Interest-Based Negotiation
Negotiating from the underlying needs of each party rather than from their stated positions, which frequently reveals options neither had proposed.
A position is what someone says they want; an interest is why they want it. Positions conflict far more often than interests do, and negotiating over positions produces a compromise both sides dislike.
The move is to ask why. "We need this delivered in six weeks" is a position. The interest behind it might be a customer commitment, a board demonstration, or a competitor's announcement — and each admits different solutions, some of which cost far less than the original demand.
Applied to a common architectural case: security requires a control that adds latency; the product team refuses. Positions conflict absolutely. The interests — bounded risk exposure, and a checkout that converts — permit options neither stated: applying the control only to high-risk transactions, moving it off the synchronous path, or accepting the risk with compensating detection.
What supports it in practice: understanding the other party's constraints and incentives before the conversation, which is ordinary preparation and is usually skipped; generating several options rather than defending one; and agreeing the criteria by which an option will be judged before evaluating any, which removes most of the argument about the answer.
And know your alternative if no agreement is reached. Negotiating without knowing what happens on failure means conceding more than necessary.