Erste Auswertungsergebnisse eines digitalen Planspiels mit Stakeholdern aus der (kommunalen) Mobilitätsentwicklung, in der (a) eine Verhandlungstechnik getestet wurde (Harvard-Konzept, vgl. Fisher/Ury 2018) (b) gemeinsam getragene Mobilitätslösungen identifiziert und ihre Umsetzung skizziert wurde

Bensler, Alexandra

Dotzauer, Mandy

Ortgiese, Michael

Institute of Transport Research:Publications

Digitally co-developed urban politics & policies  Bringing sustainable mobility solutions to life Alexandra Bensler, Michael Ortgiese, Mandy DotzauerRGS-IBG - Annual International Conference 202108.10.20212021/09/0108.10.2021Rupprecht Consult (2019), cf. Arndt (2019)Research questionHow to fuel cooperation between stakeholder groups to pave the way for innovative and sustainable mobility development solutions…To what extent can a digitally implemented Harvard negotiation technique contribute to identifying accepted mobility development solutions?1. Introduction & frameworkProject – Theoretical framework2. Research designData collection & participants – Analysis3. First results: Agreeing on solutions for mobility innovations onlineOnline Harvard style negotiation4. Discussion & outlookAGENDA1. Introduction & frameworkResearch project ‘Reallabor Digitale Mobilität Hamburg‘goals: to develop, test, and improve digital mobility solutions in and around Hamburg, Germany→ urban living lab conceptfunded by the German Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure (04/2020-12/2021)26 project partners from different backgroundsindustry: BMW, Continental, Siemens Mobilityservices: DB Systel, DEKRA, DB FuhrparkService, EasyMile, ioki, moovel, S-Bahn HH, Rewe Digital, Sixt, T-Systems, Urban Software Institutecities and municipalities: city of Hamburg, municipality of Storman, municipality of Harburg, city of Ahrensburg, VHH, Hamburger Hochbahnscience: Fraunhofer FOKUS, TU Berlin, TU Hamburg, TU München, HPIBild: Unsplash/Julia Solonina1. Introduction & frameworkNegotiating according to the Harvard conceptMain ideas (Fisher/Urry 1981)maintain good relationships, stay firm concerning goalsfocus on interests instead of positionsdevelop options by/for everyonedevelop (minimal) framework/criteria that have to be met forthe solutions to be acceptable1. Introduction & frameworkTheoretical approach to Harvard negotiationFRAMEWORK & CONDITIONSStructural characteristics- gain (kind and extent)- sanctions?- number of partiesSituational characteristics- negotiation experience- negotation resources(time & costs)- trustINTERVENING CONDITIONS- cultural background- upbringing- personal character traitsNEGOTIA-TIONPROCESSbased on Crott, Kutschker & Lamm (1977), Kelley & Thibaut (1978)NEGOTIATIONTECHNIQUEOUTCOMESubjectively- satisfaction with results- satisfaction with processObjectively- gains- required negotiationsresources (time & costs)1. Introduction & frameworkTheoretical approach to Harvard negotiationFRAMEWORK & CONDITIONSStructural characteristics- gain (kind and extent)- sanctions?- number of partiesSituational characteristics- negotiation experience- negotation resources(time & costs)- trustINTERVENING CONDITIONS- cultural background- upbringing- personal character traitsNEGOTIA-TIONPROCESSbased on Crott, Kutschker & Lamm (1977), Kelley & Thibaut (1978)NEGOTIATIONTECHNIQUEOUTCOMESubjectively- satisfaction with results- satisfaction with processObjectively- gains- required negotiationsresources (time & costs)2. Research designData collection (1/2) & participantsWHEN? 07/-08/2021WHERE? large German cities (> 1.4 million inhabitants) and their surroundingsWHO? mobility stakeholders (n=17)public administration 11,8%industry 19,4%(mobility) services 17,6%science 17,6%representation ofinterests23,5%HOW? - simulation game: digital mobility workshops(5)- + ex-post surveys2. Research designData collection (2/2)01. WELCOME• getting to know each other• framework: project & goals02. WITH WHAT?• tool: Harvard negotiationconcept03. WHERE TO?• agree on a mobility vision& goals04. WITH WHAT EXACTLY?• chosingmobility measures05. HOW?• outlinemeasureimplementation• challenges & their solutionsa) remote approachb) simulation game: workshop concept3. First results: Agreeing on solutions for mobility innovations onlineOnline Harvard style negotiation (1/3)TRUST & PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPcollectively accepted goals tended to be reached whenparticipants knew each other beforehand (cf. WS3, 4)• development of teamwork dynamics beyond Harvard concept− „Can we just begin exchanging views and developing a solution together right away?“ (cf. WS3)• despite different interests: heated exchange of argumentsto find a mutually accepted solution (cf. WS4)challenge: maintain personal relationship despite different levels of knowledge (cf. WS1)3. First results: Agreeing on solutions for mobility innovations onlineOnline Harvard style negotiation (2/3)INTERESTS vs. POSITIONSchallenge to apply negotiation technique when furthering a certain technology (→ position) motivated an organizations‘ negotiation (cf. WS4)→focus back on interests via firm moderation led tosubjectively accepted goal (cf. WS4)→raises question: potential of negotiation concept beyondsimulation setting?3. First results: Agreeing on solutions for mobility innovations onlineOnline Harvard style negotiation (2/3)DEVELOPING OPTIONS BY/FOR EVERYONE… for all WS (1-5): hardly brainstormed beyond their own interests→to encourage brainstorming phase: solo breakout sessionsuseful (using own writing material, no talking)ensuring mutually accepted solution corresponds toeveryone‘s idea/interests: live visualization (esp. cf. WS1, 5)4. Discussion & outlook (1/3)CHALLENGES: SIMULATION GAME EFFECTchallenge to limit broad range of mobility developmentpossibilities to a level of complexity corresponding to a one-time simulation game (esp. cf. WS2, WS5)partial lack of willingness to negotiate (cf. WS1, WS5), possibly due to fictional negotiation setting (→ solelyfictional gains)4. Discussion & outlook (2/3)PRACTICALLYcreate & strengthen trust:make sure participants get to know one another(personally), e. g. incorporate digital lunches into (beginningof) negotiation processinterests vs. positionsneed for strong strategy representing public interestpossible need to validate/adapt negotiation strategyaccording to stakeholder culture (cf. Wenzlaff 2008), e. g. fortechnologically or financially driven stakeholders4. Discussion & outlook (3/3)developing options by/for everyonestrengthen trust & creative and open working atmosphere→ further testingSCIENTIFICALLYunderstand negotiation process and its influence on negotiation success based onworkshop video dataretrospective expert interviewsincrease number of participants to depthen understanding offramework & conditions‘ and intervening conditions‘ impact on negotiation outcome (cf. survey)Thank you for yourattention.German Aerospace Center, Institute of Transportation SystemsAlexandra Bensler alexandra.bensler@dlr.deMichael Ortgiese michael.ortgiese@dlr.deMandy Dotzauer mandy.dotzauer@dlr.de08.10.2021Präsentationstitel Seite 18Questions?Comments?Ideas?

Digitally co-developed urban politics and policies: Bringing sustainable mobility solutions to life

https://elib.dlr.de/144389/1/Bensler%20et%20al.%202021%20-%20RGS.fin.pdf

Digitally co-developed urban politics and policies: Bringing sustainable mobility solutions to life

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Institute of Transport Research:Publications