The authors introduce a group of essays that evolved from a March 2003 symposium on the path-breaking new partnership and use of interest-based negotiation (IBN) at Kaiser Permanente (KP), one of the largest integrated health care programs in the United States. They briefly trace the history of the IBN approach (both success stories and failures); the growth of this phenomenon; and its use in collective bargaining settings. The KP case, the focus of the symposium (which was jointly sponsored by MIT's Institute for Work and Employment Relations and Harvard's Program on Negotiation), is by far the largest instance of the use of IBN in U.S. labor relations history.

The success of the 2000 interest-based contract negotiation at Kaiser Permanente (KP) does not mean that future challenges to this approach to negotiation have evaporated. Among the factors that contributed to the success thus far were: establishing buy-in to what was a new approach for many people; effective coordination in a complex environment; deadline pressure; managing internal negotiations; effective leadership; an investment in training; facilitation; creative brainstorming; and establishing ground rules. In addition to reviewing the KP experience, the authors focus on lessons learned and guidelines for future negotiations, as well as the role of interest-based processes in an organization's daily routine.

Building on a new labor–management partnership, Kaiser Permanente and its nearly seventy thousand union employees negotiated a five-year contract agreement in 2000 based on the principles of “interest-based negotiations.” The people who made this remarkable achievement happen as well as the historic background of the case are described and analyzed. A key element to the success of this initiative was the back-and-forth work of many different groups, including joint labor–management committee, coalitions of unions, bargaining task groups focused on particular subject areas, and local and national leaders of the company and its unions. Using illustrative comments from actual participants in this complex, nearly year-long negotiation process, the authors explore how the parties crafted their agreement.

Leaders from the business, labor, academic, religious, and ADR communities in Massachusetts have gotten together to form a “workplace network” to encourage the use of ADR mechanisms in the resolution of workplace disputes and problems. The Massachusetts experiment may serve as a model for other states. Current ADR initiatives of the new Network focus on discrimination cases, health and safety issues, and education and training.