Getting to Yes Negotiating: Agreement without giving in. Roger Fisher & William Ury. 2011. New York: Penguin Books

The rise of public-private partnerships and partnerships of any type necessitate an understanding of the fundamentals of negotiation. As a member of a board that collaborates with other districts on water and wastewater projects, I found myself needing a refresher on basic negotiation strategies. In a previous position at a software firm, I had taken a course based on the book by Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes. The concept of BATNA, the Best Alternatives to a Negotiated Agreement, I remembered. However, I wanted to assure myself that I understood all the steps of the process.

Although the analysis and problem-solving framework appears commonplace, creating relationships for success by separating people from problems and focusing on interests not positions make negotiating difficult. After overcoming these hurdles, the four steps involve first identifying the problem, its ramifications and contrast with the preferred condition. Second, the parties engage in analysis and diagnosis, by classifying the effects of the problem into common categories.  They air all possible causes, deficiencies, and impediments to a solution. After the identification, they articulate the potential, realistic fixes for each class, congruent with their purpose for negotiating. Together the parties document the fixes. Step three entails devising broad strategies which implement the fixes and cures.  Finally, in step four the parties develop a mutually agreed action plan.

Fisher and Ury urge that parties seek agreements based on objective criteria and mutual interests. Some criteria that carry weight include "market value, precedent, scientific judgment, professional standards, efficiency, costs, what a court would decide, oral standards, equal treatment, tradition, reciprocity, etc." (p.86). The authors, additionally, provide lists of terms to determine weak agreements from strong ones. Strong agreements have these characteristics, "substantive, permanent, comprehensive, final, unconditional, binding, first-order" (p. 71). In contrast, weak agreements exhibit the following attributes: "procedural, provisional, partial, in principle, contingent, nonbinding, second-order" (p. 71).