PART A
It is important to allow sufficient time for the preparation of the meeting for negotiation. It should not be squeezed into limited time frame nor it be adjusted with holidays. Proper time should be given to prepare for negotiation and gather information. Second rule is that a pre-meeting or a preparatory meeting is crucial and must be given due significance. To make the negotiation meeting successful, the participants ought to meet in the pre-meeting (Pohl, 2010). Basically, the reason behind setting a pre-meeting is to establish a plan for the negotiation. But it is not limited to establishing plan, as this pre-meeting can also help to gather and assimilate information.
In this preparation stage, the engineer and the lead negotiator hands in all the information and analyzes what information is useful to him and what is useless. But he also identifies that information, which may seem to be irrelevant but could be used to distract the other party. It is in the pre-meeting that the lead negotiator needs to find out what issues are related and how the answers can be reached (Scott & Billing, 1990). The engineer needs to report everything he is aware of and not conceal any information he is aware of which could weaken his side’s position. So, the pre-meeting helps to maximize information and understand the opposition team.
Negotiation means to bring about a compromise and so, the pre-meeting is held to identify the objectives of both sides so that a plan can be made to reach an agreement. Once, the objectives of both sides have been identified, it is easier to understand what is actually important for the opposition (Pohl, 2010). Moreover, it also helps to identify those areas which the opposition would not compromise.
Though there is always a chance that there would be an unpredictable event or question, there ought to be a plan with clear goals and objectives. The negotiation plan should be aligned with the work of the pre-meetings and clearly must aim at the objectives of negotiation. The objectives should be re-examined if they are a must have but impossible to attain. The engineer should play an important role in defining the objectives and classifying them in the nine segments of the matrix. So, categorize your objectives as well as the opposition’s objectives too (Scott & Billing, 1990). The engineer must make sure that the identified objectives are realistic and helps the lead negotiator to understand the position of both parties.
The engineer must take responsibility of briefing the lead negotiator honestly and thoroughly so that nothing is missed. When the objective of the negotiation plan is covered then, it should be made sure that the plan is well structured and include the following topics: opening position, order of play, manner of tabling issues, timing of offers/counter offers, and information to be tabled (Morgan, 2005). Yet, the most significant element is to allocate and clearly define the roles and specific function of each member of the negotiation team. This briefing should not only be regarding their specialist subject but they also should be well aware of the negotiation plan in general.
The leader is responsible for the negotiation while all the rest members support the leader. The actual process of negotiation takes place between two people-one from each side. It is the duty of the engineer to listen well and be sensitive to the leader and be well prepared to support the leader when invited (Morgan, 2005). The plan should be strictly followed and no member of the team should deviate from the agreed plan so that there is no confusion.
All the members of the teams must be listening well to recognize when the leader is deviating from the plan. Even if the engineer has some new information that may seem important, if the leader is unaware, it is strictly prohibited to present that extra information; rather, it is appropriate to have a time-out than to destroy the progress (Pohl, 2010). Neither the leader, nor the supporters should appear divided; everyone should seem united and equally aware and agreed to ensure credibility.
Never try to answer any technical and awkward question even if you have an answer rather promise to check later. Even more important is to make sure that the engineer does not get distracted by areas which he is unaware of completely. You need to stick to the plan and not bring the leader into trouble (Scott & Billing, 1990). So, it’s better to answer the questions with minimum information or economical truth.
The engineer must not volunteer any information when in the meeting. This can only happen if you do not get carried away with the debate and must remember the initial objectives of the negotiation meeting. Even if a friendly relation seems to be developing, do not forget that issues could arise and it has to be tough so being rigid is no answer (Morgan, 2005). On the other hand, the negotiators should also make sure to enjoy the dealings while the engineer also enjoys his contribution in the process.
A good deal is when both the sides have compromised to the extent that they leave the table content; there should not be a clear loser or clear victor. And lastly, even if the opposition’s case seems to be tempting, the engineer must not support the points as it may seem to appear changing sides.
PART B
The first mistake made was that the team had not been clear on all the information and the project manager was not clear about the principles. In the pre-meeting, they failed to maximize the information which was a great mistake. Moreover, the objectives had not been clearly defined nor the information properly assimilated. And when the meeting was being conducted, the biggest mistake was to not follow the leader as the project manager started throwing in new information which clearly showed that the team was not united and they did not stick to the plan at all. So, rules broken were not maximizing information in the pre-meeting; not following the leader; not sticking to the plan and throwing in new information.
In this case, when the negotiation was at the verge of being completion, the project manager made the most critical mistake which was to argue the case of the other side. Even if he was being tempted and was aware that there was an issue, he should have stuck to the plan and let the ‘good deal’ take place. By switching sides, not only he created confusion for the other party but also showed that maybe he was actually supporting the opposition. Moreover, another rule was broken again, not following the leader, not sticking to plan and throwing in new information which was unnecessary and at this point could only create more confusion and jeopardize the progress.
Firstly, in the preparatory meeting, the information has not been able to maximize because the host team did not put forward their own contribution. This also means that the other companies’ teams are unaware of their argument and so everyone had incomplete information. With incomplete information, the other parties could not completely identify the objectives and so, there is a greater chance that they did not put forward their own complete information. Here, the rules have been broken from the beginning as neither the information is maximized, nor the objectives, real needs and crucial points of all parties have been identified. Again mistake occurred when the lead negotiator asked the project manager to describe the technical work. The leader seemed not to be briefed well by the project manager so another rule broken. Rather than sticking to the plan, the manager demonstrated that leader was unaware of the information in the system which means that the team wasn’t united and seemed un-credible. By giving confused statement that project manager volunteered information that would help the other side.
In this case, the basic mistake and the foremost rule broken has been not realizing the significance of the preparatory meeting. Though they did have a pre-meeting, both parties started executing the negotiation meeting. The supplier was well aware of his stance and wanted to gain clear victory rather than a compromise in this deal. Rather than holding a preparatory meeting for the purpose of defining the objectives of the negotiation plan and using the information from the preparatory meeting to devise the negotiation plan. The supplier devised the negotiation plan first which was aimed at two principles through which the deal could be won from the customer. The project manager’s role was clearly defined and so the rule was clearly followed when the preparatory meeting was finally held. But this meeting was actually serving its real purpose as it wasn’t helping to reach a negotiation plan. So, the plan was biased and not leading to a good deal principle. The supplier’s team was sticking to their plan but this plan had not been developed considering the best interests of the customer as well. But another mistake occurred when at the end, the project manager could not any longer stick to their original plan and simply by-passed the leader to show eagerness to reach a conclusion. He had not only deviated from the original plan but also suggested that he was switching sides and supporting the customer’s case.
References
Morgan, D. (2005). International Construction Contract Management (1st ed.). London: RIBA Enterprises Ltd.
Pohl, K. (2010). Requirements engineering (1st ed.). Heidelberg: Springer.
Scott, W., & Billing, B. (1990). Negotiating skills in engineering and construction (1st ed.). Thomas Telford.
