Introduction to Negotiation Strategy
At Oak Spring University, we provide corporate level professional Negotiation Strategy and other business case study solution. D-Orbit: Keeping The Thermosphere Clean case study is a Harvard Business School (HBR) case study written by Gregor Pipan, Armen Tiraturyan, Lorenzo Massa, Mike Rosenberg. The D-Orbit: Keeping The Thermosphere Clean (referred as “Orbit Propellant” 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, Strategy, Sustainability.
Negotiation strategy solution for case study D-Orbit: Keeping The Thermosphere Clean ” 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?
D-Orbit is an entrepreneurial start-up operating in the aerospace industry, developing a technology for the controlled removal of end-of-life debris from space. The case focuses on the nexus between strategy and (space) sustainability.The emphasis of this case is given to the role of the private sector (in this case entrepreneurial start-ups) in tackling sustainability issues by converting them into opportunities for profits.The case triggers discussions on the tension between market imperatives (the extent to which the solution proposed by D-Orbit offers more value to customers than alternative solutions) and sustainability problems (in this case, "the tragedy of the commons" and issues related to moral hazards) and stimulates reflections on the role the private sector can play in achieving a sustainable future.In order to achieve these objectives, the case presents a challenge faced by Luca Rossettini, founder and president of D-Orbit Srl: whether increasing skepticism on the part of would-be investors concerning the robustness of the current business model (and its customer value proposition) is a signal of possible problems which are worthy of attention and rigorous strategic analysis, or whether it is simply due to a lack of familiarity with the industry, as some of Luca's colleagues suspect. Luca and his team believe that the principal benefit of D-Orbit for satellite operators is that it will allow them to prolong the life cycle of a satellite, saving the propellant destined to be used for de-orbiting maneuvers by the on-board propulsion system. This represents a considerable opportunity cost for satellite operators. However, investors seem worried that the same operations could be performed simply by enlarging the existing on-board propellant tank to carry more fuel. Is this a viable alternative? Is it potentially more attractive to customers? What other benefits might D-Orbit offer?An analysis of the case will progressively lead to discussing possible configurations of the aerospace industry, as well as D-Orbit's main competitors and substitute technologies. It will also lead to a comparison of the three main alternatives from the view point of incremental analysis (i.e. incremental benefits and incremental costs). These are: the situation as is, D-Orbit and enlarging the propellant tank. Such an analysis will help students to realize that, while from a customer's perspective D-Orbit does not offer comparatively strong benefits with respect to viable alternatives, from a sustainability standpoint the solution proposed by D-Orbit offers a way to avoid the tragedy of the commons in space sustainability by eliminating satellite operators' incentives to misbehave.
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. 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 “D-Orbit: Keeping The Thermosphere Clean” 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.
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. According to “Gregor Pipan, Armen Tiraturyan, Lorenzo Massa, Mike Rosenberg”, 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 “D-Orbit: Keeping The Thermosphere Clean ”, 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 “D-Orbit: Keeping The Thermosphere Clean” can make for an effective negotiation strategy and will make it easier to negotiate with this party the next time as well.
Gregor Pipan, Armen Tiraturyan, Lorenzo Massa, Mike Rosenberg (2018), "D-Orbit: Keeping The Thermosphere Clean 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 D-Orbit: Keeping The Thermosphere Clean
Financial , Investment Services
Technology , Semiconductors
Basic Materials , Gold & Silver
Services , Hotels & Motels
Technology , Software & Programming
Consumer/Non-Cyclical , Food Processing
Financial , Misc. Financial Services
Technology , Computer Services
Technology , Semiconductors
Technology , Computer Services
Services , Real Estate Operations
Financial , Insurance (Prop. & Casualty)
