Demands in one column, needs in the other: the Week 3 paper for MLDR 6175 maps both departments' interests before any option appears. Searches like "mldr 6175 week 3 assignment example", "mldr6175 week 3 sample" and "mldr 6175 week 3 example" land here.
What a finished MLDR 6175 Week 3 positions and interests looks like
A two-part table anchors four to five pages. Its first part lists positions, the stated demands at the composite theater: development wants the gala on the main stage on the date promised to the lead sponsor, plus two open rehearsals for donors; production wants the full technical week closed to outside events. The second part lists interests beneath each position, gathered from what each head has said: development needs the sponsor's renewal and a board chair spared embarrassment; production needs crew hours inside budget and a safe build schedule. Shared interests get their own short list. A section after the table applies Ury, Brett and Goldberg's distinction, showing the managing director's rulings as power and the booking-policy argument as rights. Options appear only on the final page.
How a MLDR 6175 Week 3 example is structured
Quotation opens the analysis: positions go down verbatim where possible, because an interests analysis that begins by paraphrasing demands tends to soften one side's and sharpen the other's. Interests are then derived by asking of each position what it protects, and each derived interest cites something the party said or did, so the column is evidence rather than speculation. Shared interests are listed only after both columns are full, which prevents the common error of finding common ground by quietly dropping one department's concerns. The interests, rights and power section comes next and explains why the dispute has recurred: rulings from above and arguments over the booking policy settled individual dates while leaving interests untouched. Options close the paper and are few, each tested against both interest columns, since an option serving only one side is a position in disguise.
Positions recorded as stated
Each department's demands appear in the words used at the staff meeting and in the emails. Recording them as stated keeps the analysis from beginning with an interpretation that one side would dispute before the real work has started.
Each interest tied to evidence
Beneath every position sits the need it protects, and beside each need a reference to what the party said or did. The sponsor renewal behind the gala date comes from development's own email; the crew budget behind the closed week comes from production's schedule notes.
Equal depth on both sides
Both columns go to the same depth. If production's position yields three layers of interest, development's is examined until it does too, because an uneven map quietly argues for the side that was examined more carefully.
Shared interests listed last
Only after both columns are complete does the paper list what the departments share: a musical that opens on time, a sponsor who renews, an audience that returns. Listing shared ground last ensures it was found, not assumed.
Rank and rule as past methods
Ury, Brett and Goldberg's distinction classifies how the dispute has been handled: the managing director's rulings as power, arguments over the booking policy as rights. Both settled individual dates and left the interests where they were.
Options tested against both columns
A short final page offers two or three options, such as moving the gala to the studio stage with a preview scene, and checks each against both interest lists. An option that serves only one list is dropped.
Where marks go in MLDR 6175 Week 3
Most of the marks attach to the interest column. Graders check whether each interest is genuinely beneath its position, rather than the position restated in softer language, and whether it is supported by something the party said or did. Symmetry is weighed next: both departments need interests of equal depth, and a paper that finds three layers under production and one under development has chosen a side through its analysis. Application of Ury, Brett and Goldberg is credited when the past handling of the dispute is classified with examples, not when the three terms are defined. Options receive a smaller share and are read for whether each serves interests on both sides. An option that is simply one department's position with a concession attached earns little, however practical it sounds.
Get a MLDR 6175 Week 3 example written to your instructions
For Week 3 the desk needs the prompt, the rubric and the dispute, whether assigned or drawn from your work, and the positions and interests paper returns inside 24 to 48 hours, free on a first request. A negotiation framework other than interests, rights and power can take over that section if the course names one.
MLDR 6175 Week 3 questions, answered
What is the difference between a position and an interest?
A position is what a party says it wants, such as the gala on a particular night. An interest is why it wants that, such as keeping a sponsor who expects that night. Positions often conflict directly while interests may not, which is why separating them opens options that a debate over positions alone would never reach.
Where does interests, rights and power come from?
It comes from Ury, Brett and Goldberg's work on dispute resolution systems, which sorts ways of resolving disputes into reconciling interests, deciding who is right under some standard, and determining who is more powerful. Their argument is that interest-based approaches tend to cost less over time. In the example, the distinction explains why this dispute keeps returning.
Should the paper recommend a solution?
Only lightly. This week's weight sits on the mapping, and options appear at the end as candidates rather than as a recommendation. Pushing hard for one solution before both parties' interests are fully represented undercuts the week's purpose. Later weeks, the negotiation preparation and the agreement draft, are where a proposal is developed and defended.