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) 50 -100 -250 -400 -550Lawson(Y-Axis) -550 -400 -250 -100 50


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…

Pelican Landing

Documents

Transcript of Pelican Landing