$0.00 – $6.00
Two-party, three-issue, scoreable negotiation between a developer and a city planner over the design, process, and affordability of a proposed housing development
A developer and city planner are about to begin negotiations concerning a proposed development in Riverdale City. The design of this residential project is based on a previous development that Jones, the developer built. Cole, the city planner, opts for changes in the design, in addition to adding affordable housing units. Another issue which the parties must address is the amount of help that Cole will give to the project. Both the planner and developer are highly concerned about the time element involved. Jones feels that the proposed plan will upgrade the neighborhood, while Cole argues that some definite changes must be made so that the development is suitable for neighborhood. Following the negotiations, Cole will submit a report containing recommendations to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
This exercise was created for two players. The scoring system is designed on a maximum, moderate, and minimum scale. The players need approximately 20 minutes to prepare for the negotiation which can run from 60 to 90 minutes. Post negotiation discussions take about 45 minutes. The planner can be required to submit a draft of the agreement made between the parties in the form of recommendations to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
- The maximum, moderate, and minimum scale of scoring in this game enables participants to concentrate on the three main issues and create detailed discussions. Communication becomes a key element, as the parties must be clear about what they are searching for and what they will accept.
- The parties have an opportunity to create a package that will reflect joint gains. In post negotiation discussions, participants can discuss the differences in scores by reviewing actual and possible packages, as well as negotiating styles.
- Dealing with the dynamics of trading between issues forces students to set values on their interests and assess the importance of each issue to the other party as well.
- The role of "face saving" and legitimacy is highlighted in the conflicting interests of both sides.
- The possibility of achieving joint gains can stimulate tension between creating and claiming; the inferiority of compromises can also be highlighted.
For all parties:
- General Information
Confidential Information for:
- Jones, the Developer
- Cole, the City Planner
- All of the above
- Possible Scorable Outcomes
Anchoring; Authority; BATNA; Bluffing; Closure; Commitment; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Cost-benefit analysis; Decision analysis; Drafting; Interest, dovetailing; Issue control; Meaning of "success"; Message analysis; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Packaging; Precedents; Public opinion; Time constraints; Yesable propositions
Development Negotiations in the Project Review Process Attributes
|Time required:||1-2 hours|
|Number of participants:||2|
|Neutral third party present:||None|
|Teaching notes available:||No|