We also asked respondents to rate technical clarity on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 meaning the issues were not at all clear and 10 meaning the issues were perfectly clear. During the interviews we traced the history of each case so that changes in technical clarity over the course of the negotiation could be measured. The cases we studied varied from fully successful to minimally successful and in how well the technical clarity criteria were met. We concluded that technical clarity was one critical element in the successful resolution of these conflicts. Negotiations tended to be more successful when the parties had worked out an understanding of technical issues and potential research questions before deciding which studies to conduct.
Several factors promote technical clarity during negotiations.
For example, we found that having a sense of urgency in the negotiation motivated participants to work hard at defining the appropriate technical issues. Conversely, a consultation process that is at once formally required and uncertain in its procedural requirements reduces the sense of urgency. By requiring a negotiation but not spelling out the expectations of the parties, the process left the parties floundering. An understanding of the expectations of regulators helped increase the sense of urgency and promoted effective bargaining. The combination of the right people in the right places was also extremely important.