Deeport

Debriefing – Deeport (21st Oct 2006)

General: What happened; what was the outcome; were you successful or not; why and why not;
I was successful. We reached an agreement on the third vote. All of the interested paries reached their own goals and that is why the negotiation was successful.

· who was satisfied (answer this before comparing walkaways or comparing information);
All of us were satisfied because all of us were satisfied with the final outcome.

· did either violate his/her walkaway; if so, why?
No one violated their walkaway and negotiated in good faith.

· if there was a gap in walkaways, how did you bridge (or try) the gap.
There was a gap initially (the first two voting rounds) and therefore we looked at ways where each interested could give a little concession to reach a solution that was beneficial for all.

· did we get near the “Pareto Frontier?” or …did we “leave money on the table”…where are we on the graph?
We did not leave any money on the table.

· Was there anything that surprised you about the negotiation
The surprising situation was the formation of alliances between different parties. The environmental league was ready to support the other ports in return for their support for a lighter industry or a medium industry in conjunction with the improvement of the ecology.

Negotiation Process: What was the process of negotiation- opening offers, sequences of offers, counteroffers, anchoring, initial offer, counteroffers? Did the other side start high/low? What effect did this have on the negotiation?
Our negotiation process started with the Deeport company proposing a package of offerings ( Medium Industry mix, Maintain and Repair Eco Impact, No Union Pref, A $3 Billion Loan, and no compensation to other ports). There was a discussion by various parties on aspects that were important to them. Deeport was posed questions and they answered them but did not commit on anything as such. I (Governor) tried to inform the company that concerns of the unions specifically initially and also pushed for heavy industries. After a brief discussion we took a vote and all were against the proposal except for Deeport. Again the Negotiation started and I again pushed for a higher union participation and a minimum of $ 2B loan with improving the co impact and a medium industry with no compensation to other ports. A lot of alliances were being formed and broken. A vote was taken and only other ports were opposed to the deal. We then went to a third round and we got a$300M compensation for the ports. We had reached an agreement on the third vote.


A test: was my negotiation effective? (some of these may not apply in a particular exercise)
Score yourself from 1=poor to 5=excellent
_5_ Planning and Strategy: did I have a strategy; was my walkaway right; did I estimate the other’s well?
_5_Did I establish my own priorities and potential trade-offs
_5__First approach: were we win-win, positive; try to establish rapport; did I deal with first offers effectively?
_5__How well did I develop a plan for managing the process of negotiation?
_5__Did I actively shape the agenda and manage the process to my advantage?
_4__How well did I try understand the other person:
_5__Exploring Interests: did I communicate my interests;
_5__Persuasion: How well did I persuade the other side about my legitimate needs and limits and the value of what I offered
_4__The Other's Interests did I find out the other side's real interests and constraints
_5__Creating Value (integrative or win-win) vs Claiming Value (distributive or win-lose)
_4__Options: Did we explore "expand the pie" options: did we try to find ways of meeting each party’s needs
_5__Inquiry vs. advocacy: did I ask (inquiry) a lot of questions, or just advocate my position
_5__Alternatives: Was I clear on my BATNA; was I clear about what happens if there is no agreement
___Legitimacy: was the agreement considered fair by some external benchmark
_4__Commitments: did the agreement avoid problems in the future; were any “strings left untied?”
_5__Communication: did we practice effective two way communication…did we listen…did we rephrase…
_5__Focus on the problem, not the person: did we avoid attacking or threatening the other person
_5__Relationship: did we deal well with differences; is our relationship better off now than before
_4__Psychological factors: did outside factors (eg. emotions) affect the outcome (their efforts or ours)
_5__Did we reach an outcome that maximized potential mutual gains; did we come close to the "Pareto Frontier?"
_5__Other factors: did anything else affect the negotiation-physical space, time pressure, etc.


Did we use the Techniques of Principled Negotiation: (did the other party?)…If not, what blocked it?
· listen, be warm and friendly; avoid quarreling; ask questions, ask questions, ask questions, ask clarification, rephrase
· be open to persuasion
· be principled (“You want to pay….I need …Can you think of ways that is fairer than splitting
· turn the interaction from adversarial haggling into side-b-side solving of the problem of what is fair.

For Yourself: General Conclusion:
· In areas where you felt you were less than totally successful, how might you be more effective next time. From this exercise, what did you learn that you are going to try to do better next time you negotiate;
In the areas that I felt I was less than totally successful was I should have used the opportunity before the negotiation started to speak with Deeport as we had the same interests and that would have made a big difference in understanding each other during the negotiation. I should have noticed the commonalities between our interests earlier in the negotiations.

· What were keys to the negotiation being successful or unsuccessful
The keys to the negotiation being successful were:
1. Exchange of Information
2. Working to arrive at a solution that would create the maximum value for each party

· What would you do differently if you were to do this same negotiation again
I will try and get all the parties talking more so that more information can be exchanged and mistrust about each other can be minimized.

· What did you learn about yourself? About negotiations what tendencies do you have in negotiation that you need to be careful about (too aggressive, too likely to quit searching for solutions once your; what do you feel you need to work on? What would you do differently next time?
I learnt that I need to work on my ability to form alliances and that means identifying not just the obvious alliances but also the ones that I can work on to make a viable proposal work.

· What did you learn in general?
As the negotiation progressed an interest facet of negotiation process came to the fore, the art of forming alliances and the If and then strategy being applied to those alliances. Alliances can be formed between the mostly unlikely of the parties given the situation and the circumstances are appropriate and that your bargaining advantage can be easily thrown out of sync.

· If this were a real case, what obstacles to joint problem-solving might you encounter; how would you overcome them?
If this were a real case the main issue would have come from the environmental league and the other ports. For environmental league they did not have legal basis to oppose to the port provided it was within the legal parameters. With respect to other ports there could have been a problem if there was no compensation paid to them because it was not legally binding. However, it would have meant spoilt relations with other state governors if no compensation were not paid. This could be avoided by balancing between parties and making them exchange information freely and understanding the real issues for each party. Concession from each party would be needed to arrive at a solution than can be of value to every party.