Federated Sciences Fund Pre-Negotiation Plan

Pre-Negotiation Plan for Federated Science Fund (Role of Turbo Enterprises) Justine Mensik October 5, 2014

Summary of Negotiation

The participants in the negotiation are Stockman, Turbo and United, three small firms that produce specialized products, equipment and research for scientific and medical communities. In this situation, the Federated Federated Science Fund, a government government agency that funds research in advanced medical technology, has indicated willingness to provide funding for research and development projects. My company, Turbo Enterprises, has recently applied for research and development funding alongside the two other companies. Issues

In this situation, the main issue to be negotiated ne gotiated is who I will agree on a particular p articular consortium with, since that will determine the total amount to be awarded us. Second, I must negotiate with the other party(s) as to how much mu ch of the money I will receive. It would be most equitable to split the money equally with the other party(s) involved in the selected consortium. However, it would benefit me to potentially argue for more of the share. Turbo is at the cusp of medical breakthroughs, and more money mone y could potentially push us over the edge. There are three possible arrangements, and I have ordered them from most desirable to least desirable. My order of the consortiums is arranged b ased on Turbo receiving the most funding possible to Turbo receiving the minimum amount of funding. First, I can agree on an arrangement with Stockman, in which we will somehow divide $440,000. Second, I can agree on an arrangement in which all three firms will somehow divide $480,000. Third, I can agree on an arrangement with United, in which we will somehow divide $300,000. I decided on this order after determining my

1


negotiation goal, which is for Turbo to receive the maximum amount of funding. This is the first step in the planning process. The other two institutions have different

issues to concern themselves with. Stockman is concentrated on basic research, with a wide variety of products. With more money, they could potentially broaden the number of products they’re researching, which means a greater share of market share.

Additionally, this firm can argue that they contribute the most value to any consortium agreement. United is concentrated on AIDS-related research. With their focus directed on one particular issue, the more money they negotiate for, the more money strictly devoted to research and treatment of this worldwide epidemic. Additionally, United could argue their need for more money based on high future productivity and potential. In this negotiation, my overall approach will be a moderate one, and I will be willing to make some concessions in terms of the exact dollar amount I will receive. I believe

that if I approach one or both of these firms with an air of flexibility and agreeablen ess, we can agree on a mutually beneficial division of the funding. I don’t w ant to approach

the firms with hostility or belligerence, because then neither of them will b e willing to hear my arguments or negotiate a beneficial consortium. However, it is important to my firm that we receive this money for our cancer research. I don’t want to give any indication that my research is any less important or pertinent in the scientific and medical communities. I would convey this nonverbally by sitting with arms uncrossed (so as not to appear cold or closed-off), making solid eye contact (to indicate confidence and firmness). Additionally, I will refrain from raising my voice and yelling. However, I will speak with confidence and firmness.

2


Bargaining Range

For this negotiation, my BATNA would be to seek private funding in order to further develop my cancer-related technologies. Since Turbo has a reputation for producing steady output and reliable products, I could present Turbo as a solid investment to private hospitals that are focused on cancer treatment and prevention. While this funding from the Federated Science Fund would be easier to come by, I cannot accept meager funding because Stockman and or United are unwilling to compromise and make concessions. I believe that this BATNA is a strong one, and will give me enough control in order to achieve my goal of maximum funding for Turbo . I have set my

target point at $220,000, which is the maximum possible funding Turbo can receive in a consortium with Stockman. I have set my reservation point at $150,000, which is an equal split of funding with United in that particular consortium agreement. In setting these points, I am attempting to create a larger bargaining range for the negotiation to take place in. This will create more distance between my target and resistance points,

and the settlement point will ideally be a point lying closer to my target. Problems & Planning

One potential problem in this negotiation could be the attitude of one or both of the other firms. Either or both of them could see their contributions to the scientific and medical fields as the most important and beneficial, and will therefore be resistant to making concessions in terms of an exact dollar amount. Additionally, there is the possibility that United and Stockman have negotiated a deal without me, and would therefore cut me out of receiving any funding from the FSF. In order to counteract these

3


issues, I will remain moderate and cooperative in my negotiating strategy. I will not let an agreement fall through if it is a matter of a few thousand dollars, and will be willing to give the other party that amount in order to make a deal. Additionally, I will approach the negotiation with specific research proving that my contributions are highly valuable. This would be quantifiable data, such as the number of patients who have received treatment due to Turbo’s innovative cancer technologies, and the number of

patients who have gone into remission due to technology produced by Turbo. In order to understand the positions of the other two firms, I would ask: 1) Do you have specific projects requiring this funding? 2) How effective has your technology and/or projects been in the past? 3) What are the timelines of your most important projects, and how pertinent is it that you receive this funding now? Conflict Strategies

Per the Dual Concerns Model, I will adopt a more competitive approach for this negotiation. I have a stronger interest in achieving both substantive outcomes (receiving funding for my cancer research and projects), and am not as concerned with building relationships with the other firms. I want to be firm with my goals, so as to show that I

have control and will not be short-changed. However, I don’t want to come across as belligerent, because I have to come to some form of an agreement with one or both of the other firms. I believe both of the other firms will also approach this ne gotiation with a competitive mindset, because they both will feel strongly about their contributions to science and or medicine. It is likely that both firms will only give up so much, because they feel their research is pertinent and critical. Additionally, since each of the firms

4


focus on different research areas, it’s not necessarily important that each of the firms maintain a relationship. It’s not incredibly likely that the firms will work together frequently.

5

Federated Sciences Fund Pre-Negotiation Plan

Recommend Documents