My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7919
CWCB
>
UCREFRP
>
Public
>
7919
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2009 11:32:57 AM
Creation date
8/10/2009 4:26:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
UCREFRP
UCREFRP Catalog Number
7919
Author
White, M. R., F. D. Valdez and M. D. White.
Title
Instream Flow Negotiation
USFW Year
1980.
USFW - Doc Type
Review Of Practices.
Copyright Material
NO
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
76
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Although there is no best overall strategy in negotiations, experience <br />consistently emphasizes the necessity of thorough, diligent preparation by the <br />instream flow negotiator. The pattern of concessions, for instance, is <br />directly affected by the negotiator's knowledge of his opponent's payoffs and <br />requirements, which he should have developed beforehand. A hard initial offer <br />by a negotiator usually results in a more favorable final offer by an opponent <br />who does not have information about the negotiator's payoffs. Small <br />concessions by the opponent also usually result in a more favorable final <br />offer by a negotiator, especially if he does not have information about the <br />opponent's payoffs or is under substantial time pressure (Druckman 1977). <br />Books and articles by experienced negotiators are full of stories about <br />business negotiations in which the unprepared engineer, accountant, lawyer, <br />purchaser or seller is taken to the cleaners, such as the negotiation between <br />Hughes Aircraft and Starmatic for power generating equipment for the first <br />unmanned space vehicle to the moon. Starmatic's bid was $450,000. After one <br />day's negotiating, in which Starmatic was pressed to justify its figures, the <br />contract was signed for $220,000. When the Hughes team arrived at the <br />conference: <br />"We soon learned that the opponent's team was in greater disarray <br />than our own. Their chief engineer was not conversant with the <br />original proposal and felt obliged to apologize for his lack of <br />detailed knowledge. The supplier's contract administrator and <br />controller indicated that they had not reviewed the proposal prior <br />to the conference and asked for a short delay in order to do so. <br />We requested accounting justification for the $450,000 bid and were <br />pleased that the controller lacked this. He left the room and <br />returned almost thirty minutes later with an armful of messy <br />workpapers. <br />We continued to insist upon accounting justification and began to <br />realize that the estimating base was not likely to be found in the <br />books. Starmatic's cost system was no better than that of the rest <br />of the industry. <br />5
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.