Posted by BJ on 11 March, 2008 under Processes & best practice, Word play & writing | 
Jon has often commented that the obituaries area great place to find brilliant writing. I’ve just read “BasketCase”* by Carl Hisassen (a favorite author).
The central character in this rollicking and quite novel novel, Jack Tagger, is a journalist assigned to write obituaries. Jack offers up as his favorite obituary,
Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolan
of Mauritius Dies at Age 85.
As the book reads, “This did not appear in a Dr. Seuss book, but in the New York Times. Maybe three dozen readers in all Manhattan had ever heard of Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolan, but that’s what made the matter-of-fact tone of the headline so splendid-the dry implication that even non-Mautitians ought to have known who he was.”
I see this quite a lot in proposal content. Information that is obscure, arcane or familiar to only a few, strange and mostly socially deprived individuals presented I n a way that assumes those of us reading it should be familiar with the information presented.
When this happens it causes me to feel either –
a) I slept through much more of my schooling than I realize and I question why I’m not familiar with something that the writer thinks I ought to be.
b) The person presenting this information is arrogant, has no concern whether I, as the reader, understand what is being presented or both.
This is where a review by someone with some objectivity to the offering being proposed is so valuable. Ideally, the reviewer will let you know where you’ve presented information that might not be familiar to as many people as you hoped.
*Carl Hiassen writes what is termed Comic Thrillers. His books are filled with wonderfully eccentric characters and always have several intertwining, amazingly complex plots which always resolve themselves in the most unexpected and devilishly clever ways in the end. His writing is not great literature, in the classic sense. (The New York Times refers to Basket Case as a “Frisky novel” and Entertainment weekly calls it, “Fresh and Juicy.) His books fall into the ‘great fun, easy reading’ category. Not to be confused with “light and fluffy”, these are more irreverent, slightly twisted, warped, rock and roller type writing (in fact, Basket Case is about the leader singer of the Slut Puppies, so that should give you an idea.) If you’re sense of humor is just left of center…or decidedly so, Carl’s books will have you smiling from beginning to end. Enjoy.
Posted by admin on 10 March, 2008 under Proposal Guys news |
We will be running software upgrades on The Proposal Guys at 8-10pm GMT on 10 March. The blog may become unavailable or otherwise unusable for a short time during this period.
If you notice any glitches after that, please write to Jon at the contact address above.
Posted by Jon on 5 March, 2008 under Processes & best practice |
Ever stuck for ideas as to how you can build support within your organisation for the changes you’d like to make to your proposal capabilities? One trick of the trade that can help to build momentum is a very simple one – a stakeholder analysis.
Grab a flipchart – or, maybe, several large pieces of flipchart paper taped together – and draw up your map of those inside and outside your organisation who have a stake in what you do, how you do it or the quality of your results.
Start with roles (sales, finance, legal, delivery teams, content contributors, board members, staff within your proposal centre team, and more), then get specific with individuals’ names where you can.
The ‘outside’ angle is key to include: thinking about customers, partners, sub-contractors (and even competitors) can all spark interesting and useful debate. Humour can help, too – “the janitor who has to stay in late while we’re working on proposals into the early hours” has a stake alongside that Sales Director struggling to meet challenging targets for the year. Drawing pictures can also keep the exercise fun and engaging.
For each stakeholder, then ask yourself three questions:
1. What do they like about what we do today? (Start positive, and show that there’s a platform on which you can build. Improvement exercises mustn’t be opportunities to beat yourselves up).
2. What one improvement would they like to see to our proposal capabilities, and what benefits would this bring?
(Be realistic – even if you may struggle for investment, these priority areas should command senior attention. Asking about the benefits is really important, too, if you’re going to prove a case for change).
3. What would they like from us in an ideal world, and what benefits would this bring?
(Think greenfield sites, not today’s constraints).
Just taking it this far can be really interesting and valuable – a great exercise for a team meeting, for example.
A little prioritisation, before asking relevant stakeholders the three questions directly – especially if you’ve secured sponsorship for the exercise from someone senior – can then move things much further forward. As you chat to them or survey them, you demonstrate your enthusiasm to improve, and you start to get them personally vested in helping you to implement change. And a comparison between “what we thought” and “what they told us” can also be revealing.
Posted by BJ on 3 March, 2008 under Musings |
In the previous post “Simon says, Part 1”, I spoke about the differences between the judges, Randy, Paula and Simon, on American Idol. I pointed out that each of these judges had their own unique style and delivered feedback, good or bad, differently. Randy is the softy, always trying to be as gentle as possible. Paula is always “over-the-top” positive, no matter how bad the person’s performance. And then there’s everyone’s favorite bad guy, Simon, who never seems to have anything nice to say. And when he doesn’t like a performance, he has no problem saying so.
I commented in my previous entry that I saw a parallel between these judges and the people who make up an evaluation team. In this entry, I’d like to talk about how the comments and suggestions these judges offer and how I see these as similar to feedback from a customer.
As Jon and I have said many times, when getting feedback from a customer, you’re usually not getting a real opinion. Typically the customer has no vested interest in spending time with a vendor who has not been awarded the contract and will therefore give the easiest and least contentious answer. And that is to say, “You lost because your price was too high”. Much like Paula not wishing to ever say anything bad to a performer, the customer will offer this answer to avoid telling a vendor that their proposal was poor, their account manager was weak or that they just weren’t confident in that particular vendor’s ability.
On American Idol, I personally think Simon’s very direct, succinct and often painful opinions and comments are the most beneficial to a performer. I find the same to be true with customer feedback. While it’s easier and less painful to have a customer tell you that your proposal “wasn’t that bad” or “it was almost what we were looking for”, feedback from a customer who is willing to be brutally honest about why you’ve lost and willing to tell you in no uncertain terms what you need to do to win next time, this is the most valuable information you can get.
So, when seeking customer feedback, enjoy the comments from the Paulas, but dig for, learn from and build upon the comments from the Simons out there.
