Kat ChartierTechnical Project Manager| Axonius Federal SystemsVirginia, United States
May 29, 2018 11:12 AM
Replying to Thomas Walenta
...
Good question to reflect on , Kevin.
First, if there is a win-win outcome is rather a matter of perception on each side than a measure of facts. Sergio’s point is well taken. Consider you being in a bazaar in Instanbul, trying to buy a gold bracelet. It is offered to you for 100, you manage to get it for 30 but it is worth only 5. Rationally, you lost 25, but emotionally you won by 70.
Second, win-win is based on a non-zero-sum game, so I agree with Kathrine, win-win is rather 100-100 than 50-50. 50-50 I rather see as a compromise, a loose-loose outcome.
Third, the timeframe is important for which you assess the outcome. For short term, transactional business, win-win will be a different outcome than for a longterm, strategic and relationships based environment (think US vs China). A quick win might be catastrophic in the long term and strategic thinkers will accept short-term losses for the longterm sustainable win.
Well said, Thomas. I completely agree on all points raised. Win-win situations are not always easy to achieve but is an outcome that i always aspire for when I go into negotiations. Saving Changes...
First, if there is a win-win outcome is rather a matter of perception on each side than a measure of facts. Sergio’s point is well taken. Consider you being in a bazaar in Instanbul, trying to buy a gold bracelet. It is offered to you for 100, you manage to get it for 30 but it is worth only 5. Rationally, you lost 25, but emotionally you won by 70.
Second, win-win is based on a non-zero-sum game, so I agree with Kathrine, win-win is rather 100-100 than 50-50. 50-50 I rather see as a compromise, a loose-loose outcome.
Third, the timeframe is important for which you assess the outcome. For short term, transactional business, win-win will be a different outcome than for a longterm, strategic and relationships based environment (think US vs China). A quick win might be catastrophic in the long term and strategic thinkers will accept short-term losses for the longterm sustainable win.
Thomas, your explanation is good I just wonder why the example of Bazaar in Istanbul has to mention certain city in particular for bad action, I think we should refrain from prejudice, racism, antagonism directed against someone of different race or city considering the past how Turkey sided Germany to help their needs ( Ottoman - German Alliance) and over 3 millions Turkish contributing positively in German economy. Saving Changes...
A lot of great responses here and it is very eye-opening Saving Changes...
Sandeep Kumar MKPM - Infrastructure Services| MPHASIS LTDBengaluru, Karnataka, India
One of my Project Team headcount was 5 . responsible for providing Network Analysis and capacity management for 25 accounts every month. Client company was asking for discount after an year of service. We applied Lean approach and partial automation and saved the time taken on each deliverable. as a result within 3 months we were able to deliver 45 accounts with just 2 more resources added.
Outcome:
My company added 2 additional resources . which is additional income/resource.
Client company was able to deliver services to 50 accounts. which is additional 20 accounts. with the additional cost of 2 resources. Saving Changes...
Years ago I worked for a company that had a dispute with their largest vendor over nearly 1/2 million in unpaid invoices. Both companies were incompetent at managing billing. The problems became heated at the senior levels and both sides were preparing for legal action.
Because of my experience managing vendors, I was asked to do a final review of the bills determine if we should pay them, before the company took legal action.
I discovered that the bills were a hot mess. No coherent descriptions for the work, no contracts or supporting documents and in one case, the math was so far off, that at a glance you could see the totals were wrong.
I contacted reps from the other company and asked them to work with me on the situation. They agreed and we went through each invoice, item by item. It took weeks to complete, and in the end I determined that we owed 30% of the invoices billed. These I paid. And because our accounts payable department was incompetent, I followed each invoice and badgered them until the vendor said they were paid.
The vendor had nothing to back up the remaining 70%, and I could not find anything to support their demands. The vendor agreed to drop the demands for the invoices they could not prove.
I presented my findings and the resolution to senior leadership and the dispute was closed without legal action. This saved both companies the expense and distraction of a legal fight. The vendor was spared the embarrassment of exposing in court how flawed their billing system was, and they could continue to boast that "no customer has ever sued us". They are an old, well known company and that was very important to them.
So, while it wasn't 50-50, it was definitely a win-win. Saving Changes...
Paulo RoqueChartered Civil Engineer, PMP| BECHTELSetubal, Portugal
I find the classic Problem Solving approach very effective to reach a Win-Win outcome in the negotiation process.
The search for an agreement in a Win-Win negotiation, instead of constituting an open dispute or a pure conflict, takes place in a giving and taking perspective, where one party withdraws benefits from the concessions granted to other party, in an intentional and calculated way, based on the tangible and intangible objectives and interests of both parties, distinguishing what is really relevant to the overall purpose of the negotiation and establishing a Minimum and a Maximum Level for the outcome that are willing to accept.
Often both parties make an evaluation of their strengths, weaknesses and competitive advantages at the beginning of the negotiation and an assessment of the risk factors associated with the decisions to be taken during the negotiation process.
In the Problem Solving approach it is intended to resolve the bargaining by trying to integrate the positions of both parties in the negotiation, putting an expressive tone in the final outcome, with the perspective to maximizing each own results without detriment to the results of trading partners.
In the Heavy Civil Infrastructure Industry arena is dominant the Commercial Negotiation ( Business, Contract, Transaction or Act of Sale ) including two parties ( the Supplier and the Vendor ), and normally comprises a Supply ( of Goods or Services ) and the Price as its monetary counterpart.
In the Construction Industry negotiating a price is a common place and a predominantly integrative approach ( the Problem Solving approach ) taking into consideration a multiple items negotiation framework ( technical, commercial and/or special conditions), instead of a single focused price item negotiation, is instrumental to reach a Win-Win outcome in the negotiation process.
In this context, some effective negotiation tactics typically integrative are listed below:
Credible Promises – When serious promises are made that can be fulfilled and do not change over time.
Reciprocity – When mutualistic conditions are sought in a negotiation.
Use of Time – When time is used for the benefit of both sides towards a Win-Win approach.
Placing a difficulty in stand buy – When we try to isolate the problems, giving them more time and dedication, looking for solutions later without undermining a possible agreement.
Constructive Communication – When the communication of one party reveals concern with taking into account the strengths and positive points of view of the adverse party.
Contingency Agreement – When an agreement of principle is sought although subjected to a further practical validation.
News – When looking for new and previously unknown facts that legitimately enrich the negotiation.
Guarantee Offers – Where guarantees are given by the agreement reached. Saving Changes...
Paulo RoqueChartered Civil Engineer, PMP| BECHTELSetubal, Portugal
In addition to my approach to the Win-Win Negotiation process already exposed, I would share the following example taken from the Heavy Civil Construction arena:
In the year of 1999 I have been appointed as a Site Manager of the Section B of A6 Motorway, which was part of the Highway Scheme link between Lisbon and Madrid.
The circumstances have determined that my colleague of Section A should sit down with me at the same table to negotiate the need and transference of a significant quantity of soils available in excess in the excavation of a cutting in Section B, which possessed the required characteristics of selected materials to be incorporated in a fill for the construction of the Approach Embankments of the Bridge Abutments in Section A.
According to the contract with the client, the excess of soils from the cutting in Section B should be loaded, transported and properly disposed in an authorized permanent stock pile a few kilometres away from the site.
But the terms of the agreement with my colleague, have dictated that I would provide for free the excavators to load the soils from the cutting in Section B and he would mobilize for free the trucks to remove the soils from my site for using it in the approach embankments of the Bridge Abutments in Section A.
Through the deal that has been reached, both parties have profited with the resulting savings made, without any financial transaction having taken place. Saving Changes...
