Introduction to Negotiation Strategy
At Oak Spring University, we provide corporate level professional Negotiation Strategy and other business case study solution. The Hybrid Trap: Why Most Efforts to Bridge Old and New Technology Miss the Mark case study is a Harvard Business School (HBR) case study written by Fernando F. Suarez, James M. Utterback, Paul von Gruben, Hye Young Kang. The The Hybrid Trap: Why Most Efforts to Bridge Old and New Technology Miss the Mark (referred as “Technology Ev” 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, .
Negotiation strategy solution for case study The Hybrid Trap: Why Most Efforts to Bridge Old and New Technology Miss the Mark ” 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?
Technological transitions are challenging, particularly for companies in mature industries. Incumbents are frequently blindsided by new technologies, thereby missing opportunities to enter emerging markets early. While some established companies become early adopters of new technologies, the authors argue that they typically lack the vision and the commitment to become leaders. Too often, they cling to the familiar, developing "hybrid"products that combine elements of the old and the new.This puts even the best incumbent companies in a weak position when the market finally embraces the new technology, something the authors call the "hybrid trap." This article takes a close look at the auto industry's transition from internal combustion engines to electric vehicles (EVs) and compares it to precedents in other industries. Several incumbent automakers, such as General Motors Co. and Honda Motor Co. Ltd., entered the EV market early, but they backed away from these projects in favor of continued emphasis on established engine technology. Gradually, most of them focused on hybrid cars that combined old and new technologies. This opened the door to new competitors, notably Tesla Inc., which focused solely on the EV technology. By mid-2017, nearly every old-line engine producer was playing catch-up on EV technology, working to release new electric models in the next two to five years. Although it is too early to know if Tesla will be successful in the long run, the Tesla example, in the authors'view, points to a fundamental weakness in how incumbents respond to industry transformations. In the 1960s, U.S. electronics companies responded to the introduction of Japanese transistor radios by developing products that blended transistor technology with traditional vacuum tubes. In the early 1990s, Kodak Ltd. tried to sell a "film-based digital imaging"product, which merged film photography and digital technology. And a decade ago, BlackBerry Ltd. tried to respond to the challenge of the iPhone by releasing a phone that had both a touchscreen display (like the iPhone) and a traditional keyboard (like earlier BlackBerry phones). The answer for incumbents, the authors write, isn't to walk away from products based on the old technology and jump headlong into the new. But they need to take precautions so that the company's legacy operations don't hamper their ability to pursue new technology. New technologies can open opportunities that extend well beyond the scope of legacy products. But such opportunities can be accessed only by companies that are willing to view the world through the lens of the new technology.
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 “The Hybrid Trap: Why Most Efforts to Bridge Old and New Technology Miss the Mark” 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 “Fernando F. Suarez, James M. Utterback, Paul von Gruben, Hye Young Kang”, 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 “The Hybrid Trap: Why Most Efforts to Bridge Old and New Technology Miss the Mark ”, 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 “The Hybrid Trap: Why Most Efforts to Bridge Old and New Technology Miss the Mark” can make for an effective negotiation strategy and will make it easier to negotiate with this party the next time as well.
Fernando F. Suarez, James M. Utterback, Paul von Gruben, Hye Young Kang (2018), "The Hybrid Trap: Why Most Efforts to Bridge Old and New Technology Miss the Mark 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 The Hybrid Trap: Why Most Efforts to Bridge Old and New Technology Miss the Mark
Healthcare , Healthcare Facilities
Basic Materials , Chemical Manufacturing
Basic Materials , Iron & Steel
Technology , Software & Programming
Consumer/Non-Cyclical , Food Processing
Financial , Misc. Financial Services
Technology , Electronic Instr. & Controls
Consumer Cyclical , Apparel/Accessories
Capital Goods , Construction - Raw Materials
Basic Materials , Chemical Manufacturing
