Introduction to Negotiation Strategy
At Oak Spring University, we provide corporate level professional Negotiation Strategy and other business case study solution. OnStar: Connecting to Customers Through Telematics case study is a Harvard Business School (HBR) case study written by Peter Koudal, Hau Lee, Barchi Peleg, Paresh Rajwat. The OnStar: Connecting to Customers Through Telematics (referred as “Onstar Telematics” from here on) case study provides evaluation & decision scenario in field of Strategy & Execution. It also touches upon business topics such as - negotiation strategy , negotiation framework, Joint ventures, Leadership, Product development, Security & privacy.
Negotiation strategy solution for case study OnStar: Connecting to Customers Through Telematics ” 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.
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?
OnStar, a provider of in-vehicle safety, security, and information services called "telematics," was founded in 1995 as a collaborative venture among General Motors (GM), EDS, and Hughes Electronics Corp. Safety and security services, including roadside assistance, emergency help after a crash, remote diagnostics, and stolen vehicle tracking, were the cornerstones of OnStar's offering. In addition, OnStar provided its customers with a 24-hour connection to convenience services such as navigation and route guidance, vehicle location assistance, and personal concierge services. To generate more revenues, OnStar expanded its offering to luxury vehicles of other auto manufacturers. Looking back, Chet Huber, OnStar president, was quite satisfied with the company's achievements since it was founded: OnStar's subscriber base had grown to more than 2 million and the company was routinely recognized as the leading telematics provider in the world. OnStar was also delivering benefits to its parent company, GM. By maintaining one-to-one relationships with customers, OnStar helped GM sell more cars and trucks, strengthen customer loyalty, and improve operational efficiency. Although revenues for the world market of in-car telematics terminals were expected to reach $20 billion by 2010, competition in the market was intensifying. Richard Wagoner, GM's CEO, and Huber needed to explore a number of strategic and operational questions around the future of OnStar: How would OnStar create ongoing value to GM? How should OnStar position itself to gain high acceptance and subscription renewal rates? What further strategic partnerships should OnStar form to maintain its leadership? How should GM leverage the continuous stream of vehicle and customer data it received from OnStar?
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.
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.
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, clearly understanding the arbitrage . 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.
Every negotiators going into the negotiations should always work out the “what if” scenario. The negotiating parties in the “OnStar: Connecting to Customers Through Telematics” 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 (Negotiations options), then there is no point in accepting the negotiated solution.
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.
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.
Another critical factor in the success of your negotiation is how you manage your relationship with your counterpart and other people doing the mediation. According to “Peter Koudal, Hau Lee, Barchi Peleg, Paresh Rajwat”, 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.
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 “OnStar: Connecting to Customers Through Telematics ”, 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 “OnStar: Connecting to Customers Through Telematics” can make for an effective negotiation strategy and will make it easier to negotiate with this party the next time as well.
Peter Koudal, Hau Lee, Barchi Peleg, Paresh Rajwat (2018), "OnStar: Connecting to Customers Through Telematics Harvard Business Review Case Study. Published by HBR Publications.
Feel free to connect with us if you need business research.
You can download Excel Template of Case Study Solution & Analysis of OnStar: Connecting to Customers Through Telematics
Technology , Software & Programming
Financial , Investment Services
Basic Materials , Gold & Silver
Consumer/Non-Cyclical , Personal & Household Prods.
Services , Personal Services
Consumer/Non-Cyclical , Food Processing
Financial , Insurance (Life)
Services , Motion Pictures
Capital Goods , Construction Services
Consumer/Non-Cyclical , Food Processing
Technology , Electronic Instr. & Controls
Capital Goods , Construction Services