Narrative analysis of multi-issue negotiation dynamics and outcomes

¶ … multi-issue negotiation part. The description narrative form -- i.e. A story happened, involved, negotiation unfolded a description outcome. There () put academic citations.

A multi-issue negotiation:

Upgrading the software contract for our ERP system

ERP (enterprise resource planning) is used at my current organization. One definition of ERP is that it is computer software designed to "integrate all departments and functions across a company onto a single computer system that can serve all those different departments' particular needs" (Wailgum 2008). This is, as one might expect, a relatively ambitious goal for a computer program. We have come to rely upon it to fulfill a variety of organizational needs. Before ERP, for example, when someone called about an order, the person taking the order did not know when the order would be shipped because she could not check to see if the warehouse was fully stocked with item x. Now, with ERP, everyone in the organization can check such items with a touch of a computer key.

ERP is extremely useful and a notable improvement upon our old system. It is a "single unified software program divided into software modules that roughly approximate the old standalone systems. Finance, manufacturing and the warehouse all still get their own software, except now the software is linked together so that someone in finance can look into the warehouse software to see if an order has been shipped" (Wailgum 2008). However, one of the disadvantages of ERP is that it must be bought as a package from a software vendor, and this requires lengthy negotiations between the vendor and our office. Recently, our office required an upgrade of its ERP system and coming to an agreement about the budget, delivery period, re-training of the officer personnel, and the implementation of the system required a long and protracted negotiation.

One of the first problems with the negotiation which emerged was our office's desire to purchase a package tailored to our specific needs, rather than the generic package offered by the manufacturer. In most cases of installing or upgrading ERP, there is a certain degree of flexibility in terms of what systems are adopted. "Most vendors' ERP software is flexible enough that you can install some modules without buying the whole package. Many companies, for example, will just install an ERP finance or HR module and leave the rest of the functions for another day" (Wailgum 2008). However, initially the company was intent upon 'hard selling' us a new, entire software package, rather than giving us the ability to upgrade critical components of the system. We knew we needed the upgrade but we were on a strict budget.

Unfortunately, we were in a vulnerable position because the company knew that we had been having some problems with the old ERP. This taught me the dangerous of allowing your negotiation partner to know that you are desperate: we had called the vendor several times to trouble-shoot issues and each time we were told that a 'patch' solution would not work and the only way to address our difficulties was a full upgrade. Given that the vendor knew we had to upgrade to remain functional, it was in the position to try to demand that we embark upon a considerably more ambitious and expensive effort than we initially offered.

A compromise was necessary. While we agreed to accept certain new components as well as upgrade our existing ones, we did not agree to all of the software company's original requests. As a client of long-standing we appealed to our relationship with the company. Also, we did have some leverage given that ERP has become increasingly common and popular and we could have switched to a new vendor and system entirely if our original company had been extremely uncooperative and recalcitrant.

Of course, compromises are not always ideal solutions. One humorous definition of a compromise is that neither party gets what it wants. We did come to see that some, if not all, of the new systems the ERP software company wanted us to adopt would be useful for our organization. "Compromises usually occur in win-lose situations -- when there is a fixed pie to be divided up, and whatever one side gets, the other side loses. In compromise situations, neither side gets all of what they really want, but they each make concessions in order to reach an agreement that is acceptable to both" (Spangler 2003). I would not necessarily characterize the compromise at my organization as a lose-lose situation, given that my organization did not feel that it was forced to accept any totally unnecessary 'bundled' items.

However, negotiating the specifics of the package was only the first part of the compromise. We also had to negotiate a delivery time that was acceptable to the company. It had to be delivered when we could afford the downtime transitioning to the new system. Initially, the company wanted to make the delivery immediately, during our busy season. This was impossible, given the money we would have lost during critical system downtime. Eventually, we reached a mutual agreement on an acceptable date for installation. This was less of a 'compromise' than a mutual coordination of our schedules, however. Both of us found the date acceptable. In this instance, accommodating to our demands was deemed to be superior by the company. Accommodation, obviously, produces the least conflict: "For accommodating style negotiators, the relationship is everything. Accommodating profiles think that the route to winning people over is to give them what they want. They don't just give products and services; they are generous with information too. Accommodators are usually very well-liked by their colleagues and opposite party negotiators" (Coburn 2012). Since we were making a relatively large and expensive order, the company was willing to defer to our request.