NUS / BMS5413 / 2026
A strong fallback. A narrower conversation.
A seller-team reflection on price, restrictions and the questions that make room for another kind of agreement.
- My role
- Member of the three-person seller team
- Material
- Team negotiation analysis and reflection
- The question I revisit
- From separate concessions to complete packages
01
The exercise
On 28 January 2026, I took part in the El-Tek negotiation exercise at NUS. Our three-person team represented Audio Components, the seller of the fictional Z-25 technology. Price and restrictions were both negotiable. The case figures here belong to that classroom exercise.
02
A fallback that gave us confidence
Our team reflection described an internal alternative worth approximately US$55 million. A BATNA—the best alternative to a negotiated agreement—helps establish what to do if agreement fails. We opened at US$70 million with strong restrictions, supported by that alternative and concern for competitive protection.
03
How the conversation narrowed
In the written reflection, we found ourselves treating lower restrictions as a loss and responding mainly by adjusting the price. The negotiation had several dimensions, yet we increasingly handled them one at a time. Our comfortable fallback also reduced the urgency to explore what mattered most to the buyer.
04
The question beyond price
Fixed-pie thinking assumes that one side's gain must be the other's loss. Different priorities can create another possibility: a condition that matters greatly to one side may be less costly to the other. Finding that difference requires questions about interests, then comparisons between complete packages.
05
What I take forward
Our proposed improvement was to ask about priorities earlier and put several structured packages on the table together. This was a lesson from a team reflection, rather than proof that a particular new package would have succeeded. Looking back, I want a strong fallback to support good questions as well as a firm position.
LOOKING BACK / MAKE THE NEXT QUESTION CONCRETE
Three questions I would bring to another conversation.
These are present-day questions developed from the team reflection, for a reader to explore too.
01What interest is a restriction meant to protect?＋
Looking back, I would connect a term to the interest behind it. Understanding why a restriction matters gives the next discussion a more useful starting point.
02Which term is harder to change than the price?＋
Hear the other side’s priorities before proposing terms. Some conditions matter more than others; asking about them makes package comparisons more meaningful.
03Could we compare two complete packages?＋
Explain the price and restrictions within each package so the other side can compare the whole. The rehearsal below uses fee, delivery and revisions to make that idea playable.
Three fictional scenarios and up to three proposal rounds. Ask about the conditions, inspect the response and reveal the full model in review.
Try a complete conversation ↗NEGOTIATION × SINGAPORE / AN INTERACTIVE STUDY
What matters besides the price?
Explore 45 packages and pin two offers. Follow a classroom reflection into a hands-on offer studio.
Put the terms on the table ↗
AFTER READING / THE CONVERSATION
What would you add?
Add an experience, ask a question or point out a correction. Both language editions share this article’s discussion.
Public comments are not open yet. Keep a draft on this device, or send your thoughts through the contact page.
Write a local draft
Only “Save on this device” stores the draft. Clear it on shared devices; it is not published automatically.
0 / 1600