Introduction to Negotiation Strategy
At Oak Spring University, we provide corporate level professional Negotiation Strategy and other business case study solution. Harnessing the Secret Structure of Innovation case study is a Harvard Business School (HBR) case study written by Martin Reeves, Thomas Fink, Ramiro Palma, Johann Harnoss. The Harnessing the Secret Structure of Innovation (referred as “Innovation Space” from here on) case study provides evaluation & decision scenario in field of Innovation & Entrepreneurship. It also touches upon business topics such as - negotiation strategy, negotiation framework, .
Negotiation strategy solution for case study Harnessing the Secret Structure of Innovation ” 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 an era of low growth, companies need innovation more than ever. They can draw on a large body of theory and precedent. In practice, though, the authors say that innovation is more of an art than a science. They argue that there is an opportunity to view innovation not as the product of luck or extraordinary vision but as the result of a deliberate search process that companies can harness to construct an advantaged innovation strategy.The authors analyzed the mathematics of innovation as a search process for viable product designs across a universe of components. They then tested their insights using historical data from four real environments and concluded that companies can have an advantaged innovation strategy by using information about the unfolding process of innovation. But there isn't one superior strategy. The optimal strategy, they found, is both time-dependent and space-dependent. Based on their findings, the authors developed a five-step process for constructing an information-advantaged innovation strategy. Step 1. Choose your space: Where to play? It's not enough to analyze markets or anticipate customers'needs, the authors say. To innovate successfully, you also need to understand the structure of your innovation space. Step 2. Select your strategy: How to play? Measure the evolution of complexity in the space by analyzing the distribution of product sizes in terms of the number of unique components in products. If complexity is low and stable, the authors say, it's an indication that the space is still in its infancy, which argues for an impatient strategy. If complexity is high, then the space is maturing and a patient strategy will be the best approach. Step 3. Apply your strategy: How to execute? If you follow an impatient innovation strategy, the objective is to adopt or develop components that enable the company to bring relatively simple products to market quickly. Managers should ask themselves how they can be first. However, if the characteristics of your chosen innovation space imply that a patient strategy is more appropriate, your objective should instead be to maximize future innovation options. Step 4. Sense shifts and adapt: How to extract a switch signal? You need to monitor the complexity of your innovation space and compete on access to information in order to detect valuable strategy-switching signals before competitors. In their research, the authors found that a flattening in the increase of product complexity is a signal that it is time to switch from an impatient innovation strategy to a patient one. Step 5. Brace for disruptions: How to reset the clock? The promise of an information-enabled innovation strategy extends to disruption. Disruption, the authors note, suddenly resets and simplifies an innovation space by lowering product complexity. Disruptions don't just happen -they are created by innovators at the edge of a space who build simpler products that leverage components from a different space.
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 “Harnessing the Secret Structure of Innovation” 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 “Martin Reeves, Thomas Fink, Ramiro Palma, Johann Harnoss”, 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 “Harnessing the Secret Structure of Innovation ”, 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 “Harnessing the Secret Structure of Innovation” can make for an effective negotiation strategy and will make it easier to negotiate with this party the next time as well.
Martin Reeves, Thomas Fink, Ramiro Palma, Johann Harnoss (2018), "Harnessing the Secret Structure of Innovation 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 Harnessing the Secret Structure of Innovation
Basic Materials , Gold & Silver
Healthcare , Biotechnology & Drugs
Basic Materials , Gold & Silver
Capital Goods , Construction Services
Healthcare , Medical Equipment & Supplies
Services , Communications Services
Services , Retail (Drugs)
Technology , Computer Networks
Services , Real Estate Operations
Services , Business Services
Financial , Regional Banks
Consumer/Non-Cyclical , Crops
