Negotiation Preparation and Strategy

Introduction

Negotiation is not an isolated conversation at the point of sale. It is a managed process through which parties exchange information, influence one another, resolve differences and create or claim value. In sales management, negotiation may concern price, volume, delivery, service levels, payment terms, warranties, implementation responsibilities, exclusivity, data access and future business. Although communication skill matters, negotiation outcomes are strongly influenced by the quality of preparation undertaken before the meeting.

Preparation enables a salesperson to distinguish between positions and interests, identify the people who influence the decision, estimate the other party’s alternatives, define acceptable outcomes and plan concessions. It also reduces emotional decision-making and protects the organisation from commitments that cannot be delivered profitably or ethically.

A professional negotiator therefore enters a negotiation with a clear mandate, realistic targets, a structured agenda, evidence-based assumptions and a deliberate strategy. Preparation does not eliminate uncertainty; it makes uncertainty manageable.

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, learners should be able to:

1. Conduct stakeholder, issue and power analysis.
2. Distinguish positions, interests, priorities and constraints.
3. Define targets, reservation points, trade-offs and negotiation zones.
4. Assess BATNA, alternatives, risks and sources of leverage.
5. Develop a disciplined concession plan.
6. Select an appropriate negotiation strategy for different situations.
7. Prepare a negotiation agenda, team structure and organisational mandate.
8. Apply ethical, analytical and commercially sound preparation methods.

1. The Nature and Purpose of Negotiation Preparation

Negotiation preparation is the systematic process of converting objectives, information and organisational authority into a plan for interaction. It includes research, analysis, decision rules and communication planning.

A useful preparation process answers seven questions:

• What does our organisation need to achieve?
• What does the customer or other stakeholder need?
• Which issues are negotiable, and which are not?
• Who influences, approves or can block the agreement?
• What alternatives exist if agreement is not reached?
• What can we offer, and what must we receive in return?
• What authority does the negotiating team possess?

Preparation is especially important in business-to-business selling because negotiations often involve multiple stakeholders, long buying cycles and agreements whose consequences extend beyond the immediate transaction. A salesperson who discounts without considering implementation cost may win an order but destroy contribution margin. Conversely, a seller who focuses only on price may fail to discover that delivery reliability, risk reduction or technical support has greater value to the buyer.

Preparation should be rigorous but not rigid. A plan provides direction, while the conversation provides new information. Skilled negotiators update their assumptions when credible evidence emerges.

2. Stakeholder Analysis

A stakeholder is any person or group that can affect, is affected by, or believes it may be affected by the negotiation or its outcome. Stakeholders may be internal or external, formal or informal, supportive or resistant.

2.1 Stakeholder roles in sales negotiations

The apparent buyer is not always the only relevant decision-maker. A buying centre may include:

• Economic buyer: controls or authorises financial expenditure.
• User or beneficiary: experiences the practical consequences of the purchase.
• Technical evaluator: assesses specifications, integration and performance.
• Procurement professional: manages commercial compliance, competition and terms.
• Legal or risk adviser: examines liability, confidentiality, regulation and contractual exposure.
• Influencer: shapes preferences without having final authority.
• Gatekeeper: controls access to information or decision-makers.
• Champion: supports the proposal and helps the seller navigate the organisation.
• Competitor or incumbent supplier: affects the buyer’s alternatives and expectations.

The seller should also map internal stakeholders, such as finance, operations, legal, customer service and senior management. Internal misalignment can weaken external bargaining power. For example, a salesperson promising a delivery date without consulting operations creates avoidable risk.

2.2 Stakeholder mapping

Stakeholders can be assessed according to influence and level of interest. A simple matrix supports prioritisation:

This matrix is a planning aid rather than a substitute for judgement. A person with low formal authority may possess high informal influence, specialist knowledge or access to senior decision-makers.

2.3 Stakeholder questions

For each stakeholder, the negotiator should investigate:

• What outcomes does this person value?
• What pressures, incentives or risks shape their behaviour?
• What authority do they possess?
• Who influences them?
• What information do they control?
• What objections might they raise?
• What would make them support, delay or reject the agreement?

Stakeholder analysis must be based on evidence wherever possible. Assumptions should be labelled as assumptions and tested through open questions rather than treated as facts.

3. Issue Analysis: From Positions to Interests

An issue is a subject on which the parties may differ or exchange value. A position is what a party says it wants; an interest is why it wants it. For example, “We require a 10 percent price reduction” is a position. The underlying interests might include a fixed budget, a need to demonstrate procurement savings, concern about internal approval or comparison with a competitor’s quotation.

3.1 Positions, interests and criteria

Effective preparation separates three levels:

1. Position: the stated demand or proposal.
2. Interest: the need, concern, benefit or risk underlying the position.
3. Objective criterion: an external standard that can help evaluate fairness or feasibility.

Objective criteria may include market benchmarks, documented service levels, total cost of ownership, industry standards, historical performance or independently verifiable cost data. Using criteria does not remove negotiation; it makes arguments more credible and reduces reliance on unsupported assertions.

3.2 Issue inventory

An issue inventory lists every negotiable element, not merely price. Typical sales issues include:

The purpose of an issue inventory is to identify opportunities for mutually beneficial exchange. Parties may value the same issue differently. A buyer may value rapid implementation highly, while the seller may be able to provide it at relatively low incremental cost. This difference can create value if exchanged appropriately.

3.3 Issue classification

Each issue should be classified as:

• Must-have: required for an acceptable agreement.
• High-priority: strongly preferred and worth protecting.
• Tradeable: can be exchanged for value on another issue.
• Low-cost give-away: has low value to the seller but may be valuable to the buyer.
• Non-negotiable: constrained by law, policy, safety, capacity or ethics.

A tradeable issue should never be described simply as something the seller can “give.” It should be linked to a reciprocal gain. The principle is: concessions are exchanges, not gifts.

4. Power Analysis

Power is the capacity to influence the process or outcome. It is not identical to organisational rank, size or aggressiveness. Power may arise from alternatives, information, expertise, legitimacy, relationships, timing, resources or the ability to delay or withdraw.

4.1 Sources of negotiation power

Important sources include:

• Alternative power: the ability to pursue another customer, supplier or solution.
• Information power: superior knowledge of requirements, costs, standards or options.
• Expert power: recognised technical or professional competence.
• Legitimate power: authority arising from role, contract or formal mandate.
• Relationship power: trust, access and a history of reliable cooperation.
• Time power: the ability to tolerate delay or exploit urgency.
• Resource power: control over scarce capacity, finance, technology or distribution.
• Coalitional power: support from other stakeholders or partners.

Power is relational and issue-specific. A large customer may have strong price power but limited technical expertise. A small specialist supplier may have weak volume power but strong expertise or scarcity power.

4.2 Power and dependence

Dependence increases when one party has few alternatives and the other party controls something important. A salesperson should therefore avoid relying on a single major account, just as a buyer should avoid dependence on one supplier where continuity is critical.

Power analysis should not be used to justify manipulation. Its proper purpose is to understand constraints, improve preparation and create balanced agreements. Ethical negotiators use power transparently and avoid exploiting confidential information, vulnerability or regulatory dependence.

5. Targets, Limits and the Zone of Possible Agreement

A negotiation plan needs at least three outcome levels:

• Target: the preferred realistic outcome.
• Reservation point or limit: the least favourable outcome the party will accept before choosing its best alternative.
• Opening position: the initial proposal, designed to be credible and to leave room for movement.

The reservation point must be based on the value of the best alternative, not on emotion or an arbitrary percentage. It should include relevant costs, risks, implementation implications and opportunity costs.

For a seller, a simplified contribution calculation is:

Revenue, variable cost and negotiation-specific cost must be measured in the same currency and for the same unit or contract period. The calculation assumes that fixed costs are unchanged by the decision and that relevant costs have been identified. If fixed costs, taxes, financing costs or risk-adjusted expected costs change materially, they must also be considered.

For example, suppose a service contract produces revenue of £120,000, variable delivery cost of £72,000 and negotiation-specific implementation cost of £8,000:

This is not the same as profit. It excludes any fixed costs not stated in the example and does not by itself capture strategic benefits or risks.

5.1 Reservation value and alternatives

A reservation value is the value of the best acceptable alternative. For a seller, it may be the contribution from another customer or the value of using capacity elsewhere. For a buyer, it may be the cost and risk of selecting another supplier, postponing the purchase or performing the activity internally.

A negotiated outcome is acceptable only if it is at least as attractive as the relevant alternative after considering risk and execution feasibility. The reservation point should be kept confidential unless disclosure is strategically deliberate and authorised.

5.2 Zone of possible agreement

The zone of possible agreement, or ZOPA, is the range in which both parties’ reservation points overlap. If the seller will accept no less than £90,000 and the buyer will pay no more than £110,000, the possible agreement range is £90,000 to £110,000, assuming the figures refer to the same scope, terms and risk conditions.

A ZOPA may be uncertain because the other party’s reservation point is rarely known. It may also be multidimensional: an agreement can be acceptable at a higher price with better payment terms, or at a lower price with reduced service levels. Therefore, negotiators should analyse packages rather than price alone.

6. BATNA, Alternatives and Risk Assessment

BATNA means “best alternative to a negotiated agreement.” It is the best course of action available if the current negotiation ends without agreement. BATNA is not the same as a list of all possible alternatives; it is the strongest feasible alternative after evaluating cost, timing, risk and probability of success.

A practical BATNA analysis should identify:

1. Possible alternatives.
2. Resources required to implement each alternative.
3. Expected benefits and costs.
4. Operational, legal and reputational risks.
5. Time required to activate the alternative.
6. The probability that the alternative will succeed.
7. The strongest alternative after comparison.

Risk can be assessed qualitatively using likelihood and impact. A simple risk rating may be expressed as:

Likelihood and impact must use defined scales, such as 1 to 5. The result is a prioritisation score, not a precise monetary forecast. It should not be interpreted as a probability-weighted financial loss unless the scales are explicitly designed for that purpose.

Risk responses include avoiding the risk, reducing it, transferring it contractually, accepting it with controls or obtaining approval for it. A contract cannot ethically be used to conceal a risk that the other party reasonably needs to understand.

7. Targets, Trade-Offs and Concession Planning

A concession is a movement from an initial position toward the other party’s preferred outcome. Poorly planned concessions reduce value, create expectations of further movement and may signal that the opening position was artificial.

7.1 Principles of concession planning

A disciplined concession plan follows these principles:

• Know the value and cost of every concession.
• Exchange every concession for a reciprocal commitment.
• Make concessions conditional and specific.
• Avoid conceding simply because the other party asks.
• Make later concessions smaller where appropriate, signalling that the limit is approaching.
• Record the cumulative effect on margin, risk and delivery.
• Distinguish movement on price from movement on scope or terms.

For example, a seller might say: “If you can commit to the annual volume and agree to payment within 30 days, we can reduce the unit price by £2.” This is more disciplined than reducing price without receiving anything in return.

7.2 Package negotiation

Package negotiation combines issues into proposals. Instead of negotiating price, delivery and service separately, the seller may present alternatives:

Packages expose priorities and encourage problem-solving. They also reduce the risk that the buyer selects every favourable element from separate offers.

7.3 Multi-issue scoring

When comparing packages, a weighted scoring model can support disciplined judgement. If each issue has a weight and a score, the total score is:

where w_i is the weight assigned to issue i, and s_i is the score of the package on issue i. Weights should sum to 1, or to 100 percent, and scores must use a consistent scale. The model assumes that the issues can be represented meaningfully on that scale; it supports judgement but does not replace commercial or legal review.

8. Selecting a Negotiation Strategy

No single strategy is appropriate for every negotiation. Strategy should reflect the importance of the relationship, the importance of the substantive outcome, the level of conflict and the availability of alternatives.

8.1 Competitive or distributive strategy

A competitive strategy treats some value as fixed and focuses on claiming a larger share. It may be appropriate when the issue is largely monetary, the relationship is limited, information is relatively symmetrical and the parties have credible alternatives. Risks include damaging trust, encouraging retaliation and overlooking opportunities to create value.

8.2 Collaborative or integrative strategy

A collaborative strategy seeks to expand value by exploring interests, different priorities and creative packages. It is appropriate for strategic accounts, repeated relationships and complex solutions. It requires information exchange, but information should be shared selectively and with proper confidentiality controls.

8.3 Accommodating strategy

Accommodation prioritises the relationship or immediate continuity over maximum economic gain. It may be justified for a small issue where the relationship is strategically important, but habitual accommodation can create entitlement and undermine profitability.

8.4 Avoiding or postponing

Postponement may be sensible when information is inadequate, authority is absent, the issue is premature or emotions are too intense for productive discussion. Avoidance becomes harmful when it merely delays a necessary decision.

8.5 Principled negotiation

Principled negotiation emphasises separating people from problems, focusing on interests rather than positions, inventing options for mutual gain and using objective criteria. These principles are compatible with commercial firmness. A respectful negotiator can still reject an unacceptable proposal.

9. Preparing the Negotiation Agenda and Mandate

An agenda is the planned structure of the meeting. A mandate is the authority granted to the negotiating team, including objectives, limits and approval requirements.

9.1 A professional agenda

A useful agenda may contain:

1. Purpose and desired outcome.
2. Introductions and roles.
3. Confirmation of scope and decision process.
4. Review of needs, constraints and success criteria.
5. Discussion of key issues in a logical sequence.
6. Development and evaluation of options.
7. Commercial and contractual discussion.
8. Resolution of open risks and responsibilities.
9. Summary of tentative agreements.
10. Next steps, owners and dates.

The agenda should allow sufficient time for discovery and should not assume that price is the first or most important topic. Beginning with requirements and consequences can create a stronger basis for value discussion.

9.2 Contents of a negotiation mandate

A mandate should specify:

• Business purpose and strategic context.
• Target outcome and acceptable range.
• Reservation point and walk-away conditions.
• Approved concessions and required exchanges.
• Issues requiring legal, financial or executive approval.
• Confidential information that may not be disclosed.
• Team roles and speaking authority.
• Customer commitments that must be verified.
• Escalation and adjournment rules.
• Documentation and follow-up requirements.

The mandate should distinguish authority to negotiate from authority to sign. A salesperson may be authorised to discuss a discount but not to bind the organisation to a warranty or liability clause.

9.3 Team roles

For complex negotiations, roles should be assigned in advance:

• Lead negotiator: manages the process and makes proposals.
• Subject expert: explains technical or operational matters.
• Commercial analyst: monitors price, margin and package implications.
• Observer or recorder: tracks commitments, questions and signals.
• Approver: provides decisions when delegated authority is exceeded.

Team members must avoid contradicting one another in front of the customer. Internal disagreements should be resolved before the meeting or during a planned caucus.

10. Illustrative Case: Meridian Systems and Northstar Logistics

This is a fictional illustrative case.

Background

Meridian Systems, a provider of warehouse-management software, is negotiating with Northstar Logistics, a regional logistics company. Northstar wants implementation within four months, integration with two existing systems and a three-year service commitment. Its procurement department has requested a 12 percent price reduction.

Problem

Meridian’s initial proposal is £600,000 for implementation and the first year of service. The delivery team estimates variable implementation cost of £330,000. A further £40,000 would be required for the requested accelerated timetable. Northstar’s procurement manager argues that a competitor has offered a lower headline price, but the technical team is concerned about that competitor’s integration capability.

Meridian must protect contribution, determine whether the competitor is a credible alternative and understand who has authority to approve the agreement. It must also avoid promising an accelerated implementation before confirming specialist availability.

Analysis

Stakeholder mapping identifies the procurement manager as a strong commercial influencer, the operations director as the economic buyer, the IT director as a technical evaluator and the warehouse managers as users. Meridian’s internal stakeholders include implementation, finance, legal and customer success.

The major issues are price, implementation time, integration scope, service levels, payment schedule, contract term, reference rights and change control. Northstar values speed and operational continuity more than it initially expresses. Meridian values a three-year term, a reliable implementation schedule and protection against uncontrolled scope expansion.

Meridian calculates the contribution of the proposed base arrangement:

If acceleration adds £40,000 in variable cost without additional revenue, contribution falls to £230,000. If the requested discount reduces revenue by 12 percent:

Before acceleration cost, contribution would be:

After acceleration cost, it would be £158,000. These figures are illustrative and exclude fixed costs, financing effects, taxes and risk adjustments. They show why price, scope and timing must be negotiated as a package.

Meridian’s BATNA is to allocate the implementation team to two smaller projects expected to generate combined contribution of £175,000, with lower delivery risk but less strategic value. Meridian therefore sets an internal minimum contribution of £175,000, subject to approval of the risk profile. It does not reveal this figure to Northstar.

Approach and solution

Meridian adopts a collaborative, multi-issue strategy. It proposes three packages:

• Accelerated assurance: £600,000, four-month implementation, three-year term, confirmed integration scope and 40 percent payment at contract signature.
• Balanced delivery: £560,000, six-month implementation, two-year term and standard support.
• Flexible economy: £525,000, eight-month implementation, one-year term and customer responsibility for specified data preparation.

The lower-priced packages are not simple discounts. They reduce scope, extend time or increase customer responsibilities. Meridian also requests that Northstar provide timely access to systems, appoint a project sponsor and approve requirements within agreed periods.

During discussion, the IT director confirms that the competitor does not include one required integration. The operations director states that the four-month deadline is important because of a planned warehouse opening. Meridian offers the accelerated package only if Northstar accepts the three-year term, provides access by a fixed date and agrees to a formal change-control process. Legal approves the liability wording, while finance confirms the payment schedule.

Outcome

Northstar selects the accelerated package at £600,000, with a three-year term and defined integration scope. Meridian commits specialist resources only after receiving the agreed deposit and system-access timetable. The final agreement includes milestones, acceptance criteria, service levels, exclusions and a change-control procedure.

Learning points

The case demonstrates that:

• A price demand may conceal operational priorities.
• Stakeholder analysis reveals who values which outcome.
• A competitor’s headline price is not necessarily an equivalent alternative.
• Concessions should be exchanged for commitments.
• Acceleration, scope and payment terms affect economic value together.
• A mandate prevents unauthorised promises.
• A clear implementation and change-control process protects both parties.

11. Challenges, Ethics and Governance

11.1 Information asymmetry

Parties rarely possess equal information. Ethical preparation distinguishes legitimate competitive intelligence from deception, misappropriation or misuse of confidential information. A salesperson should not fabricate a competing offer or claim knowledge obtained improperly.

11.2 Anchoring and cognitive bias

An opening price may influence subsequent discussion, but an anchor unsupported by value or evidence can damage credibility. Common preparation biases include overconfidence, confirmation bias, escalation of commitment and the assumption that the other party has the same priorities as the seller. Use independent review, documented assumptions and pre-mortem analysis to reduce these risks.

11.3 Regulatory and contractual responsibility

Negotiators must respect competition law, consumer protection, anti-bribery requirements, data protection, accessibility obligations, sector regulation and organisational procurement rules. Contractual promises should be clear, deliverable and approved by the proper authority. Special care is required where negotiations involve public bodies, vulnerable customers, health data, critical infrastructure or regulated services.

11.4 Technology and AI

Customer relationship management systems, pricing analytics and scenario tools can improve preparation by consolidating account history, estimating profitability and tracking commitments. AI tools may help summarise documents, generate issue lists or identify unanswered questions. However, users must verify outputs, protect confidential data, examine bias and avoid entering sensitive customer information into unauthorised systems. AI-generated recommendations are decision support, not a substitute for commercial judgement, legal review or accountability.

12. Best-Practice Preparation Checklist

Before the negotiation, the salesperson should be able to answer:

• What is our target, reservation point and BATNA?
• What are the other party’s likely objectives, constraints and alternatives?
• Who decides, influences, uses, approves and can block?
• Which issues are must-haves, tradeables and non-negotiables?
• What evidence supports our value proposition and assumptions?
• Which packages could create value for both parties?
• What will we concede, and what will we require in return?
• What risks require mitigation, approval or disclosure?
• Who has authority to make each type of commitment?
• What agenda, roles and decision rules will guide the meeting?
• How will agreements, actions and unresolved issues be recorded?

The final preparation document should be concise enough to use during the meeting but detailed enough to support disciplined decisions.

Chapter Summary

Negotiation preparation converts organisational objectives into a disciplined plan for creating and claiming value. Effective preparation begins with stakeholder analysis, identifying decision-makers, users, influencers, technical evaluators, procurement personnel and internal authorities. Issue analysis distinguishes positions from interests and identifies the full range of negotiable variables.

Power arises from alternatives, information, expertise, legitimacy, relationships, resources and timing. Targets, reservation points and BATNAs establish the boundaries of acceptable agreement, while the ZOPA indicates where agreement may be possible. Financial and risk analysis should consider scope, delivery, payment, implementation and opportunity cost rather than price alone.

Concessions should be planned, conditional and exchanged for reciprocal commitments. Package proposals and weighted comparisons can support multi-issue negotiation. Strategy should be selected according to the relationship, substantive stakes, alternatives and complexity; collaborative approaches are particularly valuable where issues and priorities differ.

A professional agenda structures the discussion, while a mandate defines authority, limits, approval requirements and escalation procedures. Ethical negotiation requires truthful representation, protection of confidential information, respect for law and careful governance of technology and AI. Preparation does not make outcomes certain, but it improves judgement, resilience and the quality of agreements.

Key Terms

BATNA: Best alternative to a negotiated agreement if the current negotiation fails.

Concession: A movement from one’s initial position toward the other party’s preferred outcome.

Economic buyer: Stakeholder with authority or influence over financial approval.

Issue inventory: Comprehensive list of subjects that may be discussed or exchanged.

Interest: Underlying need, concern, benefit or motivation behind a stated position.

Mandate: Authority, objectives, limits and approval conditions given to a negotiating team.

Negotiation strategy: Planned approach for managing issues, relationships, information and value.

Opening position: Initial proposal presented at the beginning of negotiation.

Position: Explicit demand, request or proposal stated by a party.

Power: Capacity to influence the negotiation process or outcome.

Reservation point: Least favourable outcome a party will accept before choosing its alternative.

Stakeholder: Person or group able to affect, or affected by, the negotiation or its outcome.

Target: Preferred realistic outcome of the negotiation.

Trade-off: Exchange in which movement on one issue is linked to movement on another.

Value creation: Expanding the total benefits available through differences in priorities or preferences.

Value claiming: Securing an appropriate share of the benefits created.

Weighted scoring model: Method that combines issue weights and package scores to support comparison.

Zone of possible agreement: Range in which the parties’ reservation points overlap.

Review Questions

Short Answer Questions

1. What is the difference between a negotiation position and an underlying interest?
2. Identify four stakeholders commonly found in a complex business-to-business sale.
3. What is the purpose of a reservation point?
4. Why should concessions be exchanged for reciprocal commitments?
5. State two items that should be included in a negotiation mandate.

Long Answer Questions

1. Explain how stakeholder analysis can improve the preparation and outcome of a sales negotiation.
2. Discuss the relationship between BATNA, reservation point and the zone of possible agreement.
3. Compare competitive, collaborative and accommodating negotiation strategies, including circumstances in which each may be appropriate.
4. Explain how a salesperson can use issue analysis and package proposals to create value beyond price.
5. Discuss the ethical and governance responsibilities involved in using information and AI tools for negotiation preparation.

Analytical / Application Questions

1. A customer asks for a 15 percent price reduction, faster delivery and extended warranty at no additional cost. Design a preparation plan that identifies the customer’s likely interests, the seller’s risks and at least two conditional package proposals.
2. Your organisation’s preferred contract would produce £250,000 contribution, while its best feasible alternative would produce £190,000. Explain how this information should influence the target, reservation point, concession plan and walk-away decision. State any assumptions required.
3. Using the Meridian Systems case, prepare a concise negotiation mandate covering objectives, stakeholders, issues, authority limits, strategy, agenda and approval requirements.

Multiple Choice Questions with Answers

Question 1

Which stakeholder usually controls or authorises financial expenditure?

A. Economic buyer

B. Gatekeeper

C. User

D. Technical evaluator

Correct Answer: A. Economic buyer

Question 2

What is the best description of a BATNA?

A. The first offer made in a negotiation

B. The best feasible alternative if no agreement is reached

C. The highest price a buyer requests

D. A list of every imaginable alternative

Correct Answer: B. The best feasible alternative if no agreement is reached

Question 3

A seller’s revenue is £100,000, variable cost is £60,000 and negotiation-specific cost is £5,000. What is the contribution?

A. £35,000

B. £40,000

C. £45,000

D. £55,000

Correct Answer: A. £35,000

Question 4

Which statement best describes a reservation point?

A. The preferred opening proposal

B. The other party’s target

C. The least favourable acceptable outcome

D. The average market price

Correct Answer: C. The least favourable acceptable outcome

Question 5

Which action is an example of a conditional concession?

A. Reducing price immediately when asked

B. Offering a discount in exchange for a volume commitment

C. Withholding all information throughout the negotiation

D. Agreeing to every requested term

Correct Answer: B. Offering a discount in exchange for a volume commitment

Question 6

What is the main purpose of an issue inventory?

A. To identify all subjects that may be negotiated or exchanged

B. To replace legal review

C. To determine the customer’s personality type

D. To calculate tax liability only

Correct Answer: A. To identify all subjects that may be negotiated or exchanged

Question 7

Which strategy primarily seeks to expand value through different priorities and creative packages?

A. Avoiding

B. Competitive

C. Collaborative

D. Accommodating

Correct Answer: C. Collaborative

Question 8

If a seller will accept no less than £90,000 and a buyer will pay no more than £110,000, what is the price ZOPA?

A. £0 to £90,000

B. £90,000 to £110,000

C. £110,000 to £200,000

D. There is no possible range

Correct Answer: B. £90,000 to £110,000

Question 9

In a weighted scoring model, what should normally be true of the issue weights?

A. They should all be identical

B. They should be negative

C. They should sum to 1 or 100 percent

D. They should exceed the package scores

Correct Answer: C. They should sum to 1 or 100 percent

Question 10

Which item belongs most directly in a negotiation mandate?

A. An unauthorised promise to the customer

B. The team’s approved authority limits and escalation rules

C. A competitor’s confidential contract

D. A guarantee that agreement will be reached

Correct Answer: B. The team’s approved authority limits and escalation rules