A Japanese automotive supplier — a tier-one parts manufacturer — sits down with a German OEM to negotiate a long-term supply contract for hydrogen fuel cell components. Both parties want the deal. Both parties have strong technical capabilities. The negotiation fails.

What went wrong? Not the numbers. Not the technology. The collapse came from mismatched expectations about timeline (the Japanese side needed internal consensus through nemawashi; the Germans interpreted this as delay), relationship-building (the Japanese expected multiple meetings before substantive discussion; the Germans arrived with a term sheet), and decision authority (the Japanese negotiator couldn't commit without ringi approval; the German side saw this as weakness).

Exercise: SCQA Analysis

Situation → Complication → Question → Answer. Groups present competing explanations of the failure. Who failed whom? Was it the Japanese side's opacity or the German side's impatience — or both?

Open: Full Toyota–BMW Case →