What's your strategy for overcoming procurement negotiation impasses?

The rationale for the position taken is always important and helpful. However, in order to get to the real root cause, the person on the front-line has to be willing to work within their own team to get to the bottom. This is often the right obstacle - not having the right folks involved. Often contract negotiators will give reasons that are not at the root of the position and simply act based on past experience. Getting to the actual root is often difficult.

This sounds a bit convoluted. Positions are often dictated by different stakeholders within an organization. Unfortunately, the folks on the front-end, negotiation the contract are unaware of the interests and this type of proposed approach will inevitably require engagement by a much more senior team which may not always be available. That is, except for the most substantial contracts, discussing the underlying interests may not be possible. Many clients will not even want to discuss interests and will simply ask the Legal team to focus on the position. That is, while this is good advice, its not as realistic as it might sound in the day-to-day negotiations.

Never take things personal; always focus on your goal and your target, know very well your BATNA. Know the interests of your supplier and his weak points on which he is able to compromise and you can profit from. Be prepared and gather enough information to be able to gain the negotiation. Gaining does not mean a win lose situation, it is just reaching your target.

Why generally this is true, I don't think its persuasive in a real negotiations. Customers can find many ways to set themselves as unique in some way. Also, many simply refuse to use objective standards except in the most benign way. So, while this is a good rule of thumb, objective standard have limited usefulness. I think that getting to the real root and trying to find a win-win scenario, regardless of the market trends is a better strategy.

This is definitely true for those directly involved in the negotiations. However, I feel strongly the lawyers should not directly interface with the other side if it could be avoided. Direct communications over contract terms often leads to esoteric legal arguments that are not helpful. The business leads should interface with their counterparts and allow the lawyers to engage in the background. However, the folks doing the interface should definitely exercise good communication strategies but always remain firm. Too much time is spent in "discussions" dragging out contracts longer than necessary. Let talking and more getting to what is important is a better strategy.

No way. This is not the way to go. ADR is not a useful tool in this scenario. Instead, internal escalations to more senior decision makers is the way to go. First, the lawyers come in if the front-line has an impasse, then together with more senior members of the business unit. This is the only way to move it forward. Eventually a decision by those more senior team members will have to stand.

When you don't have enough knowledge about the culture and the style of your supplier and you are negotiating a big deal, it is preferable to hire an agent or a medium to work on your behalf to avoid gaps and differences in cultures, the barrier of language...