Question 1

How do you apply the Kraljic Matrix to a manufacturing procurement portfolio?

Accepted Answer

Map each item to two axes: profit impact (rupiah volume, contribution to the end product) and supply complexity (number of suppliers, switching cost). Four quadrants emerge: leverage (many suppliers, large volume — bid aggressively), strategic (few suppliers, large impact — long-term partnership), bottleneck (few suppliers, small impact — secure stock or substitute), routine (many suppliers, small impact — catalog or e-procurement). Negotiation strategy differs by quadrant.

Question 2

How do you handle annual price reviews without damaging strategic supplier relationships?

Accepted Answer

Agree on a price-adjustment formula in the master contract indexed to public benchmarks (LME for metals, Platts for petrochemicals) so that the annual review becomes mechanical instead of a re-negotiation. Add a shared-saving clause for joint process efficiencies. This approach turns the annual negotiation from a zero-sum game into principled collaboration.

Question 3

What negotiation framework is used — is it grounded in recognized theory?

Accepted Answer

Yes, explicitly. The foundation is principled negotiation from Getting to Yes (Fisher & Ury, Harvard Program on Negotiation): separate people from the problem, focus on interests not positions, generate mutual-gain options, and use objective criteria, with BATNA, reservation point, and ZOPA analysis. On top we add Lax & Sebenius's three-dimensional strategy (setup, deal design, tactics), Getting Past No (Ury), Cialdini's influence principles, and tactical empathy (Chris Voss). All are applied to simulations drawn from your company's deals.

Question 4

Is the program simulation or theory?

Accepted Answer

Mostly simulation. Research shows negotiation skill forms through repeated practice with feedback; lectures alone do little. Participants run tiered simulations from simple distributive cases to integrative multi-party, recorded, then their behavior is debriefed per participant. Theory is delivered concisely as a framework; the rest is practice and debrief.

Question 5

Are the cases relevant to our deal types?

Accepted Answer

Yes. Every program starts with a training needs analysis (TNA) mapping roles and deal types: vendor contracts, corporate pricing, retail trading terms, logistics rates/SLAs, or multi-party project contracts. Scenarios, term sheets, and debrief rubrics are curated using your context — not generic textbook cases.

Question 6

What is the difference between 'creating value' and 'claiming value', and why does it matter?

Accepted Answer

Creating value (integrative) expands the pie via multi-issue options and logrolling; claiming value (distributive) determines who gets how much. Lax & Sebenius call the tension between them the negotiator's dilemma: too competitive closes off joint value, too cooperative gets you exploited. The program trains when and how to use both selectively and under control.

Question 7

Is there an internal negotiation & influence-without-authority module?

Accepted Answer

Yes. Many of the hardest negotiations happen inside the organization — resources, priorities, and cross-functional commitment. The influence module uses Cialdini's seven principles (with a firm ethical boundary) and Voss-style calibrated questions for internal negotiation, coalitions, and stakeholder management without formal authority.

Question 8

How does the program handle Indonesian & cross-cultural context?

Accepted Answer

Indonesia ranks as high power distance, collectivist, and high-context in communication, with a strong role for relationships and musyawarah in decision-making. The cross-cultural module trains reading high-context vs low-context signals, adjusting pace and channel, and preserving relationships while staying disciplined on interests and BATNA — relevant for teams negotiating with domestic and international partners.

Question 9

Can it support a real major deal in progress?

Accepted Answer

Yes. The Specific Deal War Room format facilitates preparation for one real major negotiation: interest & stakeholder mapping, BATNA and concession-package design, and the setup dimension (the right parties, approach sequence, expectations, consequences of 'no') per Lax & Sebenius — directly for the deal you are preparing.

Question 10

What is the ideal batch size?

Accepted Answer

12-20 participants so everyone actively plays roles across many simulation scenarios and gets enough behavioral debrief. For large populations the program splits into multiple batches on a rolling schedule, often starting with a core champion group before scaling (70-20-10 pattern).

Question 11

How is the impact of negotiation training measured?

Accepted Answer

We use the Kirkpatrick model: Level 1 (reaction), Level 2 (framework mastery via assessment), Level 3 (behavior — prep-sheet discipline & observed negotiation style), Level 4 (results — margin/savings trend). When finance needs a monetary figure, impact can be raised to Phillips ROI Level 5 with isolation of training effects. A baseline is set at the TNA; we do not promise percentages we cannot prove.

Question 12

Is there post-training support & evidence?

Accepted Answer

Yes. The modular program provides real deal tasks, office hours, and application coaching (70-20-10 pattern) with a 30-60-90 day plan. You also receive an evaluation report (attendance, framework assessment scores, simulation debrief results) and a certificate of participation per participant — completing the procurement requirement for proof of delivery.

Aspect	Intensive Negotiation Lab (2-3 days)	Phased Modular Program	Specific Deal War Room
Primary goal	Build core capability & playbook	Sustained behavior transfer	Win one real major deal
Ideal participants	Core sales/procurement/BD teams	Teams with busy schedules	Teams preparing a high-value deal
Framework depth	Full: Harvard + 3-D + Cialdini + Voss	Phased, reinforced by real tasks	Applied to one specific case
Evaluation level	Kirkpatrick L1-L3	Kirkpatrick L1-L4 (+Phillips L5)	Kirkpatrick L1-L2 + deal outcome
Best suited for	Standardize team capability	Long-term behavior change	Preparing a critical negotiation

Business Negotiation & Influence for the Manufacturing Sector

Why Business Negotiation & Influence is different in Manufacturing