Bacchus Winery

This week we negotiated Bacchus Winery. Sharae and I were representatives from Serbian Steins & Stems. Our negotiation was interest based because we began by stating which issues were our top three most important. We quickly realized that the stock ownership was the most important issue for everyone. Control (seats on the board) and Nikko Raspovliac were top issue for everyone as well. We tried to attack one issue at a time trying to agree on something and it was not happening. Finally someone grouped management staffing, Nikko Raspovliac, and management incentive into a package and asked if we would like package “A” or package “B”. I figured out which gave us the most amount of points and chose package “A”. This was a breath of fresh air because finally we were getting somewhere. Towards the end we weren’t getting quite what we wanted for stock ownership and control so Sharae brilliantly played the role of the bad cop. Her playing the bad cop ended up increasing our number of seats to three and avoiding the 50 point loss. Overall, we totaled 172 points. I’m excited to see the results of other teams.

Connecticut Valley School

This week we negotiated Connecticut Valley School and I was partnered with Zach and we were representing the faculty. We had a very tough time trying to use the information that we were given on our priorities to figure out which projects were most important to us. This was challenging because the priorities that each project could fulfill was open for interpretation. While we were trying to rank the projects in order of importance to us, the headmaster team approached us and tried to form a coalition. I knew right away that they had no idea what our priorities were because in my opinion, we were going against them trying to get the trustees to choose the project most important to us. But, we came to an agreement with the headmasters that we would push for the swimming pool, the hockey rink, and the fine arts building. That way, we got two projects that were important to us and they got two projects that were important to them. Once we agreed to that with the headmasters, Zach and I determined the ranking of importance of each project. Our first priority was the hockey rink roof because it related to our first and second priorities. Next we thought that the women's locker room was important because the information given to us mentioned that it was dirty, which is a concern of health and safety (first priority). Next we chose the computer lab because our third priority was to improve the quality of student life. Also, the information given to everyone about the computer lab specified that the purpose of the lab was to support curricular goals. Our next priority was promoting the school's liberal arts mission which was the fine arts building. The next priorities were not important to us. These were the swimming pool, buses and heating system.

When it came time for the negotiation, the trustees said that they found a way to finance five of the seven projects. We head which projects they were and we were pleased becuase most of the projects were high in our rankings. However, we then got the memo from the Dean of Students stating the safety problem and proposed solution. Since safety is our number one priority, I suggested that we make the campus lighting our number one priority and bump the rest of the projects down one. Unfortuantely, this kicked out the possibility for the women's locker room because we otherwise wouldn't have enough money.

Live 8

This week we completed the online negotiation for live 8. I was the manager of live 8 galleries. I was contacted by the manager of internet development at a company that was interested in proposing a deal to have my domain, live8.org. I said that it was for sale at the right price.

Sharae seemed very hesitant to make the first offer. Therefore, I decided that my aspiration was $1,725,000 to cover the costs of the European expansion and a new website with a domain like www.live8galleries.com or something similar. When Sharae responded, she used an anchoring method by expressing how high the figure was and asked if we could get closer to $500,000. I then decided that I would try for a little more than my reservation price ($566,667). This was my reservation price because I viewed the website as another gallery. If I was going to sell the website, I wanted at least the amount of money it would cost to open a gallery. Since the website that I put together cost a total of $25,000, I thought it would cost about the same to get a new domain name (such as www.live8galleries.com or a play on words that is similar and available). That is how I came to the $600,000 figure that I proposed in response.

Looking back, I wish that I would have probed Sharae for her interests. I think if she would have shared them, we could have created more value by coming to an integrative agreement similar to that of Ben and Emily.

Jordan Electronics

This week we did the Jordan Electronics negotiation. I was the VP of Finance and I was presiding over the meeting. I determined that my number one priority was to reach a consensus. The role description indicated that the worst thing that could happen is for the President to return and find the issue still unsettled. I also thought it would be best to put the President’s priorities above my own. The President stated, “I want the new model of the JAC 36, and I want it soon. The more up-to-date it is, the better, Above all, I want it to sell.” Personally, I was mostly concerned about the cost, but this conflicted with the President’s priority of being up-to-date.

I began the negotiation by asking the committee to briefly report on their position addressing the issues of whether to produce a revised model and if so, at what price to sell it. From each person’s response, I could tell right away that everyone wanted either a new or revised model. Some people were concerned about selling price and others weren’t. In fact, most of the negotiating dealt with people defending their positions on these issues. The senior electrical engineer seemed unprepared because she didn’t really know what she wanted and she didn’t debate anything with the VP of manufacturing. Soon the negotiation was going nowhere as the different committee members fired reasons back and forth defending their positions. In response to this, I suggested that each person tells everyone what is most important to them. Unfortunately, for both sales and manufacturing, it was the price and in opposite directions. R&D really wanted a portable model and the engineer wanted time.

When addressing the issue of price, I recalled the President saying that above all he wanted the model to sell. Also, the background information indicated that competing products sell for $3,000 to $5,000 more than the present JAC 36 which would come out to a range of $19,000 to $21,000. So, I first suggested that we stay within this range. VP of manufacturing then told us his underlying interest that he was afraid of losing his job and he really thinks that the costs will be a lot higher than we think. Eventually he agreed to a $20,000 selling price if his job security was indicated in the contract. In addressing R&D’s and the engineer’s concerns we decided to make a portable model, but in 6 months. Also, we decided to start producing the revised model in 3 months. I think by solving the problem this way, we log-rolled these issues which created value for both director of R&D and the senior engineer. If I were in the position of the director of R&D I think I would have tried to form a coalition with the VP of sales. To do this, they could have built off of each other’s ideas during the negotiation. I think by doing this, they would have had more influence over the rest of the committee and maybe would have had a better outcome in their favor.

Overall, I think that our agreement was favorable to everyone because we were able to create some value for each party.

Jordan Electronics Company

A. About you

1. What is your overall goal?

Having the committee reach a consensus that will produce the lowest financial burden possible

2. What are the issues?

A. Reaching a consensus

B. Whether to produce a revised / new  model

C. Selling price

D. How up-to-date it will be

3. How important is each issue to you?

	Committee Consensus	4000
Issue A:
	No Committee Consensus	0
	Produce Revised Model	3000
Issue B:
	Don't Produce Revised Model	0
	$20,000	2000
	$19,000	1600
Issue C:	$18,000	1000
	$17,000	400
	$16,000	0
	New microprocessor, Voice-Activated & Optical	1000
	Voice-Activated & Optical	800
Issue D:
	Voice-Activated or Optical	200
	No Improvements	0

4. What is your best alternative to negotiated agreement?

Not manufacturing the revised model

5. What is your negotiation point?

Reach Consensus (4000), Produce Revised Model (3000), $17,000 selling price (400), Voice-Activated or Optical Improvements (200) = 7,600 points out of 10,000 points possible

B. About the Other Side:

I. Director of R&D

1. How important is each issue to them?

	Committee Consensus	500
Issue A:
	No Committee Consensus	0
	Produce Revised Model	500
Issue B:
	Don't Produce Revised Model	0
	20,000	1000
	19,000	800
Issue C:	18,000	500
	17,000	200
	16,000	0
	New microprocessor, Voice-Activated & Optical	4000
	Voice-Activated & Optical	800
Issue D:
	Voice-Activated or Optical	400
	No Improvements	0
	Produce a Portable Model	4000
Issue E:
	Don't Produce a Portable Model	0

2. What is their BATNA?

Manufacturing the revised model

3. What is their resistance point?

Produce a Portable Model (4000), New microprocessor, voice-activated & optical (4000), $16,000 (0), Don’t Produce Revised Model (0), No Committee Consensus (0) = 8000 points out of 10000 possible points

4. Based on prior questions, what is your target?

Not producing a portable model

II. VP of Sales

1. How important is each issue to them?

	Committee Consensus	500
Issue A:
	No Committee Consensus	0
	Produce Revised Model	500
Issue B:
	Don't Produce Revised Model	0
	20,000	0
	19,000	400
Issue C:	18,000	1000
	17,000	1600
	16,000	2000
	New microprocessor, Voice-Activated & Optical	2000
	Voice-Activated & Optical	400
Issue D:
	Voice-Activated or Optical	200
	No Improvements	0
	Produce a Portable Model	2000
Issue E:
	Don't Produce a Portable Model	0

2. What is their BATNA?

Producing the revised model

3. What is their resistance point?

Not producing a portable model (0), Voice-activated & optical (400), $20,000 (0), Produce a revised model (500), No committee consensus (0) = 900 points out of 7000 points possible

4. Based on prior questions, what is your target?

Not producing a portable model

III. VP of Production

1. How important is each issue to them?

	Committee Consensus	500
Issue A:
	No Committee Consensus	0
	Produce Revised Model	500
Issue B:
	Don't Produce Revised Model	0
	23,000	8000
	22,000	6400
Issue C:	21,000	4000
	20,000	2400
	19,000	0
	New microprocessor, Voice-Activated & Optical	500
	Voice-Activated & Optical	400
Issue D:
	Voice-Activated or Optical	250
	No Improvements	0
	Produce a Portable Model	0
Issue E:
	Don't Produce a Portable Model	500

2. What is their BATNA?

Producing a portable model

3. What is their negotiation point?

Don’t produce a portable model (500), voice-activated & optical (400), $22,000 (6400), Produce a revised model (500), no committee consensus (500) = 8300 points out of 10000 possible points

4. Based on the prior questions, what is your target?

$22,000 or below for selling price

IV. Senior Electrical Engineer

1. How important is each issue to them?

	Committee Consensus	500
Issue A:
	No Committee Consensus	0
	Produce Revised Model	500
Issue B:
	Don't Produce Revised Model	0
	20,000	1500
	19,000	1200
Issue C:	18,000	750
	17,000	450
	16,000	0
	New microprocessor, Voice-Activated & Optical	900
	Voice-Activated & Optical	3000
Issue D:
	Voice-Activated or Optical	1500
	No Improvements	0
	Produce a Portable Model	0
Issue E:
	Don't Produce a Portable Model	300

2. What is their BATNA?

Produce portable model

3. What is their resistance point?

Produce portable model (0), voice-activated or optical (1500), $17,000 (450), don’t produce revised model (0), no committee consensus (0) = 1950 points out of 4300 possible points

4. Based on prior questions, what is your target?

No portable model

C. The situation

1. What deadlines exist?

We must reach a consensus by 6:15PM

2. What fairness norms or reference points apply?

I think that each committee member should get something that they want out of the consensus

3. What topics or questions do you want to avoid? How will you respond if they ask anyway?

Discussing each other’s salary should be avoided. If it is brought up, I will say that we have a deadline and we need to focus on determining what we are going to do.

D. The relationship between the parties

1. Will negotiations be repetitive? If so, what are the future consequences of each strategy, tactic, or action you are considering?

Negotiations will probably be repetitive. Therefore, any strategy utilized needs to focus on interests. Also, negotiations need to be integrative. Since all parties are employed by the same company, we should all be able to trust each other and decide what is best for the company overall.

2. What do you know about the other parties’ styles and tactics?

Nothing

3. What are the limits of the other parties’ authority. 

I have authority over the other parties because I can taking the place of the president in this negotiation.