from $0.00

SCENARIO:

In the state of Jefferson, an emergency situation has developed due to tremendous increases in the quantity of hazardous industrial waste produced each year. As of January 1 next year, the one in-state landfill must be closed. There are already signs that the water supplies in adjacent areas have been contaminated. The Commissioner of Environmental Quality has pressed the Governor to decide on a policy for hazardous waste disposal.

The Governor has appointed an eight-member “blue ribbon” committee to provide advice on the policy. In the Committee’s first meeting, factions polarized and no agreements were reached. The Committee has agreed to convene one more time in an attempt to reconcile its differences and to make a recommendation to the Governor. The five key issues under discussion are: the relative emphases on health/safety/environment v. economic development/financial interests; the administration of environmental standards; the acceptable levels of risk to human’s health and safety; the restrictions on waste production; and compensation to adversely affected neighborhoods and the right of citizen review. If the parties cannot agree, the Governor will draft guidelines, with no special “input” from the major parties involved in this controversy.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• There are numerous sources of negotiating power that are not necessarily correlated with a party’s political clout away from the bargaining table.
• A good working relationship may be a source of leverage in a negotiation.
• There is often a substantial gap between a negotiator’s aspirations (his or her view of the best agreement possible) and his or her BATNA. It often takes several rounds of give-and-take to estimate the gap.
• It is possible to convince other parties to lower their aspirations by pointing out the advantage of reaching an agreement that is slightly better than their BATNA, as opposed to not reaching an agreement because of sticking to unrealistically high aspirations.

MECHANICS:

Estimated Time Requirements:

• Total time of 2.5 hours

• 30 mins: read instructions

• 90 mins: negotiate

• 45 mins: debrief

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Instructions

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

• Chair of the State Environmental Coalition

• Commissioner of Economic Development

• Commissioner of Environmental Quality

• Lawyer for Citizens for Responsible Government

• Mayor of Redford

• President of the Jefferson Chamber of Commerce

• Representative from the Jefferson Labor Coalition

• Representative of the Hazardous Waste Generators Association

Teacher’s Package (52 pages total):

• All of the above

• Notes on logistics, further reading, debrief, BATNA issues and suggested exam questions.

KEYWORDS:

Environmental dispute resolution; multi-party negotiation; environmental justice; joint fact finding

THEMES:

Agenda control; BATNA; Caucusing; Coalitions; Consensus building; Cost-benefit analysis; Integrative bargaining; Objective criteria; Options, generating; Public opinion

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Chemco Inc.

Humboldt: Mediating a Regional Development Dispute

Siting an Asphalt Plant in the City of Madrona

The Carson Extension [environmental justice games for the EPA]

from $0.00

Free review copies of non-English Teacher’s Packages will be emailed upon request. Please contact chouse@law.harvard.edu or telephone 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or 781-966-2751 (outside the U.S.)

SCENARIO:

Jerry has been a steady worker for the company for four years. During the last three months, Jerry’s work and attitude have taken a dramatic turn for the worse. Jerry’s supervisor does not know the reasons behind Jerry’s decline, but the situation has come to the point where the supervisor is prepared to fire Jerry, and is under considerable pressure from management to do so. At the supervisor’s instigation, the two are about to meet to discuss this situation.

MECHANICS:

This exercise can be done between students, or between a student and the instructor. It works well both ways. The issue of firing someone seems to have high general salience. In playing Jerry, the instructor can model the psychological game of “victim.” Videotaping participant exercises can produce psychologically rich interactions. In participant-instructor demonstrations, the interaction with Jerry can be followed by a meeting between the supervisor and the supervisor’s superior.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

• Jerry

• Supervisor

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

• Draft Teacher’s Note

PROCESS THEMES:

BATNA; Closure; Commitment; Communication; Compliance; Emotions; Ethics; Fairness; Information exchange; Nonverbal communication; Objective criteria; Options, generating; Personality; Power imbalance; Pressure tactics; Psychological games; Relationship; Risk perception; Separating the people from the problem

MAJOR THEMES:

This case was designed to explore the psychological games of “victim” and “rescue.” By gaining awareness of the archetypes, participants become more sensitive to analogous, but less dramatic, interpersonal dynamics that they encounter in negotiations.

This case provides an excellent opportunity to plan, practice, and test skills in “separating the people from the problem,” and dealing with each on their own merits. Dealing humanely with Jerry should not require continued disastrous reliance on his handling of important company business.

The power of good preparation is also apparent here.

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Over the past few years, the City of Rockville has undergone a period of significant growth, resulting in steadily decreasing unemployment and a high rate of immigration from other areas. Even greater levels of immigration are predicted over the next two to three years. Consequently, housing demand now surpasses supply and developers have begun purchasing large tracts of agricultural and forest land at the urban fringe in order to convert them for residential purposes. Already, a number of scattered residential developments have appeared. In addition, a representative of a regional “Superstore” has recently made inquiries about purchasing several tracts of property just outside of Rockville. It is predicted that a large scale commercial enterprise will soon be opening in the vicinity.

After extensive community-wide debate, the current Mayor of Rockville (Mayor Gale) has concluded that Rockville is in urgent need of a ‘master plan’ to guide sustainable growth. A number of groups have come forward to present their ideas on how (if at all) future growth should be managed. Unfortunately, no real progress has been made. As a result, Mayor Gale has retained the services of the nearby university’s dispute resolution center for the purpose of helping the community come to some consensus. Invited stakeholder representatives include an environmental lobby group, the alliance of local home builders, an association representing small business, the farming community, a town planner and a representative of the incoming ‘superstore’.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• The point of this game is to demonstrate how mediation and assisted negotiation techniques can be used to resolve growth management disputes.

• This game explores the role of the mediator in a multi-party dispute concerning land use and growth management. The mediator’s primary role is to assist the players in packaging an agreement. He or she should help the stakeholders identify their real interests, their BATNAs and their willingness to make trade offs.

• The mediator should also help to set ground rules and the agenda and ensure that all of the parties have an opportunity to speak. Since public disputes often involve complex, highly emotional issues, negotiations can run more smoothly with the help of an experienced mediator.

• Joint gains are possible when the parties, in complex disputes, are willing to make trades across the issues on which the mediation process is focused. This is especially useful when the stakeholders value the issues differently.

• In cases where the stakeholders value an issue in precisely the same way, negotiations tend to take on a “zero-sum” nature – more for one party equates with less for others. However, even under these constraints, issues can be reframed thereby allowing both sides to realize gains on aspects that are important to them.

• Mediating land use disputes involves finding ways to attach and integrate facilitated face-to-face dialogue into the existing regulatory and administrative system.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

The Game Manager should send out the General Instructions to all players prior to the day on which the game is to be played. The Mediator role is particularly complex and it is important the Mediator be prepared well in advance of the simulation.

The mediation setting should involve one room set for seven with an additional separate room for a private caucus.

Estimated Time Requirements:

30 minutes – Introduction, Assignment of Roles, and Preparation

90 minutes – Negotiation

30 minutes – Debriefing

Total 2.5 hours

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all Parties:

• General instructions
• Map of Rockville

Role Specific Confidential Instructions for:

• Homebuilders’ Association (D. Wong)
• Rockville Farmers’ Grange (A. Delisi)
• State Alliance for Nature Conservation (S. Moonbeam)
• City of Rockville Small Business Association (T. Sanders)
• Rockville City Planner (S. Young)
• Representative of chain of “Superstores” (B. Bochs)
• Mediator (R. Maccarone)

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above
• Teaching Notes on logistics, debriefing and key teaching points
• Supplementary material focusing on expected ‘key conflicts’

KEYWORDS:

Multi-party negotiation; negotiating sustainable development; mediation; mediation of land use disputes; resolution of land use and growth management disputes

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Development Dispute at Menehune Bay

Hitana Bay Development Simulation

Humboldt: mediating a regional development dispute

Negotiated Development in Redstone

Residential Development in Tienhuizen

The Carson Extension (mediated version)

Urban Redevelopment in Maasdrecht

from $0.00

Free review copies of non-English Teacher’s Packages will be emailed upon request. Please contact chouse@law.harvard.edu or telephone 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or 781-966-2751 (outside the U.S.)

SCENARIO:

T. Boyd, a Vice President of Budget and Finance at Multimode, Inc., (a manufacturing firm) is about to meet J. Arnold, a Vice President of the Human Resource Development Office at Multimode. T. Boyd has formally met with other departments to discuss the upcoming year’s budget as well as expected productivity increases. The maximum allowable budget increase has been set at 5%. In order to implement a new reorganization plan, J. Arnold is requesting an 8% increase.

MECHANICS:

This game is designed for two players. Reading and preparation takes approximately 15 minutes and actual play of the simulation runs about 30 minutes.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

• For all parties:
  • General Information

 

• Role specific: Confidential Instructions to:
  • J. Arnold
  • T. Boyd

 

• Teacher’s package:
  • All of the Above

PROCESS THEMES:

Closure; Commitment; Communication; Constituents; Cost-benefit analysis; Fairness; Financial analysis; Legitimacy; Meaning of “success”; Nonverbal communication; Objective criteria; Partisan perceptions; Precedents; Relationship; Reservation price

MAJOR LESSONS:

In post-negotiation discussion, participants may review the advantages and disadvantages of truthfully revealing their bottom lines.

The parties presume there is a gap between what one can offer and what the other can accept. In fact, there is an overlap. Their initial perceptions shape their subsequent efforts to probe for information.

The degree to which issues other than the percentage increase or cut should come into play is a useful focus for a discussion of good “outcomes”.

from $0.00

Free review copies of non-English Teacher’s Packages will be emailed upon request. Please contact chouse@law.harvard.edu or telephone 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or 781-966-2751 (outside the U.S.)

SCENARIO:

The Parkers and the Gibsons own homes on adjacent plots of land. The homes are separated by a 1/2 lot the Parkers purchased years ago in hopes of building a tennis court, which they never got around to. The Parkers are now moving out of state and are interested in selling the half lot, as the buyer of their home is not interested in it. The Parkers have approached the Gibsons (who have interest in the lot for home improvements they have planned) about purchasing the lot. Neither party knows much about the other’s interests. The Parkers and Gibsons are meeting to explore whether a mutually beneficial transaction is possible.

NOTE: This exercise is a modified and improved version of a former exercise entitled Appleton v. Baker (Appleton v. Baker is still available, upon request). This exercise is also analytically similar to the exercises The Book Contract (with a different setting) and Bradford Development (without the linkage payment).

MECHANICS:

The exercise is best run as a one-on-one exercise. Preparation should require 5-10 minutes. Negotiations can take from 10-30 minutes, and review from 30 minutes to 1 1/4 hours.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

• Role specific:
  Confidential Instructions for: 
  • Parker
  • Gibson

   

• Teacher’s package:
  • All of the above
  • Teaching Note (English version only)

PROCESS THEMES:

Anchoring; BATNA; Fairness; Information exchange; Interests, dovetailing; Joint gains; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Pareto optimization; Quantitative analysis; Risk aversion; Trust

MAJOR LESSONS:

When several pairs negotiate this game at the same time, the resulting sale prices vary dramatically. Participants can then discuss how and why different negotiation strategies led to different outcomes.

Concepts of “fair prices” often surface in post-negotiation discussions. If participants do not take a “principled” approach to the negotiation, one side or the other often feels “taken,” especially when other players with the same role appear to do better.

The advantages and disadvantages of making the first offer can be explored, as well as techniques for doing so.

The advantages and disadvantages of truthfully revealing your BATNA can also be illustrated, especially when several pairs negotiate the exercise.

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Three firms (Arundel Products, Bartel Publishing and Chiptech) are building new facilities in a recently developed part of town. The city requires each of them to construct off-street parking for their employees. The firms have jointly hired financial analysts, architects and other specialists to describe and price their options. The firms recognize that if they pool their capital and operating resources, they can build one parking garage to serve all employees. However, if all three firms cannot come to an agreement, various joint ventures between any two of the firms would still save some money for the two participants, though not as much. The climate for coalitions are unstable because the goal of each company is to maximize its own interests and financial well-being.

NOTE: The underlying mathematical structure of this exercise is similar to that of the exercises Rushing River Cleanup, Social Services and Three-Party Coalition Exercise.

MECHANICS:

The three firms should meet together initially to introduce themselves and to formally start the negotiations. Once negotiations begin, there will be 15-30 minutes to try to reach an agreement. If two of the three firms wish to speak privately, the third firm may not interrupt for 5 minutes (although he or she may listen to what the others are saying). If an agreement is reached it must last 5 minutes before negotiations can conclude. Two of the firms can conclude the negotiations.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For All Parties:

• General Instructions

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above
  

PROCESS THEMES:

BATNA; Caucusing; Closure; Coalitions; Commitment; Constraints, time; Competition v. Cooperation; Creativity; Currently perceived choice analysis; Decision analysis; Offers, first; Options, generating

MAJOR LESSONS:

The consequences of no agreement can be quite different in a multi-party negotiation compared to a two-party negotiation: BATNAs can shift and change. The power of seemingly “weak” players can be enhanced through the creation of blocking coalitions. A variety of tactics can cause parties to change their offers, close a deal, or break a deal. This game provides an opportunity to analyze the effect of coalitions on a negotiation, especially blocking coalitions. When the game is played by several groups at the same time, the comparison of outcomes is instructive.

from $0.00

Free review copies of non-English Teacher’s Packages will be emailed upon request. Please contact chouse@law.harvard.edu or telephone 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or 781-966-2751 (outside the U.S.)

SCENARIO:

The pepulator market is controlled by two giant companies: Pulsar Pepulator and Consolidated Pepulator. The monthly profits of both companies are determined solely by the price each charges and how it compares to the price of the competitor. Participants in this exercise act as the board of directors for each company, determining their company’s price of pepulators for each of several months. They are instructed that maximizing profits is their sole objective.

MECHANICS:

This is a group exercise, with several people on the board of directors of each company. It is possible to have as few as three or as many as ten members of each board, though an average of six or seven members is most manageable. This is a time-slice game played in rounds, and it takes about 2-1/2 to 3-1/2 hours to run the entire exercise with review.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Instructions and Score Sheet

• Monthly Price Report Message Form

Teacher’s package:

• All of the above

• Draft Teaching Note

PROCESS THEMES:

Assumptions; Commitment; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Constituents; Credibility; Decision analysis; Education, as a means; Ethics; Game theory; Group process; Group-think; Joint gains; Managing uncertainty; Meaning of “success”; Message analysis; Misrepresentation; Recurring negotiations; Risk aversion; Risk perception; Trust

MAJOR LESSONS:

This is a so-called “social trap” exercise, in which long-term maximization requires unenforced mutual trust where significant short-term gains are possible by breaking that trust. In most rounds, communication must be implicit, and is hence highly ambiguous and subject to misinterpretation, usually by the projection of negative and adversarial intentions that don’t actually exist. At certain points, the parties are given the opportunity to communicate explicitly, and may choose to reach pricing agreements or not (and subsequently, to honor those agreements or not).

The exercise highlights the frequency with which we make imprecise and inadequately supported assumptions, suggesting the importance of making and keeping assumptions explicit and testing them periodically.

The danger of self-fulfilling assumptions is also illustrated. Parties can turn cautious competitors into the cutthroat adversaries they fear by proceeding with pre-emptive ruthlessness.

The difference between reacting to the other side’s moves (or one’s perception of what those moves mean or will be), and acting purposefully to influence the other side to (re)act constructively, is easily illustrated by comparing the experience of different teams. The monetary variation tends to be dramatic between cooperative and competitive games, and analysis usually suggests that to establish the former, some teams have to take a risk. Players face the tension between seeking high short-term gains and low short-term risk inherent in a competitive strategy, and lower but more stable long-term gains inherent in a cooperative strategy.

The exercise presents rich opportunities to observe, analyze, and critique intra-group dynamics and decision making.

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Acme, Borland, and Chemco are three companies with neighboring manufacturing facilities each of which is under an E.P.A. order to clean up their waste discharge into the Rushing River. The cleanup process requires a treatment plant. The three companies could build individual plants or joint plants in any combination of two or three of them. There is no single salient criterion for splitting the costs, and all possible coalitions are unstable–subject to disruption by one party making an offer to another that should not, economically, be refused.

NOTE: The underlying mathematical structure of this case is similar to that of the exercises The Parking Facility Venture, Social Services and Three-Party Coalition Exercise.

MECHANICS:

This game is designed for three participants, one per role. Minimum preparation time is about 30 minutes; an hour or two is better. The negotiation can be scheduled for 15-30 minutes. An additional party can be added to the case as a mediator, either from the beginning or at any time during the negotiation. Before or after the negotiation, participants should be asked to read “Coalition Analysis,” Chapter 17 in The Art and Science of Negotiation by Howard Raiffa (Harvard University Press, 1982). The mathematical structure of the exercise is thoroughly and clearly discussed there.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

• For all parties:
  • General Instructions
• Teacher’s package:
  • All of the above

PROCESS THEMES:

BATNA; Caucusing; Closure; Coalitions; Commitment; Competition v. Cooperation; Creativity; Currently perceived choice analysis; Decision analysis; Game theory; Offers, first; Options, generating; Quantitative analysis; Time constraints

MAJOR LESSONS:

This exercise explores the dynamics of coalition formation in an unstable choice environment. When many groups do the exercise, the variety of outcomes can be used to explore the advantages and disadvantages of different negotiating tactics.

The power of seemingly “weak” players can be enhanced through the creation of blocking coalitions.

Howard Raiffa’s concept of “offers that cannot readily be refused” is illustrated in this exercise.

from $0.00

Free review copies of non-English Teacher’s Packages will be emailed upon request. Please contact chouse@law.harvard.edu or telephone 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or 781-966-2751 (outside the U.S.)

SCENARIO: This exercise is analytically similar to both the Oil Pricing and Pepulator Pricing exercises. Participants sole objective is to maximize their own points with complete indifference to the other participants. Participants are to play either an X or a Y and, depending on other participants’ choices, a payoff is awarded each round. Only before rounds 5, 8 and 10 are players allowed to confer with each other.

MECHANICS: This exercise is played in ten quick rounds. Players are grouped into fours. Explanation of the exercise should take no more than 5 minutes. The ten rounds should take about 15 minutes, while debriefing can take from 30 to 45 minutes.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

• For all parties:
  • General Instructions

 

• Teacher’s Package:
  • All of the above
  • Teaching Note

PROCESS THEMES: Assumptions; Commitment; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Compliance; Credibility; Decision analysis; Game theory; Group process; Joint gains; Meaning of “success”; Message analysis; Risk aversion; Risk perception; Trust

MAJOR LESSONS:

This is a so-called “social trap” exercise, in which long-term maximization requires unenforced mutual trust where significant short-term gains are possible by breaking that trust. Communication must be implicit, and is hence highly ambiguous and subject to misinterpretation, usually by the projection of negative and adversarial intentions that don’t actually exist.

The exercise highlights the frequency with which we make imprecise and inadequately supported assumptions, suggesting the importance of making and keeping assumptions explicit and testing them periodically.

The difference between reacting to the other side’s moves (or one’s perception of what those moves mean, or will be), and acting purposefully to influence the other side to (re)act constructively, is easily illustrated by comparing the experience of different teams. The monetary variation tends to be dramatic between cooperative and competitive games, and analysis usually suggests that to establish the former some team has to take a risk.

The danger of self-fulfilling assumptions is also illustrated. Parties can turn cautious competitors into the cutthroat adversaries they fear by proceeding with pre-emptive ruthlessness.

from $0.00

Free review copies of non-English Teacher’s Packages will be emailed upon request. Please contact chouse@law.harvard.edu or telephone 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or 781-966-2751 (outside the U.S.)

SCENARIO:

Ad Sales, Inc., a firm that sells advertising space in business publications, has a new management team that will negotiate its first contract with the union representing its employees. Tension has been building, and both sides have been maneuvering for strategic advantage. Some issues to be addressed are salary, vacation time, pensions, sub-contracting, compensation, and work assignments.

MECHANICS:

The two teams will meet separately for an hour to discuss their strategies and objectives. Then the two teams will meet and negotiate for two hours. The threat of a strike is motivation for progress in the negotiations.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Information

• Supplementary Information and Stated Positions

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for:

• Lawyer on Management Team

• Regional Sales Manager

• Vice President for Sales

• Vice President of AFL-CIO Local 1502

• Representative of the International Advertising Workers Federation

• President of Local 1502

• Supplementary Instructions for all of the above roles

Teacher’s Package (24 pages total):

• All of the above
  

MAJOR LESSONS:

• Interval team conflicts must be ironed out before union-management negotiation can proceed smoothly.
• This case encourages parties to trade across issues and within issues. Players must decide what their BATNA’s are and the differences in values of issues will determine the amount of trading.
• This is a good exercise for people in actual contract negotiations.
• This game allows the players to explore the influence of threats and promises on the behavior of other parties. These must be handled carefully.
• The problems of power imbalance, typical of employee relations, are highlighted. This is probably a good case for a mutual gains approach, but useful objective criteria may be hard to come by.

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

• Collective Bargaining at Central Division
• Collective Bargaining at Southern Express
• Happy Valley Consolidated School District/AFTEA Labor-Management Committee Meeting
• MAPO–Administration Negotiation
• Salary Negotiation

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda Control; Anchoring; BATNA; Bluffing; Caucusing; Coalitions; Communication; Consensus Building; Currently perceived choice analysis; Drafting; Emotions; Fairness; Financial analysis; Interest analysis; Interests, quantifying; Joint gains; meaning of “success”; Offers, first; Partisan perceptions; Precedents; Pressure tactics; Risk perception; Threats

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

The American Cancer Society (ACS) receives substantial funding from United Way. To reduce the risks of destructive competition for corporate donations and to cement the ties between ACS and United Way, ACS national offices have developed special guidelines for allocating United Way funds within ACS. Several arrangements guaranteeing ACS chapters an annual dollar amount have been in place for years.

Recently, United Way has experienced difficulties, which has led to changes in funding policy. Representatives from three ACS chapters, the United Way, a state utility, and a local nonprofit organization are now meeting to discuss the future of their relationships regarding charitable funding.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This simulation provides an opportunity to discuss the difficulties facing charitable concerns in their fundraising efforts.

• The dichotomy between personal morals and professional concerns is especially clear in a negotiation about charitable giving.

• While most of these people have the negotiations have the same long term goals (helping people fight cancer), they have very different short-term goals.

• Learning how to work together despite previous disagreements is a major factor in this game.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

This simulation was developed for the staff and volunteers of the American Cancer Society in order to assist them in handling the competitive relationships that have developed in the context of fundraising.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Instructions

Role Specific:

Confidential Instructions for the Negotiator for:

• ACS Renville Unit Board Member

• ACS Belton Unit Staff Member

• ACS division EVP for Alexia

• United Way of Renville Board member (CEO of Granite)

• United Way of Belton Staff director

• Lifeline Executive Director

• Alexia Power and Light CEO

Teacher’s Package (77 pages total):

• All of the above

• Teaching Note

KEYWORDS/THEMES:

Not-for-profit management; multiparty negotiating; managing conflict inside the organization; fund-raising

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

from $0.00

Free review copies of non-English Teacher’s Packages will be emailed upon request. Please contact chouse@law.harvard.edu or telephone 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or 781-966-2751 (outside the U.S.)

SCENARIO:

The senior field representative for Alplaus Supply Company is meeting with the General Manager of a company that prints and distributes many kinds of documents. The general manager recently bought a machine that performed simple folding and envelope-stuffing tasks. The machine was a good deal, but now the company is having some problems with it. The general manager wants to return the machine. The field representative knows that Alplaus has already gone over their returns budget for this month. This negotiation is based on The Blender by Bruce Patton.

MECHANICS:

This is a simple two party that may be done with teams or individually.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role Specific:

• General Manager
• Field Representative for Alplaus Supply Company

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

MAJOR LESSONS:

• The scenario makes it easy to slip into a negative, reactive mode, with unsatisfactory outcomes usually resulting.
• Those parties willing to consider the perceptions and interests of the other party relevant can usually engage effectively in mutually beneficial joint problem solving.
• The perception of who is in power in this negotiation and how that affected the results of the negotiation can be explored by comparing different groups.
• In this negotiation, unlike in The Blender, the two parties have a previous relationship, and may have one in the future. The values involved are also much larger.

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

• Blender, The
• Conference with a Professor
• Software Return
• Student Paper

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Inter-Continental Paper, Ltd (IC) is looking to upgrade and expand its pulp and paper mill in Storyville. By doing so, it hopes to increase the production and efficiency of the mill and also claims that it will develop more environmentally friendly techniques for bleaching paper. The local Department for Environmental Protection (DEP) approved and publicly endorsed this application.

Shortly after this approval was announced, the Storyville Community Coalition (the Coalition) filed an appeal against the decision of the DEP. The Coalition is concerned that the DEP’s approval was made without due regard to the environmental impact that the approved changes will have on Storyville. The Coalition is galvanizing the locals with its claims that the IC’s ‘upgrades’ will in fact result in the release of carcinogenic materials into the local environment.

The Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) will allow the Coalition to appeal the matter. The EAB determined that this Issue might be settled through a mediated negotiation. DEP, IC, and the Coalition have agreed. Though EAB is anxious to use mediation to resolve this claim. It will proceed to a traditional hearing process in the case of an impasse. The mediation will include an EAB official who will act as mediator and representatives from the three parties; the IC Storyville plant manger, the president of the Coalition, and the director of Air and Water Approvals from DEP.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• Many participants may be unaccustomed to a process in which the mediator knows very little about the case prior to the face-to-face mediation.
• The mediator must be able to keep the discussion focused on the ‘issues’ and allow the parties to vent ‘hard’ feelings while managing disagreements about past behavior so they do not sidetrack the dialogue.
• The mediator must help the parties avoid spending too much time on any one issue, given time constraints, so that all key issues can be considered. Helping establish a constructive agenda and keeping the parties on track are two important responsibilities of the mediator, especially within a time limited situation.
• The mediator must try to help the parties develop a “package” which will satisfy all groups. The exploration of options, including those not explicit in the players’ instructions, will increase the chances of building a consensus.
• The mediator can help the stakeholders “create value” by encouraging them to think about packages (rather than single issues), future relationships, joint statements, contingent commitments, dispute handling mechanisms for the future, and determining whether one or more parties might bring additional resources to the table.
• Moving from broad discussion to specific written agreements is often a challenge because of misunderstandings among the parties.
• The mediator can use a “single text” to focus the parties on a shared draft, working either in a group or separately with each party to revise the text to all parties’ satisfaction.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

This role play is designed to help administrative board members improve their mediation skills.

The simulation is divided into two parts. In the first half, the parties explore areas of agreement and disagreement. In the second half, the parties strive to draft a written agreement capturing their tentative verbal understandings.

The room for the exercise should have space for 4 parties, and at least one private breakout room. It is also recommended that at least one flipchart be present so that the mediator can make use of the ‘one-text’ procedure of mediating.

MECHANICS:

This is a mediation among three parties. The mediator may choose to keep the parties together or speak with them separately. Each side should take 20 minutes to read their role and prepare. The negotiation will take 1 hour minimum. Debrief should last at least 30 minutes.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Information
• Technology Information
• Press Release

Role Specific: Confidential Instructions to

• Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Air and Water
• Storyville Community Coalition (the Coalition)
• Inter-Continental Paper, Ltd (IC)
• Environmental Appeals Board Mediator

Teacher’s Package (32 pages total):

• All of the above
• Teaching Note

KEYWORDS/THEMES:

Multiparty negotiation, mediation, regulatory negotiation, Environmental dispute resolution.

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Ancolet Corporation is a small manufacturing company. They rent space from Elson Realty Trust. Recently, Ancolet needed to re-configure their space in order to make room for new equipment. They made a deal with Elson, and Elson employees began construction. Many problems ensued. Ancolet put its rent payments in an escrow account for the last several months in protest. They are now suing Elson for lost revenue due to the damage done to their machines and the business lost during the construction. Elson counter-sued for the rent due. The judge wants the case settled before it comes to trial. Now the lawyers and their clients are meeting to discuss settlement.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Instructions

• Statement of Damages

Role specific:

• Elson (and counsel)

• Ancolet (and counsel)

Teacher’s package:

• All of the above

MAJOR LESSONS:

• The potential tension between preserving a good working relationship and pressing hard for what might be seen as substantive concessions is a central concern.

• One side is specifically told that they are tough negotiators. It is interesting to see how that affects their style during the actual negotiation.

• There is an enormous gap between how much money Ancolet wants to receive and how much Elson is willing to pay. A lot of creativity is required in order to settle this case.

• There is a very small zone of agreement.

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

• Chestnut Village
• Discount Marketplace
• Powerscreen Problem
• Water Woes
  

from $0.00

OVERVIEW:

This is a two-person scored negotiation simulation involving a venture capital investment. Individuals are scored on their ability to attain favorable investment terms for themselves and on the quality of the relationship they develop with their potential business partner. The simulation introduces the incorporation of process and relationship interests into negotiation strategy. Relationship-straining conflict has been purposefully included in the negotiation to assess students’ ability to deal with difficult demands while maintaining a positive relationship.

The venture capital (VC) firm Aerovent Capital is considering a $100 million investment in the startup company Earth Escape. The founder of Earth Escape and the lead partner from Aerovent Capital must negotiate a term sheet outlining eight significant terms of the investment. Both parties are concerned with structuring a deal that protects their substantive investment interests and with creating a positive foundation for their potential collaboration. Thus, both individuals are scored on their ability to negotiate favorable investment terms for themselves and on the quality of the relationship they develop with their potential business partner. Each negotiator’s Total Score is a sum of Substantive Points, awarded according to the agreed-upon terms of the investment, and Process Points, awarded according to each partner’s perception of the negotiation process.

The eight negotiable terms of the investment constituting the Substantive Points include: VC equity percentage, type of stock, dividends, antidilution rights, number of VC-appointed board members, vesting of the founder’s shares, CEO replacement provision, and “no shop” provision. The confidential instructions for the venture capitalist and founder outline specific point values and resistance points for each term. Both parties’ BATNAs (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement) are described and quantified. After the term sheet has been agreed upon, the VC and the founder independently fill out questionnaires that ask them to evaluate each other on five attributes to determine the amount of Process Points they are awarded. These attributes serve as proxies for assessing the future of the business relationship based on their experiences during the negotiation. Both negotiators aim to maximize their individual Total Scores. Familiarity with venture capital investing is not a prerequisite for this simulation.

MATERIALS:

Participant materials include:

• General Instructions for both parties

Confidential materials for Venture Capitalist, including:

• Confidential Instructions

• Confidential score sheet

• Process evaluation of the Founder

Confidential materials for the Founder of Earth Escape, including:

• Confidential instructions

• Confidential score sheet

• Process evaluation of the Venture Capitalist

Teacher’s Package includes:

• All of the above

• Teaching Note

• Results and Analysis by Professor Gordon Kaufman from his 2010 course

from $0.00

Free review copies of non-English Teacher’s Packages will be emailed upon request. Please contact chouse@law.harvard.edu or telephone 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or 781-966-2751 (outside the U.S.)

SCENARIO:

The Appletons and Bakers own homes on adjacent parcels of land. The Appletons are selling their house, and they also want to sell the half-lot which rests between their home and the Bakers’. The purchasers of their home are not interested in buying the lot. The Bakers are interested in the lot. There is a large bargaining zone ($5,000 to 20,000), but neither party knows of the other party’s interests.

Note: After debriefing, it is an option to have a five-minute re-negotiation once everyone knows the actual constraints placed on the other party.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role specific:

• Appleton

• Baker

Teacher’s package:

• English version: Copies of both participant roles plus teaching notes

• Non-English versions: Copies of both participant roles only

MAJOR LESSONS:

• When several pairs negotiate simultaneously, the sale prices vary dramatically, which provides for a good discussion of the results of different strategies.

• The advantages and disadvantages of making the first offer can be explored, as well as techniques for doing so.

• Advantages and disadvantages of disclosure are also illustrated.

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

• 67 Fish Pond Lane
• Parker Gibson
• Towncenter.com

from $0.00

Free review copies of non-English Teacher’s Packages will be emailed upon request. Please contact chouse@law.harvard.edu or telephone 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or 781-966-2751 (outside the U.S.)

SCENARIO:

This case is based on the ethnic conflict between the ex-Soviet Transcaucasian states of Armenia and Azerbaijan over the predominantly Armenian enclave of Nagorno Karabakh, located within Azerbaijan. Armenia and Azerbaijan have been at war with each other since the late 1980s, although animosities go back many centuries. This study brings together influential private citizens from both sides of the conflict and attempts to involve them in an interactive dialogue intended to change relationships among the participants. It is based on the assumption that, although governments are the official bodies responsible for making peace agreements, citizens have a critical role in peace-making, as they are best equipped to address the non-negotiable human issues in ethnic conflicts. The case study is based on real-life efforts undertaken by several U.S.-based non-governmental organizations to bring together influential individuals from countries entangled in bitter ethnic wars.

Each party in this negotiation has experienced more or less directly the war that has engulfed the region. Not only do the participants have fresh memories of the wrongdoings by the other side, but they also carry with them a sense of historical injustice for the real or exaggerated harms perpetrated by the other nation. Each group does not realize, however, that the other one carries a different and incompatible view of the history of the region. These different views are a product of diverging versions of history perpetrated through the educational system and word-of-mouth learning.

The parties must deal with the issues of fairness, historical injustice, historical blaming and, if possible, the power of apologizing. They have to grapple with the difficulty of moving beyond the circle of hate, which they have been conditioned to nurture. They have to face the decision of whether to acknowledge the pain and suffering on the other side and whether to end the blaming game, becoming able to make plans for the future with the perceived “enemy.” Finally, they must engage in the process of building coalitions not only within their own group but perhaps also with the other.

MECHANICS:

This is a 13-participant, two-team facilitated role simulation. It may be played without a facilitator if necessary. Both teams should meet privately before the official negotiation begins. The intra-team preparation time should take at least 1 hour, and the actual negotiation time ranges between 4 and 6 hours. Debriefing may be run at another time and should last at least 1 hour.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• International Daily New Article

• Public Peace Process Policy

• Soviet Nationalities Policy

For each team:

• Armenian history(for Armenian team)

• Azerbaijani history (for Azerbaijani Team)

Role specific:

• Fuad

• Irana

• Maral

• Yosef

• Marif

• Adrineh

• Anoush

• Armen

• Haig

• Levon

• Narmina

• Facilitator

Teacher’s Package (46 pages total):

• All of the above

• Facilitator’s guide

• Teaching Note

MAJOR LESSONS:

• The importance of understanding the human dimension in ethnic conflicts and the difficulty of proposing solutions without grasping the complexity of the relationship.
• The application and study of the major negotiation techniques in settings that do not involve negotiating, e.g., active listening.
• The role of partisan perceptions, prejudices, and blaming in ethnic conflicts, and ways to move beyond them.

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

The negotiation is set on the fictitious continent of Cobia, composed of eight countries. A race has developed on this continent between the two major countries, Algo and Omne, as well as Algo’s smaller ally, Utro, for the development of a new chemical weapon, PS-182M. Furthermore, both major powers are racing to develop means to deliver this chemical weapon against the other by air, to overcome a natural barrier between them in the Smokey Mountains. There is great concern on the continent both about the dangers of conflict between the opposing alliances using this weapon, as well as about the environmental consequences of its use for the three nonaligned states on the continent. Therefore, the International Arms Control Conference has been called in St. Anton, capital of nonaligned Ingo, to try to negotiate a ban on this weapon, or at least its testing, as well as other related issues. During the course of the negotiations “news bulletins” may be issued changing the international environment within which the negotiations are taking place, either by the outbreak of a major crisis among the participants or by the attainment of a major agreement resolving other outstanding disputes only indirectly related to the content of this negotiation.

MECHANICS:

This issue is negotiated in one conference room where all eight countries (and perhaps a Secretary-General) are seated around a single table. If possible record the negotiations. In addition, the negotiators need to be able to consult with their Foreign Minister (normally played by the instructor or teaching assistants) in a nearby consultation room. The negotiation normally lasts three hours, and it is desirable to have at least a half-hour for preparation prior to the actual opening of the negotiation and another half-hour for debriefing. Therefore, it is best run in a block of four hours, though this can be modified by one hour in either direction without serious consequences.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• Description of the issues under negotiation

• Description of each of the countries of Cobia

• General Instructions

• Joint Memorandum

• Map of Cobia

• New Bulletins

Role specific:

• Representatives of the Republic of Ingo

• Representative of the Kingdom of Exton

• Representative of the Kingdom of Carta

• Representative of the Republic of Omne

• Representative of the Principality of Sarto

• Representative of the Kingdom of Algo

• Representative of the Republic of Utro

• Representative of the Federated States of Bata

• Secretary-General

Teacher’s package (48 pages total):

• All of the above

• Teaching Note

• Suggested Readings

MAJOR LESSONS

• This is a complex, multi-issue, multi-party negotiation that requires considerable problem-solving for the negotiators to arrive at agreement. Since some issues turn out to be non-negotiable, the negotiator’s ability to disaggregate (or fractionate) the issues is critical to their success.

• In order to avoid unnecessary frustration at trying to reach agreement on non-negotiable issues, clear commitments by the major parties about their BATNA’s tends to facilitate negotiating success.

• The existence of the Foreign Minister who issues negotiating instructions means that all negotiators must be responsible to a domestic constituency, which places limits on their latitude to negotiate freely. Negotiators must thus learn to negotiate in a constrained environment, and to negotiate equally effectively with the Foreign Minister as well as with the other parties to the negotiation.

• The assumption by the nonaligned states of active roles as mediators between the two competing alliances tends to contribute to an ability to reach successful agreements. Furthermore, the ability of the nonaligned to maintain a position of perceived neutrality is crucial to their playing this mediating role effectively.

• Implications for several “real world” international analogues may be discussed by the instructor as part of the debriefing; suggestions along this line are contained in the Instructor’s Manual.

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; BATNA; Caucusing; Coalitions; Commitments; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Currently perceived choice analysis; Enforcement and verification of agreement; Formula-detail negotiation; Fractionation; Group process; Integrative bargaining; Issue control; Joint gains; Managing uncertainty; Mediation; Political constraints (dealing with); Power imbalance; Pressure tactics; Risk perception; Systems of negotiation; Trust; Yesable propositions

from $0.00

The Athens-Melos Role Play is a simulation from the Workable Peace Curriculum Series unit on Ancient Greece and the Peloponnesian War.

OVERVIEW OF THE ATHENS-MELOS ROLEPLAY:

The Athens-Melos Role Play is based on the historical conflict between the Greek city-states of Athens and Melos, in the year 416 BCE. It takes place during the seven-year interlude of peace in the middle of the Peloponnesian war between Athens and Sparta.

As background to the simulation, Melos is an island in the Aegean Sea that is culturally connected to Sparta, yet deeply values its independence. During the first phase of the war, Melos had favored neutrality, but in 426 BCE Athens had attempted to invade Melos. Melos successfully fought off the invaders, and, according to the report of a captured Melian sailor, appeared to have contributed money to the Spartan war fund.

In 416 BCE (the setting for the role play), Athens has sent a fleet and soldiers to demand that Melos join the Delian League, a coalition of Greek city-states led by Athens for more than 60 years. Athens is particularly worried about Melos’ connection to Athens’ enemy, Sparta, and is also interested in converting Melos into a democracy. The leaders of Melos do not want to give up their stable oligarchic government or their independence, and immediately send a messenger to Sparta to ask for help. Now, delegates from Athens and Melos are meeting to see if they can avoid war. The delegates must decide (a) whether Athens and Melos will establish a military truce to reduce tensions during the negotiations; (b) whether Melos will join the Delian League; (c) if so, whether Melos will contribute tribute, troops, or ships to the League; and (d) whether Melos will retain its own form of oligarchic government.

GOALS OF A WORKABLE PEACE ROLEPLAY:

The Athens-Melos Role Play aims to:

• Provide accurate historical and background information on Ancient Greece, the Peloponnesian War, and the conflict between Athens and Melos, and provide opportunities for students to engage with this history in a direct and realistic context.

• Stimulate and motivate student learning through active participation, as well as through reading, writing, class discussion, and other forms of analysis and expression.

• Build students’ negotiation and conflict management skills by asking them to take on the roles of participants seeking to resolve a conflict through negotiation, with support and feedback as they prepare, conduct, and debrief the role play.

• Challenge students to find the links between the conflict presented in the role play and the conflict resolution steps presented in the Workable Peace Framework, and the links to other conflicts in history and in their own lives.

Teacher’s Package includes:

• History and General Instructions

• Confidential Instructions for the Athenian Admiral, the Ruler of Melos, the Athenian General, and the General of Melos

• Framework for a Workable Peace

• Teaching Notes

If you would like additional information about the Workable Peace framework and teaching materials, including information about teacher training and support, please contact Workable Peace Co-Directors David Fairman or Stacie Smith at:

The Consensus Building Institute, Inc. 238 Main Street, Suite 400 Cambridge, MA 02142 Tel: 617-492-1414 Fax: 617-492-1919 web: http://www.cbuilding.org Email: stacie@cbuilding.org

from $0.00

Free review copies of non-English Teacher’s Packages will be emailed upon request. Please contact chouse@law.harvard.edu or telephone 800-258-4406 (within the U.S.) or 781-966-2751(outside the U.S.)

Structurally almost identical to the Sally Soprano role simulation, Bakra Beverage is a two-party, nonscorable negotiation between a beverage manufacturer and a soft drink distributor over the terms of a potential distribution contract.

BebsiCo is a multi-billion-dollar, multinational soft drink manufacturer interested in expanding its operations into the Middle Eastern country of Kumar. The distributor that was supposed to handle BebsiCo’s new distribution campaign, Kabir Cola, decided suddenly last week to close its Kumari operations and focus on other Middle Eastern countries. BebsiCo is eager to sign a new distribution contract with the Kumar-based Bakra Beverage, a financially troubled but reputable soft drink distributor. Indeed, BebsiCo headquarters has authorized its Director of Middle East Operations to offer Bakra up to $6.75 million per year for the contract, though BebsiCo would like that figure to be lower if possible.

Bakra desperately wants this contract, which would put it back on the map, attract additional clients, and give the company the confidence and certainty about its future that it has been waiting for to purchase Jayyid Juices (a juice and specialty beverage distributor). The contract is so important that Bakra would almost be willing to distribute for BebsiCo for free, except for the impact on future agreements and reputation.

In addition to the wide zone of possible agreement regarding the distribution fee, the simulation includes a range of possible criteria for determining the fee as well as numerous possibilities for value-creating options. Teaching points include the value of focusing on interests to create mutually beneficial options, the power of objective criteria, the effect of both parties’ BATNAs on the negotiation dynamic, and the importance of balancing both process and substance interests when a long-term relationship is at stake.

This simulation may be used as an alternative to Sally Soprano if a more corporate or international context is desired.

Participant materials include:

• Confidential instructions for Bakra Beverage’s Sales Director
• Confidential instructions for BebsiCo’s Director of Middle East Operations

Teacher’s package includes:

• All of the above
• Teaching note