×




Innovation at the Lego Group (A) Negotiation Strategy / MBA Resources

Introduction to Negotiation Strategy

Negotiation Strategy solution for Innovation at the Lego Group (A) case study


At Oak Spring University, we provide corporate level professional Negotiation Strategy and other business case study solution. Innovation at the Lego Group (A) case study is a Harvard Business School (HBR) case study written by David Robertson, Robert J. Crawford. The Innovation at the Lego Group (A) (referred as “Lego Innovation” from here on) case study provides evaluation & decision scenario in field of Organizational Development. It also touches upon business topics such as - negotiation strategy, negotiation framework, Product development.

Negotiation strategy solution for case study Innovation at the Lego Group (A) ” provides a comprehensive framework to analyse all issues at hand and reach a unambiguous negotiated agreement. At Oak Spring University, we provide comprehensive negotiation strategies that have proven their worth both in the academic sphere and corporate world.


BATNA in Negotiation Strategy


Three questions every negotiator should ask before entering into a negotiation process-

What’s my BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement) – my walkaway option if the deal fails?

What are my most important interests, in ranked order?

What is the other side’s BATNA, and what are his interests?



12 Hrs

$59.99
per Page
  • 100% Plagiarism Free
  • On Time Delivery | 27x7
  • PayPal Secure
  • 300 Words / Page
  • Buy Now

24 Hrs

$49.99
per Page
  • 100% Plagiarism Free
  • On Time Delivery | 27x7
  • PayPal Secure
  • 300 Words / Page
  • Buy Now

48 Hrs

$39.99
per Page
  • 100% Plagiarism Free
  • On Time Delivery | 27x7
  • PayPal Secure
  • 300 Words / Page
  • Buy Now




Case Description of Innovation at the Lego Group (A) Case Study


The case tells the story of a company where innovation is tremendously important, but not working well. In 2003, the LEGO Group had a number of positive attributes: it had a well-respected brand with some very good toy lines. It had a passionate customer base that in many areas was more sophisticated than its internal designers. And it had been able to extend the brand into many areas such as toys, games, clothing, theme parks, movies, and many others types of play, earning significant revenues (but not profits). But, in 2003, the company had gotten itself into deep trouble. Over the previous 5-10 years, the toy industry had been changing dramatically in ways that did not favor the LEGO Group. These changes, coupled with some poorly planned investments and a downturn in the sales of some important toy lines, combined to almost put the LEGO Group out of business. The company lost nearly DKK 1 billion in 2003 and its cash dwindled dangerously low. This was the largest loss in the history of the company, and many analysts believed that bankruptcy and perhaps even the breakup and sale of the company were likely. The company quickly sold off assets, reduced headcount, and outsourced production to cut costs and generate cash. But it knew, to turn around the company, it had to improve its overall innovation system. It had to improve the time to market, success rate, and profitability in its innovation system. The case presents a number of representative challenges that LEGO was facing during 2004 and beyond. Learning objectives: 1) How to restructure an innovation system. 2) How to encourage all types of innovation (innovation in pricing, business model, channel to market, branding, customer experience, etc.) and coordinate these innovations across the company. 3) How to involve external parties such as customers, complementary product producers, and external inventors in your innovation system.


Case Authors : David Robertson, Robert J. Crawford

Topic : Organizational Development

Related Areas : Product development




Seven Elemental Tools of Negotiation that can be used in Innovation at the Lego Group (A) solution


1. Satisfies everyone’s core interests (yours and theirs)


By interests, we do not mean the preconceived demands or positions that you or the other party may have, but rather the underlying needs, aims, fears, and concerns that shape what you want. Negotiation is more than getting what you want. It is not winning at all cost. Number of times Win-Win is better option that outright winning or getting what you want.





2. Is the best of many options

Options are the solutions you generate that could meet your and your counterpart’s interests . Often people come to negotiations with very fixed ideas and things they want to achieve. This strategy leaves unexplored options which might be even better than the one that one party wanted to achieve. So always try to provide as many options as possible during the negotiation process. The best outcome should be out of many options rather than few options.


3. Meets legitimate, fair standards

When soft bargainers meet hard bargainers there is always the danger of soft bargainers ceding more than what is necessary. To avoid this scenario you should always focus on legitimate standards or expectations. Standards are often external and objective measures to assess the fairness such as rules and regulations, financial values & resources , market prices etc. If the negotiated agreement is going beyond the industry norms or established standards of fairness then it is prudent to get out of the negotiation.


4. Is better than your alternatives or BATNA

Every negotiators going into the negotiations should always work out the “what if” scenario. The negotiating parties in the “Innovation at the Lego Group (A)” has three to four plausible scenarios. The negotiating protagonist needs to have clear idea of – what will happen if the negotiations fail. To put it in the negotiating literature – BATNA - Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement. If the negotiated agreement is not better than BATNA then there is no point in accepting the negotiated solution.


5. Is comprised of clear, realistic commitments

One of the biggest problems in implementing the negotiated agreements in corporate world is – the ambiguity in the negotiated agreement. Sometimes the negotiated agreements are not realistic or various parties interpret the outcomes based on their understanding of the situation. It is critical to do negotiations as water tight as possible so that there is less scope for ambiguity.


6. Is the result of effective communication?

Many negotiators make the mistake of focusing only on the substance of the negotiation (interests, options, standards, and so on). How you communicate about that substance, however, can make all the difference. The language you use and the way that you build understanding, jointly solve problems, and together determine the process of the negotiation with your counterpart make your negotiation more efficient, yield clear agreements that each party understands, and help you build better relationships.


7. Managing relationship with counterparty

Another critical factor in the success of your negotiation is how you manage your relationship with your counterpart. According to “David Robertson, Robert J. Crawford”, the protagonist may want to establish a new connection or repair a damaged one; in any case, you want to build a strong working relationship built on mutual respect, well-established trust, and a side-by-side problem- solving approach.




Different types of negotiators – what is your style of negotiation

According to Harvard Business Review , there are three types of negotiators – Hard Bargainers, Soft Bargainers, and Principled Bargainers.

Hard Bargainers – These people see negotiations as an activity that they need to win. They are less focused less on the real objectives of the negotiations but more on winning. In the “Innovation at the Lego Group (A) ”, do you think a hard bargaining strategy will deliver desired results? Hard bargainers are easy to negotiate with as they often have a very predictable strategy

Soft Bargainers – These people are focused on relationship rather than hard outcomes of the negotiations. It doesn’t mean they are pushovers. These negotiators often scribe to long term relationship rather than immediate bargain.

Principled Bargainers – As explained in the seven elemental tools of negotiations above, these negotiators are more concern about the standards and norms of fairness. They often have inclusive approach to negotiations and like to work on numerous solutions that can improve the BATNA of both parties.

Open lines of communication between parties in the case study “Innovation at the Lego Group (A)” can make for an effective negotiation strategy and will make it easier to negotiate with this party the next time as well.





NPV Analysis of Innovation at the Lego Group (A)



References & Further Readings

David Robertson, Robert J. Crawford (2018), "Innovation at the Lego Group (A) Harvard Business Review Case Study. Published by HBR Publications.


UMS Holdings Bhd SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Capital Goods , Misc. Capital Goods


Dio SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Healthcare , Medical Equipment & Supplies


Haengnam SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Consumer/Non-Cyclical , Personal & Household Prods.


Shinkawa Ltd SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Capital Goods , Misc. Capital Goods


Igloo Security SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Technology , Computer Services


Noroo Paint SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Basic Materials , Chemical Manufacturing


Ho Wah Genting SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Basic Materials , Misc. Fabricated Products


BELLUS Health Inc. SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Healthcare , Biotechnology & Drugs


MongoDB SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Technology , Software & Programming


Anabuki Kosan Inc SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Capital Goods , Construction Services