Business Negotiation: Integrative Bargaining Process Analysis Report

This report provides an analysis of integrative bargaining, a negotiation strategy aimed at achieving win-win outcomes in business disputes. The report examines a case study involving DK construction and SK management, who are in a dispute over the color of tile flooring in a construction project. The assignment brief outlines the context of the dispute, financial details, and the roles of each party. The report applies the four major steps of integrative bargaining: problem identification, identification of interests and needs, generation of alternative solutions, and evaluation of alternative solutions. It explores the interests of both parties, the potential costs of various outcomes, and proposes a solution where both parties share the cost of correcting the flooring, preserving their business and family relationship. The conclusion emphasizes the importance of integrative bargaining in resolving disagreements, particularly when maintaining long-term relationships is a priority, and highlights how this approach minimizes emotional impact and promotes resource efficiency in business negotiations. The report underscores the advantages of collaboration in generating mutually beneficial outcomes in business disputes.

(C)- Negotiation Process-
In case of disagreement, individuals intentionally aim to maximise
the outcome in their favour to the extent possible. Negotiation is the
process using which parties in disagreement settle down disputes.
Negotiations are the method to avoid any kind of dispute or loss due
to disagreement generated. It leads to a level of compromise and
avoid further arguments.
Preparation, discussion, discussions of goals, determination of
mutually beneficial outcomes is some of the basic steps to be
undertaken in any negotiation process. Negotiations are originally
divided into two types.
1) Distributive negotiations.
2) Integrative negotiations
In case there is a fixed sum that is to be divided into parties in
dispute, the adequacy of Distributive negotiation or bargaining can
be proving legitimate. In other context if the parties in dispute
integrate for mutually accepted outcome and to integrate the
interests of all the parties while still dividing the value requires
Integrative negotiation approach. Aim of the integrative bargaining is
to protect the interests of every negotiating party. It is also
sometimes referred to as win-win situation. Integrative bargaining
seems more relevant when the negotiating parties intend to engage
with each other in future. In the case given, DK construction and SK
management are client of each other with good family relation. They
both are special client for each other. However there is breach of
agreement from DK construction dur to some negligence over the
colour of flooring tile. As they both wish to continue their relation
intact, so their must be legitimate integrative negotiation practice to
find out win-win solution for both if them that will not cause harm to
anyone and if cause, there must be mutually agreed cost.Integrative
negotiation can also be termed as live negotiation as it values
emotional impact on agreements also. We will apply the steps of
integrative bargaining on present case in order to reach a win-win
solution for both the parties.

There are four major steps which are needed to perform while
negotiating to generate high joint outcome using Integrative
bargaining.
I. Problem identification –In the case given, there is a dispute
between a contractor and his client over the finish/colouring of
newly installed tile flooring. Here there is client displeasure
over the tile flooring and agreement of said work of the
installation.There is another problem that if DK construction
start again the whole process of floor making it will cost them
$77,000 along with loss of time. As both DK construction and SK
management are in close family and business relationship, then
SK management have to find out best rout that suits both of
them.
II. Interests and needs- For DK construction there is conflict of
interest between his own interst and interst of his close
acquaintance. DK construction wants to save his relationship
with SK management but also don’t want to et into rebuilding
of as it will cost them extra time and monetary loss which can
cause them delay in other projects. For SK management also
don’t want to loose their client and family friend but also there
is a conflict between floor and friend as it will cause them extra
$77,000 for making that floor.
III. Alternative solutions-.Both the contractor and his client are
engaged in good business and family relationship. Also they are
client for each other. However, Dk construction due to some
negligence breached the agreement by varying the color of tile
floorings. So while negotiating using integrative approach we
need to find out win-win solution. The best alternative to
negotiated agreeemt will be that both can move on by solving
the case on their mutually agreed outcome. If they both want
to save their previous relation as such they need to negotiate
on their own. As mentioned in the text they both share the
variation cost on 50-50% basis.This will help both of them to
fulfil their interests along with retaining their mutual
relation.There could be worst alternative solution where SK

management will follow legal proceedings under contract law
and cause DK construction extra expense of $77,000 by
removing the present tile, making the floor to rebuilt,
installation of new tileand other factor costs. The worst
alternative solution will cause DK construction to run out of
funds and out of time for other projects. It can also cause loss
of opportunity for DK construction. So under integrative
negotiation process, the above mentioned solution is best
suited win-win solution for both the parties.
IV. Evaluation of alternative solution-In order to minimise their
emotional impact the above mentioned solution will be
adequate for them. As individual benefit cause other more loss.
Sharing the expense on 50-50 basis will let DK Construction to
face less loss of time and money and they can also deliver their
other projects on time otherwise it will cost them extra $77,000
. They both are that much familiar that they talked about
dispute only in work hours. It will be the most optimistic
solution of the dispute and they will be able to move forward
with each other. It will also help DK construction to keep on
track their monetary balance and completion of other project
on time. Also the solution will be beneficial for SK Management
that they will get their floor repaired and their relation intact.
The solution given above will reduce the effect of emotional
impact on their business also.
Conclusion-
Integrative bargaining intends to negotiate any disagreement taking
care of the interest of both the negotiating parties. Duplication of
effort always happens on the expense of resource factors.. As here in
the case, SK Management and DK construction both found them self
under agreed obligations that can cause harm to their mutual
relation as they both are in very good business and family relations.
Embarrassment under construction family is big emotional factor.
Also both of them tried to keep the matter within themselves and
keep their mutual relation stay away from business. A solution with

win-win situation for both of them leads to conserve their relation
either business or personal.