still it’s not clear enough
the example of analysis below I want same this but on my case
Your ZOPA analysis should begin with a consideration of your best alternative to a negotiated agreement, or BATNA, write Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton in their seminal negotiation text Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Your BATNA is the course of action you would take if you do not reach agreement in the current negotiation. For example, if you decide not to accept less than $70,000 per year for a particular job offer, your BATNA if you cannot negotiate this salary might be to accept a different job, to look harder for other opportunities, or to go back to grad school.
Your BATNA is “the only standard which can protect you both from accepting terms that are too unfavorable and from rejecting terms it would be in your interest to accept,” according to Fisher, Ury, and Patton.
In addition, analyze the other party’s BATNA. By exploring the other party’s alternatives—whether through research or by asking him questions directly—you can gain a realistic sense of what to expect from the negotiation.
BATNA analysis helps you determine each party’s reservation point, or walkaway point, in your negotiation. If there is a set of resolutions that both parties would prefer over impasse, then a ZOPA exists, and it would be optimal for you to reach a settlement. For example, if a job candidate would accept an offer between $70,000-$80,000 per year, and an organization is willing to pay between $65,000-$75,000, then a ZOPA of $70,000-$75,000 exists. (Issues other than price can and should be incorporated into the ZOPA as well, such as vacation time and work assignments.)
If, by contrast, there is no overlap between the two (or more) parties’ reservation points—for example, if the job candidate will accept no less than $70,000, and the organization will pay no more than $65,000, then no ZOPA exists, and both sides would be better off pursuing their BATNAs.
Through a rational analysis of the ZOPA in negotiation, you will be better equipped to avoid the traps of reaching agreement for agreement’s sake and viewing the negotiation as a pie to be divided.