from $0.00

SCENARIO:

The U.S. Agency of Engineers (Agency) contracted with Concrete Construction Company (CCC) to redesign and reshape the cement weirs of the west fishladder of the Arctic Lock and Dam. The cement work has to be done during harsh winter conditions because the fishladder is in use at all other times. Three bulkhead gates at the upstream entrance to the fishladder were expected to keep the work area virtually dry.

According to the contract, CCC was required to lower the bulkhead gates into their sealed position to assure that water did not flow into the fishladder and affect concrete placement areas. CCC failed to obtain a water-tight seal on one of the bulkhead gates and was plagued by water throughout the project.

After the contract work was completed by CCC and accepted by the government, the contractor filed a claim at the Federal Contract Appeals Court based on the bulkhead gates’ failure to provide a water-tight seal. CCC charges that according to the contract CCC had to “lower the gates in the sealed position.” CCC contended that it did so under the direction of Agency personnel. CCC claims that the Government’s property (i.e. the gates) malfunctioned due to insufficient maintenance and age. For these reasons, CCC charges that the government is liable for the delays and increased costs that resulted from unexpected water and ice in the cement placement area.

MECHANICS:

Preparation should take 30-45 minutes, as should the actual negotiation. Debriefing should take 45-75 minutes.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This exercise provides a useful context for thinking about the preparation required for ADR, knowing your BATNA, and for estimating the strength and weaknesses of your negotiation position.

• When the intra-group negotiation is conducted by two or more groups simultaneously, the comparison of different outcomes and dynamics can be observed.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Instructions
• Steps in non-binding Arbitration Process
• Memo to the Chief of Construction and the District Engineer from the Chief District Counsel

Role specific:

• Confidential and Supplemental Instructions for Chief of Construction
• Chief District Counsel
• District Engineer

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above
• Teaching Note

THEMES:

ADR; Contracts; Construction; Intra-team negotiation; Meeting design; Negligence; Preparation; Joint gains; Litigation analysis; Information exchange; Interest analysis; Objective criteria; Options, generating; Systems of negotiation

from $0.00

OVERVIEW:

This exercise is designed to serve as a concrete basis for discussion of the choices faced by developing countries in designing a foreign direct investment strategy. It highlights the obstacles and opportunities presented by the imperative to integrate – and strike a balance among – the three pillars of sustainable development: economy, society, and environment.

SCENARIO:

The hypothetical nation of Mandoa faces many challenges typical of developing countries today: an economy based largely on the export of agricultural products affected by declining terms of trade, rural poverty leading to mass migration to urban areas, an impending health crisis related to the spread of HIV/AIDS, and environmental deterioration. A large multinational corporation, ACOM, is proposing to invest in two large projects: an aluminum smelting plant located in Mandoa’s capital, Chimbesi, and an inland dam that will provide sufficient energy to the industrial complex as well as other users. Mandoa’s government needs to make a decision as to whether and under what conditions and constraints, if any, it will allow ACOM to operate.

The exercise is conducted in groups of seven, including two Ministers of Trade and Industry, two Ministers of the Environment, two Ministers of Social Development, and a Prime Minister who facilitates the discussion and makes the ultimate decision regarding the terms and conditions of any foreign direct investment.

Potential debriefing topics include consensus-building techniques within a political context, the role of the facilitator/decisionmaker, and the tensions between more efficient vs. more inclusive decisionmaking.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Instructions

Confidential Instructions for:

• The Minister of Trade and Industry (including the ICC Business Charter for Sustainable Development)
• The Minister of the Environment (including the Dow Jones Sustainability Group Index)
• The Minister of Social Development (including the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises)

Teacher’s package includes:

• All of the above
• Teaching note

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

A recent report has stated that minority groups in the Westbrook Regional School District show a significant disparity in academic performance with regards to their white peers. In response, the Executive Director of the Franklin Family Foundation (a local charitable foundation) and the Superintendent of the District have developed a tutorial program for high school minorities, to be funded be the Foundation. Reaction from the community and the School Board has been mixed. The Foundation Board of Directors and members of the community, headed by members of the school board, are meeting to discuss what should be done to proceed in improving the program. The two groups will first meet separately to determine their collective goals and objectives, and then will meet together to negotiate on the program.

MECHANICS:

Ideally, all parties should be given their roles at least a day in advance to prepare.

The simulation takes place in 2 parts. The first part involves the community group and the board members meeting separately for 45 minutes. The second part involves the two groups having a joint meeting for 90 minutes.

There should be 3 rooms available. 2 rooms should be set-up for a 6-person meeting and a one room should be set-up for a 12 person meeting.

Time Requirements:

• At least 30 minutes and preferably 1 day: preparation

• 45 minutes: separate meetings of the two groups

• 90 minutes: joint meeting of the two groups

• At least 45 minutes: debrief

• Total of at least 210 minutes

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This negotiation presents the opportunity to discuss creatively and to address a realistic problem facing many public education systems today.

• The issues, and the participant’s stances on those issues, do not divide neatly. Part of the challenge of this negotiation is figuring out what is important to the individual players. Only once that is clear, can the participants begin to craft a creative solution to which the parties can agree.

• The internal negotiations within each side can quickly dissolve into interpersonal bickering and posturing.

• Learning how to work together in the face of past disagreements is key to this negotiation. Separating internal or external negotiations properly is the key to consensus building in multi-party negotiations.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

This simulation is part of a series in the Council on Foundations.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General instructions
• Profile of Westbrook Regional School District
• Study titled “bridging the gap” on academic performances of ethnic groups
• Notes on logistics and objectives
• Worksheet for preparing for negotiations

Role Specific:

Foundation Board Members -

• Ellen Rigby Franklin, Chairman of the Board
• Thomas F. Leighton, Executive Director
• Stephen J. Franklin, III, Board Member
• Nancy Franklin Michaels, Ph.D., Board Member
• Kevin Macloud, Board Member
• Dr. Suzanne Lowe, Board Member

Community Members -

• Martin O’Leary, Board President
• Ruth Simone, Board Member
• Julia Statner, Superintendent of Schools
• Kyle Whitberg, President of PTA
• Lynda Johnson, President of African-American Leaders
• John Rayburn, President of Westbrook NEA

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above
• Teaching Notes on logistics and major lessons

KEYWORDS:

Foundations; education reform; community consultation, multi-party negotiation; collaborative problem-solving

from $0.00

Fresh Air, a new low-cost airline, is looking for a headquarters city. It is negotiating with the city of Boston, its top choice for a headquarters location, over an incentive package and airport facilities. Fresh Air plans to build on the brand reputation of its parent airline, which stands for innovation, fun, unparalleled customer service, and empowered employees. It believes that a unique corporate culture and happy customers will allow it to charge lower prices, to fill its planes, and to run profitable operations.

Boston seeks to reinvent itself as a center of American business after years of business decline. The opening of a low-cost carrier would be an important part of this effort. However, in these tight fiscal times, Boston is limited financially. It needs to save money for an important national event coming to the city soon; furthermore, it cannot shortchange its employees and city groups for fear of backlash. Boston also is reluctant to set a bad precedent; if it commits to a substantial incentive package for Fresh Air, future companies considering a move to Boston will expect the same. Boston must also consider how it is viewed politically, in the eyes of its constituents and of other airlines at Logan Airport.

TEACHING POINTS:

• Establishing a process for effective negotiation when balancing multiple issues, some of which are directly related to each other

• Developing and using objective criteria

• Distributing value

• Inventing creative options for mutual gain by exploring the interests of the other party

• Exploring the tension between distributing and creating value, generally and as regards to sharing information

• Identifying and deeply understanding interests and evaluating how well a value-creating solution meets these interests

• Separating the people from the problem; balancing the substance of the negotiation with the development of a workable long-term relationship

• Preparing for a factually complex, multi-issue negotiation: identifying issues; exploring and anticipating interests; brainstorming creative options; thinking about process

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General instructions

Confidential instructions for:

• Fresh Air representative(s)
• City of Boston representative(s)

Teacher’s Package includes:

• All of the above
• Teaching notes

from $0.00

The Future of Hebron is a role simulation from the Workable Peace Curriculum Series unit on Managing Conflict in the Middle East.

This simulation is set in the West Bank city of Hebron. Although Israeli troops have withdrawn from other Palestinian cities on the West Bank, they continue to control about one-fifth of the city of Hebron on order to protect a Jewish community centered around the Tomb of the Patriarchy and the Il Ibrahami Mosque.

During the last two years, Palestinians living in Hebron have protested continued Israeli occupation, and have sometimes attacked Israelis in the hope of forcing an Israeli withdrawal from the city. At the same time, Israeli settlers and soldiers have arrested and attacked Palestinians whom they see as threats to their security.

Both Palestinian and Israeli leaders have decided that the continuing violence in Hebron will jeopardize the possibility of lasting peace between the two groups. Both leaders fear that extremists groups will use violence to stop the peace process. The leaders are not sure that they can trust each other, let alone representatives of the extremist groups. Nevertheless, the have agreed to hold a meeting in Hebron to discuss land claims, security, and border control.

TEACHING POINTS INCLUDE:

• Importance of clarifying interests

• Importance of rebuilding lost trust

• Usefulness of objective criteria

• Usefulness of neutral facilitators

• Importance of agenda-setting

• Importance of understanding the human dimension in ethnic conflict

• Difficulty of proposing solutions without grasping the complexity of the relationship

• Challenges in dealing with intra-group dynamics; and causes of inter-group conflict escalation

Teacher’s Package includes:

• History and General Instructions
• Confidential Instructions for Israeli Government Official, Israeli Military Officer, Israeli Settlers Representative, PLO Official, Chief of Palestinian Police for Hebron, and Hamas Supporter
• Framework for a Workable Peace
• Master List of Player Goals
• Teaching Note

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

SCENARIO:

Over the past eight months, Gadgets, Inc. (‘Gadgets’), a metal plating firm, has failed to comply with state regulations on the concentrations of copper and lead in their waste water. Gadgets’ required monthly reports to the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) have been accurate, but the violations were overlooked by DEP for the first five months. When DEP noticed Gadgets’ violations three months ago, it demanded immediate compliance and five months worth of fines.

Gadgets officials were surprised and upset. Citing economic hardship, past good faith efforts and its role in the local economy, Gadgets requested a delay in paying the fines while it explored options for rectifying its pollution problem. DEP initially agreed, but has now come under fire from environmental activist.

In the midst of this situation, the Innovative Technology Program (‘ITS’) of DEP has announced a new system for pollution prevention. ITS has been looking for a middle-sized firm to test its new system and DEP has ordered Gadgets to install this new system for further testing. The environmental activists now believe that Gadgets is getting off the hook, and that the system has not been sufficiently tested for use in a working firm.

Following the procedures of DEP’s Innovative Technology Program, the Environmental Secretary’s Special Assistant has called a meeting of interested parties to discuss four issues: (1) the choice of a pollution prevention technology; (2) a possible DEP subsidy for the installation of the new pollution prevention system at Gadgets; (3) the payment of fines by Gadgets; and (4) the frequency of and responsibility for monitoring of compliance by Gadgets. In addition to the Environmental Secretary’s Special Assistant, the meeting will include representatives from Gadgets management, the Gadgets workers’ union, two environmental activist groups, and the EPA.

MAJOR LESSONS:

This case provides a useful context for examining the dynamics of regulatory, particular compliance, negotiations. It also for examination of multi-party negotiation dynamics, such as coalition building and blocking, meeting design, and caucusing. Because there is a wide range of possible agreements, it can be interesting to compare agreements (and non-agreements) reached by different groups. The presence of scientific and technical uncertainty raises issues about the value of contingent agreement.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Instructions

• Schedule of potential fines for Gadgets Inc.

Role Specific:

• Gadgets Inc. Vice President

• Gadgets Inc. Workers Union President

• Chief Water Scientist for Newberg Bay

• Director of Deep Green environmental body

• Environmental Protection Agency representative

• Environmental Secretary Special Assistant

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

KEYWORDS:

Multi-party negotiation; regulatory compliance; science-intensive policy disputes; environmental dispute resolution

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Alex Gator, a young salesperson, has a car that was damaged when Alex drove it into a large hole in a city street. Alex claims that the City of Quincy is responsible for the damage, since no warning signs were posted near the hole, which was part of a city construction project. The city, represented by a hard-nosed, part-time city attorney, does not really doubt Alex’s story, but claims no legal liability under applicable statutes. Both sides have agreed to mediation, but have only a limited time to discuss the case, before it is called before a judge in Small Claims Court.

MECHANICS:

The agenda for the mediation is left up to the mediator, and may include separate meetings with each party, joint conferences, or both. The session needs 60 to 90 minutes. “A Brief Outline of the Mediation Process,” Case No. 15003.0 in Other Materials, is useful background reading for the mediator. “An Actual Small Claims Mediated Agreement,” Case No. 15004.0 in Other Materials, is useful as follow-up reading, especially if mediators have been asked to draft the agreement reached. (Hand it out after the mediators have finished their own try at drafting.)

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This case tests a mediator’s skill at information-gathering and reality testing. Both sides are withholding important information that can most likely be elicited only by skillful questioning.

• The mediator must also be a skilled negotiator. The city attorney is a polished hard bargainer. Alex is a young person determined to see a just and principled result, not a compromise under pressure.

• Detailed review of precise language, ordering of issues, use of caucuses, and framing of issues can be enormously rewarding. Close observation and/or videotaping is invaluable, although even student-student review is useful.

• The role of “face-saving” and legitimacy is highlighted in the (conflicting) interests of both sides.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role specific:

• Confidential Instructions for the:
• Plaintiff, Alex Gator
• Defendant, City of Quincy
• The Mediator

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

PROCESS THEMES:

Caucusing; Drafting; Fairness; Interpersonal skills; Legitimacy; Mediation; Meeting design; Objective criteria; One-text procedure; Partisan perceptions; Precedents; Reality testing; Risk aversion; Risk perception

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:

Several years ago, GE International purchased a networked computer system to serve all of its operating departments. Unfortunately, the computer system has become utterly ineffective. GE International’s Senior Manager of Information Management Operations has been charged with finding an expert to divide and reprogram the computer system, rewrite the manuals, and maximize the value of the existing high-quality hardware and software.

The Senior Manager has located a computer consulting company that seems to be far better equipped than any of the alternative companies to handle this project. The consulting company, in turn, is eager for the publicity of working with a world-renowned company like GE International. At the last minute, the Senior Manager and the computer consultant realize that they have been exploring this contract without knowing that the other party had an enormously different idea regarding the appropriate price for the project. The parties are meeting one last time to see if there is a way to salvage the deal.

This case is similar to The Tendley Contract but takes place in a more corporate setting.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This case is an excellent vehicle for comparing principled negotiation to positional bargaining.

• What are the advantages and disadvantages of revealing one’s BATNA in this situation? How do the parties’ BATNAs — and their disclosure or nondisclosure of them — affect the negotiation?

• The fact that there is such a huge discrepancy in what the two parties want GE International to pay for the job makes it very difficult to come up with a contract without generating creative options. What can the parties do to facilitate option generation?

• This case often generates discussion around “fair” pricing for the contract. What are some criteria for determining a fair price? Are the parties’ initial expectations regarding the price relevant to what the price should be? Do the parties’ BATNAs have any bearing on what the price should be?

Teacher’s Package includes:

• Participant Materials Only

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:

George and Martha are about to be divorced, and have reached agreement on all issues but one–child support. They are in different tax brackets, and value child support and alimony differently. Both sides have chosen a representative to negotiate a decision.

MECHANICS:

Divide the class into teams of two, distribute the instructions, and allow approximately 10 minutes for participants to read and prepare a strategy. Following this preparation period, allow participants approximately 20 minutes to negotiate the case. Debrief the negotiation for about 45 minutes.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This case illustrates the danger of single-issue bargaining. Should the participants limit the negotiation to a monetary dispute, George and Martha will be locked in a contest of wills. Hard bargaining may well emerge, resulting in a situation in which one party’s gain means a corresponding loss to the other party.

• Despite George and Martha’s diverging preferences in characterizing payments, it is possible to obtain mutual gain by trading on the two parties’ attachments to their relative interests.

• This exercise demonstrates the feasibility of Howard Raiffa’s notion of post-settlement settlement. As it is designed, the lesson points out that a “win-win” solution is possible when the parties closely analyze their interests and their potential for mutual gains. The failure to identify interests and invent options in a negotiation may lead to failure to reach any agreement, let alone an optimal one.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

Role Specific:
Confidential Instructions for:

• George
• Martha

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above
• Teaching Note

PROCESS THEMES:

Competition v. Cooperation; Creating and Claiming value; Financial analysis; Interests, dovetailing; Joint gains

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Tensions between the Korean and African-American communities of economically-depressed Urbana have been growing for some time now. Korean-Americans own most of the grocery stores in the area. The African-Americans that make up most of their customer base have complained for a long time that they are ill-treated by the store owners. The owners in turn complain that their customers frequently steal items from the stores.

Recently, an elderly African-American woman’s visit to her local grocery store erupted into a city-wide incident. The store owners allege that she was attempting to shoplift. The woman denies this, and claims that she was beaten by one of the owners. Activists on both sides have made grandiose claims on television. The customer and owners have taken legal action. Tensions continue to mount.

Now, a deacon from the local African-American church is meeting with the principal from the Korean-American school to see if they can find a way to lessen the tension surrounding the incident, and the history of such incidents.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This exercise can provide a forum for discussing many issues, including the effect of culture and ethnicity on partisan formation, the influence of race on conflict, the use of negotiation in the shadow of legal action, choosing representatives for a community, and dealing with one conflict when it is part of a pattern of conflicts.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General information

Confidential instructions for:

• Deacon of the African-American Church
• High School Principal

Teacher’s package includes:

• All of the above
• No teaching note available at this time

NOTE: The fact pattern of this simulation is similar to that of Seoul Food in Urbana; the latter is a mediation involving legal representatives of the African-American and Korean-American communities, rather than the community members themselves.

from $0.00

The Guatemala Role Play is a simulation from the Workable Peace Curriculum Series unit on Indigenous Rights and the Environment in Latin America.

OVERVIEW OF THE GUATEMALA ROLEPLAY:

Guatemala has been an ethnically, economically, and politically divided society for over 450 years. In the early 1960s, some army officers who opposed the military government organized small guerrilla rebel factions. Soon, these rebel factions organized into a larger military force known as the URNG. As the URNG began to defeat government forces in the countryside, the government decided to put pressure on the URNG and their supporters. Thousands of indigenous people were killed and their villages destroyed.

After years of negotiations, the Guatemalan government and the URNG signed an “Accord for a Firm and Lasting Peace” in 1996. Despite the peace accord, several issues remain to be resolved. This follow-up negotiation takes place in 1998. The Guatemalan Minister of the Interior will chair a negotiation that includes representatives from the Guatemalan military, the URNG, and the ethnic Mayans living in Guatemala, as well as the U.S. Ambassador to Guatemala. The three issues on the table are how to protect human rights, how to deal with Mayan land claims, and how to recognize Mayan cultural and political rights.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This role play underscores the relevance of general lessons about “basic” negotiation skills as they apply to multi-party, multi-issue negotiations: e.g., active listening, improving one’s BATNA, focusing on interests rather than positions, inventing options for mutual gain, etc.

• Provides a means for exploring the political dynamics and economic issues likely to emerge during an actual negotiation

• Imparts an understanding of the processes of international treaty negotiations as they are currently conducted

• Highlights the importance of understanding the human dimension in ethnic conflict and the difficulty of proposing solutions without grasping the complexity of the relationships.

• Emphasizes the importance of understanding the interests of internal constituencies and designing negotiation strategies which manage the link between internal and external negotiations, as well as the importance of creating external coalitions without letting internal coalitions crumble.

• Demonstrates how members of groups in conflict can take steps toward a workable peace by negotiating truces, recognizing each others’ right to meet basic needs, and making rules for settling their conflicts and meeting their needs without violence.

Teacher’s Package Includes:

• Participant materials
• Teaching Note
• Master List of Player Goals
• Framework for a Workable Peace
• Workable Peace Self-Assessment Form
• Overheads
• Observation/Assessment Instructions

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
Phone: 617-492-1414
Fax: 617-492-1919
Website: http://www.cbuilding.org

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

The monthly labor-management committee meetings between the Happy Valley Consolidated School District and the American Federated Teachers Education Association (AFTEA) was created over a year ago during the collective bargaining session. Recently, both the labor and management went through a training session where they discussed new ways to run meetings. There is still a great deal of apprehension within the group as to whether these committee meetings are worthwhile. The next monthly meeting will discuss the issues of a “Wellness” program, dress codes, asbestos in the High School Roof, and the public image of the schools.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• There are often legitimate differences within the bargaining teams. These internal conflicts ought to be worked out before serious bargaining begins. This exercise creates opportunities for participants to practice techniques of managing internal team conflict.

• The role play provides a vehicle for exploring behaviors appropriate to the effective operations of a labor-management committee.

• This exercise allows the players to explore the on-going relationship between two groups that have been adversaries, and raises questions of relationship and reputation. All sides have important long-term interests.

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:

Harborco is a consortium of development, industrial, and shipping concerns interested in building and operating a deepdraft port. It has already selected a site for the port, but cannot proceed without a license from the Federal Licensing Agency (FLA). The FLA is willing to grant Harborco a license, but only if it secures the support of at least 4 of 5 other parties: the environmental coalition, the federation of labor unions, a consortium of other ports in the region, the Federal Department of Coastal Resources (DCR), and the Governor of the host state. The parties have several issues to negotiate before deciding whether or not to approve the port, including the types of industries that will be be permitted to locate near the port, the extent to which environmental damage be mitigated, the extent to which organized labor will be given preference in hiring during construction and operation of the port, the amount of any federal financial assistance to Harborco, and the amount of any compensation to other ports in the region for potential economic losses?

MECHANICS:

This game is best played with 12 people (2 per role) although 6 people also works. A game manager is needed to conduct periodic votes and to answer questions. Game instructions require at least 30 minutes to read; more preparation is helpful. Negotiations require a minimum of 2 hours. However, the more time allowed for negotiation, the better.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• When the game is played by several groups at the same time, the comparison of outcomes is instructive. Typically, some groups will reach agreement and some will not. Very few groups will reach unanimous (6-way) agreement.

• Players are exposed to elementary utility analysis in the point scoring scheme. The importance of pre-negotiation analysis in evaluating options is illustrated. The players can then explore how and why different negotiating strategies led to different outcomes.

• Multi-issue, multi-party negotiations tend to involve the formation of coalitions–especially blocking coalitions. This game provides an instructive context for exploring coalition strategies.

• Parties that reveal their true interests do not necessarily do better than those who remain silent or bluff. The advantages and disadvantages of revealing all one’s concerns are illustrated in this game.

• Pareto-superior and Pareto-inferior agreements are illustrated by the scores.

• When 12 players play the game (2 per role) they have an opportunity to explore the special difficulties of negotiations involving non-monolithic parties.

• The need for a neutral “process manager” of some sort is also illustrated, as the parties struggle to structure their discussions.

• The advantages of caucusing can be explored. In some cases, players will initiate caucuses; in others, they will avoid private caucusing.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Instructions

Role specific:
Confidential Instructions to the Negotiator for:

• Harborco
• Other Ports
• Environmental League
• Union
• Federal DCR
• Governor

Teacher’s package (67 pages total):

• All of the above
• Teaching Note
• Game Review Chart

Please note that this exercise is included in the Resolving Public Disputes package, also available through the Clearinghouse.

PROCESS THEMES:

Agenda control; Authority; BATNA; Bluffing; Caucusing; Coalitions; Commitment; Communication; Competition v. Cooperation; Constituents; Delay tactics; Information exchange; Joint gains; Media; Mediation; Meeting design; Misrepresentation; Monolithic vs. non-monolithic parties; Objective criteria; Offers, first; Pareto optimization; Political constraints, dealing with; Pressure tactics; Reservation price; Systems of negotiation; Time constraints; Utility analysis

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

The city of Evantown experienced two deadly heat waves last summer that revealed the extent of climate change in the region and the poor condition of the city’s low-income housing stock. The greatest casualties during the heat wave were among the elderly and the children of low-income families living in aging public and rental housing. Now the new mayor, who won election decrying the previous mayor’s stumbling response to the crisis, has called together a group of stakeholders to decide how the city should undertake a program of housing retrofits to reduce vulnerability to extreme heat. Should the retrofits focus on public housing or low-income rental housing? Should the city government bear all the cost, or should private homeowners and landlords contribute? What scale and pace of response is appropriate given the uncertainty of climate change and the high costs involved in achieving resilience?

MAJOR LESSONS:

• Public policy decisions related to climate change must take into account political, economic, and historical realities. Social and environmental justice issues will certainly arise.

• Effective debate on climate adaptation will require a reliance on shared data and forecasts, which may be interpreted differently, but which can provide a believable basis for discussion.

• Agreement depends on finding ways to package multiple issues together so that different groups can secure their highest priorities while relaxing their demands in other areas. Tackling issues separately almost always leads to deadlock.

• The most feasible adaptation measures are those that meet multiple goals, including objectives that are independent of climate change (and all the uncertainties that come with it). We call these no-regrets actions. They can form the core of a more far-reaching response.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

This game is one of an initial set of three games that the MIT Science Impact Collaborative has developed to illustrate the need to consider climate change in existing policy debates such as how to improve the condition of a city’s housing stock, rather than only tackling climate change as a separate and comprehensive issue. The other two games written for this series are Water Use and Flooding.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Instructions

Role Specific:

Confidential instructions to the player negotiating for:

• Mayor J. Gray

• Director of City Planning Department

• Director of Public Housing Authority

• Evantown Homeowners Association

• Senior Citizens Organization

• Evantown Environmental and Social Action

• Construction Industry

Teacher’s package:

• All of the above

• Teaching note

KEYWORDS/ THEMES:

Climate change; adaptation; housing; multiparty negotiating; public dispute resolution;

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Flooding

Water Use

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 is a negotiation between a recently hired computer programmer and a Human Resources Director regarding the new employee’s salary, benefits, and start date. The computer programmer, a recent immigrant from “Newtonia,” has certain requirements that cannot be disclosed for fear of invoking bad luck. The Newtonian also has cultural expectations of how the Human Resources Director should behave in order to transact business comfortably. The Human Resources Director simply has the task of hiring this candidate who has been interviewed and recommended for hire. There is a given salary range, an established list of benefits, and regular start dates from which the Human Resources Director can operate.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This exercise highlights the cultural elements of negotiation and helps sensitize participants to potential cultural differences.
• This exercise also highlights the potential discrepancy between intent (by one party) and impact (on another party).

TEACHER’S PACK INCLUDES:

• Participant materials and teaching note.
  

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

The city of Hitana lies next to Hitana Bay on the Caribbean island of Barhamia. The government of Hitana is currently considering several redevelopment proposals for the region. The Port Authority and major shippers are urging improvements to the deep-water port; the City of Hitana and a private real estate partnership seek to redevelop the warehouse district for business, commercial, and residential use; and the nongovernmental Coalition for Hitana Bay Heritage proposes to take environmental protection measures around Hitana Bay.

The Prime Minister’s Office has convened a Task Force that includes representatives of the ten major groups involved in, and potentially affected by, the proposed projects. The ten representatives include the Prime Minister’s Special Assistant for Economic Development, the Deputy Minister of Environment for Coastal Zone Management, the Director of the Port Authority of Hitana, the Director of the City of Hitana Planning Offic, the Executive Vice-President of Harborside Properties Group, the Executive Director of the Coalition for Hitana Bay Heritage, the Vice-President for International Trade of the Barhamia Chamber of Commerce, the President of the Port of Hitana Workers Union, the Director of the Hitana Bay Fishermen’s Federation, and the International Waters Division Chief of the Global Environment Fund.

This simulation is designed to include pre-meeting caucuses among selected Task Force members, an initial round of Task Force negotiations, and a final round of Task Force negotiations.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• Introduces participants to the challenge of integrating economic, environmental, and social goals at the project level

• Raises questions of whether and how multi-stakeholder representation can work in social and political contexts where pluralistic decisionmaking is not the norm

• Raises questions about the dynamics of multi-stakeholder representation where some interest group have weaker social organization and political representation than others

• Illustrates the importance of individual preparation and group process to the outcome of multi-stakeholder negotiations

• Encourages participants to experiment with “mutual gains” strategies such as distinguishing interests from positions; using joint-fact finding to clarify issues and options; using “what-if” proposals to develop mutually acceptable options; building and broadening coalitions in the search for consensus; and crafting contingent agreements to manage differences in beliefs about the likelihood and impact of various possible outcomes.

MECHANICS:

Participants are required to absorb a large amount of technical information in order to play this game. The game itself requires approximately 8 hours to prepare, play, and debrief. It is suggested that the game be run over 2 days.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

• very extensive teaching notes

• debrief notes

• a spreadsheet (provided electronically) for debriefing

• in depth confidential instructions for 10 different roles

• the teaching package contains a total of 131 pages

KEYWORDS:

Sustainable development; international negotiation; environmental dispute resolution; consensus building; multi-party negotiation; joint fact finding; corporate assisted negotiation.

SIMILAR SIMULATIONS:

Managing Groundwater Beneath the Pablo-Burford Border

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

The Hong Kong Property Deal is a simple two-party negotiation that appears to have a single distributive issue (price), but contains several hidden issues that offer integrative opportunities.

The simulation is set in Hong Kong in 1996, just before the British returned Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China. Lee Wing and Terry Jones each operate a business next door to each other on Tai Po Kau Harbour Road. Between their two businesses is a small lot that is unattractive as a separate building site because it sits between two large warehouses. Lee Wing purchased the small lot in 1990 for $70,000 with the intent of expanding his warehouse. These plans were never realized, and the lot is currently vacant.

Wing has decided to move to Australia, and has arranged to sell his construction material importation business to a family friend, Bill Ling. Ling has gathered the necessary funds to buy Wing’s business and warehouse, but can only offer $50,000 for the small vacant lot (which he neither particularly needs nor wants).

Terry Jones conducts her the Hong Kong business for Australian-based Outback Foods from the lot on the other side of Wing’s vacant lot. Unbeknownst to Wing, Outback Foods is having great success in Hong Kong and could use some extra space to expand its warehouse. Indeed, Terry Jones has a budget of up to $200,000 to purchase additional space for a warehouse.

Wing called Jones yesterday, and the parties are about to meet.

This case allows for the introduction of several fundamental negotiation concepts:

• Bargaining range (both positive and negative bargaining range); also known as zone of possible agreement (ZOPA);
• First offers in a distributive negotiation: how and when to present a first offer;
• Gathering information to determine the other party’s intentions and goals;
• Managing information about our own intentions and goals; and
• Introduction to integrative strategy.

Teacher’s Package Includes:

• Confidential instructions for Lee Wing
• Confidential instructions for Terry Jones
• Teaching note

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Hopkins HMO is the largest independent managed health care organization in the regions. PharmaCare, Inc., a newly-formed pharmaceutical company, has just introduced “Profelice,” the first commercially-approved antidepressant treatment of its type. Profelice is expected to replace Prozac and Zoloft due to increased efficacy and reduced side effects.

The Managed Care Representative for PharmaCare and the Pharmacy Director for Hopkins HMO have held several preliminary meetings over a contract for Profelice, but have made no commitments. The key issues to be negotiated include market share target tiers for Hopkins HMO, the discount pricing schedule for Profelice, marketing support, Profelice’s formulary status, and the length of the agreement.

Now, the PharmaCare Managed Care Rep and the Hopkins HMO Pharmacy Director are meeting with PharmaCare’s Contract and Pricing Manager to try to finalize the agreement. The Contract and Pricing Manager has final approval over all PharmaCare contracts. The simulation is arranged so that the Managed Care Rep will meet with each of the other two parties individually, and with both them simultaneously if desired.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• How perceptions of power can affect an agreement

• The importance of understanding interests to developing a mutually beneficial agreement

• The process of creating and claiming value

• The effect of the relationship on the agreement and vice-versa

Teacher’s Package Includes:

• Participants materials

• Matrix of possible agreements for debriefing

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

Hopkins Hospital is the largest and most influential teaching hospital in the region. PharmaCare, Inc., a newly-formed pharmaceutical company, has just introduced “Profelice”, the first commercially-approved antidepressant treatment of its type. Profelice is expected to replace Prozac and Zoloft due to increased efficacy and reduced side effects. The Managed Care Representative for PharmaCare and the Pharmacy Director for Hopkins Hospital have held several preliminary meetings over a contract for Profelice, but have made no commitments. The key issues to be negotiated include market share target tiers for Hopkins Hospital, the discount pricing schedule for Profelice, marketing support, Profelice’s formulary status, and the length of the agreement. Now, the PharmaCare Managed Care Rep and the Hopkins Hospital Pharmacy Director are meeting with PharmaCare’s Contract and Pricing Manager to try to finalize the agreement. The Contract and Pricing Manager has final approval over all PharmaCare contracts. The simulation is arranged so that the Managed Care Rep will meet with each of the other two parties individually, and with both of them simultaneously if desired.

MAJOR LESSONS:

• How perceptions of power can affect an agreement

• The importance of understanding interests to developing a mutually beneficial agreement

• The process of creating and claiming value
• The effect of the relationship on the agreement and vice-versa

Teacher’s Package Includes:

• Participant materials

• Matrix of possible agreements for debriefing

from $0.00

SCENARIO:

A hospital located in a small town has a serious dilemma: the facility only has two dialysis machines which are now in demand by seven community residents with kidney failure. The patients include: a 33 year-old professional athlete, a middle-aged housewife and mother, a male model in his fifties, a 28 year-old factory worker, a corporate executive in his thirties, a child prodigy, and a middle-aged orthopedic surgeon. Without treatment, each patient will die, but only three patients can use the available machines. The machines are extremely expensive, and money to buy a third, let alone a fourth, is simply unavailable at this time. Accommodating more patients for fewer hours subjects each patient to substantially greater risk, and can postpone a choice for no longer than a week or two. The members of the Kidney Dialysis Committee are members of the community who have been asked to serve by the hospital administration. They have been given information about each patient, and have been asked to decide, confidentially, who will and who won’t receive treatment.

MECHANICS:

The exercise works best in a group of three to five; seven is a maximum. Discussion time can range from 10 to 60 minutes depending on the objective, but 10-15 minutes is usual. Videotaping is recommended to illuminate nonverbal behavior. The exercise can be done before the camera and reviewed in front of the full class. (This makes most sense in a small class where everyone is doing an exercise like this, and where participation is voluntary).

MAJOR LESSONS:

• This exercise can be used for a number of purposes. It was originally designed to explore psychological awareness and illustrate emotional reactions and nonverbal communication.

• The intensity of the psychological dimension adds considerable power to struggles over group process and control.

• Substantively, the case brings into high relief the question of what constitutes “fairness,” “objective criteria,” and societal “norms,” and the extent to which those concepts can exist outside perceptions colored by our personal values. In response, some participants can be seen to search for refuge in some absolute standard, while others seem to construct some kind of calculus of partisan perceptions and consensus.

TEACHING MATERIALS:

For all parties:

• General Information

Teacher’s Package:

• All of the above

PROCESS THEMES:

Closure; Commitment; Communication; Cost-benefit analysis; Delay tactics; Emotions; Ethics; Fairness; Group process; Interpersonal skills; Legitimacy; Nonverbal communication; Objective criteria; Personality; Psychological games; Separating the people from the problem