The Powerscreen Problem - Currently Perceived Choice Tool

THE POWERSCREEN PROBLEM

CURRENTLY PERCEIVED CHOICE TOOL

PLEASE ANSWER ALL OF THE QUESTIONS INCLUDED BELOW:

Description: The purpose of the “currently perceived choice tool” to help you analyze other party’s BATNA.  The questions included below should assist you in thinking about the other party’s interest and decision and consequences associated with saying either “yes” or “no” to that decision.  

1. Who are you trying to influence? What is the primary decision do you see the party you are trying to influence facing?

• I am trying to influence Alan Hacker’s attorney.
• I observe that the primary decision the party I am trying to influence is facing allegations against the intellectuals and complete ownership on a software named “Power screen” by claiming that it is solely developed by him even though he utilized Hacker star company’s equipment and its intellectual property whereas the company is co-owned by both Stanley Star and Alan Hacker.

2. What are the negative consequences of saying “yes” to that decision, in the possible order of importance? What are the favorable consequences of saying “yes” to the above decision, in the possible order to importance?

Negative Consequences of saying “Yes”:

• Stanley Star would sue Alan Hacker for utilizing company’s equipment and intellectual property as it is owned by both under mutual agreement when Stanley star came forward to fund and start the company and any decision taken by both of them belongs to the company as a whole and not in favor of any individual.
• Both the parties would be dragged to court dissolving the company.

Favorable Consequences of saying “Yes”:

• Stanley Star would not sue Alan Hacker but would support Alan Hacker by providing creative freedom.
• Company handles the sales of the products effectively
• Keep the company running instead of disputes and allegations.
• Share company revenue on products from here on which brings profit to company.

3. What are the negative consequences of saying “no” to that decision, in the possible order of importance? What are the favorable consequences of saying “no” to the above decision, in the possible order to importance?

Negative Consequences of saying “No”:

• Providing compensation to Alan Hacker for the number of hours spent on developing the product utilizing the company resources during weekends, holidays and outside of office hours.

Favorable Consequences of saying “No”:

• Interested in increasing business acumen.
• Ownership of the power screen product is solely owned by company
• Interested in continuing the company with mutual consent from both the parties by sharing the revenue and working together to grow the company.

TARGET BALANCE SHEET

Description: The purpose of the “Target Balance Sheet” is to assist you in strategizing to influence the other party.  The questions included below should assist you in thinking about how (or specific steps/actions) you will get the other party to consider and/or accept your position or your proposed action.  

1. How would we like the other party to see his choice in the near future?

• Share royalties of 10 to 15 percent revenue the company receives on all the products he develops from here on.
• Create an incentive-based structure to share the revenues as per the performance of the products in the market.
• Make Alan Hacker the Head of R&D team to continue supporting to build new products and also the existing products which can increase and grow the revenues of the company.
• Gain more creative freedom on the development and research involved in building new products to the company.

2. Faced with a new choice (i.e., your new proposal), what favorable consequences do we want the other party to see if they say “yes” to your proposal?