Posted by Jon on 9 June, 2006 under Word play & writing | 
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!
Posted by BJ on 6 June, 2006 under Processes & best practice |
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!
Posted by Jon on under Musings, Processes & best practice |
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.
Posted by Jon on 3 June, 2006 under Musings, Processes & best practice |
I’m fresh from an interesting debate with a company which has a heavy high-street presence selling to consumers. Their shops are wonderful: state-of-the-art retail design, trendy, eye-catching, impressive. They’re now doing more and more work in the business-to-business space.
In the B2B market, their proposals are their shop window. Yet the documents are thrown together by one long-suffering member of the sales support team (“and we really struggle when he goes on vacation….”).
In a same vein, I often like to pick up copies of the latest marketing leaflet in the reception area of the companies I visit. Glossy, professional photography, copy-written to the highest standards – yet I doubt a brochure ever won a single piece of business. Meanwhile written proposals, which do have a huge impact on customers’ contract awards, suffer from continuing under-investment and neglect.
And while I’m talking about B2B proposals, I’m reminded of my theory that proposals are never really “B2B” documents. They’re “P2P” – about the people in the bidder’s team writing documents for the people sitting around the buyer’s evaluation table!
