Introduction to Negotiation Strategy
At Oak Spring University, we provide corporate level professional Negotiation Strategy and other business case study solution. Minding the Analytics Gap case study is a Harvard Business School (HBR) case study written by Sam Ransbotham, David Kiron, Pamela Kirk Prentice. The Minding the Analytics Gap (referred as “Analytics Respondents” from here on) case study provides evaluation & decision scenario in field of Leadership & Managing People. It also touches upon business topics such as - negotiation strategy, negotiation framework, .
Negotiation strategy solution for case study Minding the Analytics Gap ” 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 increasingly data-driven business environment, many executives must make critical decisions based on analyses that use data and statistical methods that they do not fully understand. How can executives with limited analytics expertise become adept consumers of analytics under such conditions? This question has become an important management issue as senior executives increasingly recognize the importance of analytics to creating business value. The authors'research -based on a survey of 2,719 managers in organizations from around the world -found that the foremost barrier to creatingbusiness value from analytics is not data management or complex modeling skills. Instead, the number one barrier mentioned by survey respondents involved translating analytics into business actions -in other words, making business decisions based on the results, not producing the results themselves. With more access to useful data, companies are increasingly using sophisticated analytical methods. That, the authors argue, means there's often a gap between an organization's capacity to produce analytical results and its ability to apply them effectively to business issues. Much can be done to make analytics more consumable for managers. At the individual level, data analysts can learn more about the business; in fact, about a third (34%) of the survey respondents reported that their organizations train analytics professionals to understand business issues. Organizations can also systemically improve infrastructure and processes; improved data quality, for example,can make it easier to turn data into competitive advantage. Managers can also take steps to become savvier at understanding analytical results. In fact, managers and executives are working to become more knowledgeable about data and analytics: Many of the survey respondents reported that their organizations develop analytical skills through on-the-job (58%) or formal (23%) training. Almost half the respondents (49%) reported that their organizations train managers to make better use of analytics. Beyond training, other known steps include: identifying trustworthy analytics professionals within the organization, requiring straightforward explanations and asking detailed questions. However, the authors'research indicates that, despite their efforts, managers continue to find it difficult to keep pace with their organization's analysts for two reasons: burgeoning analytics sophistication and competing demands for managerial attention. What's more, when an organization's capacity to produce increasingly sophisticated analytics outpaces managers'abilities to understand, discomfort is created -managers find they must make decisions based on complex analytical insights that they do not yet fully understand. But, despite this discomfort, these managerial decisions must be made. The authors conclude by suggesting five ways that managers can increase their comfort in consuming analytics. This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article.
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 “Minding the Analytics Gap” 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 “Sam Ransbotham, David Kiron, Pamela Kirk Prentice”, 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 “Minding the Analytics Gap ”, 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 “Minding the Analytics Gap” can make for an effective negotiation strategy and will make it easier to negotiate with this party the next time as well.
Sam Ransbotham, David Kiron, Pamela Kirk Prentice (2018), "Minding the Analytics Gap 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 Minding the Analytics Gap
Energy , Coal
Healthcare , Biotechnology & Drugs
Technology , Software & Programming
Consumer Cyclical , Textiles - Non Apparel
Basic Materials , Iron & Steel
Services , Retail (Technology)
Services , Real Estate Operations
Services , Retail (Specialty)
Services , Real Estate Operations
Consumer/Non-Cyclical , Crops
