×




Aviation Security After September 11th: Public or Private? Negotiation Strategy / MBA Resources

Introduction to Negotiation Strategy

Negotiation Strategy solution for Aviation Security After September 11th: Public or Private? case study


At Oak Spring University, we provide corporate level professional Negotiation Strategy and other business case study solution. Aviation Security After September 11th: Public or Private? case study is a Harvard Business School (HBR) case study written by Alexander Dyck, Mehmet Beceren. The Aviation Security After September 11th: Public or Private? (referred as “Bills Aviation” from here on) case study provides evaluation & decision scenario in field of Global Business. It also touches upon business topics such as - negotiation strategy, negotiation framework, .

Negotiation strategy solution for case study Aviation Security After September 11th: Public or Private? ” 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.


BATNA in Negotiation Strategy


Three questions every negotiator should ask before entering into a negotiation process-

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?



12 Hrs

$59.99
per Page
  • 100% Plagiarism Free
  • On Time Delivery | 27x7
  • PayPal Secure
  • 300 Words / Page
  • Buy Now

24 Hrs

$49.99
per Page
  • 100% Plagiarism Free
  • On Time Delivery | 27x7
  • PayPal Secure
  • 300 Words / Page
  • Buy Now

48 Hrs

$39.99
per Page
  • 100% Plagiarism Free
  • On Time Delivery | 27x7
  • PayPal Secure
  • 300 Words / Page
  • Buy Now




Case Description of Aviation Security After September 11th: Public or Private? Case Study


This case is available in only hard copy format (HBP does not have digital distribution rights to the content). As a result, a digital Educator Copy of the case is not available through this web site.Was the public or the private sector best positioned to provide security and baggage screening services? The suicide attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the plane crash outside Pittsburgh, marked September 11, 2001, as the date of the most severe terrorist attack and the most dreadful aviation incident in U.S. history, and initiated a search for steps to prevent such a calamity in the future. The U.S. House and the U.S. Senate passed two competing bills to address aviation security. The principal difference between the bills was whether the screening function could continue to be provided by the private sector or would be federalized--in effect, a reverse privatization of the service. Members of Congress had to consider questions of links between ownership, cost, and quality, and, most importantly, support one of the two bills. Can be used to introduce issues of market and government failure and to develop a contracting framework where key issues are the availability of information, the ability to provide incentives, the importance of incentives and innovation, and the importance of attributes that can't be contracted (such as some dimensions of product quality).


Case Authors : Alexander Dyck, Mehmet Beceren

Topic : Global Business

Related Areas :




Seven Elemental Tools of Negotiation that can be used in Aviation Security After September 11th: Public or Private? solution


1. Satisfies everyone’s core interests (yours and theirs)


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.





2. Is the best of many options

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.


3. Meets legitimate, fair standards

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.


4. Is better than your alternatives or BATNA

Every negotiators going into the negotiations should always work out the “what if” scenario. The negotiating parties in the “Aviation Security After September 11th: Public or Private?” 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.


5. Is comprised of clear, realistic commitments

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.


6. Is the result of effective communication?

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.


7. Managing relationship with counterparty

Another critical factor in the success of your negotiation is how you manage your relationship with your counterpart. According to “Alexander Dyck, Mehmet Beceren”, 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.




Different types of negotiators – what is your style of negotiation

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 “Aviation Security After September 11th: Public or Private? ”, 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 “Aviation Security After September 11th: Public or Private?” can make for an effective negotiation strategy and will make it easier to negotiate with this party the next time as well.





NPV Analysis of Aviation Security After September 11th: Public or Private?



References & Further Readings

Alexander Dyck, Mehmet Beceren (2018), "Aviation Security After September 11th: Public or Private? Harvard Business Review Case Study. Published by HBR Publications.


De.mem SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Services , Waste Management Services


ConocoPhillips SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Energy , Oil & Gas - Integrated


Targovax SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Healthcare , Biotechnology & Drugs


Bortex Global SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Consumer Cyclical , Furniture & Fixtures


CEC Intl SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Services , Retail (Grocery)


Nova Lifestyle I SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Consumer Cyclical , Furniture & Fixtures


Genufood Energy SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Healthcare , Biotechnology & Drugs


Platinum Asset Management SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Financial , Misc. Financial Services


Hirakawa Hewtech SWOT Analysis / TOWS Matrix

Technology , Electronic Instr. & Controls