個案總覽

The case aims to exercise skills in decision-making, negotiations, and conflict resolution in extreme crisis management. It is a multi-party negotiation: CEO of the company that produces the spill, national government and municipal government, port authorities, and environmental associations. There is also a multivariable agenda to negotiate: an emergency level to be declared, cleaning operations to be deployed, additional environmental recovery work, provisions in the port area, and compensation mechanisms for the affected communities. The multimedia format allows adding information to extend the discussion of the case to an extreme experience design format with recordings of people involved, filming of affected residents, news in the media, and the impact of social networks.

The case aims to exercise skills in decision-making, negotiations, and conflict resolution in extreme crisis management. It is a multi-party negotiation: CEO of the company that produces the spill, national government and municipal government, port authorities, and environmental associations. There is also a multivariable agenda to negotiate: an emergency level to be declared, cleaning operations to be deployed, additional environmental recovery work, provisions in the port area, and compensation mechanisms for the affected communities. The multimedia format allows adding information to extend the discussion of the case to an extreme experience design format with recordings of people involved, filming of affected residents, news in the media, and the impact of social networks.

The case aims to exercise skills in decision-making, negotiations, and conflict resolution in extreme crisis management. It is a multi-party negotiation: CEO of the company that produces the spill, national government and municipal government, port authorities, and environmental associations. There is also a multivariable agenda to negotiate: an emergency level to be declared, cleaning operations to be deployed, additional environmental recovery work, provisions in the port area, and compensation mechanisms for the affected communities. The multimedia format allows adding information to extend the discussion of the case to an extreme experience design format with recordings of people involved, filming of affected residents, news in the media, and the impact of social networks.

The case aims to exercise skills in decision-making, negotiations, and conflict resolution in extreme crisis management. It is a multi-party negotiation: CEO of the company that produces the spill, national government and municipal government, port authorities, and environmental associations. There is also a multivariable agenda to negotiate: an emergency level to be declared, cleaning operations to be deployed, additional environmental recovery work, provisions in the port area, and compensation mechanisms for the affected communities. The multimedia format allows adding information to extend the discussion of the case to an extreme experience design format with recordings of people involved, filming of affected residents, news in the media, and the impact of social networks.

The case aims to exercise skills in decision-making, negotiations, and conflict resolution in extreme crisis management. It is a multi-party negotiation: CEO of the company that produces the spill, national government and municipal government, port authorities, and environmental associations. There is also a multivariable agenda to negotiate: an emergency level to be declared, cleaning operations to be deployed, additional environmental recovery work, provisions in the port area, and compensation mechanisms for the affected communities. The multimedia format allows adding information to extend the discussion of the case to an extreme experience design format with recordings of people involved, filming of affected residents, news in the media, and the impact of social networks.

In 1985, pop music superstar Michael Jackson instructed his attorney, John Branca, to make a bid for the Northern Songs music catalog, which contained the songs of the Beatles. In a challenging negotiation with Australian media baron Robert Holmes à Court, Branca secured the rights to the collection. Over the next three decades, first as Jackson's attorney and later as the executor of his estate, Branca undertook numerous complex negotiations to secure and expand Jackson's music publishing empire until it became the largest music publishing company in the world.

In 2015, Amit Bendov was struck by a realization about a new technology that might be able to transcribe musical notation in real-time, which eventually became known as Gong. Gong's business proposition was simple: provide software that automatically captures, understands, and analyzes written and spoken sales conversations (not music) to help sales teams sell more effectively. It was a compelling idea with the potential to create significant value for its users. There were, however, many questions. Could the technology live up to its promises? What could salespeople learn from their own conversations and from the best - and worst - salespeople among them? Could leveraging conversational insights make a measurable impact on a company's bottom line? And how could Gong defend against competitors, both now and in the future?

Asocomún and Peacebuilders are two organizations that have made an oral and informal agreement to present a joint proposal to the European Union (henceforth the EU) about coexistence incubators in schools. Peacebuilders has been working on the technical and economic proposal for the last month and despite having had several meetings with Asocomún, they never defined how to distribute the budget between the two organizations. Both organizations worked on the premise that it was very important to carry out the project due to its social scope and therefore the economic issues became secondary, assuming, moreover, that it would be easy to reach an agreement. This, however, was not the case.

Asocomún and Peacebuilders are two organizations that have made an oral and informal agreement to present a joint proposal to the European Union (henceforth the EU) about coexistence incubators in schools. Peacebuilders has been working on the technical and economic proposal for the last month and despite having had several meetings with Asocomún, they never defined how to distribute the budget between the two organizations. Both organizations worked on the premise that it was very important to carry out the project due to its social scope and therefore the economic issues became secondary, assuming, moreover, that it would be easy to reach an agreement. This, however, was not the case.

Asocomún and Peacebuilders are two organizations that have made an oral and informal agreement to present a joint proposal to the European Union (henceforth the EU) about coexistence incubators in schools. Peacebuilders has been working on the technical and economic proposal for the last month and despite having had several meetings with Asocomún, they never defined how to distribute the budget between the two organizations. Both organizations worked on the premise that it was very important to carry out the project due to its social scope and therefore the economic issues became secondary, assuming, moreover, that it would be easy to reach an agreement. This, however, was not the case.

This case describes the background to an upcoming negotiation between a Chinese social entrepreneur (Jamie Zheng) and a venture capitalist (Chris Liu). Case (A) lays out the situation from the perspective of Jamie, who is trying to attain first-round investment in order to better grow Smart Health, which was founded by Jamie. However, Jamie's purpose for the firm includes not only the pursuit of profit but also a desire to have a social impact by making life easier for the elderly. This provides a potential conflict, as Jamie's social purpose may impede the company's commitment to the pursuit of profit. After negotiating with five investors, Jamie still could not reach an agreement, especially with Smart Health's social goal being an important condition for its future development. However, Jamie is optimistic heading into this meeting with Chris, as Jamie believes Chris shares the same vision and understands the unique nature of Smart Health as a social enterprise. Case (B) presents the perspective of Chris, who, on a personal level, likes Jamie's idea of helping the elderly. However, as a traditional venture capitalist and an agent of XYZ Capital, Chris understands the importance of investing in firms based on their potential profitability. Therefore, Chris needs to ensure a sound return on investment, which includes some control over how the firm makes financial decisions in the future. Students will be asked to play the role of either Jamie or Chris and negotiate on how they can come to an agreement on the venture capital firm's potential investment in Smart Health and what degree of control the venture capital firm should have over Smart Health, in order to ensure it meets its financial obligations. They must haggle over one issue-social purpose. The key question for this negotiation is: How does one reach a deal when there is more than just a financial incentive at stake? How does one negotiate when the social purpose of the firm is among the issues at hand?

This case describes the background to an upcoming negotiation between a Chinese social entrepreneur (Jamie Zheng) and a venture capitalist (Chris Liu). Case (A) lays out the situation from the perspective of Jamie, who is trying to attain first-round investment in order to better grow Smart Health, which was founded by Jamie. However, Jamie's purpose for the firm includes not only the pursuit of profit but also a desire to have a social impact by making life easier for the elderly. This provides a potential conflict, as Jamie's social purpose may impede the company's commitment to the pursuit of profit. After negotiating with five investors, Jamie still could not reach an agreement, especially with Smart Health's social goal being an important condition for its future development. However, Jamie is optimistic heading into this meeting with Chris, as Jamie believes Chris shares the same vision and understands the unique nature of Smart Health as a social enterprise. Case (B) presents the perspective of Chris, who, on a personal level, likes Jamie's idea of helping the elderly. However, as a traditional venture capitalist and an agent of XYZ Capital, Chris understands the importance of investing in firms based on their potential profitability. Therefore, Chris needs to ensure a sound return on investment, which includes some control over how the firm makes financial decisions in the future. Students will be asked to play the role of either Jamie or Chris and negotiate on how they can come to an agreement on the venture capital firm's potential investment in Smart Health and what degree of control the venture capital firm should have over Smart Health, in order to ensure it meets its financial obligations. They must haggle over one issue-social purpose. The key question for this negotiation is: How does one reach a deal when there is more than just a financial incentive at stake? How does one negotiate when the social purpose of the firm is among the issues at hand?

Many people don't tackle negotiations in a proactive way; instead, they simply react to moves the other side makes. While that approach may work in a lot of instances, complex deals demand a much more strategic approach. The best negotiators look beyond their immediate counterparts to see if other constituencies have a stake in the deal's outcome or value to contribute; rethink the scope and timing of talks; and search for connections across multiple deals. They also get creative about the process and framing of negotiations, ditching the binary thinking that can lock negotiators into unproductive zero-sum postures. Applying such strategic techniques will allow dealmakers to find novel sources of leverage, realize bigger opportunities, and achieve outcomes that maximize value for both sides.

After a major setback in the fall of 2018, Dr. David Jacobs, a radiologist and physician leader in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, was frustrated in his attempts to reform the Ontario Medical Association (OMA), the professional association which represented all physicians in the province. He must decide whether to keep trying to reform the OMA or to launch a new association, the Ontario Specialists Association (OSA), which would be devoted to addressing the minority interests of the province's high-billing specialists. After years of trying to make progress on the key issues for specialist physicians within the OMA, the minority specialist group felt poorly represented by the OMA and unfairly treated in contract negotiations for physician services with the province's Ministry of Health, the sole payer of insured physician services in Ontario. Jacobs must decide whether it was in the best interests of the high-billing specialists to continue being represented by the OMA - whose membership was dominated by primary care physicians with divergent interests from those of the specialists - or to establish the OSA to represent the unique interests of specialists in contract negotiations with the Ministry. The central issue dividing the minority specialists and the majority primary care physicians was a fair resolution to the issue of "relativity" - or relative physician compensation between areas of clinical practice. The minority high-billing specialists were facing another round of fee cuts in order to redirect money to the lower billing majority including primary care. Consequently, the high-billing specialists were contemplating leaving from the OMA - their representative that had sanctioned the proposed deal that benefited the majority at their expense.

The case, set in May 2018, follows an analyst as she undertakes the challenge of decoding the acquisition strategy behind a deal that rattled both venture capitalist and tech startup circles in India. Ananya Menon, Chief Consultant for Retail and E-Commerce at a research and consulting firm in India, had been asked by a client to provide a report on the recent acquisition of the Indian marketplace major Flipkart Pvt. Limited by the Arkansas-based retail behemoth Walmart Inc. Founded in 2007, Flipkart, buoyed by multiple massive funding rounds, had registered meteoric growth both in terms of revenue and market share, and dominated the Indian online retail industry. Though it faced a few setbacks due to misplaced strategies and regulatory changes, it managed to cement its position as the market leader with a share of nearly 40% of the market in terms of gross merchandise value (GMV). However, analysts were sceptical about the sustainability of this position, as the company was a long way from profitability and was burning cash in the form of massive discounts to augment its customer base. Moreover, Amazon Inc., another leading global marketplace company, with deep pockets and top-of-the-line technological capabilities, was close on its heels. Walmart had waited on the fringes of the Indian retail industry since 2007 when the market was opened to foreign investors, but regulatory barriers had confined its operations to the wholesale segment. The e-commerce segment was opened to foreign investment eventually, but under several restrictive conditions. Walmart leapt at the chance and acquired a 77% stake in Flipkart, the leader in the online retail segment. However, the deal price of US$ 16 billion for a company that was consistently making huge net losses sent shockwaves across the VC and e-commerce community. As speculation and debate over the move mounted, Menon was tasked by her client with demystifying the strategic rationale behind the deal.

Spreadsheet supplement for case ISB186.