Great dogma of contract negotiation: Difference between revisions

This might not matter if the subject matter did not need specialist expertise. But, as it is, it ''does''. The {{isdama}} is a tortured piece of legal technology, and that’s before the institutions have injected their idiosyncratic, paranoid and often senseless [[credit|credit standards]] into it. Now, it’s an open point whether an {{isdama}} ''should'' still be so complicated<ref>In your humble correspondent’s view, it should not: most institutions impose absurd credit standards — this whole wiki is a testament to that.</ref> but the fact remains that it ''is''. And no [[management consultant]] has ever thought of simplifying the legal and credit content of the agreement before offshoring it to give the poor kids a chance.

So instead, the whole operation, replete with its tortured prose, over-engineered legal drafting and fantastical credit expectations, is lifted and shifted from a high-cost jurisdiction (where at least the people concerned have some institutional knowledge, some industry experience and a half-chance of understanding it) to one where the poor kids have no chance. As a result, process managers must create [[playbook]]s and negotiation guidelines which the low-cost negotiators must follow as if colouring by numbers. If issues arise that are not covered in the [[playbook]] the [[negotiator]] must ''[[escalate]]''. Due to the lack of expertise. [[escalation]] happens more; due to the remote location, it is more protracted.