Any golf fans out there? Happen to notice anything odd in the last big tournament? Yes, that’s right: the amazing Tiger Woods failed to make the cut in the recent US Open, and so was eliminated after just two of the four rounds.

The golfer’s cut is, I suppose, the equivalent of the purchaser’s RFI. The field is scythed down: only the most likely winners survive.

When responding to an RFI, many teams have a simple view of the task in hand: to make it through the cull, so that they receive the RFP.

Simple - and, to my mind, somewhat simplistic. When responding to an RFI, I don’t merely want to make it onto the shortlist. Wherever possible, I want our RFI response to help to position us at the forefront of the customer’s thinking - at least being viewed as the “one most likely to” win, and ideally shaping the buyers’ views so that their subsequent RFP plays to our strengths.

During a meeting up in Scotland last week, I came up with a new way to encapsulate the difference between improving the efficiency of a proposal process, and improving its effectiveness:
- Improving efficiency: the salesperson goes home earlier.
- Improving effectiveness: the salesperson goes to a bigger home.

Pre-written content is a cornerstone of any successful proposal operation – and implementing an effective knowledge base can be a real “quick win” if you’re trying to bring about a step-change improvement to your proposal capabilities.

Richard Jenkins, one of our colleagues, joined a Pragmatech-hosted panel on the topic at last month’s APMP worldwide conference. As part of his preparation, Richard asked me to scribble down my own thoughts on do’s and don’t’s of implementing pre-written content libraries, based on our experience of helping various teams in this area.

Here’s the list I came up with – not particularly polished, but sometimes the spontaneous answers are the most interesting ones!

SIX DO’S

1. DO… Think carefully about what content to include - e.g. analyse Frequently Asked Questions; prioritise! Develop some clear targets/metrics (e.g. xxx records in place by xxx, xx% of answers in a typical proposal to be available - to then be tailored to this specific opportunity - from the knowledge base).

2. DO… Make sure you communicate clearly to content owners - what’s needed from them, when, benefits to them/others of doing this, plus ideally some coaching/training/guidelines in advance so that they understand what makes for effective content development. Listen to them, too, so that your timing doesn’t conflict with their busiest periods. It’s also key to communicate with the bosses of these subject matter experts, to secure active commitment from on high.

3. DO… Use the purchase of a good pre-written content tool as a “compelling event” to drive contributors to produce content by a certain date. (In extremis, threaten to “name and shame” them if they don’t contribute - e.g. include a blank record in the database with their contact details).

4. DO… Think “tomorrow”, not just “today”. That is, plan from day one to keep the content up-to-date on an on-going basis, and ensure responsibilities, resources, effort for this are clearly planned and identified.

5. DO… Provide professional proposal support (especially editing, but also for constructive critique of material) to help the content contributors. Much as I hate the phrase ‘red team’, why would you ‘red team’ stuff for a live deal, but not for your knowledge base?

6. DO… (We would say this, wouldn’t we, but…) Consider using outside support to “break the back” of the task of designing and developing the first batch of content - otherwise you’ll exacerbate the existing workload challenges for an already-overloaded team. The aim for the proposal team is to make your life easier, not to fill you with despair.

SIX DON’T’S

1. DON’T… Over-commit. There’s a danger that the CEO, or your sales colleagues, will assume that now you have bought the tool, all proposal content will be available from the system. At the touch of the button. From tomorrow morning. Manage expectations!

2. DON’T… Publish content to sales until you have enough robust material to make it worthwhile for them to use. (If they find a poor/sketchy answer the first time they go into the system, or if none of their questions is answered in the database, you’ll have your work cut out to convince them to come back).

3. DON’T… Publish poor content (such that you merely “write more poor proposals faster”) unless you are doing this very deliberately as a conscious tactic designed to free up time to reinvest into polishing up the material, with clear timescales and resources to do so.

4. DON’T… Ignore the pressures that content contributors are under – in terms of time (this may not be top of their list of priorities) and skills (they may be scared of writing the content - hence the need for support and coaching). They will need (and should rightly be able to expect) editing support, and appropriate lead times.

5. DON’T… Buy a tool that will dictate the way you run your proposal process, rather than adapting to your modus operandi.

6. DON’T… Under-estimate the time and effort needed to keep the content up-to-date. The one thing that that is true for any piece of pre-written content is that it starts to go out of date from the moment it’s published - time moves on, your capabilities and corporate messaging move on, press/analyst comments move on, competitors’ capabilities and messaging moves on, customers’ views of the market moves on.

A quick hello to all of our friends in the UK. Some of you may be popping along to UK APMP’s supplier forum this evening. As you know, we’re religious in our sponsorship of the organisation’s events (especially given my past role as its first CEO).

However, there’s the small matter of the World Cup game tonight. (US readers please tune out *now*). England versus Sweden - or a trek into rural Oxfordshire for an evening of proposal chit-chat? We’re hazarding a guess that we’re won’t be the only ones voting for the soccer! Come on, England!

A shopping experience worthy of note. I dashed into a shop on Edinburgh station, desperate to find treats to entertain my six-year-old son on a long rail journey to London.

We started in the chocolate section (of course), and he picked up a small box of delicious-looking Belgian chocolates. I looked closely, and noticed that they were orange-flavoured. Now, Benedict may already show signs of developing my expensive culinary tastes, but orange-flavoured chocolate features high on his ‘least wanted’ list. I pointed this out, and the box was duly swapped for a more mundane bar.

We headed to the far end of the shop, to browse the books and magazines. We’re deep in discussion of the relative merits of Action Man and Power Rangers, when a shop assistant appears, breathless, at my elbow. She hands over a different box of the same brand of Belgian chocolates: “I overheard you talking about the orange chocolates, and knew we had some plain ones somewhere. I thought you might want to know.”

Now THAT’S customer service.

Interesting to wonder what the last “chocolate orange” moment was for your proposal centre?

So, The Proposal Guys have been here for three months! We set out to keep friends old and new in touch with ideas that occur to us as we work in the proposal arena, and it’s great to know that so many people are reading the blog and deriving benefit from it. Sincere thanks from both of us for all of the kind feedback!

With more than 10,000 words in 40-something posts, newer readers joining us might want a fast-track to save them a little time. Here, then, is a quick chronological list of pointers to our favourite half-dozen entries so far, to help you to find your way around:

1. “Stop the red team” from 20 April: Jon’s provocative review of the top ten pitfalls from proposal review processes.

2. BJ’s “Fire analogy” from 30 April – on the value of sponsorship. Is your proposal centre fighting fires, or are you able to step back and build a fire department?

3. Jon’s advice on “Writing: secrets of success” from 2 May

4. “The New Shocks”: BJ explores the difference between features and benefits, in an entertaining post from 5 May.

5. A sporting analogy for Pre-Proposal Planning: “Prepared to Win?” by Jon on 21 May

6. BJ’s report from this year’s APMP conference in New Orleans: “Standing Room Only for Two Proposal Managers”, posted on 25 May.

We’re still bubbling with ideas for topics to discuss – as always, though, we welcome your feedback (by email, or in the comments here) on things you’d like us to explore in future posts.

The wonderful Scott Adams has turned his attention to our humble profession. I loved this, from the Dilbert blog, even if I’m not sure it’s the most flattering of cartoons for proposal people - or for buyers, for that matter!

A hotel I used recently in Germany was undergoing refurbishment prior to the influx of visitors for this summer’s soccer World Cup, which starts tonight. The staff couldn’t be more friendly and welcoming and are doing a truly fantastic job in the circumstances. (Said circumstances including the ever-present potential for a friendly builder’s face to appear outside your window from the scaffolding surrounding the building – whilst their colleagues dig out a new car park under the hotel).

What caught my eye, though, was an apologetic line on my booking confirmation letter, which warned of this construction work:

“We would request provident and courtliest for your appreciation for optical and temporarily acoustical interferences.”

That’s worthy of many proposals: contributors often feel under pressure to write the next Pulitzer-prize-winner, and use overly-complex language when it would be so much more powerful were they to express themselves simply. Whenever I see a thesaurus on the desk in front of someone working on proposal text, I’m tempted to throw it away (or, at least, charge them a pound per look, to make them think carefully about whether they need their writing to be any more flowery). Not, of course, that there isn’t room for beautiful writing in proposals; it’s just that your writing needs to be appropriate to the context.

It also sparked thoughts about multi-national proposals, where some contributors are writing in languages other than their mother tongue – or where text is being handled by a professional translator. These situations need real care: not least, to make sure that these contributors don’t feel patronised or insulted when you edit their text. (That’s true, of course, even with contributors working in their native language, many of whom also struggle to express their thoughts in writing correctly and coherently).

Now my own foreign language abilities are pretty limited, and I have huge admiration for anyone who can hold forth in more than one tongue. So I’m not being in any way critical of the often fantastic efforts that come from multi-national teams. But I do think a few recent favourite lines scribbled on my travels might be in order:

• “It is very important so called process owners participate actively during project implementation.” (Proposal from Eastern Europe). OK, so we know they don’t really *own* the processes…

• “In the event of any problems, the concerned project manager would review the situation”. An interesting difference in word order between Indian English and English English: glad to hear that said project manager would be so upset!

• My favourite: a notice outside a proposal team’s office in Belgium, publicising the activities of the company’s “Health & Safety Prevention Committee”. I adore the idea of a committee sitting down to work out how to prevent Health & Safety. (“Hey, wouldn’t it be cool to put a mousetrap on the inside cover of our proposal to illustrate how risky the project could be?”).

Any other favourite examples gratefully received!

While speaking with a participant of a workshop I was presenting (in Atlanta) last week, the topic of transiting a proposal group from one stage to another – from ad-hoc to tactical or tactical to strategic – came up.

In the course of our discussing proposal centers we hit on an analogy that works pretty well (and those of you who know me, know that I just love a good analogy!) and which underscores an important point. This analogy is based on water skiing as I had discovered in our conversation over lunch that this individual (the head of sales for this company) is, like me, an avid water skier.

We discussed the fact that at some point, advancing to the next level of skiing, and in particular to be able to run a ski course - (that’s where buoys are set up along either side of a straight line and the skier has to ski from one side to the other – with an ever decreasing line length. More on this below if you’re interested.) – it becomes necessary to change from gripping the handle with two hands to using only one hand. In skiing, this allows for greater arm extension, allowing the skier to ‘get around’ the buoys that make up the course.

We began discussing the correlation of this with proposals. This particular group has an established proposal function but it was not built on a solid understanding of best practice (it came into being, as often happens, by adding more and more people, without clearly defined roles, an understanding of the resources required, etc.).

As this individual listened to me present the concepts behind a best practice proposal center, he realized that, if the company was to advance from tactical to strategic, they might have to do things in a very different manner. Specifically for this group, it will require redefining roles and responsibilities and moving to a specialized, rather than ‘wearing all hats’ model.

As we discussed the fact that this group needed to make a ‘fundamental change’ in the way they approached proposals’ we related it to skiing, saying it would be necessary for this proposal group to ‘begin skiing with one hand instead of two’. We agreed this course is best done by allowing time to make the changes, getting some practice in the new method, having a good coach provide guidance and having a clear understanding of the goal.

Perhaps next time he and I talk will figure out how to teach a proposal group to ski barefoot!

*For those who might be interested in more about skiing a course.

A ski course consists of a boat path. This is two strings of buoys (also referred to as ‘balls’…which makes for some rather crude jokes among skiers!) which the boat drives through.. On either side of the boat path are buoys. (See diagram)

The boat runs through the course at a fixed speed (36mph for professionals, slower for less accomplished skiers). The skier enters through the ‘boat gates (E) and then must ski around the outside buoys.

Now here’s the tricky part. The buoys are exactly 37′ 8 3/4″ from the center of the course. The line the skier is using starts at 75’ and is progressively shortened.

Typically, a reasonably accomplished skier can run the course at 22’ or 28’ off (the increments that are taken off are not equal – they get progressively shorter as the line becomes shorter and more difficult.)

Now, at 28’ off, the skier has only 47’ of line to get to the buoy. The result is in a ton of centrifugal force as they have to ski VERY fast to get to the buoy as the boat is moving forward… and then brake and turn to head towards the next buoy).

The current record is somewhere around 43’ off, making the line a mere 32’ feet. That’s shorter than the distance from center line to the buoy by 6’. Meaning the skier has to be VERY low to the water, fully extended, and as mentioned, and must use only one hand on the handle. And so far the best that’s been accomplished is ‘3 balls’… no one has done a full course… yet!

A couple of weeks back, I took my son to London’s Science Museum, to their fantastic exhibition about the first 20 years of the Pixar film/animation studio. Benedict was enthralled by the original sketches of from Nemo, Toy Story and more; I was captivated by the descriptions of their storyboarding process.

One member of their team takes an element of the overall storyline and works on it in detail. They’ll sketch a page for each scene – with the emphasis on the plot and key activities that move the story on, rather than on the detail or accuracy of the drawing. Once they’ve completed the section, they’ll pitch the material to their colleagues – who’ll throw in bright ideas in a highly energetic session, and deface the storyboard with numerous yellow post-its. The individual then heads back to his or her desk, to rework the material.

Compare and contrast with many proposal teams. Proposal storyboarding is often accomplished via group discussion of a particular section / question; the team’s subsequent ability to stand back from their own work to bring creative new ideas is inevitably inhibited. We need to remember to bring in fresh pairs of eyes if we want to generate those constructively critical comments and to maximise the creative potential from proposal storyboarding.

The other obvious difference is that Pixar’s storyboards are pictorial: after all, their ultimate deliverable is a cartoon. Proposal teams deliver text-heavy documents, and therefore their storyboards are often very textual (even filled in on pre-printed forms). “Draw me a picture” can be an incredibly powerful intervention when you’re trying to get content contributors to design cool answers, even if you’re not going to use the graphic in the final document.

If you’re interested, the exhibition’s only on until the 11 June. It’s well worth a trip across town, if you happen to be in London.