Conflict Resolution In the case of Trans Graph Metro Bandung by Integrating Graph Method for Conflict Resolution (GMCR) and Value Net
A conflict, from mere difference of opinion to deadly confrontations, is inevitable in human life. The decision makers (DM) must acknowledge and define the conflict situation so that the conflict can be managed. Frames are highly relevant to conflict management. Frames are the lenses through which the DMs view a conflict situation. DMs use frames to help them to understand why the conflict exists, what actions are important in the conflict, why the other DMs act as they do, and how they should act in response. In order to achieve a win‐win solution for all DMs, it is important for the DMs or mediators to be able to compare the resolution conditions that might be achieved from several possible frames.
This study aims to propose a model that can help DMs or mediator to choose a frame that can give resolution with optimum added value for all involving parties. The proposed model will be referred to as the Co‐Opetitive Framing Model for Conflict Resolution. Conflict that occurs in the implementation of the Trans Metro Bandung (TMB) is discussed in this study. TMB is a mass transportation mode that was built as an alternative solution for the congestion in Bandung city. Unfortunately, TMB implementation also became a source of conflict especially with the existing public transportation providers. The conflict involves Bandung City Transportation Department, DAMRI, ORGANDA, Ministry of Transportation and the Bandung Society. The conflict arises mainly because the current public transportation providers consider the TMB as their competitor. While some transportation experts in Indonesia have proposed an alternative frame for the conflict, however, DMs in this conflict are reluctant to change their frame because they do not believe that by using this alternative frame they could get higher added value.
Co‐opetition is a framework that can help DMs to make changes to the game in play. However, this framework is very abstract. In a conflict, Co‐opetition framework can be used to frame the role and position of each DM, however, cannot describe the resolution state that can be obtained from a frame and how the resolution state can be achieved. On the other hand, GMCR is a powerful model in describing dynamics in a conflict. By using stability analysis, GMCR can identify the stable states which are potential resolution states for a conflict. However, states which are the basis of analysis on GMCR are not quantified so that, it is not possible to compare the resolution states that are obtained from a frame with the resolution states from other frames. SMART in this case is a process that can be used to quantify the states in a conflict. The model proposed in this study attempt to combine these three approaches.
Each of iteration in this model begins by identifying a frame which is consists of role and position of each DM in the conflict. This stage was conducted by doing literature review, field observation and expert interview. In this study, two possible frames were identified. The first frame is called the existing frame, in which all DMs use their current perspective toward the conflict situation. The second frame is called the alternative frame, in which the DMs collaborate to create an integrated public transportation mode with Angkot become feeder for TMB buses. In the second stage, options owned by each DM are identified. DMs are then asked to assign weights to represent the importance of each option and the payoff when each option is adopted and is rejected. This stage was carried out by doing interview and survey to all DMs. Based on the combination of whether an option is adopted or rejected, a number of possible states are generated. These states are then reduced in order to obtain feasible states and the aggregate benefit that can be obtained from each feasible state was the calculated. Based on the aggregate benefit value, the preferences of each DM toward the feasible states are arranged. The next step is to conduct stability analysis to obtain stable states in each frame. The stability analysis was conducted based on the stability concepts in the GMCR. Once the entire possible frame identified, the added value of each stable state in all frames is calculated. The added value of a frame was calculated as the difference between the aggregate benefit of the resolution state and the aggregate benefit of the status quo. Then, the added values of all stable states are compared with each other so that, frame that has a stable state with the highest added value can be identified.
In Trans Metro Bandung conflict case that is discussed in this study, it was concluded that the state 1 of the existing frame can provide the optimum total added value for all DMs. In this state, the TMB program is implemented on condition that Bandung City Transportation Agency meet all the demands put forward by ORGANDA such that, they will not conduct strikes and demonstrations anymore. In this state, TMB program carried out without adding infrastructure such that, Bandung City Transportation Agency no longer need to ask for assistance to the Ministry of Transportation. In addition, DAMRI remains one investor for TMB program thus DAMRI’s revenue decline can be compensated from the results of this investment. However, if Bandung City Transportation Agency as a company want to optimize the added value for itself, it is better for them to convince other DMs to adopt alternative frames and, direct the evolution of conflict toward state 8 in the alternative frame. In this state, TMB buses are not using the buses owned by DAMRI, the TMB buses are not functioned as tour buses, TMB keep using the same route with angkot and ORGANDA not become feeders for the TMB. While in this state, ministry of transportation does not provide investment to DAMRI however, DAMRI still doing merger with Bandung City Transportation Agency, which means that cooperation between the two companies are not only limited to the maintenance and operation of the TMB bus.
Although this proposed model has several benefits for DMs, this model still has some weaknesses. One weakness of this model is the identification process of payoffs and weights in the alternate frames. Alternative frame is a scenario that has not happened so, the weighting and payoff assigning process for each state in the alternative frame involves subjectivity and estimation from each DM. In addition, this model also inherits the weakness of its components for example, the simplicity SMART. Further researches are needed to improve this model and reduce its weaknesses and bias.
Figure 1. DAMRI bus
Figure 2. Angkot on the Road
LIST OF RESEARCH OUTPUT
1) Alamanda, Dini Turipanam. “Mau Dibawa Kemana TMB Ini?” Pikiran Rakyat, April 28th 2010
2) Hermawan ,Pri; Alamanda, Dini Turipanam; Putro, Utomo Sarjono; Utomo, Dhanan Sarwo “Trans Metro Bandung Conflict Resolution Using Graph Model for Conflict Resolution and Value Net Of Coopetition”, Proceedings Pan‐Pacific Conference XXVII, 31 May‐ 2 June, Bali, Indonesia.
3) Alamanda, Dini Turipanam; Putro, Utomo Sarjono; Hermawan ,Pri; Utomo, Dhanan Sarwo “Model Grafik dengan Rating Multi Atribut (GMMR) dalam Resolusi Konflik Trans Metro Bandung” (Submitted to Jurnal Manajemen Teknologi).
4) Putro, Utomo Sarjono Alamanda, Dini Turipanam; Hermawan, Pri; Utomo, Dhanan Sarwo “Co‐Opetitive Framing Model for Conflict Resolution Case: TMB Conflict” (Submitted to Journal of System Science and System Engineering).
5) Putro, Utomo Sarjono Alamanda, Dini Turipanam; Hermawan, Pri; Utomo, Dhanan Sarwo, “Analisa Konflik Trans Metro Bandung”, (presented to Tans Metro Bandung Division, Dinas Perhubungan Kota Bandung)
HEAD OF RESEARCH TEAM: Dr. Ir. Utomo Sarjono Putro, M.Eng
TEAM MEMBERS: Dr. Pri Hermawan, S.T, M.T, Dr. Yos Sunitiyoso, S.T, M.Eng, Dhanan Sarwo Utomo, S.Si, MSM, Dini Turipanam Alamanda, STP, MSM, Intan Sherlin, S.Si, Ivan Prasetya, S.E, Shimaditya Nuraeni, S.Psi, Qonita Hidayatullah, S.Si, Devilia Sari, S.T, Ubaidillah Zuhdi, S.T
OFFICIAL ADDRESS: School of Business and Management, Jl. Ganesha No. 10, Bandung 40132, Telp Fax (022)2531923,