Pelican Landing
Transcript of Pelican Landing
CONFLICT & NEGOTIATION
Pelican Landing
Case StudyBender Corporation - Pelican Landing
From the BookProject Management – A Managerial ApproachBy, Jack R. Meredith & Samuel J. Mantel
Group 2Jagadeesan ¦ Arun ¦ Pankaj Kumar ¦ Jaspal
• Chris Corbett, VP – Bender Corporation• Meeting with Mr. Lee Lawson to resolve the 8 issues that had stalled the
approval of Pelican Building Project• Pelican – A Residental Community proposed in Springfield’s Old Town• Project could revitalise Bender Corporation
CASE DETAILS
• Historic Old Town– Along the bank of Green River– Downtown Springfield linked via two old bridges– Largely ignored as a commercial area– City of springfield owned much of property in old town
• Bender Corportation– Owns lot of property in Old town– Interested in turning Old town into residental community– Completed similar project ‘Miraloma Pointe’ in Kentwood– But, situation changed rapidly (residental moves away from cities)– In need of new projects to improve its projects
CASE DETAILS
• 8 Pending Issues– City Financing– Retail Space– Local Sub-Contractors– Open Space– Condominium / Apartment Ratio– Low / Moderate Income Units– Height– Planning Department Building Inspector
CASE DETAILS
Pointing System of Issues
City Financing Retail Space Local Subcontractors Open Space
$ 500,000 50 0 Sq.ft -190 4 50 30% 50
$ 625,000 150 1500 Sq.ft -130 3 90 25% 110
$ 750,000 250 3000 Sq.ft -70 2 130 20% 170
$ 875,000 350 4500 Sq.ft -10 1 170 15% 230
$ 1,000,000 450 6000 Sq.ft 50 0 210 10% 290
Condo/Apartment Ratio Low/Moderate Income Units Height Building Inspector
3:1 50 10% 0 2 Stories -550 Wottle 50
2:1 130 8% 70 3 Stories -400 De Witt 80
1:1 210 6% 90 4 Stories -250 Gellespie 110
1:2 290 4% 110 5 Stories -100 Hawes 140
1:3 370 2% 130 6 Stories 50 Conibear 170
Q1. In What ways are Corbett & Lawson partners?
• Lawson – City Planning Officer of Springfield• Corbett – Vice President, Bender Corporation
• Both the parties are members of the project with strong common interests.• Both wanted to develop the city (for different reasons)
Q2. Interpret the case in terms of the four points of principled negotiation
• 4 Points of Principled Negotiations– Separate the people from the problem– Focus on Interests, not positions– Before trying to reach agreement, invent options for mutual gain– Insist on using objective criteria
• Separate the people from the problem– Identification of issues for discussion
• Focus on Interests, not positions– Both the parties have a set of preferences and importance weights for each
of the issues to be resolved– E.g. On Building Inspector, focus on ‘Fast Growth’ instead of individual
person– Parties should not hold to their subjective preferences and should move
forward to the common interest of developing the city
Q2. Interpret the case in terms of the four points of principled negotiation
• Before trying to reach agreement, invent options for mutual gain– More people are looking for homes near city. So, both the parties are
willing to develop residential complex in the city– Developing a city that was ignored for long time
• Insist on using objective criteria– The issues were graded using the pointing system
Q3-a. Whether Corbett’s Estimate of the importance on each of the issues appear to have a win-win situation
• The scores are ranging from -440 to 1720. • Corbett should work out his minimum score (within the range) he would like to
achieve in all the issues. • He should negotiate over and above that so that he is not completely lost.
Anything above the minimum score is beneficial to him.
Q3-b. Should Mr. Corbett reveal his position to Mr. Lawson to fasten the negotiation
• He can reveal his score to the other party subject to the following conditions:• He should not reveal his minimum score• He can mark up the minimum score requirement and reveal it so that even in
worst case he will not loose below his minimum requirement. This will help both the parties to negotiate around value revealed and finalise the deal.
PLAN
CREATE VALUE
CLAIM VALUE
Q4. How could you suggest Mr. Corbett proceed with negotiations
• Which issues should be discussed first?– Focus of negotiation to be a win – win situation.– Professionals have interest in living and working and city. – Professional require apartments rather than condominiums.– It matches with the interest of Corbett and hence will create a win-win situation.– So start with Condo/apartment ratio.
• Which last?– The issue of open space – Bcos’ city planner would require more open space which is conflicting with the
interests of Bender corporation
• What position should corbett take on each of the issues?– For issue of condo/apartment ratio, take a position that ratio to be 1:3. – Justified by stating the income levels of young professionals
– For issue of open space, take position in terms of interests like safety issues. – Can justify that higher level of safety can be ensured with lesser open space as less
number of outsiders or non residents will enter into the area.
Q5. Consider one negotiation approach of coming to a strict compromise on each issue, resolved one at a time. Would another approach such as considering two or more issues at once, offer a better solution to both the parties?
• One issue– More systematic– No interdependency– Issues surface one by one– Win/Lose situation– Order of Issues discussed very
important
"Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate."
- President John F. Kennedy
• Many Issue– Multiple options– Trade off between issues for
maximizing gains– Can use a rating system– Reduced chances of Dead lock
and Fight
• Pelican Landing Case– Should go for Many Issue at once– Lawson may not favour any inspector– He may like to have more open space
• Trade off possible
Q6. If all possible outcomes were plotted in 2D space with each axis being the sum of the results for each negotiator, what would the plot look like? What would the outer boundary represent?
Corbett(X-Axis) 450 350 250 150 50Lawson(Y-Axis) 50 150 250 350 450
Corbett(X-Axis) 50 -10 -70 -130 -190Lawson(Y-Axis) -190 -130 -70 -10 50
Corbett(X-Axis) 210 170 130 90 50Lawson(Y-Axis) 50 90 130 170 210
Corbett(X-Axis) 290 230 170 110 50Lawson(Y-Axis) 50 110 170 230 290
Corbett(X-Axis) 370 290 210 130 50Lawson(Y-Axis) 50 130 210 290 370
Corbett(X-Axis) 130 110 90 70 0Lawson(Y-Axis) 0 70 90 110 130
Corbett(X-Axis) 50 -100 -250 -400 -550Lawson(Y-Axis) -550 -400 -250 -100 50
Corbett(X-Axis) 170 140 110 80 50Lawson(Y-Axis) 50 80 110 140 170
Building Inspector
Height
Low/Moderate-Income units
Condo/Apartment Ratio
Open Space
Local SubContractors
Retail Space
City Financing
Possible Solutions
• Numbers for Measure• Complex but effective
• Assign issue priorities• Score the outcomes
• deal breakers
Thank You…