Case study of international business negotiation 1 Does a CNOOC company want to introduce from an Australian R&D company (hereinafter referred to as Company C)? Formation tester? During 2000 and 2002, the two sides held many negotiations on this technology transaction. Formation tester is a core technology in the field of petroleum exploration and development, which is controlled by a few foreign oil giants, such as Schlumberger and Halliburton. They imposed a strict technical blockade on China, did not sell technology and equipment, but only provided services, so as to occupy the vast market in China and earn high monopoly profits. Due to the lack of follow-up R&D funds, Australian company C took the initiative to bring its own internationally advanced equipment to China to seek partners before 2000, and conducted field operations in Bohai Sea and Nanhai Sea in China successively, with good results.
At the beginning of 2000, China made a comprehensive inspection of Australian company C, and was satisfied with the company's technical equipment, and held formal negotiations on technology introduction. Considering the importance of this technology and the needs of the company's future development, the goal of Chinese negotiations is to buy out this technology at a high price. Company C insists on only giving China the right to use technology and allowing China to manufacture equipment, and the technology patent is still in its own hands. They don't agree to sell the core technologies on which the company depends, and promise to become overseas subsidiaries or R&D institutions in China. The huge differences between the two sides' principled positions made the negotiations deadlocked from the beginning.
After China has made its position clear to Company C, we will negotiate? Cold treatment? Go back to China and wait. Under the great pressure of shortage of funds, Company C can't delay the negotiation. During 2000 and 2002, it held several consultations with China in an attempt to break the deadlock. For various reasons, China and Australia finally failed to reach an agreement and the negotiations ended in failure. However, CNOOC's scientific and technological workers have embarked on a road of self-reliance and technological innovation.
case analysis
Technology trade generally only transfers the right to use technology, but not the ownership of technology, and technology providers do not lose their ownership because of transferring technology to others. The content of technical trade negotiation is complicated, generally including technical part and commercial part (technology transfer scope, price, payment, etc. ) negotiate with the legal department.
1. Causes of deadlock. The focus of the dispute between China and Australia is not the price or technology transfer fee, but the ownership of technology, which makes the negotiations deadlocked from the beginning. The Australian side believes that selling technology ownership is equivalent to selling its own company. The Chinese side believes that if the Australian side retains the ownership, the manufactured equipment can only be operated in China waters, but not abroad, and it is necessary for the Australian side to constantly update its technology for a long time, then the Chinese side will become an Australian? ATM？ .
2. Efforts to break the deadlock. We adopted adjournment strategy, time strategy, price strategy and so on, trying to get out of the deadlock. We know the situation of Company C, which lacks capital and market, and is threatened by oil giants, so there is little room for free development. When the negotiations in Australia were blocked, we decisively ended our visit and negotiations with Company C and went back to China to wait and see. Under the pressure of money and time, Australia is eager to repair the deadlocked negotiations with us and take the initiative to negotiate with us on the terms of the transaction. We use the time factor to deliberately delay the time in the negotiations to weaken the psychological advantage of the Australian side. We voluntarily give in to the price and are willing to pay a high price to buy out the technology, so that Australia can also benefit from this transaction. Faced with the deadlock, the Australian side neither agreed to China's request casually, nor gave up its efforts easily, and held a tug-of-war with China on the issue of technology ownership.
3. Reasons for failure. China and Australia have good prospects for cooperation in this field of petroleum technology. Company C has world-leading technology, but it lacks capital and market. China has a vast market and abundant funds, but lacks core technology. Although both sides tried their best to resolve the deadlock, due to the huge differences in negotiation objectives and conflicts of interest, the negotiations between the two sides ended without results. At the stalemate stage, the two sides just reiterated their respective positions and demands. Australia talks about the conditions of technology transfer, and China talks about it? A price? , that is, buy out technology ownership. The two sides try to persuade and change each other from their own standpoint, instead of empathizing and looking for a win-win solution from the opponent's standpoint. Both sides stood firm, neither moved by the other side's concessions, nor made substantive concessions, and the deadlock became a dead end.
Case analysis of international business negotiation 2 Company A in Panjin City, Liaoning Province is engaged in an additive business. When the financial tsunami in 2008 caused the prices of many industrial raw materials to plummet, it decided to buy the product in large quantities from abroad at low prices.
Company A has done a lot of market research. Firstly, it searches the information of the main producers of additives through the Internet, and then through the comparison of the cost performance of products in various countries, it determines the British company B as the negotiation object. Company A of our company also communicates with Company B by email, and transmits our basic information and required product information to the other party to further obtain the other party's information.
During the negotiation, the first dispute between the two sides is the determination of the negotiation place. Company B asked us to send personnel to Britain for negotiation, and we asked the other party to come to China for negotiation. Both sides know that the advantages of negotiating in their own countries will help control the negotiations. In the case of the global economic depression caused by the financial crisis, we took advantage of the buyer's market to let Company B take the initiative to come to the door to negotiate.
The first interview between the two sides was fruitful, and the variety, quantity and import time of the products to be imported were determined, and a basic understanding was reached in other aspects. However, the following price negotiations were deadlocked, and the challenges came from many aspects. First of all, the initial cooperation between the two parties lacked trust, the transaction amount was large, and the contract was delivered in batches for two years. Secondly, the pricing of the contract involves the fluctuation and trend of the world market price of the product in the next two years, the influence of exchange rate fluctuation and so on. Both sides want to adopt preferential price terms to avoid risks. After repeated interviews, we finally reached a compromise but more favorable price agreement.
case analysis
Price is the most sensitive factor in international business negotiations, which easily leads to deadlock, because the seller hopes that the higher the price of the goods sold, the better, while the buyer is just the opposite. The seller's reserve price is a high price for the buyer, and the range between the two reserve prices is the negotiation space or trading area. We can break through the price deadlock mainly because of proper strategies and methods, plus favorable weather, geographical location and people.
1. Collect negotiation information. ? Know yourself and know yourself, and fight every battle? . The deputy general manager of Company A personally organized the negotiation team, learned about the products and reserve price of Company B through various channels, and made a detailed negotiation plan and scheme. In order to overcome cultural differences, we use business receptions, visits and other occasions to collect personal information of British negotiators, adjust strategies in time, and fully respect each other's culture and habits.
2. Communication in different places. We make use of the advantages of home negotiations to carefully arrange the negotiation agenda, so that negotiators from both sides can have full off-site exchanges and communication. Off-site communication is an informal negotiation, and a relaxed and friendly atmosphere is conducive to the exchange of personal feelings and the establishment of good interpersonal relationships between representatives of both sides. Emotional reconciliation will help solve the problems left over from the negotiating table.
3. Barthner Strategy. In view of the quotation of company B, we give our counter-offer by listing the prices of similar products in China (but the quality is not as good as that of company B) and the quotations from Russia. Our counter-offer is true, objective and firm, which completely shakes the bottom price of the other side. We judge the situation and boldly use the alternative strategy, namely BATNA (the best alternative to negotiate an agreement), under the condition of knowing the world market of this product and mastering the quality and demand of British products. We said that if the product price of Company B is not competitive, we will sign a contract with Russia. With what? Third party quotation? For reference, use? Another option? As a sharp weapon, we managed to change the other side's reserve price and reached more favorable price terms for us.
In a favorable position at the negotiating table? Strategy and? Leave the negotiating table? All activities are very important. Negotiators should strive to improve their BATNA and use BATNA as a lever to make the other side make concessions.
Case analysis of international business negotiation III. A famous Japanese car company has just been in America? Landing? At present, it is urgent to find an American agent to sell products for them to make up for their ignorance of the American market. When the Japanese car company was preparing to negotiate with an American company on this issue, the negotiators of the Japanese company were late because of the traffic jam. Representatives of American companies cling to this matter and want to get more favorable conditions as a means. The representative of the Japanese company found no way back, so he stood up and said? I'm very sorry to have delayed your time, but this is definitely not our intention. We don't know enough about the traffic situation in America, which leads to this unpleasant result. I hope we don't waste precious time on this irrelevant issue. If we doubt the sincerity of our cooperation because of this matter, then we have to end this negotiation. I don't think we can't find a partner in the United States who meets our preferential agency terms. ? The Japanese representative's words made the American agent speechless, and the Americans didn't want to lose this opportunity to make money, so the negotiations went smoothly.
Case study:
For the first time, the Japanese representative made a guess from the American representative and his own conditions, and shifted the focus of the protagonist from the important agency of the American representative to Japan's position as the decider of business cooperation. Our own conditions are superior and we have the ability to open up overseas markets. American agents are just one of the candidates for Japanese partners? The decision-maker's attitude reversed the situation, which led to the disadvantage of the American representative and thus continued the negotiations; I once again reiterate the role of the representative of Japan in the negotiations.
The Japanese firmly believe? Survival of the fittest? Truth, they will never sympathize with the weak. If they can come up with a set of practical methods, they will strive for the greatest benefit for themselves. At the same time, they are also a decisive people and will never drag their feet. It can be seen from these that the Japanese either strive for victory or decide to accept the price of failure. Americans look at things and have a clear understanding of each other's weaknesses. For example, the Japanese are used to punctuality, but this time they have grasped the national character of the Japanese: face. On the other hand, Americans are always attached to everything that is profitable, which also leads them to bow to interests in order to keep Japanese representatives.
& gt& gt& gt More exciting next page? International business negotiation cases ***2 pages: previous page 1 2 next page