This entry again comes from a response to a question from a colleague, this time regarding e-procurement and whether or not additional information – such as an executive summary, cover letter, solution details not specifically requested, etc. – should be included.

I stated in my response:

This is a wide open debate (probably because it’s a relatively new process)…and there’s much to consider.

Your observation that it shouldn’t be included ‘if it’s expressly prohibited’ is correct (Amazingly, I have been in situations where I’ve had to debate this with a subject matter expert who felt information should be included – against the customer explicit statement not to do so.)

The decision becomes tougher when isn’t clear how the inclusion of additional information will be received.

The answer here, as with most things related to proposals, is, Proposal Rule # 1 - ‘Know thy customer.’

Even on e-procurements (or more correctly perhaps especially in such cases!) it’s critical to have done as much pre-planning as possible. As you’re NOT going to have as much opportunity, if any, to provide information outside of the specific request, it is critical to ensure the customer understands your position and ‘why they should select your offering’ - BEFORE they even issue the e-procurement.

With that said - I would, in most instances - as in those where it is NOT expressly prohibited - be lobbying for the inclusion of executive summary and other information appropriate for that specific opportunity. This of course needs to be - as with everything within a  ‘first class proposal -strategically focused, customer oriented and supporting the customer’s ability to make a fully informed selection.

It’s ten years to the day since The Spice Girls hit the top of the music charts in the UK with their debut single “Wannabe”. Its chorus? “I’ll tell you what I want, what I really, really want.”

If your document is going to prove truly compelling for the customer, you need to get under the skin of the buyers’ real needs. As those of you who’ve heard us speak at conferences will probably recall, we’re therefore great believers in what we term “The Spice Girls’ Theory of Proposal Strategy”:

“Tell me what they want, what they really, really want.”

A great proposal doesn’t just answer the very logical questions in the RFP: it has to hit the right notes for the buyers at an emotional level.

I recently responded to post on the Pragmatech “Listserv” (for those of you who may not be aware of this forum, it is a great ‘meeting place’, useful for exchanging ideas with fellow proposal professionals and highly recommended).

The question I responded to was ‘How do I find time to develop content for the knowledge when can’t even keep up with the RFPs I’m working on already?’

As I stated in my response to this person’s question, ‘As an old hand at the game of proposals I felt compelled to write. And I’d like to address your question a bit more broadly rather than strictly as an RFP machine question. (And I apologize in advance for what may become a somewhat long response).’

Dear ‘Buried’,

In my opinion, your question deals with symptoms rather than the core/real problem. That is, it seems to me that the real problem here is your not having a clear definition of the available capacity (what the group - in this case just you - can do each day, week, month, year). The second component of the problem, and I’m making an assumption here, is not knowing or having a view to the demand (what is required). Then add to this the need for other projects’ such as knowledge base development, etc. and very quickly you are, to use your term, ‘buried’.

What is needed here is for you to clearly define (and understand) what can be done with the current (finite) resources available. The equation for this is relatively simple as you say you ARE the proposal group (the same considerations apply to a group with more than one person).

How many hours are available? (And you need to be realistic/honest here. How many hours do you have available?) Take total hours you are contracted to work (typically between 40-50), subtract sick time, vacation time, training time, meeting time, other projects time (if any) etc. Typically, this will work out to around - 20-30 hours a week and between 44-48 weeks a year or approx. 1380 total hours available (if we use 30 hours X 46 weeks.)

Yep - that’s right. It’s MUCH less than 52 X 40 or 2080 as some less informed managers tend to think. Important to note. This is based on working a full week, but NOT defining a plan that calls for overly long hours, working weekends, etc. As many have heard me state time and time again, “It amazes me that proposal people seem to think the only way to do proposals is in crisis mode and working to unreasonable/unpredictable schedules. This just IS NOT true and should NOT be part of your plan.”

Next step - How long does the typical proposal effort take? Here too, be honest. Base this number on what you SHOULD be doing, not what you do when you ‘rush one out the door’. Figure in time for pre-proposal work, qualification, planning, strategy development, content design and development, document management, reviews and approvals, production and post-proposal activities (learning reviews, etc.) So, as an example, let’s say an effort takes 10 hours. Well, based on the calculation above, you should be able to produce 138 proposals.

This then defines your ‘Capacity’. You then need to look at demand. How many proposals does the company expect/need to submit? Here too - a simple equation. Total quota divided by $ value of typical ‘win’. Calculated against ‘Win Rate’. So, if you need to make $500K, and each deal is worth $50k, you need to win 10 deals. If your win rate is 1 in 5, you need to submit 50 proposals.

That will give you a ‘realistic’ view of what you can and can’t do. And REAL important to bear in mind here - this is strictly the time required for developing proposals. It doesn’t include time for ‘projects’ such as developing or maintaining a knowledge base, developing processes, training, etc.

So, there you have it. Hope that helps and please feel free to call my way if/as you wish to discuss this further (I’m always happy to discuss ‘all things proposals’ as most any within the proposal community can tell you.)’

An interesting quote popped up a few days ago on the often-thought-provoking Quotes of the Day site, attributed to John Ruskin in the nineteenth century:

There is scarcely anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse, and sell a little more cheaply. The person who buys on price alone is this man’s lawful prey.

That’s a useful philosophy to bear in mind the next time you know your proposal won’t be the cheapest. “It’s late, it doesn’t work, the service is atrocious and our users hate me,” is unlikely to be a successful recipe for getting the buyer their next promotion.

Ever worked on a proposal that felt like this…?

I really liked Jon’s jigsaw analogy yesterday. Perhaps I can add my two cents to the blog based on our subsequent discussion of this.

That is - actually, I see it as worse than just not having the box top to guide you. It’s not having any idea whatsoever what the resulting picture is supposed to be. Is it an Impressionist painting? A safari scene? A quiet harbor at dawn? Then compound the difficulty with the distinct possibility that the pieces of several jigsaw puzzles have been mixed together as well (as happens when approaches and concepts from various knowledge experts differ).

Daunting? I say it’s close to or even impossible. (Of course, there are those who, when confronted with pieces that don’t fit together as they should, resort to cutting the pieces up and/or pounding on them with a hammer….and I’ve seen a few proposals in my time that appear to have undergone this process!)

Chatting with a client the other day, I hit upon the following analogy:

Writing proposal content without a clear storyboard is like completing a jigsaw without its box. A clear picture might emerge over time if you’re lucky, but it’s going to be a daunting and often frustrating task.

Might be one to keep in mind when trying to convince the account manager and content contributors of the need for a content design session.

I had an e-mail from our good friends out in the Midwest today (hey there Marlene, Sandra, Carol) with an entry for our ‘Newordology’ list. I suspect this word might prove to be one of those ‘industry invented’ terms so I’ll hold off sharing it or putting it into our list, but rest assured, if it turns out that it’s not an industry term, we’ll add it to the list.

The more interesting part of the mail was that the sender (she wishes to remain anonymous and I want to honor Sandra’s request) pointed out that this word might be a case of ‘MSU’ or ‘Made Up Stuff*. This is a new abbreviation for me and I like it a lot. For me, it ranks right up there with ‘SGP**. I asked Sandra (Oops. Did it again. Sorry. Mums the word from here on girl!) about this abbreviation and she said she picked it up at this year’s APMP conference.*** Unfortunately, they don’t recall which session presented this term. If you know to whom the credit for this delightful and very useful abbreviation should go, please let us know.

*The mail actually used a bit stronger term, but I’ll go with the gentler, kinder ‘stuff’.

** Stupid Generic Picture – discovered in ‘Why business People Speak Like Idiots -  A Bullfighter’s Guide’ by Brian Fugere, Chelsea Hardaway, and Jon Warshawsky. A fun read and should be part of your proposal library.

***I’ve always said you pick up great hints, tips, etc. at the conference. After all, it’s not just about seeing Jon and I waving magic wands, doing our version of American Idol or Extreme Makeover, etc.).

I have the good fortune to be a Member of the Institute of Directors, and often use its hallowed halls as a base when I’m working in London. It’s hard not to think inspiring thoughts under the ornate chandeliers, beneath the gaze of the portraits of distinguished Victorians.

The folks at the next meeting table have spent the past hour discussing a bid. Thanks to the wonders of the IoD’s wireless links, I could now tell you precisely what they think of the customer’s main decision maker (“has no clue whatsoever”). They’ve been unusually frank about their product’s shortcomings versus the client’s spec – and on how they’ll paper over these in their proposal. They’re about to commission some “independent” research to discredit their competitors (whose names I now know).

I don’t mean to pry, but they’re four feet away and talking loudly. Why is it that people feel so free to discuss bids in public? Reading draft proposals on trains, calling colleagues from airport lounges, leaving laptops in full view in Starbucks. Crazy! I wrote an article a couple of years back in the APMP Journal with two associates who are experts in corporate security; they couldn’t believe how lax people are with such important commercial information.

It reminded me of a wonderful (yet poignant) paragraph that I clipped from The Sunday Times Magazine a few weeks back, discussing photographer Michael Ward’s forebears.

As news of the old man’s illness spread, his family gathered around his bedside. Gradually, his breathing grew more laboured. It could not be long before Theo Ward, a patriarch of the Victorian age, drew his last. His seven children watched as he slowly slipped away. With a great effort, he leant forward, beckoning them to come closer: “Can you all keep a secret?” he asked. They waited for their father to divulge news of an inheritance or family scandal. After a long silence he said, “So can I,” and died.

Whilst there’s no need for excessive paranoia, if you’ve not reviewed the security risks associated with your proposal processes for a while (or thought about them in connection with that major deal you’re working on right now), perhaps it’s time to do so.

When presenting proposal concepts, I often speak of or refer to the ‘science’ of proposals and the ‘laws of physics’ as they apply to proposals. By these I am referring to the basic, fundamental principles I consider to be the basis of good proposal practices.

These include such mind expanding concepts as, “In order for a proposal to be well written, the proposal team must have good, solid writing skills.” I know, I know. A huge ‘duh!’ statement, right? Ok, then how about, “In order to honor quality, it is critical to understand how many proposals it is possible to produce in a specified period of time, given finite resources – including time.” Ok, here too another statement that is so obvious it does not merit mentioning, or does it? How about, “Availability is not a skill.” Too obvious? Not in my experience with a great number of clients. Actually, these statements are often real eye openers and lead to significantly changed thinking and behaviors (or ‘behaviours’ for Jon and company.)

Those of you who have seen me present know that we often lead with the Mark Twain quote, “It seems to me that common sense isn’t all that common.” I believe this is true. Or perhaps I’d spin it a bit and say that common sense seems to often get lost in the heat of battle, over time or just due to lack of attention.

I’ve recently come across a quote by Thomas H. Huxley that ties Mr. Twain’s quote with the concept of the ‘science of proposals. He said, ‘Science is organized common sense…’ I really like the way that plays into our approach to proposals. That is, using a common set of basic principles (common sense if you will) as the foundation for helping organizations produce first class proposals (the organized part).

His quote concludes with, “…where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact.” I greatly relate to this concept as well In my 20+ years in the game, I’ve seen and heard a great many ‘theories’ regarding proposals…many of which, “sound great on paper” (as I like to put it.) but don’t hold up in actual practice. As an example -One leading consultant puts forward that a sales person or knowledge expert should, as part of their job, be able to write well. Those of us in the profession of proposals know all too well that this is not true. Further, we understand the severe consequences of believing this to be true and expecting to receive superbly written, proposal ready content from sales or knowledge experts. Oh sure, it does happen, but in my experience this is the rather rare exception rather than the rule. More often, the ‘ugly fact’ doing the killing of the beautiful theory is that we, the proposal support function we need to provide the necessary writing/editing skills. The reality is that ‘common sense’ tells us that sales people and knowledge experts are hired for their skill in doing their respective jobs – selling, customer relations, product knowledge, the ability to develop solutions, etc. and not because they write well.

Another quote, one that I’ve used often, that comes to mind related to trying to support a beautiful flawed theory is, “It’s like trying to teach a pig to dance. It will annoy the pig and frustrate you.” (And no, by this I’m not suggesting sales people or knowledge experts are pigs.