A nice comment on “Quotes of the Day” recently:

“A synonym is a word you use when you can’t spell the word you first thought of.” (Burt Bacharach)

Yep, as someone who writes for work and pleasure, I can relate to that!

I’ve just finished reading “The Starbucks Experience: 5 Principles for Turning the Ordinary Into the Extraordinary” (by Joseph  A. Micelli PhD.) As the book points out, Starbucks has managed to take an ordinary cup of coffee and turned it into something much more than that. Starbucks has made a cup of coffee an experience.

Many of us have experienced the ‘two shot, skinny, no foam, extra sweet, mocha caramel latte (I think I was once with Jon when he ordered one of these). And they’ve created what they term “The Third Space” (a person’s home and office being the other two.) Heck, they’ve even managed to create a new word, as for many people the word Starbucks is now synonymous and interchangeable with coffee.

And isn’t that what our job is about? Taking something that can be pretty mundane and, dare I say, uninteresting – products, services, etc. – and finding a way to make these extremely relevant, valuable and important to the customer. Ok, that’s not some of the job, in my opinion, that IS the job.

As the title states, this book presents 5 principles, all very simple, that any company, group or team can use to make what they do and the results they produce truly extraordinary.

It’s a pretty quick read, and very applicable to what we do. Enjoy.

Swapping notes recently with a Head of Proposal Management, I played devil’s advocate regarding the business case for improving proposal capabilities.

Proposal teams often talk about helping to bring about an “increase in win rates”. Indeed, we’ve had the pleasure of working with many teams who’ve done just that.

However, sometimes it actually helps to think about the ‘reduction in loss rate’ instead. If you’re currently winning 80%, then to get to 90% involves winning half of the deals that would previously have been lost. That’s potentially much tougher than trying to push win rates from a starting point of 10% to 20%, when you ‘only’ need to win one more of every nine.

The counter-argument, of course, is that if you’re already at 80%, then you probably already have a strong proposal culture - and so implementing further improvements should be easier. And there are those who’d take the purist view and debate whether proposal centres should be measured on win rates at all! As I say, it’s a complex area.

There’s another perspective, too. Suppose you win 10 of every 100 deals - and then sharpen your qualification so as to rule out half of the deals you would formerly have chased. Your win rate will again rise to 20% - yet you’ll still only be capturing the same 10 deals per year. You’ll reduce your cost of sale, but revenue will remain static. That may not make for quite such a compelling business case as it might look at first glance!

My experience has been that those who need to make improvements most, are the least open to admitting the need or seeking help.

A recent experience with workshops that Jon and I delivered highlights this.

Within this particular company there are two divisions, and we delivered the same workshop to both.

One of these divisions produces proposals of a fair to good quality (based on an audit using standardized criteria), and has a win rate of about 40%. The other division produces proposals that are very poor (based on the same audit and criteria), and their win rate is below 10%.

The group with the higher quality and win rate saw the value of conducting the workshop, had a positive attitude and an open mind, and actively participated.

And the other group? Well, you know already, right?

From the head of the group on down, they failed to recognize the need to improve the quality or win rate, questioned the need for conducting any training, and did everything possible in an attempt to not have to attend. Then, once in the workshop (yes, the powers that be got them in their seats), they were extremely negative, refused to participate, and behaved in a rude and arrogant manner.

Of course, as one would expect, the feedback from the first group stated that they got a lot out of the workshop, and early indicators show that the changes they are making are resulting in higher quality and improved win rates. And, of course, the inverse is true for the second group. They’ve done nothing, and if anything, things have declined further.

And the reasons for this? They are many and varied, and I dare say, not the important question. For me the more important question, and it’s applicable to many situations, is how do you make sure that you are in the first group, and that you have a realistic view as to what you’re doing and looking for ways to improve.

As one who has been at the game for quite some time now (never mind Jon, they know how much older than you I am without you pointing it out!), I am acutely aware of the potential for falling into the “but that’s the way we’ve always done it” trap, and Jon and I coach each other to always be looking at what we’re doing, how we do it, and how it can be improved (no matter how good it might already be!) :)

Hopefully, your thinking and actions put you in the first group too.

I passed a desk earlier on which someone had stuck a notice titled: “New phrases for Simon”. The list was fairly concise: “No”, “Can I buy you a drink?” and suchlike.

I wondered whether this would be useful for proposal teams.

“No” would certainly be up there for many, as it was for Simon. (Let’s make this the year in which we only chase deals we think we can win!)

“Win” might be another theme. Or “Quality every time”, perhaps?

“Let’s do this the easy way” or “Go home on time” could hint at the need to change behaviours, processes, staffing levels…

What’s on your word list for 2007, now we’re a few weeks into the new year? If your team going to be doing much the same this time next year as it is now, then I certainly hope that’s because it’s valued, properly resourced, trained, respected and successful - not because it’s too tough to tackle the inertia, or too daunting to get attention from the folks on high whose support you’d need to bring about real change.

There was an article in my local newspaper about a man who shot himself while driving.

The article stated that the man was apparently attempting to dismantle his handgun, which he didn’t know was loaded, while driving. In good journalistic fashion, the article gave his name and, age, summarized the events and stated where and when this happened. It then went on to point out the dangers in handle a weapon at any time, let alone when driving.

The article finished with the statement, “Investigators said this was a case of poor judgment.” As my dear friend Carol would say, “Gee, ya think so?” Obviously, this final statement was not necessary and added nothing other than the hook for many jokes and commentary about this individual.

I need not point out how this relates to our work, right? :)

Amusing comments from bid team members the other day, discussing customer’s procurement processes: “It feels like customers use work experience students to write their RFPs” and “Do purchasers get paid by the question?” I hope there are a few buyers out there reading this: understanding the challenges facing folks on the other side of the negotiating table can be really beneficial.

Bid teams usually have a fairly low regard for the quality of the RFPs to which they have to respond. “Beware of the Buyer”, a research study we conducted a couple of years back threw up a few thought-provoking statistics, such as:

• 86% of bid team members agree that the better the customer’s RFP, the better the proposal they submit in response.
• Only 14% agree that the quality of the RFPs that they receive is very high.
• Only 8% find that RFPs provide sufficient context on the customer’s business issues and the project’s drivers.
• 91% state that the length and complexity of the RFP is not always commensurate with the value of the deal.
• 85% agree that there is a direct correlation between the quality of the RFP and the quality & cost-effectiveness of their proposed solution.
• 83% agree that “the less time we have to respond, the poorer the quality of solution that we can offer”.
• Only 5% of proposal teams have customers who seek feedback on the quality of their RFPs.

And on the flipside, most buyers are disappointed by the quality of the proposals that they receive. There’s a self-perpetuating climate of mutually low expectations here. Perhaps the two groups should talk more. (Actually, if anyone out there – from either side – fancies being part of any such discussions, let us know and we’ll see if we can set up a suitable forum).

A recent article in USA Today* reported on several typos that cost certain individuals a fair amount of money.

One such was for monies that were to go to cancer research. As the article highlighted, due to incorrect wording, rather than receiving the expected $13million, cancer research was only going to receive $1.03. And that’s not a typo there. They’ll receive a mere one dollar and three cents. And of course, given the way the government does things, the cancer research folks will need to wait till the government next convenes a session to rectify this (quite obvious) mistake.

The other typo they presented was one related to a tax to be imposed on cigarettes, to further increase the cost and thereby discourage smokers. The tax was to have been $.80 a pack, which is fairly significant. However, due to a typo in the wording of this resolution, here too the numbers were changed, and the actual amount was only $.08 a pack. Yep. Almost a whole penny. That ought to slow down those smokers, don’t you think?

These should help us keep the importance of proofreading and thorough reviews in mind.

___________________________________
* I only get USA Today when it’s delivered to my hotel room. Now, I have never requested that the paper be delivered but it often shows up. I’ve always thought that the complimentary paper each morning was a nice touch. Imagine my surprise when I saw the fine print recently that stated the paper would be delivered, and I would be charged for it, unless I requested it not be delivered. Most clever on the part of the hotel (and I won’t be getting the paper in the future).

Some organisations’ approach to proposals can best be described as “Disorganised chaos”. Yet it’s only two steps from there to being in control:

Disorganised chaos

Organised chaos

Organised

Where are you on the journey?

Taking my father out for a surprise birthday party in early December, we came across this notice pinned to a window. I guess one might say that their choice of restaurant name had perhaps been a little inauspicious:

Still, at least they managed to bring their theme statement to life – albeit in perhaps rather too spectacular a way.