---
id: "entity-mit-d11"
type: "entity"
entityType: "organization"
canonicalName: "MIT"
aliases: ["Massachusetts Institute of Technology"]
source_timestamps: ["§ How Companies Are Using Agentic AI to Negotiate"]
tags: ["academia", "ai-research"]
related: ["concept-agentic-ai-negotiation", "question-ai-negotiation-ceiling"]
sources: ["ecosystem"]
sourceVaultSlug: "hbr-seg-ecosystem"
originDay: 11
articleStem: "hbr-nm-103-big-companies-negotiate-deals"
sourceUrl: "https://hbr.org/2026/01/why-big-companies-struggle-to-negotiate-great-deals"
sourceTitle: "Why Big Companies Struggle to Negotiate Great Deals"
---
# MIT

**Role in this source:** Cited as host of a **2025 AI Negotiation Competition** in which (per the article) over 200 AI agents competed in multi-issue scenarios, proving bots can reach agreements and that strategy significantly affects value creation — evidence for [[concept-agentic-ai-negotiation]].

**Profile:** Research university; hosts extensive AI and economics work, including automated-negotiation research.

**Enrichment caveat — important:** As of 2024 there is **no public record of a 'MIT 2025 AI Negotiation Competition' with 200+ agents** under that name. The real, documented analogue is the long-running **Automated Negotiating Agents Competition (ANAC)**, which does demonstrate that AI agents can reach agreements and that strategy shapes outcomes. Treat the specific MIT-competition claim as unverified; the underlying point about bot feasibility stands on ANAC-style evidence. Related open question: [[question-ai-negotiation-ceiling]].