解題
To influence Thornfield Interiors' supplier to offer more favourable payment terms, you would draw on a combination of persuasion and negotiation techniques grounded in evidence, mutual interest, and a credible alternative position, rather than simply asking for better terms.
First, persuasion through evidence and credibility: rather than making an unsupported request, you would build a case using concrete evidence of Thornfield's reliability and value as a customer — an eight-year trading history with (assuming, as is typical of an established small retailer) no late payments, combined with the significantly larger and more regular order volume that a second, Banbridge-based store will generate. Presenting this evidence reframes the supplier's decision from 'should we give this customer a favour' to 'is it in our own interest to secure a larger, proven, reliable customer's growing business', which is a more persuasive frame because it appeals to the supplier's self-interest rather than Thornfield's need.
Second, framing the request around the supplier's own interests, consistent with principled negotiation (as developed by Fisher and Ury): rather than opening with a fixed positional demand ('we want the old payment terms back'), you would explore the supplier's underlying interests — for instance, the supplier may be concerned about cash-flow risk from extending more generous credit terms to a customer that is expanding, and therefore, in the supplier's view, potentially riskier in the short term. Understanding this interest allows you to propose options that address it directly rather than simply repeating the demand: for example, a phased arrangement where favourable terms are extended progressively as Banbridge order volumes are proven over the first two or three quarters, which reduces the supplier's perceived risk while still moving Thornfield towards the terms it wants.
Third, generating options for mutual gain rather than treating the negotiation as a fixed pie to be divided: you might propose that Thornfield commits to a minimum guaranteed order volume across both stores in exchange for the improved payment terms, which gives the supplier a concrete, low-risk benefit (guaranteed revenue) to set against the payment-terms concession it is being asked to make, making the trade feel balanced rather than one-sided.
Fourth, negotiating from a position of credible strength by establishing a clear BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement): before entering the negotiation, you would advise Aoife to research at least one credible alternative furniture supplier capable of meeting the expanded business's needs. This does not necessarily need to be disclosed aggressively, but knowing that a real alternative exists changes the tone and confidence of the negotiation, prevents Thornfield from appearing dependent on this single supplier, and provides a genuine walk-away point if the supplier will not move towards reasonable terms.
Finally, these techniques should be combined rather than used in isolation: presenting the evidence of reliability and volume establishes credibility, framing around the supplier's own interest in reduced risk makes the specific ask (a phased, volume-linked improvement in terms) easy for the supplier to say yes to, and a genuine BATNA ensures the negotiation is conducted from a position of parity rather than one-sided need, giving Thornfield the best realistic chance of securing improved terms without damaging a supplier relationship it will continue to depend on after this specific negotiation concludes.
Final answer: influence the supplier through a combination of evidence-based persuasion (reliable payment history, growing order volume), interest-based negotiation that addresses the supplier's own risk concerns (a phased, volume-linked improvement in terms rather than a fixed demand), a mutual-gain trade (a guaranteed minimum order volume in exchange for better terms), and negotiating from a credible BATNA (a genuine alternative supplier), used together rather than any single technique alone.
評分準則
Levels of response (QWC assessed). Level 1 (1–5 marks): basic, generic reference to 'negotiating' or 'persuading' the supplier with little/no named technique or application to the Thornfield scenario; written expression may be unclear or poorly structured. Level 2 (6–10 marks): at least one relevant persuasion or negotiation technique is named and applied with some relevance to the scenario (e.g. mentioning evidence of reliability, or a basic negotiation point); competent written expression with reasonable structure. Level 3 (11–15 marks): several distinct, relevant techniques (e.g. evidence-based persuasion, interest-based negotiation, proposing mutually beneficial options) are explained and applied specifically and convincingly to the Thornfield/supplier scenario; clear written expression using specialist terminology (e.g. 'BATNA', 'interests versus positions') accurately. Level 4 (16–20 marks): a comprehensive, nuanced analysis integrating multiple techniques (evidence/credibility, interest-based framing, mutual-gain option generation, and a credible BATNA) into a coherent overall influencing strategy specifically tailored to the ongoing Thornfield-supplier relationship, showing genuine insight into how the techniques reinforce one another; written expression is fluent, highly structured, and demonstrates confident, accurate use of specialist terminology throughout. Max 20 marks.