- Partnering for Both-Win® synergy. Partnering of suppliers with their customers has proved enormously successful. When suppliers integrate their resources, needs, information and relationships with those of the buyers, they created efficiencies that lower costs and benefit both in many ways. Partnering is as applicable inside the organization as it is between buyers and suppliers. Two parties, united together as partners, work collaboratively to create new approaches to doing their jobs. They will succeed because they can then combine their assets, ideas and talents to better fit and meet their mutual and individual needs and problems.
- Systems, procedure or process flow tradeoffs. Every system, process or way of doing something is to some extent obsolete or not serving the original purpose it was designed to do. Savings in unnecessary work or material can always be found if we study the process or procedure carefully and modify it to serve current conditions and needs.
- Worldwide outsourcing tradeoffs. Outsourcing, even on a global scale, is now feasible for a wide variety of needs and services at little risk. When faced with what appears to be an intractable difference in cost or delivery, both sides would be wise to consider outsourcing part of the work they do for others.
- Transport and shipping tradeoffs. Moving and handling costs constitute a surprisingly large part of total cost even in day-to-day workplace interactions. Technology is changing how we interact to get work done. Opportunities for mutual gain reside in looking closely at how things and people in the office move about. On a worldwide stage, transportation and shipping costs are an enormous part of total production cost. Fierce competition between shipping between transportation companies is exacerbated by volatility of oil prices and carrier supply; these costs demand considerations. The high cost of transportation and shipping make this a prime target for creative Both-Win® success.
- Cash management tradeoffs. Most individuals and companies handle their cash flow needs poorly. Cash management tradeoffs balancing revenue and outgo deserve a higher place in the budgeting process than small organizations give it.
- Insurance tradeoffs. Corporations pay in advance for possible untoward events that often have a small or modest probability of happening. The ratio of what we pay for security and how much risk we should be willing to take is amenable to constant analysis.
Tag archive: negotiation-tradeoffs
More Collaborative Both-Win Tradeoff Ideas
The following tradeoff areas that follow offer opportunities for mutual reward when used in collaborative Both-Win® negotiating.
Read more »
Separating the Person from Their Negotiating Position
While most differences at work concern facts or ways and means, many also involve group goals and values.
For example, a purchasing team, including an engineer, is set up to reduce the cost of an anticipated project overrun. The team, anxious to meet the goal, wants to negotiate a very low price with the supplier of the key component. The engineer assigned to the team vehemently disagrees with so low a price. He reminds his associates that a more important goal, project quality, will be placed in jeopardy by pursuing such a low price on so high a component quality specification.
A complex goal negotiation with lots of crucial tradeoffs is sure to follow.
More difficult than negotiating diverse objectives is the negotiation of different values.
A management team of executives is organized to develop corporate personnel policies. Each member has a mind of their own and the confidence to express their preferences. What kind of people should or should not be recruited? Should a group be laid off every year to clear out those less capable?
Negotiations between team members that involve values make for emotional give and take and heated sessions.
Differences between people are influenced by their perceptions. If they saw things the same way, then they would find it easy to agree.
The job of a good negotiator is to help both parties see the major factors influencing the agreement in reasonable, comparable terms.
Read more »