In this age of partnerships, alliances, and joint ventures, the will need for skilled negotiators is much more critical than ever.

Partnership ventures can actually complicate a relationship. They surely call for unique negotiations.

Sponsored Links

There will be problems where both parties seriously disagree. There will be positive aspects and contributions that involve unknown or uncertain sharing requirements. Partnership ventures call for assumptions — several of which will be wrong. There will often be an imbalance of power between the two parties in the sharing of benefits and contributions. The appropriate formulas need to be negotiated.

• What are acceptable labor, overhead costs, and profits?

• Can the supplier sell new designs, strategies, software, and components to a competitor?

• When 1 party runs into trouble what occurs? Who picks up the work? Expenses?

• What accounting method is used? Does each and every party have the right to audit the other?

• How are adjustments handled? Priced? Rejected or accepted?

What further complicates these varieties of negotiations is that the original negotiators who established the partnership venture typically move on. Project managers, engineers, technical staff, sales folks, and operational staff then have the responsibility to make the venture function. This needs hundreds of negotiations and re-negotiations over the life of the venture.

Issues usually go wrong, or do not offer the originally intended results. 1 of our customers just told us about a partnership they have with a foreign organization to deliver software, laptop or computer and engineering services. The original agreement was based on a set of assumptions that would make the venture equally profitable for both companies, based upon a split of the function over the next five years. Not long into the project, our client realized that the work formula would not present an equitable split of the profits. Making use of a sophisticated negotiating approach, they were able to successfully re-negotiate the agreement. The modified work allocations assure each and every party will get the originally intended share of the profits.

Those who are most outspoken against negotiating usually base their dislike on two assumptions: (1) every single side should tell the other every thing, and (2) both sides in a venture will instinctively be fair and reasonable. I feel such assumptions are absolutely naive — particularly in partnerships.

There are a lot of individuals who will not tell you every little thing you want to know. In most organization transactions there will be problems that will need tough negotiations. Folks who say “put every little thing on the table”—even in a partnership—are simply being naive. There are two essential traits of any very good negotiator—tact and discretion. A negotiator must feel: What ought to I say? How much should I say? When should I say it? And in partnering—which I compare to a good marriage—there are points I say, points I say partially, issues I say later, and things that are in no way said due to the fact they would only trigger tension.

In a partnership roles alter. Participants grow to be contract managers and a relationship managers rather than just buyers, sellers, designers or engineers.

And, there will often be issues involved in the breaking of the partnership. When the marriage ends, there should be a divorce. What happens at termination? How are expenses settled? Is there a non-compete clause to safeguard secrets and strategies? How about trademarks, copyrights, patents, tooling, warrantees, software program, designs, drawings, data, customer lists?

Partnering is not the end of negotiations it’s just the beginning. Be ready.