---
name: fisher-ury-preparation
description: Principled negotiation structural analysis from Getting to Yes — BATNA, ZOPA estimation, interests mapping, option generation, objective criteria
---

# Fisher/Ury Preparation -- Principled Negotiation & Structural Analysis

This skill provides the structural/analytical layer of the three-layer negotiation stack. Use for: BATNA analysis, ZOPA estimation, interests mapping, option generation, objective criteria, and walk-away decisions.

---

## The Four Principles

### 1. Separate People from the Problem

Address relational and emotional concerns separately from substantive issues. Treat the negotiation partner as an ally solving a shared problem -- not as an opponent.

**In practice**: Every outgoing communication has two layers -- the relationship layer (acknowledgment, tone, respect) comes first, then the substance layer (position, offer, counter). Relationship first, always.

**Template -- Response to Difficult Message**:
```
I hear the frustration in your message, and I take it seriously -- [acknowledge their emotional state].

I want to make sure we're solving the actual problem here, not just talking past each other. As I understand it, the core issue is [reframe as shared problem], and I think there's a way to address that directly.

Here's what I can offer: [substantive response, now landing in a de-escalated frame]
```

### 2. Focus on Interests, Not Positions

A position is what someone asks for. An interest is why they want it. Two parties can have opposed positions and shared interests. Finding the interest opens solution space that positional bargaining forecloses.

**Interests Mapping Template**:
```
Their stated position: [what they asked for]
Likely underlying interests:
  - [Interest A -- functional need]
  - [Interest B -- emotional/security need]
  - [Interest C -- organizational/political need]
Ways to address each interest without conceding our position:
  - [Option for A]
  - [Option for B]
  - [Option for C]
```

**Template -- Interests Discovery in Email**:
```
I want to make sure I understand what matters most to you here, not just the specific terms.

If [their stated position] is what you're asking for, I'm curious what that would make possible for you -- is it [interest hypothesis A], [interest hypothesis B], or something else?

The reason I ask: I may be able to address what you actually need in ways that don't require [the contested position].
```

### 3. Generate Options for Mutual Gain

Before committing to any solution, generate a wide range of options -- separating invention from evaluation. The best agreements are creative solutions that address both parties' interests, not compromises.

**Non-monetary value items** (expand the pie):
- Timing flexibility (start date, payment schedule, milestone-based)
- Scope adjustment (add/remove modules, depth vs breadth)
- Exclusivity or priority scheduling
- References and introductions
- Extended support periods
- Co-marketing or case study rights
- Training materials or IP licensing
- Future engagement commitment (volume discount path)

**Template -- Multiple Options**:
```
I've been thinking about a few different ways we could structure this -- rather than negotiating around a single number:

Option A: [Optimizes for their interest X]
Option B: [Balances X and Y differently]
Option C: [Unconventional approach addressing the core concern]

None of these are take-it-or-leave-it. They're starting points for what actually works for you.
```

### 4. Use Objective Criteria

Ground contested decisions in fair, independent standards both parties recognize as legitimate. Remove the negotiation from a contest of will to a joint search for fairness.

**Types of objective criteria**:
- Market rates for similar services (consulting day rates by region/seniority)
- Industry benchmarks (training costs per employee, ROI expectations)
- Published standards (Glassdoor rates, industry surveys)
- Precedent (comparable deals you or they have done)
- Expert assessments (third-party valuations)

**Template -- Objective Criteria Response**:
```
I want to make sure our pricing feels grounded in something real, not arbitrary.

[Industry benchmark / market data / published standard] puts this range at [X-Y]. Our proposal of [Z] reflects [specific factors].

If you have data that suggests a different benchmark is more relevant here, I'm genuinely open to looking at it -- I want us to land on something we both feel is fair.
```

---

## BATNA & ZOPA Analysis

### BATNA (Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement)

BATNA is your source of negotiating power. Know it, strengthen it before negotiating, but do not anchor to it psychologically.

**BATNA Worksheet**:
```
OUR BATNA:
  Best alternative if this deal fails: [describe]
  Strength rating: Strong / Medium / Weak
  Actions to strengthen before negotiating:
    1. [Action -- e.g., cultivate alternative prospect]
    2. [Action -- e.g., reduce dependency on this deal]
    3. [Action -- e.g., document other pipeline deals]

THEIR BATNA (estimated):
  Best alternative from their perspective: [describe]
  Signals of BATNA strength:
    - [Signal -- e.g., mentioned competing vendors]
    - [Signal -- e.g., no urgency in timeline]
    - [Signal -- e.g., internal team could do this]
  Strength rating: Strong / Medium / Weak

OUR WALK-AWAY POINT:
  Minimum acceptable outcome: [specific number/terms]
  Below this, our BATNA is better than any deal.
  Decision rule: If [specific condition], walk away.
  Set this BEFORE the negotiation, when emotions are not involved.
```

### ZOPA (Zone of Possible Agreement)

The range where both parties' reservation prices overlap. If no ZOPA exists, no deal should be made.

```
Our floor (minimum acceptable): EUR [X]
Their ceiling (maximum they'll pay, estimated): EUR [Y]

If Y > X: ZOPA exists = EUR [X] to EUR [Y]
  -> Anchor toward Y (their ceiling)
  -> Proposals should land inside ZOPA while anchoring favorably

If Y < X: No ZOPA
  -> Expand the pie (add value items to shift ZOPA)
  -> Or walk away (BATNA is better)
```

---

## Deal Type Frameworks

### Training Deals (EUR 5K-50K)

Typical structure: workshop (1-3 days) + optional follow-up coaching.

| Component | Price Range | Value Frame |
|-----------|------------|-------------|
| Single-day workshop | EUR 3,000-5,000 | Cost per engineer per day vs salary cost of unproductive day |
| Multi-day intensive | EUR 5,000-15,000 | Compare to conference attendance (travel + ticket + lost productivity) |
| Workshop + coaching | EUR 10,000-25,000 | Frame as methodology adoption, not event. ROI = sustained behavior change |
| Training program (quarterly) | EUR 20,000-50,000 | Annual investment vs annual cost of quality issues |

### Consulting Engagements (EUR 10K-200K)

Typical structure: discovery + implementation + support.

| Component | Price Range | Value Frame |
|-----------|------------|-------------|
| Discovery sprint (1-2 weeks) | EUR 5,000-15,000 | Diagnosis before treatment. Investment in getting the solution right |
| Implementation (1-3 months) | EUR 15,000-80,000 | Compare to hiring: 1 senior hire = EUR 80-120K/year + 3-month ramp |
| Retainer (ongoing) | EUR 5,000-15,000/month | Insurance against regression. Fraction of one engineer's cost |
| Enterprise transformation | EUR 50,000-200,000 | TCO comparison: your engagement vs 2 FTEs for 12 months |

### Enterprise Support (EUR 20K-100K/year)

Typical structure: SLA-based support + periodic reviews.

| Component | Price Range | Value Frame |
|-----------|------------|-------------|
| Standard support | EUR 20,000-40,000/year | Cost of one critical incident without support vs with |
| Premium support | EUR 40,000-70,000/year | Response time guarantee = risk mitigation, not expense |
| Dedicated support | EUR 70,000-100,000/year | Fractional expert vs full-time hire (3-4x cheaper) |

---

## Value Framing Scripts

### Cost of Inaction Frame
```
If [N] engineers lose [X] hours/week to [problem], that's [N * X * 52] hours/year -- roughly EUR [hours * hourly_rate] in engineering time. Our engagement costs EUR [price] and targets a [Y]% reduction within [timeframe].

ROI: [savings * Y%] / [price] = [Z]x return in first year.
```

### Comparison Frame
```
The alternative is [hiring / internal training / doing nothing]:
- Hiring: EUR [salary] + 3 months ramp + management overhead
- Internal: [months] to develop + opportunity cost of senior engineers teaching
- Nothing: [quantified cost of status quo continuing]

Our engagement: EUR [price], results in [timeframe], no ongoing headcount.
```

### Per-Person Frame (for training)
```
EUR [total] / [N] engineers = EUR [per_person] per engineer.
That's [comparison -- e.g., "less than a single conference ticket with travel"].
```

---

## Ethical Guardrails -- Fisher/Ury Framework

1. Do not misrepresent your BATNA. Falsely inflating alternatives is manipulation that destroys trust permanently when discovered.
2. Principled negotiation is not weakness. Focusing on interests does not mean accepting any deal -- it means walking away when no agreement beats your BATNA.
3. Objective criteria must be genuinely objective. Using "industry standards" only when they support your position corrupts the principle.
4. Present options that genuinely address the counterpart's interests. Do not repackage the same offer in different language and call it "options."
5. Walk-away is always legitimate. No deal is better than a bad deal. Set the decision rule before emotions engage.
