Introduction to Negotiation Strategy
At Oak Spring University, we provide corporate level professional Negotiation Strategy and other business case study solution. Driving Innovation at PAR Springer-Miller (B) case study is a Harvard Business School (HBR) case study written by Susan Fleming, Alyssa W. Goldman. The Driving Innovation at PAR Springer-Miller (B) (referred as “Legacy Springer” from here on) case study provides evaluation & decision scenario in field of Technology & Operations. It also touches upon business topics such as - negotiation strategy, negotiation framework, Innovation, Organizational culture, Technology.
Negotiation strategy solution for case study Driving Innovation at PAR Springer-Miller (B) ” 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?
In fall 2009, the new president and chief executive officer of PAR Springer-Miller Systems, based in Stowe, Vermont, is tasked with leading the most significant innovation effort the company has undertaken since its founding in 1984. The company is a leading provider of property management, point-of-sale and spa management systems for high-end hotels, resorts, spas and casinos worldwide, but its legacy products are based on outdated technology and subject to increasing customer complaints; at the same time, the global recession has negatively affected the high-end market. In his first year, the new president has made significant progress in restructuring the organization and shifting its culture to a more entrepreneurial one. He is ready to begin the development of an entirely new product but has to decide on strategy, in particular deciding on the best market on which to focus the new software product and then mapping out a plan to execute its development and launch. How can he elicit a radical innovation from a team of management and employees so culturally rooted in their past accomplishments and legacy products? Should he look for a technology partner and develop the new product in a different location? Can the legacy products be kept up and running long enough for the new product to generate sufficient sales that they can be retired? These are the issues that must be addressed or the company may well face a dire future. See A Case 9B14C022. Author Susan Fleming is affiliated with Cornell University. Author Alyssa W. Goldman is affiliated with Concept Systems, Inc.
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 “Driving Innovation at PAR Springer-Miller (B)” 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 “Susan Fleming, Alyssa W. Goldman”, 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 “Driving Innovation at PAR Springer-Miller (B) ”, 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 “Driving Innovation at PAR Springer-Miller (B)” can make for an effective negotiation strategy and will make it easier to negotiate with this party the next time as well.
Susan Fleming, Alyssa W. Goldman (2018), "Driving Innovation at PAR Springer-Miller (B) 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 Driving Innovation at PAR Springer-Miller (B)
Transportation , Misc. Transportation
Services , Communications Services
Capital Goods , Construction - Raw Materials
Transportation , Water Transportation
Basic Materials , Gold & Silver
Services , Business Services
Services , Security Systems & Services
Healthcare , Medical Equipment & Supplies
Consumer Cyclical , Auto & Truck Parts
Financial , Misc. Financial Services
Services , Real Estate Operations
