🧰 Tools & negotiation preparation
Tools, canvases & preparation methods
Practical preparation and debriefing tools: canvases, checklists, power-balance and concession grids, BATNA/ZOPA preparation, after Fisher & Ury, G. R. Shell, Lax & Sebenius.
Full detail in the “Origin & history” section below.
Author of the library
Negotiation lecturer at KEDGE Business School
A rare threefold background serving negotiation: teaching, commercial justice and audit, backed by experience as a company director in Bordeaux.
The Interests / Options Matrix is a preparation tool that organizes, in a two-way table, the underlying interests of each party (columns) against a range of solution options (rows), in order to methodically spot the combinations that create value for everyone. It extends Harvard's principled negotiation by moving from the mere injunction "invent options" to a visual support that forces you to distinguish positions from interests, then to cross these interests with concrete solutions. Its interest is twofold: to prepare upstream a stock of exchangeable options (trading on differences) and, in session, to structure the brainstorming so as to avoid premature positional bargaining. It is a value-creation tool before it is a value-sharing tool.
At a glance
Vigilance: low (2.5/10) · Preparation required: 9/10
Indicative profile: it situates the “Tools & negotiation preparation” family as the Tools & negotiation preparation school practises it, not this technique taken in isolation. Techniques from the same family and school therefore share the same profile. NEGOCOACH editorial rating out of 10, non-experimental · the higher the “relational risk” value, the more costly the technique is to the relationship.
NEGOCOACH assessment
Tactical potential 5.3/10 (effectiveness, impact, discretion) and vigilance low (relational and ethical risk): two distinct readings, deliberately never merged into a single score that would reward risk. NEGOCOACH editorial rating calibrated from the “Tools & negotiation preparation” family and the “Tools & negotiation preparation” school. Each criterion is rated out of 10; click to understand what it measures.
How far the technique can carry the negotiation in the intended direction when it is well executed.
Strength of the effect produced on the counterpart's perceptions, emotions and decisions.
How hard it is for the other party to notice the technique is being used. A high value = very discreet.
The information, analysis and rehearsal required upfront to use it effectively.
Potential cost to the relationship and to trust if the technique is spotted, refused or fails. A high value = riskier.
Moral acceptability: fairness, transparency and respect for the counterpart's autonomy. A high value = more defensible.
Documented school
The school this technique stems from is documented by recognised work and established practice, without experimental consensus. This indicator qualifies the school, not this technique taken in isolation.
Indicative NEGOCOACH editorial rating, for teaching purposes. For “Relational risk”, a high value signals a cost to the relationship, not a quality.
The tool derives directly from principled negotiation formalized by Roger Fisher and William Ury within the Harvard Negotiation Project, in "Getting to Yes" (1981; expanded ed. with Bruce Patton, 1991), in particular the principle "Focus on interests, not positions" and the chapter "Invent options for mutual gain". The matrix formatting (crossing interests × options) is a pedagogical operationalization of these principles, nourished by the work on value creation of David Lax and James Sebenius ("The Manager as Negotiator", 1986), which shows how the "trading of differences" of interests, priorities and anticipations generates joint gains. There is no single author claiming the "matrix" under this name: it is a synthesis of a school (Harvard / the mutual-gains approach).
A two-way preparation and facilitation table. At the head of the columns: the identified interests of each party (mine, the other's, even those of third parties), that is, the real needs, fears and motivations behind the stated positions. In the rows: a range of solution options, generated without judgment in a phase distinct from evaluation. Each cell assesses the extent to which an option serves (or works against) a given interest, using a simple code (+ / 0 / -, or a score). The analysis consists of spotting the rows that accumulate "+" across several columns (mutual-gain options), combining complementary options (packages), and setting aside those that satisfy only one party. Operationally, it transforms a disagreement over a single variable (price) into a multi-issue space where exchange becomes possible.
Application by context
The seller crosses the client's interest (cash flow preserved, quick go-live) with their own interests (margin, reference, volume) and sees win-win options appear: staggered payment against a multi-year commitment, a discount against a publishable case study.
The buyer lists their interests (total cost, security of supply, quality) and those of the supplier (smoothed workload, visibility, fast payment), then discovers that smoothing orders over the year satisfies the supplier while lowering their unit price.
In a pay negotiation, management crosses the union interests (purchasing power, recognition, employment) with its own (a controlled wage bill, flexibility, industrial peace) and brings out mixed options: a variable portion, days off, training, on top of a limited fixed increase.
In a hostage-taking or an acute conflict, the negotiator maps the real interests of the perpetrator (to be heard, safety, to save face) against the imperatives of the authorities (preserving lives, the legal framework) in order to build options of progressive de-escalation rather than a binary ultimatum.
During a coalition, the parties cross their priority programmatic interests (each has non-negotiable topics and others that are secondary) and exchange asymmetric concessions: each obtains its high priorities in return for concessions on its low priorities.
Seller and buyer cross their interests (the seller wants time to move out and the security of the sale; the buyer wants a contained price and works): a temporary post-sale occupancy or taking over the furniture unlocks an agreement that a pure showdown over price would have killed.
Between parties of different cultures, the matrix serves to make explicit interests that implicit codes mask (preservation of the long-term relationship on one side, a contractual deadline on the other), avoiding interpreting a difference of style as a refusal on substance.
In an estate division, the heirs cross their distinct interests (one is attached to the family home, another needs cash, a third to fairness) and build a distribution where each receives what they most care about, instead of selling everything and dividing into frustrating equal shares.
Counter-techniques
Negotiation is also played on defence. Here is how to recognise this technique when it is used against you, and turn it around.
The signals that give it away
The counters that defuse it
Turn it into an advantage
Name the manoeuvre: said out loud, a technique loses most of its power.
Reacting emotionally instead of coming back to the facts.
Strengths: it makes visible and discussable what often remains implicit; it shifts the negotiation from a single axis (price) toward a multi-issue space where agreement becomes possible; it disciplines brainstorming by separating creation and evaluation, which increases the number and quality of options; it protects against early positional bargaining and false compromises; it is an excellent support for team preparation and for the traceability of concessions. Weaknesses: the quality of the matrix depends entirely on the accuracy of the identified interests, often partly unknown until the other party has been questioned; it can give a false impression of rigor if the cells are filled in by supposition; it is time-consuming and can seem academic to a counterpart in a hurry or acting in bad faith; it presupposes a minimal willingness to cooperate, ineffective against a purely distributive party; finally, too many options can drown the decision (choice paralysis).
Particularly useful upstream, during preparation, especially when the relationship has value (long-term partners, repeated negotiations), when the stakes are multiple and not only financial, and when an apparent deadlock over a single variable masks room for exchange. It shines whenever there are exploitable differences between parties (priorities, horizons, risk, resources). Less relevant for a one-off, purely distributive transaction over a single parameter, under very tight time constraints, or facing a counterpart who refuses to expose their interests.
Diplomatic · Camp David 1978: Egypt-Israel, the Sinai, The negotiation between Egypt and Israel over the Sinai illustrates the reasoning at the heart of the tool. On the positions (Israel wanted to keep part of the territory, Egypt wanted all of it), no "middle-ground" compromise was acceptable. By going back to the real interests - for Egypt, sovereignty over a historic territory; for Israel, security against an attack -, a mutual-gain option appeared: the return of the entire Sinai to Egyptian sovereignty, but with guaranteed demilitarization. This example, popularized by Fisher and Ury in "Getting to Yes", shows exactly the interests × options logic that the matrix systematizes.
Sales · The price dispute that hid a cash-flow issue, Representative scenario (unattributed). A software vendor and an SME client have been stuck for weeks on the price of a license, 15% apart. By building a matrix, the salesperson identifies that the client's real interest is not the nominal price but the immediate disbursement, heavy on their year-end cash flow. On the vendor's side, the priority interest is the total amount of the contract and obtaining a sector reference. The option "payment in three instalments over twelve months + client logo usable in communication" satisfies both: the vendor keeps their margin, the client preserves their cash flow. The agreement is signed without the listed price having moved.
If a counterpart proposes a matrix or multiplies "creative options", check that they are not using it to dilute a hard concession into a vague package or to extract your real interests without revealing theirs. Defense: demand reciprocity of information ("I share my priorities, share yours"), assess each option against your BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) and objective criteria, and do not let the abundance of options mask the fact that on the variable that matters to you, nothing has moved. Facing a pure distributive negotiator who feigns cooperation, come back to market value and to your walkaway point.
The matrix presupposes a minimum of good faith and a willingness to exchange information: it is ineffective, even dangerous, if the other exploits it to map your interests without reciprocity. Ethically, it must serve to create shared value, not to manipulate: presenting false options to anchor, or exploiting an information asymmetry about the other's interests, amounts to bad faith. Its apparent rigor can also induce overconfidence: a well-filled table remains a hypothesis until the interests have been confirmed. Finally, it never dispenses with objective guarantees (criteria, BATNA) at the moment of sharing value.
Related techniques: principled negotiation (Harvard), of which it is a tool; the distinction between positions and interests; option brainstorming (separating inventing and deciding); the trading of differences and logrolling (exchanging concessions on issues of inverse priority); the preparation matrix or grid (stakes, priorities, walkaway points); BATNA analysis; value creation vs. value sharing (Lax & Sebenius); the objective criteria of legitimacy to settle differences. It combines naturally with a stakes-weighting grid and a concessions table.
Quick exercise
Answer in your head, then reveal the solution. Memory is built through active recall.
Frequently asked questions
The Interests / Options Matrix is a preparation tool that organizes, in a two-way table, the underlying interests of each party (columns) against a range of solution options (rows), in order to methodically spot the combinations that create value for everyone. It extends Harvard's principled negotiation by moving from the mere injunction "invent options" to a visual support that forces you to distinguish positions from interests, then to cross these interests with concrete solutions. Its interest is twofold: to prepare upstream a stock of exchangeable options (trading on differences) and, in session, to structure the brainstorming so as to avoid premature positional bargaining. It is a value-creation tool before it is a value-sharing tool.
Yes. Used in good faith it stays within a fair negotiation: it structures the exchange without deceiving the other party. Being transparent about your intentions strengthens the long-term relationship.
Reacting emotionally instead of coming back to the facts. The right reflex: slow down and reformulate.
NEGOCOACH does not assess the experimental validation of this technique in isolation. What we document is the grounding of its source school (Tools & negotiation preparation): documented school. Full detail is in the "At a glance" section of this page.
Practise with AI
Copy, paste into your assistant, replace the [brackets]. Works with ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Mistral, Perplexity.
Build your plan before the meeting
You are an expert negotiation coach. Help me prepare to use the "The Interests/Options Matrix" technique in the following situation: [describe your situation]. Give me: the conditions for success, a 3-step script, my counterpart's likely objections and how to answer them.
Rehearse against an AI counterpart
Play the role of my counterpart in a negotiation. I am going to test the "The Interests/Options Matrix" technique. React realistically and with resistance, do not give in too quickly, then at the end analyse my performance and suggest 3 concrete improvements.
Analyse a past negotiation
Here is how my negotiation went: [paste the exchanges]. Analyse whether the "The Interests/Options Matrix" technique was used well, what worked, the mistakes made, and spell out precisely what I could have done better.
References
Founding works of the 🧰 Tools & negotiation preparation school this technique belongs to.
Getting to Yes
BookR. Fisher & W. Ury · 1981
Bargaining for Advantage
BookG. R. Shell · 2006
3-D Negotiation
BookD. Lax & J. Sebenius · 2006
Practical preparation and debriefing tools: canvases, checklists, power-balance and concession grids, BATNA/ZOPA preparation, after Fisher & Ury, G. R. Shell, Lax & Sebenius.
On video
Videos to picture The Interests/Options Matrix and anchor it through examples.
A verified video selection is being enriched; the search above already surfaces the best videos on the topic.
Technique map
Every technique sits within a network: what it draws on, what it combines with, where it applies, and how to defend against it.
Spot its signals, neutralise it and turn it around with the defensive playbook on this page.
See the counter-techniquesThe Interests / Options Matrix is a preparation tool that organizes, in a two-way table, the underlying interests of each party (columns) against a range of solution options (rows), in order to methodically spot the combinations that create value for everyone. It extends Harvard's principled negotiation by moving from the mere injunction "invent options" to a visual support that forces you to distinguish positions from interests, then to cross these interests with concrete solutions. Its interest is twofold: to prepare upstream a stock of exchangeable options (trading on differences) and, in session, to structure the brainstorming so as to avoid premature positional bargaining. It is a value-creation tool before it is a value-sharing tool.
Name the manoeuvre: said out loud, a technique loses most of its power.
Reacting emotionally instead of coming back to the facts.
Our programmes turn theory into a concrete advantage.