Negotiating in a multiparty, group, or team setting indeed presents a complex challenge due to the diversity of interests, priorities, and the level of impact of the decisions made. The $2015$ Kigali accord on hydrofluorocarbons $($HFCs$)$ is an illustrative case of such complexity. The negotiation involved a multitude of nations with varying economic statuses and environmental stakes. Here's a closer look at the three factors mentioned that contributed to the success of these negotiations:

Choosing Coalition Wisely: In multiparty negotiations, forming coalitions with other parties that share similar interests or goals can be a strategic move. By doing so$,$ groups can amplify their voice and bargaining power. In the context of the Kigali accord, like$-$minded countries likely banded together to form coalitions that could push for more aggressive action and timelines. This strategy enables smaller or less powerful parties to exert greater influence than they might individually.

Managing the Process: Effective negotiation requires excellent process management skills. This includes setting agendas, structuring the sequence of negotiations, handling information flow, and managing time effectively. For the Kigali negotiations, managing the process would have involved coordinating discussions across different groups, ensuring all voices were heard, and finding consensus among a wide array of parties. It would also involve keeping negotiations on track despite the high potential for delays and disputes given the span of seven years.

Calculating Dynamic BATNAs: The Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement $($BATNA$)$ is a concept from negotiation theory which dictates that parties should understand their best alternatives if negotiations fail. In a dynamic negotiation context, these alternatives can change, and parties must continuously reassess them. For instance, technological advancements in refrigeration and air conditioning could have altered the BATNA for some countries, making it more feasible to reduce HFC use. Additionally, the increasing urgency of addressing climate change may have improved the BATNA for environmental advocates, as the cost of inaction became more apparent.

The final accord reflects a balance between the interests of developed and developing nations. Wealthier countries often have more resources to transition away from HFCs and can do so more quickly, while poorer countries may need more time to adapt due to financial and technological constraints. The phased approach to reducing HFC production allowed for this variation, acknowledging different national circumstances and capacities.

In essence, the success of the Kigali accord underscores the importance of strategic coalition$-$building, adept process management, and the continual assessment of BATNAs in complex, multiparty negotiations. These elements are critical in reaching agreements that require collective action from a diverse set of global stakeholders.