Advise | Design | Integrate | Deliver

One to One Negotiation of Sailor Assignments

May 6, 2008

2

Evolving Assignment/Distribution Process

InnovationSailors Commands

Innovation to Enhance

Effectiveness

Confidence

Satisfaction

Unmatched Sailors

1-to-1 Negotiation

3

Purpose & Features of the Process

PURPOSE: To provide the capability for a Sailor who is not matched to a job in the generalized Web-Based Marketplace process to negotiate directly with a command within the system.

Command and Sailor Actions:

– Identify incentives on which to negotiate: Importance Opening offer/bid Upper and Lower Bounds

– Establish negotiation strategy

Negotiation conducted by electronic “agents”

4

Negotiation Incentives

Incentive Description Units

Reporting Date/Leave Days after command desired reporting date and related leave

Days

Incentive Pay Dollars paid by command to Sailor each month Dollars/month

Resident Leader Training Duty days available for resident phase of leader training

Days

Tuition Assistance Percent of difference between actual tuition cost and formal reimbursement paid by command

Percent (%)

5

Negotiation Incentive Importance

Score Meaning

0 Not Considered

1 Minimally Important

2 Slightly Important

3 Important

4 Highly Important

5 Critically Important

6

Opening Offer and Bid

Incentive

Command Sailor

Imp Offer Bound Imp Bid Bound

Reporting Date & Related Leave (Days)

2 5 days 10 days 0 0 days 0 days

Incentive Pay ($) 3 $100 $175 4 $250 $200

Resident Leader Training (Days)

2 10 days 20 days 5 15 days 10 days

Tuition Assistance (%) 3 50% 75% 5 75% 50%

Examine:

•Override Level

•Protected Incentives

7

Negotiation Incentive Measures

Incentive Range Command Cost Sailor Value

Reporting Date

&

Related Leave

(Days)

0 0.00

= Cmd Offer/Sailor Goal1 - 10 0.33

11 - 20 0.67

21 – 30 1.00

Incentive Pay ($) 0 to Command Max = Sailor Bid/Cmd Max = Cmd Offer/Sailor Goal

Resident

Leader

Training

(Days)

0 0.00

= Cmd Offer/Sailor Goal

1 - 5 0.25

6 - 10 0.50

11 - 15 0.75

16 - 20 1.00

Tuition Assistance (%) 0 to Command Max = Sailor Bid/Cmd Max = Cmd Offer/Sailor Goal

8

Opening Positions - Offer and Bid

Command Cost Perspective Sailor Value Perspective

Command Offer Sailor Bid Command Offer Sailor Bid

Imp Wt Offer Cost Score Bid Cost Score Imp Wt Offer Value Score Bid Value Score

Date & Leave

2 .20 5 .33 .066 0 .00 .000 0 .00 5 .00 .000 0 1.00 .00

Incen

Pay

3 .30 100 .58 .174 250 1.43 .429 4 .28 100 .40 .114 250 1.00 .286

Trng 2 .20 10 .50 .100 15 .75 .150 5 .36 10 .67 .238 15 1.00 .357

Tuition 3 .30 50 .67 .201 75 1.00 .300 5 .36 50 .67 .238 75 1.00 .357

Offer Cost .541 Bid Cost .879 Offer Value .590 Bid Value

1.00

9

Negotiation Strategy – In Concept

NextCommand

Offer=

Previous Command

Offer+

Previous Sailor

Bid-

Previous Command

Offerα

NextSailorBid

=Previous

Sailor Bid

- Previous Sailor

Bid

Previous Command

Offerα -

Command Adjustment or

Strategy

Sailor Adjustment or

Strategy

10

Negotiation Strategy – Example

Cmd1 = 100 + αci(250-100)

Slr1 = 250 – αsi(250-100)

αi(t) = (t/T)1/β

Incentive Pay Example

# of Iteration

Maximum Iterations in Negotiation

Constant that determines Adjustment

11

Effect of β on Negotiation

α(t) = (t/T)1/β

CONCESSION FOR VARIOUS BETA VALUES

0.00000

0.20000

0.40000

0.60000

0.80000

1.00000

1.20000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

ITERATION #

CO

NC

ES

SIO

N

Beta=10 Beta=2 Beta=1 Beta=.5 Beta=.1

12

First Iteration of Negotiation - Example

Incentives

Command β = 1, α = .0500 Sailor β = 10, α = .7411

Opening Offer

Offer 1 Bound Check

Opening Bid

Bid 1 Bound Check

Reporting Date/Leave

5 days 0 days 0 days (10 days)

0 days 0 days 0 days (0 days)

Incentive Pay $100 $108 $108 ($175)

$250 $139 $200 ($200)

Leader Training

10 days 10 days 10 days (20 days)

15 days 11 days 11 days (10 days)

Tuition Assistance

50% 51% 51% (75%)

75% 56% 56% (50%)

13

Provisions to Preserve Fairness

Negotiation Strategy (β)

– Administrator limits range of β

– Help screens on impact of β

– Strategy selected via a graphic “slider” with descriptors of impact

Negotiation Process:

– Bound check

– Rules for Sailor incentives that must be satisfied Based on indicated importance of incentives Included in “feasibility” check prior to start of negotiation

14

Additional Information & Questions

15

Selecting Negotiation Strategy

1. Administrator determines maximum adjustment on first iteration

2. Adjustment converted to maximum β (solve α(1) = (1/T)1/β for β )

3. Maximum β becomes right endpoint of slider β

4. β -1 becomes left endpoint of slider

5. Intermediate slider values are β raised to powers from -1 to 1

Example

Max 1st Iteration adjustment = .6 β = 5

5-1 = .20 50 = 1.0 51 = 5.0

Aggressive Concessive

“Slider from which β values are selected

16

Determining Protected Incentives

Equal importance scores for all incentives:

Determining number of incentives to be met:

Identifying which incentives to be met:

– Form ratios of: (lower bound)/(initial bid) for each incentive i.

– Order the ratios from greatest to smallest.– Select the appropriate incentives to be met

based on the number of incentives to be met.

One or more unequal importance scores:

Calculate (incentive scorei)2/(maximum incentive score) for each incentive i.

If (incentive score)2/(maximum incentive score) > 1.0, incentive is to be satisfied.

Importance Score

Calculation Logic

# Incentives to be Met in

Example

1 1/5 = .20 0

2 2/5 = .40 1

3 3/5 = .60 2

4 4/5 = .80 3

5 5/5 = 1.0 4