University of Toronto Department of Computer Science Lecture 11 Agreeing Requirements Last Last Week Week Validating ValidatingRequirements Requirements Philosophical PhilosophicalIssues Issues Reviews Reviewsand andInspections Inspections Prototyping Prototyping This This Week Week Agreeing Agreeing Requirements Requirements Negotiation Negotiationand andConflict ConflictResolution Resolution Requirements RequirementsPrioritization Prioritization Next Next Week Week Evolving EvolvingRequirements Requirements Change Changemanagement management Inconsistency Inconsistencymanagement management Feature FeatureInteraction Interaction Product ProductFamilies Families 2000 2003 Steve Easterbrook University of Toronto 1 Department of Computer Science Conflict Resolution basics Defining Conflict In Social psychology focus is on interdependence and perception the interaction of interdependent people who perceive opposition of goals aims and values and who see the other party as potentially interfering with the realization of these goals Putnam Poole 1987 In RE focus typically is on logical inconsistency E g conflict is a divergence between goals there is a feasible boundary condition that makes the goals inconsistent van Lamsweerde et al 1998 Note conflict may occur between individuals groups organizations or different roles played by one person Resolution Method The approach used to settle a conflict Methods include negotiation competition arbitration coercion and education Not all conflicts need a resolution method not all conflicts need to be resolved Three broad types of resolution method can be distinguished Co operative or collaborative methods which include negotiation and education Competitive methods which include combat coercion and competition Third Party methods which include arbitration and appeals to authority 2000 2003 Steve Easterbrook 2 1 University of Toronto Department of Computer Science Basic approaches to conflict resolution Negotiation is collaborative exploration participants appeal to outside source participants attempt to find a settlement that satisfies all parties as much as possible the rule book a figure of authority or the toss of a coin can occur with the breakdown of either negotiation or competition as resolution methods also known as integrative behaviour constructive negotiation types of third party resolution judicial cases presented by each participant are taken into account extra judicial a decision is determined by factors other than the cases presented e g relative status of participants arbitrary e g toss of a coin distinct from distributive competitive negotiation Competition is maximizing your own gain no regard for the degree of satisfaction of other parties but not necessarily hostile Extreme form when all gains by one party are at the expense of others I e a zero sum game Third Party Resolution Bidding and Bargaining Bidding participants state their desired terms Bargaining participants search for a satisfactory integration of bids 2000 2003 Steve Easterbrook University of Toronto 3 Department of Computer Science Conflict in Social Psychology Causes of Conflict Deutsch 1973 control over resources preferences and nuisances tastes or activities of one party impinge upon another values a claim that a value or set of values should dominate beliefs dispute over facts information reality etc the nature of the relationship between the parties Robbins 1989 communicational insufficient exchange of information noise selective perception structural goal compatibility jurisdictional clarity leadership style personal factors individual value systems personality characteristics Interesting Results deviant behaviour conflict are normal in small group decision making more aggression and less co operation when communication is restricted a decrease in communication tends to intensify a conflict the contact hypothesis heterogeneous teams experience more conflict homogeneous groups are more likely to make high risk decisions groupthink effect of personality is overshadowed by situational and perceptual factors 2000 2003 Steve Easterbrook 4 2 University of Toronto Department of Computer Science A and B combined B Other party s satisfaction Our satisfaction Our satisfaction mutually exclusive A and B combined A For Fortwo twoinitial initial positions positions AAand andB B we can measure we can measurethe the severity severityof ofconflict conflict by byexamining examiningwhat what happens happenswhen whenwe we combine combinethem them A A and B combined B interfering Other party s satisfaction Our satisfaction Our satisfaction Severity of Conflict A A inclusive noninterfering B B Other party s satisfaction Other party s satisfaction 2000 2003 Steve Easterbrook 5 University of Toronto Department of Computer Science Classification of Social Conflict Adapted from Dahrendorf 1958 Equal vs equal Superordinate vs subordinate Whole vs part Roles 1 family role vs occupational role 2 occupational role vs union role 3 social personality vs family role Groups 4 boys vs girls in school class 5 father vs children 6 nuclear family vs extended family Sectors 7 air force vs army 8 management vs union 9 Department vs University Societies 10 Protestants vs Catholics 11 free men vs slaves 12 state vs criminal gang Suprasocietal relations 13 soviet bloc vs western bloc 14 Soviet Union vs Hungary 15 Common Market vs UK Social Units 2000 2003 Steve Easterbrook 6 3 University of Toronto Department of Computer Science Classifying approaches to resolution Quadrant I Generate Adapted from McGrath 1984 Pla Type nnin 1 gT ask s Inte Type llec 3 tive Tas ks Deciding Issues w No right answer e4 Typ aking M ion ks is c s De Ta s r ta form Per moto cho psy Con Type t Com ests 7 Ba pet itiv ttles eT ask s Quadrant IV Execute Resolving Conflicts of Power e6 Typ otive M edMix Tasks Conflict Quadrant II Choose Executing Performance Tasks e8 Typ nces s a k Typ Co e 5 Con gnitiv e flic tT ask s Solving Problems w Correct Answers Generating Plans s e2 Typ y Task it ativ Cre Cooperation Generating Ideas Resolving Conflicts Resolving Conflicts of Viewpoint of Interest Quadrant III Negotiate Conceptual Behavioural 2000 2003 Steve Easterbrook 7 University of Toronto Department of Computer Science Game Theory Game Theory for conflict resolution Given 2 or more players known utilities for each outcome for each player Can Calculate what strategy results in the better outcome how strategies by different