Interests vs Position in Negotiations — Scenario 2 — Budget between Finance and R&D

📋 Guide

Interests vs Position in Negotiations — Scenario 2 — Budget between Finance and R&D

Practical example on how to separate position and interest in a budget conflict between Finance and R&D to find intermediate agreements.

When departments speak different “languages” (technical vs commercial) discussions get stuck. Separating position and interest allows designing smart concessions—rarely is the best answer simply to give in or impose.

Below you will find a concrete scenario, the extraction of positions and interests, and a brief explanation of why this separation opens practical alternatives (temporary arrangement, acceptance criteria, shared metrics).

Scenario 2 — Budget between Finance and R&D

Conflict: immediate budget cut by Finance versus R&D’s request to fund a prototype with an 18-month horizon.

Scenario detail and practical reminder

Practical note: This reminds me of a sprint where we asked for “just a tweak” and it ended up being 3 weeks of hotfixes. Unlimited commitments end up costing more.

  • Summary context: A big client requests a small functionality that for Sales is critical and urgent.
  • Risk for Product: introducing technical debt, breaking architecture consistency, generating rework.
  • Risk for Sales: losing the sale or renewal if a solution is not delivered within the requested timeframe.

Interests and positions

Finance

Position: Cut budget and demand immediate ROI.

Interests: Maintain solvency, meet short-term goals, and reduce financial risk.

R&D

Position: Maintain or increase investment for the prototype with an 18-month horizon.

Interests: Validate technology with growth potential, capture competitive advantage, and prevent the project from dying due to lack of support.

Difference between position and interest in this case

The position is the temporal demand (cut now vs fund long-term). The interest is protecting financial health versus creating future value through investment.

Identifying interests allows designing intermediate commitments (milestones, conditional disbursements) that reduce financial risk and maintain project continuity.

  • Examples of interest-based solutions (not just position-based):
    • Limited temporary arrangement: implement a “just for that client” version with very controlled scope and mandatory review date.
    • Technical acceptance criteria: define preconditions (automated tests, usage limits, guardrails) before launch.
    • Shared value metric: agree on KPIs (expected commercial impact in 30/60/90 days) and compare against estimated technical cost.
    • Compensation for technical debt: Sales agrees to a future prioritization plan to clean up introduced technical debt.
    • Feature flagging and controlled rollout: deploy behind a flag to minimize impact and allow quick rollback.
  • Immediate practical action: Gather within 24–48h a brief RFC with:
    1. Description of the proposed change and minimum scope.
    2. Expected commercial impact (estimated value, client, and risk of losing them).
    3. Estimated technical cost and mitigations (flag, tests, review date).
    4. Joint metric to decide whether to keep or revert the solution (e.g., MRR/attributable retention in 60 days).

Quick recommendations

  • Always separate position and interest at the start of the conversation. Ask each party to summarize their interest in one line.
  • Avoid “just a tweak” commitments without limits: document scope, criteria, and review date.
  • Establish shared metrics (commercial and technical) to evaluate the success of the quick delivery.
  • If a quick solution is delivered, plan and commit resources for technical debt reduction in the subsequent roadmap.

If you want, I can turn the above into an RFC template or minutes with points to be signed by Product and Sales before the quick launch.

Did you like it? Don’t keep it to yourself — share it like juicy gossip! 😏