number of solution concepts that describe how a DM could think and behave under conflict. Third, it furnishes a range of informative output, follow-up analyses and advice for use in real-life decision support. Finally, all of the foregoing advantages of GMCR can be contained within decision support systems that permit practitioners and researchers to readily apply the GMCR methodology to real-life conflicts.

The sustainable development of the energy–economy–environment (3E) needs to ensure the balanced interplay between the energy–economy and the environment. Likewise, creating such balance has become a critical policy issue among countries worldwide. However, in the past, studies have ignored to create a balanced interplay of the energy–economy and environment. Therefore, to address said research gap, this paper aims to develop a graph model for conflict resolution (GMCR)-based strategy for the sustainable development of the 3E to ensure better environmental quality.

To develop a strategic framework for the balanced interplay between the energy–economy and the environment, the study used the GMCR approach and designed a mechanism for the sustainable development of the 3E to ensure better environmental quality in the context of Pakistan.

The results from the GMCR indicate that sustainable development of the 3E to ensure better environmental quality is possible when government focuses on the sustainable growth of the economy through environmental policies and the use of renewable energy.

By solving the 3E conflict, this study provides policy insights for the government of Pakistan for the sustainable development of the energy economy and the environment to ensure better environmental quality in the country.

For the first time, this paper tried to put forward a way through which conflicting objectives can be achieved together for the sustainable development of the 3E to ensure better environmental quality.

Stakeholder management in the form of public engagement in urban planning and infrastructure project impact assessments have become increasingly prevailing. However, the exercise may involve some complex socio‐economic considerations and critical conflict analysis/resolution scenarios. Without a scientific approach, it is difficult to distil a resolution from the chaotic public opinions, especially in those highly controversial issues. This paper proposes the use of conflict analysis to screen out the resolution in a scientific manner.

This study uses a case of harbor‐front design in Hong Kong to illustrate how the analysis was carried out to accomplish the objectives.

The example has illustrated that the conflict analysis has helped resolve a set of major issues in the Hong Kong harbor‐front redevelopment.

The introduction of a structured conflict analysis framework for the government to systematically deal with the conflicting viewpoints from different parties (such as general public and other stakeholders) has been demonstrated, which can be used to map systematically the different viewpoints collected in the public engagement exercise. The results are more convincing and more likely to be acceptable by all the stakeholders.

Japan's decision to release nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean in 2023 has sparked strong opposition at home and abroad. In this study, Graph Model for Conflict Resolution (GMCR) method is adopted to analyze the conflict problem, and reasonable equilibrium solutions are given to solve the conflict event.

In this study, GMCR is adopted to solve the conflict problem. First, identify the key decision-makers (DMs) on the issue of nuclear effluent and the relevant options they might adopt. Second, the options of each DM are arranged and combined to form a set of feasible states. Thirdly, the graph model is constructed according to the change of DM's options, and the relative preference of each DM is determined. Finally, the conflict problem is solved according to the definition of GMCR equilibrium.

Discharging nuclear wastewater into the ocean is not the right choice to solve the problem. Developing more space to store nuclear wastewater is more conducive to the protection of the ocean environment.

It is undesirable for the Japanese government to unilaterally discharge nuclear wastewater into the ocean. Objectively assessing the radioactivity of nuclear wastewater and the cooperation of relevant stakeholders can better solve this conflict.

The problem arising from Japan's releasing plan is complicated because of a lack of information and the existence of multiple stakeholders, while GMCR can help us with a better view of the current circumstance in the conflict.