an analysis of the negotiation, results and team members. Guidelines: Each member of the class will critique his/her own negotiating strategies/tactics, as well the strategies/tactics of 1) a teammate and 2) colleagues on the other team. In these critiques, the debriefings of the exercises as well as concepts and frameworks found in our readings will provide the evaluation criteria. Rich use of the debriefing material as well as the relevant reading material will be critical for success in these important assignments. In addition, video recordings of the negotiations will be available and should be used in the assessments. Additional instructions will be provided as the semester unfolds. Complete your written analysis, paying particular attention to the guideline document. Be sure to engage in actual analysis and not just simple description (analysis pertains to why choices were made, what should have been done differently, etc.). Also, be sure to richly leverage course materials, particularly those related to win-win negotiating (pertinent debrief slides, readings, etc.). Finally, be sure to use the requested headings for your critiques of the other three members of your group. Those headings will help with the copying and pasting that must be done to create peer feedback reports. Personal negotiation tactics Teammate negotiation tactics Colleagues on the Other Team Negotiation Tactics Additional Results: Esteemed Members of Group 6: Interesting outcomes. Aggregating across the eight issues, the Delta and Innovate teams are close to the subjective utilities suggested by a combination of 1) the incremental addition method for calculating a fair distribution of DOD funding and 2) a win-win-win approach for the other issues (a.k.a. mutual-integrative approach). The Innovate team, however, has substantially outperformed the win-win-win benchmark when looking just at the DOD funding (the most important issue). This is consistent with the goal of the technology alliance negotiation (to create a win for your team). In addition, the Upstart team has fallen a little short in terms of overall subjective utility and in terms of DOD funding. Interestingly, if the simultaneous equations method is substituted for the incremental addition method to create a win-win-win benchmark (as per all of our examples, these two approaches typically give somewhat different values), then the Delta team slips and the Innovate team moves ahead with respect to overall subjective utility and with respect to just the DOD funding (relative to the benchmark). The Upstart team looks better when compared to the alternative win-win-win benchmark. Importantly, the three teams did a good job in finding and trading the six integrative issues that exist for a three-way deal (four of the six issues were traded/logrolled perfectly, and the other two were somewhat in the right ballpark … this led to similar although not identical outcomes for the teams on the seven issues beyond DOD funding … with key differences across the teams being created through the DOD funding). Very good work overall.