Appleton vs. Baker

SCENARIO:

The Appletons and Bakers own homes on adjacent parcels of land. The Appletons are selling their house, and they also want to sell the half-lot which rests between their home and the Bakers'. The purchasers of their home are not interested in buying the lot. The Bakers are interested in the lot. There is a large bargaining zone ($5,000 to 20,000), but neither party knows of the other party's interests.

Note: After debriefing, it is an option to have a five-minute re-negotiation once everyone knows the actual constraints placed on the other party.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role specific:

  • Appleton
  • Baker

 

Teacher's package:

  • English version: Copies of both participant roles plus teaching notes
  • Non-English versions: Copies of both participant roles only

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • When several pairs negotiate simultaneously, the sale prices vary dramatically, which provides for a good discussion of the results of different strategies.
  • The advantages and disadvantages of making the first offer can be explored, as well as techniques for doing so.
  • Advantages and disadvantages of disclosure are also illustrated.

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

 

Bakra Beverage

NEW – ALL-IN-ONE CURRICULUM PACKAGE 

If you are new to teaching negotiation or are looking to go in-depth on the fundamental negotiation concepts, the Bakra Beverage All-In-One Curriculum Package will provide you with everything you need to teach negotiation.

The All-In-One Curriculum Package makes it easy to teach negotiation, track learning outcomes, and includes materials for the instructor as well as for students.

Materials include: 

  • Instructor’s Guide – Guide for instructors on negotiation concepts, simulation logistics, and debriefing simulation participants.
  • Instructor Background Reading List – List of background readings for instructors to complete before using the simulation to gain a better understanding of the negotiation concepts.
  • Student Background Reading List – List of background readings for students to complete before the simulation to gain understanding of the negotiation concepts.
  • Confidential Role Instructions – Confidential role-specific materials for participants in the exercise.
  • Pre-Negotiation Surveys – After completing the background reading and/or presentation of the negotiation concepts, participants complete the online Pre-Negotiation Survey to benchmark their understanding of the key learning points the game is intended to teach.
  • Agreement Outcome Form – Participants reporting the results of any agreements reached in the simulation.
  • Post-Negotiation Survey – After finishing the simulation, but before the debrief, participants fill out the Post-Negotiation Survey so Instructors can gauge participants understanding of the issues and concepts.
  • Class PowerPoint Presentation – The first part of the PowerPoint slide deck is for the instructor to use to introduce negotiation concepts, how to participate in a negotiation simulation, and Bakra Beverage. The second part is for the instructor to use in debriefing the simulation with participants.
  • Feedback Survey – At the conclusion of the exercise, participants can give feedback on the process and outcomes.

The Bakra Beverage All-In-One Curriculum Package requires a minimum of 90 minutes of class time, but is best run in a two and half or three-hour class. To order this package, you must purchase a minimum of ten copies. A separate copy must be purchased for every participant in the exercise. The materials are all single use and must be re-purchased for subsequent uses.

SCENARIO:

Structurally almost identical to the Sally Soprano role simulation, Bakra Beverage is a two-party, nonscorable negotiation between a beverage manufacturer and a soft drink distributor over the terms of a potential distribution contract.

BebsiCo is a multi-billion-dollar, multinational soft drink manufacturer interested in expanding its operations into the Middle Eastern country of Kumar. The distributor that was supposed to handle BebsiCo’s new distribution campaign, Kabir Cola, decided suddenly last week to close its Kumari operations and focus on other Middle Eastern countries. BebsiCo is eager to sign a new distribution contract with the Kumar-based Bakra Beverage, a financially troubled but reputable soft drink distributor. Indeed, BebsiCo headquarters has authorized its Director of Middle East Operations to offer Bakra up to $6.75 million per year for the contract, though BebsiCo would like that figure to be lower if possible.

Bakra desperately wants this contract, which would put it back on the map, attract additional clients, and give the company the confidence and certainty about its future that it has been waiting for to purchase Jayyid Juices (a juice and specialty beverage distributor). The contract is so important that Bakra would almost be willing to distribute for BebsiCo for free, except for the impact on future agreements and reputation.

In addition to the wide zone of possible agreement regarding the distribution fee, the simulation includes a range of possible criteria for determining the fee as well as numerous possibilities for value-creating options. Teaching points include the value of focusing on interests to create mutually beneficial options, the power of objective criteria, the effect of both parties’ BATNAs on the negotiation dynamic, and the importance of balancing both process and substance interests when a long-term relationship is at stake.

This simulation may be used as an alternative to Sally Soprano if a more corporate or international context is desired.

 

Participant materials include:

  • Confidential instructions for Bakra Beverage’s Sales Director
  • Confidential instructions for BebsiCo’s Director of Middle East Operations

 

Teacher’s package includes:

  • All of the above
  • Teaching note

 

ENHANCED VERSION AVAILABLE:

A digitally enhanced version of this simulation is available through the iDecisionGames platform and includes the following features:

  • An Instructor’s Guide summarizing the negotiation concepts covered in the simulation, a quick review of simulation logistics, and a ready-to-use set of debriefing slides;
  • Highlights from background readings that will help both students and instructors gain a better understanding of negotiation concepts and methods covered in the simulation;
  • Pre- and post-simulation questionnaires instructors can use gauge each student’s grasp of the core concepts before and after participating in the simulation;
  • PowerPoint slides that introduce key concepts before the simulation and highlight lessons for debriefing;
  • Real time, interactive, data analytics provided via the iDecisionGames platform.

To order the Bakra Enhanced Package click here.

Bentley Convertible

SCENARIO:

Mr. Henry Soles, the wealthy owner of a 1927 custom-made Bentley convertible has hired an agent to sell his car. A corporation has made an offer. The only other likely buyer is Amelia Austin. Mrs. Austin has asked her personal secretary to make an offer for the Bentley. There is no current market price for this unique automobile, although there is some data on various Rolls Royce and other Bentley models. The two representatives are meeting to negotiate the purchase.

 

MECHANICS:

After preparation for as little as 5 minutes, this one-on-one negotiation should take 20-40 minutes depending on the skillfulness of the participants. Average review time is 20-40 minutes, or 60-75 minutes if two participants are asked to negotiate the case in front of class.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role specific:

  • Soles's Representative
  • Amelia Austin's Agent

 

Teacher's package:

  • All of the above

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This simple case was designed to explore positional bargaining in a classic situation where objective criteria are scarce. Techniques such as anchoring, asymptotic concessions, final offers, pleading lack of authority, low-balling, and so on, can usually be identified among participants' negotiation tactics.
  • The case also highlights the importance of the fear of being taken, and the role objective criteria can play in handling that fear.
  • The sparseness of the criteria, however, encourage their use as justifications for rigid positions rather than partial data about what might seem fair. This allows a discussion of how the difference manifests in practice and what its consequences are.
  • The relationship of BATNA to bottom line is clearly raised.
  • The differences between agent and principal interests, authority, and strategy are easily explored.

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Anchoring; Authority; BATNA; Interests, quantifying; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Reservation price

Chemco, Inc.

SCENARIO:

ChemCo, Inc is a manufacturing firm located in Shelton, a small working-class town. ChemCo employs 3000 of Shelton's population of 20,000. ChemCo is currently negotiating with the State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to devise an acceptable strategy to monitor air emissions from its generator. If ChemCo is forced to cut jobs as a result of stringent environmental regulations, there will be a devastating impact on Shelton. On the other hand, the Agency feels that ChemCo is the primary contributor to air pollution within the area and needs to be monitored effectively. Representatives from the DEP and ChemCo must negotiate a mutually agreeable standard for monitoring air emissions.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This exercise illustrates how negotiations can be used to resolve conflicts among scientists when scientific data are in dispute.
  • When the same negotiation is conducted by multiple groups, the comparison of outcomes is instructive. The recommendations offered by each group may differ widely and in some cases there may be no agreement reached in the time allowed.
  • The scientific data available in the case (and in the world) are incomplete and inconclusive on the points at issue. The exercise motivates discussion of how decisions should be made given limited information.
  • The exercise provides a context in which the formation of coalitions of "joint interest" groups can dramatically affect the negotiated outcome.

 

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

This game can be run simultaneously with multiple groups of 6.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Instructions

 

Role Specific:

  • Group Confidential Instructions for ChemCo representatives
  • Individual Confidential Instructions for ChemCo CEO
  • Individual Confidential Instructions for ChemCo Environmental Engineer
  • Individual Confidential Instructions for ChemCo Public Relations manager
  • Group Confidential Instructions for DEP representatives
  • Individual Confidential Instructions for DEP Air Quality Chief
  • Individual Confidential Instructions for DEP Environmental Engineer
  • Individual Confidential Instructions for DEP Public Affairs Manager

 

KEYWORDS:

Regulatory negotiation, agency discretion; environmental dispute resolution; science-intensive policy disputes; public relations

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Dioxin: Waste to Energy Game

Dirty Stuff

Teflex

The Carson Extension

DirtyStuff I

SCENARIO:

Exposure to "Dirty Stuff" in the industrial workplace is an issue of major concern to three coalitions representing environmental organizations, industry groups, and labor unions. During past hearings the divergence in their views has become public knowledge. Congress has responded by passing a law requiring The Agency to take action. The Agency, called in a consultant to interview leaders of the concerned coalitions, and draft a proposed agreement. The coalitions and Agency leaders are about to meet to review the draft. The parties will discuss the acceptable levels of risk, the quality of cleaning techniques, and monitoring and evaluation of the cleaning procedures. A neutral party has been asked to help facilitate the meeting

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This is a four-party multi-issue facilitated negotiation simulation involving the drafting of a proposed environmental regulation. It emphasizes the use of active facilitation and examines the issues encountered by neutrals when their role is not well understood by the principal parties.
  • The range of possible agreements is wide; by comparing agreements, the usefulness of generating options should emerge.
  • It is interesting to observe and discuss the role of the facilitator. The facilitator's instructions are rather vague; therefore, the role may develop into either a mediator's role; a process manager's role; or the parties may choose not to have the facilitator take part in the negotiations at all.
  • The usefulness of a Single Negotiating Text is illustrated. This gives parties a focal point for discussion and a tool for recording the evolving agreement. This can clarify differences, and help parties structure packages of trade-offs more creatively.
  • The design of the meeting is created by the players. How the discussions are initiated and what process is chosen to redraft the agreement is up to the parties. They can either set a cooperative or a competitive tone.

 

MECHANICS:

This exercise is written to include five roles; however, more than one player may be assigned to any role. Reading in preparation for the role play takes 10-15 minutes. Parties having the same roles caucus to strategize prior to beginning the actual negotiation (approximately 20 minutes). Review of the draft should run for 60-90 minutes. Debriefing requires at least 45 minutes to compare and discuss the outcomes. A table for 5 is recommended. Private breakout rooms are useful but not critical to this simulation.

NOTE: The game manager should meet briefly with the facilitators before the negotiation to make sure they understand their responsibilities.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Information
  • Draft of the Proposed Rule
  • Fact about DirtyStuff Cleanup Technologies

 

Role Specific:

  • Confidential Advice to:
  • Agency Negotiator
  • Environmental Coalition Negotiator
  • Industry Negotiator
  • Labor Negotiator
  • Facilitator

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above

 

KEYWORDS

Negotiated rule-making; simple text negotiation; facilitation; science-intensive policy disputes; using contingent agreements to cope with scientific uncertainty

 

THEMES:

Agenda control; Assisted v. Non-assisted negotiations; Bluffing; Caucusing; Coalitions; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Consensus building; Constituents; Creativity; Decision analysis; Distributional dispute; Drafting; Fairness; Group process; Information exchange; Interest analysis; Issue control; Joint gains; legitimacy; Meaning of "success"; Mediation, entry; Meeting design; Objective criteria; One-text procedure; Options, generating; Packaging; Partisan perceptions; Public opinion; Relationship; Risk aversion; Yesable propositions

 

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

  • Dirty Stuff II
  • Dioxin – Waste to Energy
  • Teflex Products
  • The Carson Extension

Flagship Airways

SCENARIO: Three years ago Flagship Airways signed a ten-year, $1 billion contract with Eureka Aircraft Engines. Since then, things have changed for both Flagship and Eureka. Flagship's revenues have steadily decreased and they are now reluctant to put forth $1 billion to expand. Meanwhile, Eureka's development of its "revolutionary" engine has not proved as efficient as Eureka had hoped. Today, at Flagship's request, the two companies are meeting to discuss how to restructure the agreement. This is not an unprecedented procedure. The two companies have met in the past to restructure deals when circumstances have changed significantly for either party. In their negotiation, there is a great deal of data to be managed by both parties. There is also a longstanding relationship between the two lead negotiators for each side. Each must decide how to secure the best deal for his/her respective company, while maintaining their relationship. Each must also build trust within his/her team to make sure that the terms agreed upon are acceptable to all.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • To insure relationships that promote quality within the organization, both long-term and short-term interests must be balanced very thoroughly.
  • This exercise demonstrates the dependency of successful internal negotiations on successful external negotiations. Thorough preparation is absolutely critical in this negotiation.
  • Don't jeopardize long-term relationships by pushing too hard for short-term gains.
  • Effective cross-cultural negotiation depends upon making sure what you are saying is what is being heard and that you are hearing what is said. Clear communication is critical.

 

SIMILAR SITUATIONS:

  • Common Measures
  • BMP Policy
  • Multisumma

GE International Contract

SCENARIO:

Several years ago, GE International purchased a networked computer system to serve all of its operating departments. Unfortunately, the computer system has become utterly ineffective. GE International's Senior Manager of Information Management Operations has been charged with finding an expert to divide and reprogram the computer system, rewrite the manuals, and maximize the value of the existing high-quality hardware and software.

The Senior Manager has located a computer consulting company that seems to be far better equipped than any of the alternative companies to handle this project. The consulting company, in turn, is eager for the publicity of working with a world-renowned company like GE International. At the last minute, the Senior Manager and the computer consultant realize that they have been exploring this contract without knowing that the other party had an enormously different idea regarding the appropriate price for the project. The parties are meeting one last time to see if there is a way to salvage the deal.

This case is similar to The Tendley Contract but takes place in a more corporate setting.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This case is an excellent vehicle for comparing principled negotiation to positional bargaining.
  • What are the advantages and disadvantages of revealing one's BATNA in this situation? How do the parties' BATNAs — and their disclosure or nondisclosure of them — affect the negotiation?
  • The fact that there is such a huge discrepancy in what the two parties want GE International to pay for the job makes it very difficult to come up with a contract without generating creative options. What can the parties do to facilitate option generation?
  • This case often generates discussion around "fair" pricing for the contract. What are some criteria for determining a fair price? Are the parties' initial expectations regarding the price relevant to what the price should be? Do the parties' BATNAs have any bearing on what the price should be?

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

  • Confidential Instructions for:
    • Computer Systems Consultant
    • GEII Team
  • Teacher's Package includes:
    • All of the above
    • Teaching Note

George and Martha

SCENARIO:

George and Martha are about to be divorced, and have reached agreement on all issues but one–child support. They are in different tax brackets, and value child support and alimony differently. Both sides have chosen a representative to negotiate a decision.

 

MECHANICS:

Divide the class into teams of two, distribute the instructions, and allow approximately 10 minutes for participants to read and prepare a strategy. Following this preparation period, allow participants approximately 20 minutes to negotiate the case. Debrief the negotiation for about 45 minutes.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This case illustrates the danger of single-issue bargaining. Should the participants limit the negotiation to a monetary dispute, George and Martha will be locked in a contest of wills. Hard bargaining may well emerge, resulting in a situation in which one party's gain means a corresponding loss to the other party.
  • Despite George and Martha's diverging preferences in characterizing payments, it is possible to obtain mutual gain by trading on the two parties' attachments to their relative interests.
  • This exercise demonstrates the feasibility of Howard Raiffa's notion of post-settlement settlement. As it is designed, the lesson points out that a "win-win" solution is possible when the parties closely analyze their interests and their potential for mutual gains. The failure to identify interests and invent options in a negotiation may lead to failure to reach any agreement, let alone an optimal one.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role Specific:
Confidential Instructions for:

  • George
  • Martha

 

Teacher's Package:

  • All of the above
  • Teaching Note

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Competition v. Cooperation; Creating and Claiming value; Financial analysis; Interests, dovetailing; Joint gains

Harborco

NEW – ALL-IN-ONE CURRICULUM PACKAGE 

If you are looking to go in-depth on the fundamental negotiation concepts and track learning outcomes, the Harborco All-In-One Curriculum Package will provide you with everything you need. The All-In-One Curriculum Package makes it easy to teach negotiation and includes materials for the instructor as well as for students.

Materials include: 

  • Instructor’s Guide – Guide for instructors on negotiation concepts, simulation logistics, and debriefing simulation participants.
  • Instructor Background Reading List – List of background readings for instructors to complete before using the simulation to gain a better understanding of the negotiation concepts.
  • Student Background Reading List – List of background readings for students to complete before the simulation to gain understanding of the negotiation concepts.
  • Confidential Role Instructions – Confidential role-specific materials for participants in the exercise.
  • Pre-Negotiation Surveys – After completing the background reading and/or presentation of the negotiation concepts, participants complete the online Pre-Negotiation Survey to benchmark their understanding of the key learning points the game is intended to teach.
  • Agreement Outcome Form – Participants reporting the results of any agreements reached in the simulation.
  • Post-Negotiation Survey – After finishing the simulation, but before the debrief, participants fill out the Post-Negotiation Survey so Instructors can gauge participants understanding of the issues and concepts.
  • Class PowerPoint Presentation – The first part of the PowerPoint slide deck is for the instructor to use to introduce negotiation concepts, how to participate in a negotiation simulation, and Harborco. The second part is for the instructor to use in debriefing the simulation with participants.
  • Feedback Survey – At the conclusion of the exercise, participants can give feedback on the process and outcomes.

To order this package, you must purchase a minimum of ten copies. A separate copy must be purchased for every participant in the exercise. The materials are all single use and must be re-purchased for subsequent uses.

SCENARIO:

Harborco is a consortium of development, industrial, and shipping concerns interested in building and operating a deepdraft port. It has already selected a site for the port, but cannot proceed without a license from the Federal Licensing Agency (FLA). The FLA is willing to grant Harborco a license, but only if it secures the support of at least 4 of 5 other parties: the environmental coalition, the federation of labor unions, a consortium of other ports in the region, the Federal Department of Coastal Resources (DCR), and the Governor of the host state. The parties have several issues to negotiate before deciding whether or not to approve the port, including the types of industries that will be be permitted to locate near the port, the extent to which environmental damage be mitigated, the extent to which organized labor will be given preference in hiring during construction and operation of the port, the amount of any federal financial assistance to Harborco, and the amount of any compensation to other ports in the region for potential economic losses?

 

MECHANICS:

This game is best played with 12 people (2 per role) although 6 people also works. A game manager is needed to conduct periodic votes and to answer questions. Game instructions require at least 30 minutes to read; more preparation is helpful. Negotiations require a minimum of 2 hours. However, the more time allowed for negotiation, the better.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • When the game is played by several groups at the same time, the comparison of outcomes is instructive. Typically, some groups will reach agreement and some will not. Very few groups will reach unanimous (6-way) agreement.
  • Players are exposed to elementary utility analysis in the point scoring scheme. The importance of pre-negotiation analysis in evaluating options is illustrated. The players can then explore how and why different negotiating strategies led to different outcomes.
  • Multi-issue, multi-party negotiations tend to involve the formation of coalitions–especially blocking coalitions. This game provides an instructive context for exploring coalition strategies.
  • Parties that reveal their true interests do not necessarily do better than those who remain silent or bluff. The advantages and disadvantages of revealing all one’s concerns are illustrated in this game.
  • Pareto-superior and Pareto-inferior agreements are illustrated by the scores.
  • When 12 players play the game (2 per role) they have an opportunity to explore the special difficulties of negotiations involving non-monolithic parties.
  • The need for a neutral “process manager” of some sort is also illustrated, as the parties struggle to structure their discussions.
  • The advantages of caucusing can be explored. In some cases, players will initiate caucuses; in others, they will avoid private caucusing.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Instructions

 

Role specific:
Confidential Instructions to the Negotiator for:

  • Harborco
  • Other Ports
  • Environmental League
  • Union
  • Federal DCR
  • Governor

 

Teacher’s package (67 pages total):

  • All of the above
  • Teaching Note
  • Game Review Chart

 

Please note that this exercise is included in the Resolving Public Disputes package, also available through the Clearinghouse.

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; Authority; BATNA; Bluffing; Caucusing; Coalitions; Commitment; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Constituents; Delay tactics; Information exchange; Joint gains; Media; Mediation; Meeting design; Misrepresentation; Monolithic vs. non-monolithic parties; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Pareto optimization; Political constraints, dealing with; Pressure tactics; Reservation price; Systems of negotiation; Time constraints; Utility analysis

Hard/Soft Negotiation Choice Exercise

Free review copies of non-English Teacher’s Packages will be emailed upon request. Please contact tnrc@law.harvard.edu or telephone 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or +1-301-528-2676 (outside the U.S.).

SCENARIO:

The form asks, “What is your negotiating style?” In the left column it lists the key characteristics of relatively “soft” bargainers. In the right column are listed the corresponding characteristics of relatively “hard” bargainers. In between, for each key factor there are spaces for writing in where you come out on the spectrum. The factors addressed are concession strategies and offer strategies.

 

MECHANICS:

Distribute the form and allow ten minutes for participants to fill it in. It is particularly useful as a prelude to an overview presentation on effective negotiation. It was designed for use before an overview of principled negotiation, but in theory other approaches could also follow from it. It works even after participants have read Getting to YES.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • Two column form with blank centers.
  • Three column form with third columns listing the characteristics of principled negotiation.

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Assumptions; Competition v. Cooperation; Personality; Systems of Negotiation

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

This exercise stresses the fundamental elements of principled negotiation as logical alternatives to the seeming dilemma of “hard” or “soft” positional bargaining.

The final portion of the exercise provides a quick reference to the main elements of principled negotiation.

Least-Cost Planning Exercise

SCENARIO:

The electric company, GENCO, has seen its capacity reserve margin drop from 40% to a mere 20% above peak load over the past 10 years. This decrease brings the company uncomfortably close to the minimum level necessary to maintain adequate service reliability. The imbalance between the availability of and demand for electricity has spawned various solutions which include conservation/demand-side management, gas- and oil-fired generation and coal-fired plants, provided either by the utility or an independent power producer. A mediator (Professor Calme), and a party representative from GENCO (the electric company), NOPE (a consumer group), the Public Utility Commission, CLEAN (an environmental group) and IPP (an independent power producer) will attempt to reach a consensus on a project proposal.

 

MECHANICS:

This exercise is best played with six players (one per role). Preparation should take at least 30 minutes and the negotiation should last 60 minutes. Debriefing should take at least 60 minutes.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • The prospects for achieving joint gains is illuminated in this exercise. When parties value issues differently, they can create trades which benefit both parties and facilitate an acceptable agreement.
  • This game provides an opportunity to analyze the effect of coalitions on a negotiation, especially blocking coalitions. Adding a neutral allows for discussions of how parties use mediators/facilitators.
  • Many aspects of mediation in a multi-party, public policy dispute can be brought into focus, including: maintaining open communication, focusing the discussion on interests rather than positions, packaging options, and the development of a single-text procedure.
  • Issue of representation can be explored, since each of the players represents a group or institutional constituency. Each representative has a mandate which aids or constrains his or her ability to negotiate.
  • Parties that reveal their true interests do not necessarily do better than those who remain silent or bluff. The advantages and disadvantages of revealing all of one's concerns are illustrated in this game.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Instructions

 

Role specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

  • President of GENCO
  • Spokesperson of NOPE
  • Director of Electric Power Planning
  • State Public Utility Commission
  • Senior Attorney at CLEAN
  • President IPP
  • Professor Calme (Mediator)

 

Teacher's Package (26 pages total):

  • All of the above

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; BATNA; Caucusing; Closure; Coalitions; Commitment; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Consensus building; Delay tactics; Group process; Information exchange; Interests, dovetailing; Issue control; Joint gains; Managing uncertainty; Objective criteria; Partisan perceptions; Pressure tactics; Public opinion; Risk aversion; Systems of Negotiation; Time constraints; Utility analysis; Yesable propositions

Multimode, Inc.

SCENARIO:

T. Boyd, a Vice President of Budget and Finance at Multimode, Inc., (a manufacturing firm) is about to meet J. Arnold, a Vice President of the Human Resource Development Office at Multimode. T. Boyd has formally met with other departments to discuss the upcoming year's budget as well as expected productivity increases. The maximum allowable budget increase has been set at 5%. In order to implement a new reorganization plan, J. Arnold is requesting an 8% increase.

 

MECHANICS:

This game is designed for two players. Reading and preparation takes approximately 15 minutes and actual play of the simulation runs about 30 minutes.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

    • For all parties:
      • General Information

 

    • Role specific:Confidential Instructions to:
      • J. Arnold
      • T. Boyd

 

  • Teacher's package:
    • All of the Above

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Closure; Commitment; Communication; Constituents; Cost-benefit analysis; Fairness; Financial analysis; Legitimacy; Meaning of "success"; Nonverbal communication; Objective criteria; Partisan perceptions; Precedents; Relationship; Reservation price

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

In post-negotiation discussion, participants may review the advantages and disadvantages of truthfully revealing their bottom lines.

The parties presume there is a gap between what one can offer and what the other can accept. In fact, there is an overlap. Their initial perceptions shape their subsequent efforts to probe for information.

The degree to which issues other than the percentage increase or cut should come into play is a useful focus for a discussion of good "outcomes".

Multisumma

SCENARIO:

Six weeks ago, the Presidents of four of the world's largest aircraft engine companies drafted a joint memorandum announcing an "agreement in principle" on a 30-year joint partnership in the design, manufacture, and sales of a new generation engine, the A-2000. The memorandum requested that the company negotiators convene to negotiate details of the agreement.

The U.S. company, Airborne, has been the world leader in engine technology and will be the lead partner in the venture, with primary responsibility for coordinating with the other three partners. Each of the partners has agreed to pay Airborne a fee in exchange for which Airborne will provide the majority of the technical information needed to build the A-2000. Today, three negotiators from Airborne will meet with one representative from each of the other companies: SERSI (France), Novo (Italy), and Kiatsu (Japan), to try to reach a universally acceptable agreement.

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

  • This exercise demonstrates the dependency of successful external negotiations on successful internal negotiations. Thorough preparation is required.
  • Don't jeopardize long-term relationships for short-term gains.
  • Effective cross-cultural negotiation depends upon making sure what you are saying is what is being heard, and what you are hearing is what is being said.

Oil Pricing Exercise

SCENARIO:

Alba and Batia are two unfriendly oil producing nations that sell a significant amount of their production to nearby Capita. Anti-dumping agreements and Capita's alternate supply options limit Alba and Batia to prices per barrel of $10, $20, and $30. Each country's monthly profit can vary from $2 to $18 million per month, depending on the two country's relative prices and consequent Pricing Board of Alba or Batia. They are instructed that maximizing their own country's profits is their sole objective.

 

MECHANICS:

This is a group exercise, with several people on each country's Oil Pricing Board. It is possible to have as few as three or as many as ten members of each Board. The exercise is run in 8 or more rounds, corresponding to months, and takes 2 1/4 to 3 1/2 hours to run and review.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

  • General Instructions and Score Sheets
  • Monthly Price Report Message Forms

 

Teacher's Package

  • All of the above
  • Teaching Note (English version only; non-English versions do not include teaching note)

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Assumptions; Commitment; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Constituents; Credibility; Decision analysis; Education, as a means; Ethics; Game theory; Group process; Group-think; Joint gains; Managing uncertainty; Meaning of "success"; Message analysis; Misrepresentation; Recurring negotiations; Risk aversion; Risk perception; Trust

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

This is a so-called "social trap" exercise, in which long-term maximization requires unenforced mutual trust where significant short-term gains are possible by breaking that trust. In most rounds, communication must be implicit, and is hence highly ambiguous and subject to misinterpretation, usually by the projection of negative and adversarial intentions that don't actually exist. At certain points, the parties are given the opportunity to communicate explicitly, and may choose to reach pricing agreements or not (and subsequently, to honor those agreements or not).

The exercise highlights the frequency with which we make imprecise and inadequately supported assumptions, suggesting the importance of making and keeping assumptions explicit and testing them periodically.

The danger of self-fulfilling assumptions is also illustrated. Parties can turn cautious competitors into the cutthroat adversaries they fear by proceeding with pre-emptive ruthlessness.

The difference between reacting to the other side's moves (or one's perception of what those moves mean or will be), and acting purposefully to influence the other side to (re)act constructively, is easily illustrated by comparing the experience of different teams. The monetary variation tends to be dramatic between cooperative and competitive games, and analysis usually suggests that to establish the former, some teams have to take a risk. Players face the tension between seeking high short-term gains and low short-term risk inherent in a competitive strategy, and lower but more stable long-term gains inherent in a cooperative strategy.

The exercise presents rich opportunities to observe, analyze, and critique intra-group dynamics and decision making.

Negotiation Pedagogy Video Series, Part III
This unscripted video, available separately, shows PON faculty member Sheila Heen running and debriefing the "Oil Pricing" exercise, interspersed with excerpts from a post-workshop interview with the instructor.
Order the video here.

Parker-Gibson

NEW – ALL-IN-ONE CURRICULUM PACKAGE 

If you are new to teaching negotiation or are looking to go in-depth on the fundamental negotiation concepts, the Parker-Gibson All-In-One Curriculum Package will provide you with everything you need to teach negotiation.

The All-In-One Curriculum Package makes it easy to teach negotiation, track learning outcomes, and includes materials for the instructor as well as for students.

Materials include: 

  • Instructor’s Guide – Guide for instructors on negotiation concepts, simulation logistics, and debriefing simulation participants.
  • Instructor Background Reading List – List of background readings for instructors to complete before using the simulation to gain a better understanding of the negotiation concepts.
  • Student Background Reading List – List of background readings for students to complete before the simulation to gain understanding of the negotiation concepts.
  • Confidential Role Instructions – Confidential role-specific materials for participants in the exercise.
  • Pre-Negotiation Surveys – After completing the background reading and/or presentation of the negotiation concepts, participants complete the online Pre-Negotiation Survey to benchmark their understanding of the key learning points the game is intended to teach.
  • Agreement Outcome Form – Participants reporting the results of any agreements reached in the simulation.
  • Post-Negotiation Survey – After finishing the simulation, but before the debrief, participants fill out the Post-Negotiation Survey so Instructors can gauge participants understanding of the issues and concepts.
  • Class PowerPoint Presentation – The first part of the PowerPoint slide deck is for the instructor to use to introduce negotiation concepts, how to participate in a negotiation simulation, and Parker-Gibson. The second part is for the instructor to use in debriefing the simulation with participants.
  • Feedback Survey – At the conclusion of the exercise, participants can give feedback on the process and outcomes.

The Parker-Gibson All-In-One Curriculum Package requires a minimum of 90 minutes of class time, but is best run in a two and half or three-hour class. To order this package, you must purchase a minimum of ten copies. A separate copy must be purchased for every participant in the exercise. The materials are all single use and must be re-purchased for subsequent uses.

SCENARIO:

The Parkers and the Gibsons own homes on adjacent plots of land. The homes are separated by a 1/2 lot the Parkers purchased years ago in hopes of building a tennis court, which they never got around to. The Parkers are now moving out of state and are interested in selling the half lot, as the buyer of their home is not interested in it. The Parkers have approached the Gibsons (who have interest in the lot for home improvements they have planned) about purchasing the lot. Neither party knows much about the other’s interests. The Parkers and Gibsons are meeting to explore whether a mutually beneficial transaction is possible.

NOTE: This exercise is a modified and improved version of a former exercise titled Appleton v. Baker (Appleton v. Baker is still available, upon request). This exercise is also analytically similar to the exercises The Book Contract (with a different setting) and Bradford Development (without the linkage payment).

 

MECHANICS:

The exercise is best run as a one-on-one exercise. Preparation should require 5-10 minutes. Negotiations can take from 10-30 minutes, and review from 30 minutes to 1 1/4 hours.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

  • Role specific:
    Confidential Instructions for:

      • Parker
      • Gibson

     

  • Teacher’s package:
    • All of the above
    • Teaching Note (English version only)

 

PROCESS THEMES:

Anchoring; BATNA; Fairness; Information exchange; Interests, dovetailing; Joint gains; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Pareto optimization; Quantitative analysis; Risk aversion; Trust

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

When several pairs negotiate this game at the same time, the resulting sale prices vary dramatically. Participants can then discuss how and why different negotiation strategies led to different outcomes.

Concepts of “fair prices” often surface in post-negotiation discussions. If participants do not take a “principled” approach to the negotiation, one side or the other often feels “taken,” especially when other players with the same role appear to do better.

The advantages and disadvantages of making the first offer can be explored, as well as techniques for doing so.

The advantages and disadvantages of truthfully revealing your BATNA can also be illustrated, especially when several pairs negotiate the exercise.

 

ENHANCED VERSION AVAILABLE:

A digitally enhanced version of this simulation is available through the iDecisionGames platform and includes the following features:

  • An Instructor’s Guide summarizing the negotiation concepts covered in the simulation, a quick review of simulation logistics, and a ready-to-use set of debriefing slides;
  • Highlights from background readings that will help both students and instructors gain a better understanding of negotiation concepts and methods covered in the simulation;
  • Pre- and post-simulation questionnaires instructors can use gauge each student’s grasp of the core concepts before and after participating in the simulation;
  • PowerPoint slides that introduce key concepts before the simulation and highlight lessons for debriefing;
  • Real time, interactive, data analytics provided via the iDecisionGames platform.

To order the Parker-Gibson Enhanced Package click here.

Role Reversal Exercise

Free review copies of non-English Teacher’s Packages will be emailed upon request. Please contact tnrc@law.harvard.edu  or telephone 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or +1-301-528-2676 (outside the U.S.)

SCENARIO:

In this exercise participants select an actual negotiation situation from their own lives that they found particularly difficult, and negotiate in the role of their opposing party.

 

MECHANICS:

Preparation for this exercise takes 15 minutes. There are two ways to run the negotiation part of this exercise: one takes 60 minutes and the other takes 90 minutes. In the 60 minute version, half of the participants are given the opportunity to present a case. In the 90-minute version, all participants may present a case. The teaching materials are the same in both versions. Debriefing may take 30 minutes or longer, depending on the size of the class.

 

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all participants:

  • Case Preparation Instructions

 

Teacher's Package:

  • Case Preparation Instructions
  • Teaching Note

 

PROCESS THEMES: Assumptions; Bias; Empathetic understanding; Framing; Partisan perceptions, implications; Preparation

 

MAJOR LESSONS:

The purpose of this case is to increase awareness of how the same "facts" can be perceived differently depending on one's point of view, and to stimulate thinking on the implications of partisan perceptions.

By approaching their cases from new perspectives, participants are able to recognize which of their current arguments are persuasive, and which are not.