Posted by Jon on 28 January, 2010 under Musings | 
Graham Ablett, one of our UK consulting directors, spotted the following photo in the Daily Mail last month:
It’s interesting to read the accompanying story: there’s little or no discussion of the benefits that the £116m scheme will bring to public transport users in the area, but plenty of opportunity for those opposed to the scheme to make cheap, humorous jibes at its expense.
I guess that’s paralleled by apparently minor errors in a sales proposal: they distract the audience from the real story, and give your enemies on the evaluation panel a free pass to criticise your bid. Worst case, you’ll become the butt of their jokes. We may have said it before, but those detailed final checks before you issue a document really are hugely important, no matter how time-constrained you are. (Some in the proposal world talk about ‘white glove’ reviews; we prefer to just talk about checking the document carefully).
And if you simply don’t have the people or skills to do the checking? Then it’s time to go and shout at people until they understand the impact that under-resourcing your proposal team is having on your documents – and hence your win rates.
Posted by BJ on 26 January, 2010 under APMP & accreditation |
Strategic Proposals offers APMP Foundation Level Accreditation Exam Preparation Workshops (dare we refer to these as APMPFLAEPW?) on both sides of the Atlantic. Last year alone Jon and I have delivered 17 workshops, with a total of 142 participants*.
The exam is a pass/fail and scores aren’t revealed. That said, after each course, both Jon and I review the scores, calculate the average score for the group, etc.
An interesting aspect to the scores is that, very consistently, the person with the least amount of experience receives one of the lower scores and the person with the most experience tends to have one of the highest scores. Average scores tend to range from 55-65 (candidates must answer 42 out of the 75 questions correctly to pass.). The passing rate for those attending the workshop is very high (98% in the US) and those who have not passed the exam, from my perspective as the facilitator clearly did not have the understanding of proposals required to answer the questions.
I know this seems like common sense and I guess it is. I point this out to demonstrate that the exam does do a good job of testing a candidates understanding of the basic knowledge of proposal that someone with over a year of experience would have.
*Did you know that the number of people who achieved APMP Foundation Level accreditation this year is 54% higher than last year? Did you know that, to date, more than 1350 people are APMP accredited? At this rate, by the next annual conference (June, 2010, a majority of the members of APMP will have some level of accreditation. Will you be one of them or will you be playing catch up?
Posted by Jon on 22 January, 2010 under Processes & best practice |
Whilst presenting an APMP Foundation Level training course to a group before Christmas, I found myself getting frustrated by the negative spin that the examiners take on the “Learning review” process. What’s the point, according to the syllabus, of a lessons learnt process? It’s to “recognize systemic process issues and drive their resolution”; the aim is “to do better next time”.
It struck me that whoever developed this section of APMP’s competency framework must have had some pretty bad personal experiences running proposals. If the learning review is so negative – working from the assumption that so much went on that was wrong, that so many things need to be corrected – then it’s no wonder that it can be hard to secure people’s open, frank participation in the process. The working assumption underlying the “white review” would appear to be that the proposal team has just endured a soul-destroying journey into the valley of despair – and the inevitable risk is that those who do participate in the learning process will approach the exercise feeling defensive, confrontational and negative.
No, a learning review should be framed in a positive way. Look to celebrate what went well on the bid – those things you’d do again; the things that worked; the things you’d want other teams to try on their next proposal effort. And then – without attributing blame – look at what the team would have done differently (with the benefit of hindsight, even), or would want to approach in a different way the next time around. After all, even the most successful bids aren’t all plain sailing – and so many unsuccessful teams do so much cool stuff without quite getting across the finishing line in first place.
Posted by BJ on 20 January, 2010 under Musings |
I’ve often said to Jon, an expert on wines, that I believed any effect using a certain shape wine glass for a particular wine had on the taste of the wine was all in the drinker’s head. My belief was confirmed in the book Predictably Irrational (Dan Ariely, Harper).
The book states, “If you’re really serious about your wine, you may want to go all out and purchase the glasses that are specific to burgundies, chardonnays, champagnes, etc. Each type of glass is supposed to provide the appropriate environment, which should bring out the best in these wines (even though controlled studies find that the shape of the glass makes no difference at all in an objective blind taste test, that doesn’t stop people from perceiving a significant difference when they are handed the “correct glass”). Moreover, if you forget the shape of the glass really has no effect on the taste of the wine, you yourself may be able to better enjoy the wine you consume in the appropriately shaped fancy glass.”
I think this is similar to the effects of good proposal packaging. That is, though points are not typically awarded for appearance and packaging, when reviewing a proposal which is professional in appearance and packaged in a way that makes it easy to handle and review, the reviewer will be inclined to be less critical of the content and award a higher score.
I wonder if we could get Mr. Ariely to conduct a controlled study to prove this (though I’d guess it wouldn’t work to well having the reviewers blindfolded :-) ).
Posted by Jon on 18 January, 2010 under APMP & accreditation, Processes & best practice |
Whilst presenting an APMP Foundation Level training course to a group before Christmas, I found myself getting frustrated by the negative spin that the examiners take on the “Learning review” process. What’s the point, according to the syllabus, of a lessons learnt process? It’s to “recognize systemic process issues and drive their resolution”; the aim is “to do better next time”.
It struck me that whoever developed this section of APMP’s competency framework must have had some pretty bad personal experiences running proposals. If the learning review is so negative – working from the assumption that so much went on that was wrong, that so many things need to be corrected – then it’s no wonder that it can be hard to secure people’s open, frank participation in the process. The working assumption underlying the “white review” would appear to be that the proposal team has just endured a soul-destroying journey into the valley of despair – and the inevitable risk is that those who do participate in the learning process will approach the exercise feeling defensive, confrontational and negative.
No, a learning review should be framed in a positive way. Look to celebrate what went well on the bid – those things you’d do again; the things that worked; the things you’d want other teams to try on their next proposal effort. And then – without attributing blame – look at what the team would have done differently (with the benefit of hindsight, even), or would want to approach in a different way the next time around. After all, even the most successful bids aren’t all plain sailing – and so many unsuccessful teams do so much cool stuff without quite getting across the finishing line in first place.
Posted by BJ on 14 January, 2010 under Word play & writing |
A book I turn to time and again as a reference is “Error Free Writing” (R. Cormier, Prentice Hall), which unfortunately, has been out of print for some time. While checking on an particular point of editing, I came across the following excerpt from The Editorial Eye. I think it does a great job of driving home the need for “plain language”.
As the story goes, a New York City plumber once wrote to the Bureau of Standards to report the success he had in using hydrochloric acid to clean out clogged drainpipes. Responding in typical government fashion, the bureau wrote, “The efficacy of hydrochloric acid is indisputable, but the corrosive residue is incompatible with metallic permanence.”
When the plumber wrote back to say how pleased he was that the bureau agreed with him, the bureau urgently responded, “We cannot assume responsibility for the production of toxic and noxious residue as a result of using hydrochloric acid and suggest you use an alternative procedure.”
This second letter made the plumber even happier with his discovery, so once again he wrote to say how glad he was that the bureau liked his idea. This time the bureau broke down and used plain language to warn the plumber: “Don’t use hydrochloric acid. It eats the hell out of the pipes.”
Plain language. A novel concept. Goes a long way towards fostering understanding.
Posted by Jon on 11 January, 2010 under Musings, Processes & best practice |
I just love this clip, from the BBC’s weekly round-up of technology news, ‘Click’. In it, reporter Dan Simmons ‘managed to break a mobile phone marketed as “unbreakable”, during a demonstration at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas’.
(Click here to watch the video on the BBC site).
Whilst this is merely a case of a product not performing quite to the advertised spec, I think it also serves as a healthy reminder that clients will sometimes check out the statements you make in your proposal. Clearly, proposal writers aim to put a positive spin on their organisation’s capabilities – but your claims do always need to be true, and capable of substantiation if queried or challenged.
