Jon and B.J.'s Proposal Blog
Posted by BJ under Musings | 
Add your comment
Once again* Dilbert (from the mind of Scott Adams) captures exactly how it often feels doing what we do.
*Many of the Dilbert comics present situations that are all too familiar to us proposal folks. I suspect Scott Adams was involved in a fair few proposal efforts while he was working as an engineer.
Posted by Jon under Musings | Add your comment
Back in the summer, my son Benedict and I went away for a short break to north Wales. We spent a lovely few days, exploring mountains, castles and steam trains (always popular with a ten year old!).
As we returned to our hotel one night in the small town of Porthmadog, our eye was caught by a coach bearing our name:
Next to it was a minibus:
On closer inspection, this was also from a company called Williams. Only this time:
What amused me was that both vehicles displayed precisely the same telephone number. In other words, the good people of the town in which we were staying would recognise the company’s bus with a happy: “Oh look, there goes our local company – Williams of Porthmadog.” Meanwhile, anyone living five miles down the road and wanting to book a coach from their own town’s provider would happily call Williams of Criccieth. As a means of tailoring your story to the audience, I thought this was pretty cool!
Posted by BJ under Musings, Word play & writing | Add your comment
One of our directors, Graham, related the following.
“I was just hit by my wife Hillary. In hindsight, I deserved it and there is a lesson/reminder for us proposal folks behind the reason for her having reacting to something I said as she did.
I brought home a piece of banana cake that I had left over from my lunch*. Upon taking it out I commented to her, in an attempt to flatter her about her own, quite tasty, banana cake, “this banana cake is a million times worse than yours.”
I was quite taken aback when, rather than smiling and saying, “Thank You’ as I had anticipated her doing, she instead got a funny look on her face. I reiterated that I thought this was indeed ‘a million times worse’, emphasizing the “worse” aspect, lest she misunderstand that I was saying I thought hers was much better. This time, without any hesitation, she slapped my leg… hard too!
She then explained to me (very slowly and rather condescendingly I felt), that what I was saying wasn’t very flattering, as hers was only ‘less worse’ than this ‘worser’ cake.
In hindsight this certainly would have been better received if I’d focused on the positive, saying something along the lines of, “Your banana cake is so much better than this cake.”
As is the case in developing content for proposals, it is always better to “accentuate the positive” (and we certainly don’t want to unintentionally highlight or bring up a negative idea or concept.**
*One does have to wonder, if the banana cake was indeed, “a million times worse’ than the cake Hillary makes Graham, why on earth did you bring it home? :)
** One of the examples we use of this is our workshops is that of a certain US leader (who shall remain nameless but I’ve no doubt you’ll know to whom I’m referring), who, in an attempt to defend himself repeatedly stated, “I did not have relations with that woman.” The words that resonate from this – the unintentional negative – are ‘relations’ and ‘woman’, not what Bill…I mean this unnamed individual…was hoping for. He could have put the emphasis on the positive by saying instead, “I have always been faithful to my wife.” (He’d have been lying, put at least he’d be sending the right message. :) )
Posted by Jon under Musings | 2 Comments
Ever worked on a “must win” deal?
Yep, I thought so. And what’s the difference between “must win” and “nice to win”? Generally, in practice, often not a lot. A little more involvement (interference?) from senior executives; perhaps a few more review meetings; lots more stress; those on high taking the glory if you capture the business (and preparing to point fingers if you don’t)?
I was chatting about this to a team recently, and recalled a lovely phrase used by Gerard Houllier, when he was manager of my beloved Liverpool. (That’s a soccer club, for American readers).
He was asked in an interview:
“Is it reasonable to say that Saturday’s match is a must-win game?”
His reply?
“It’s not a must win game. It’s a will win game.”
I think bids should be like that. “Must win” isn’t good enough, if it merely means that senior folks take a little more interest and bring greater pressure to bear on the proposal team. “Will win” implies serious commitment and support from those on high, with a corresponding focus on providing the right resources to do what’s necessary to produce a first-class proposal in an efficient way.
So, next time you’re told a deal’s a “must win”, why not stop and ask whether it really is – or whether it’s actually a “will win”, and what’s going to be done to make it so.
Posted by BJ under Musings | Add your comment
The US Strategic Proposal team was recently brought in on an effort that had been underway for some time and which had a proposal manager in place.
We were asked to come in and manage this effort utilizing the existing team and augmented in where needed. Part of the augmentation was to put in place a proposal manager from the Strategic Proposals’ bench. We did this very quickly and with little to no introductions to the existing team. In hindsight, we should have seen the problems this would cause. As you might guess, the proposal manager who was already in place was not happy about having someone intrude on his turf and was not thrilled to be working with the person we introduced. There was constant friction, questioning and tension between these two individuals.
As those of you who are regular readers of this blog will be aware, I have a dog (a 3 year old, male American Staffordshire terrier [aka- a Pit Bull] named Jack) and I am a fairly experienced dog trainer (having had several dogs pass the American Kennel Club “Canine Good Citizenship” test.).
On the morning of the day on which the post-proposal review was scheduled, I was out walking Jack and we encountered another dog and its owner. The dog was about the same size as Jack (about 70 pounds) and was an intact male. Upon seeing us, the dog lunged forward, pulling hard on the leash. The owner, in response, pulled back hard enough to cause the other dog’s feet to come off the ground. The owner continued to pull hard with the dog barking and jumping up and down. In the meantime, responding to my request for him to lie down and remain quiet, Jack was lying quietly by my side, though it was obvious by his wagging tail and wiggling butt that he wanted to say hi to this dog.
The owner was quite obviously fearful and continued to pull on the leash. And the more he pulled, the more aggressive the dog became, including growling and showing teeth.
Based on years of experience*, a good understanding of dog behavior and knowing how to read a dog’s body language, I suggested to the owner that he loosen the leash and let his dog approach Jack. He was reluctant to do so, but I assured him that Jack would be well mannered and that I was experienced enough to handle the situation. I directed him to keep control of the leash but not to pull back on it or tighten it unless I told him to do so.
He somewhat reluctantly and hesitantly loosened the leash. As soon as he did, his dog bounded over to Jack, sniffing him, and run around him. I told Jack to remain lying down for a moment and then, once the other dog had calmed down somewhat, I let Jack know it was okay to say hi. He immediately jumped up and approached the other dog. But Jack didn’t approach the other dog head on. Instead, he approached sideways, and attempted to sniff the other dog’s butt. The other dog meanwhile, as soon as Jack was standing, was doing the same thing.
The two dogs spent about 30 seconds sniffing each other, confirmed that they weren’t a threat to one another and then both dogs went into a ‘play bow’**, signifying their desire to play together.
When I attended the post proposal review later that afternoon, one of my first comments was that we had not managed the introductions of the two proposal managers correctly and that we neglected to allow them the opportunity to “sniff each other’s butts”.
*Only someone who is very experienced with dogs should attempt to introduce dogs who are not familiar with each other. There is a significant chance of a dog becoming aggressive in such situations.
**A play bow is a posture a dog will assume ― paws extended in front, shoulders lowered, head low, butt raised, usually with tail and butt wagging ―to indicate his/her desire/willingness to play with another dog. A dog will also indicate a desire to play by slapping a paw in front of them or by reaching out with a paw and touching the other dog.
Posted by Jon under APMP & accreditation | 7 Comments
Many of you will have read the news last month that David Winton, Executive Director of APMP, has taken the decision to step down from the post at the end of this year. As the official announcement from APMP stated:
David has been actively involved with APMP for the past 20 years, and has served as our Executive Director for the past 18 years. He has worked tirelessly to grow our membership and to increase recognition for our profession. Under his tenure, APMP has grown to more than 3,800 members in 68 countries, and more than half of the membership has achieved accreditation. He has successfully coordinated and co-chaired 18 annual international conferences, and many chapter events and symposia.
On a personal note, I’ll be extremely sorry to see David leave; he’s someone I admire and respect greatly. He’s offered marvellous support to me since I first met him nearly ten years ago – being wonderfully helpful to the UKAPMP chapter in its early days and since, and being incredibly helpful regarding the conferences at which we’ve presented and exhibited over the years.
The search is now on for a new Executive Director for APMP (and anyone interested should contact Kirste Webb). Whilst policy for the association is set largely by its elected officers, the Executive Director inevitably has a huge impact on APMP’s direction. Here are my personal thoughts on some of the priorities for the new post holder (and the Association more generally) in the coming years – building, of course, on much excellent work that’s already underway:
1. Grow membership. 3,800 is an impressive figure – but still represents merely a fraction of the bid / proposal community in any of the countries where we have chapters or members. Let’s set an aggressive, challenging, step-change target – say, to at least double it (or to 10,000) within four years – and build a clear plan to get there.
2. Grow internationally. March 2011 marks the tenth anniversary of the APMP’s first international branch. Nearly a decade on, the association’s roots have spread, with chapters in several other countries. Yet many of these international groups are still relatively young, and relatively small. I’d like to see real focus from APMP on growing these more rapidly – with strong financial investment if needs be. We also urgently need more realistic membership rates in countries where the cost of living is so much lower than in the US / western Europe, if we’re not to inhibit growth.
3. Run a non-US conference. Why don’t we decide that APMP’s main worldwide conference in, say, 2014 will be one of the autumn events held outside the US – e.g. an expanded version of the excellent event that takes place every year in the UK? The May/June summer event could still take place that year – but would be classed simply as the US national gathering for a year. I think that’d give a very powerful message about the association’s worldwide reach. (And let’s run the conference in, say, South Africa or India before the end of the decade, too).
4. Commercial focus. Clearly, APMP’s legacy is in the government / defense space – and I respect and value the pioneering work in those areas, which have largely shaped the way we view our profession today. But so many proposal teams work in such different environments – with response times measured in days and weeks, rather than months or years – that APMP needs to come to terms more fully with the commercial world, with approaches in this arena seen as equally valid as those in the traditional areas of APMP’s strengths. More research focused specifically onto this area may also help.
5. “Accreditation, mark 2”. The accreditation scheme has been one of APMP’s greatest success stories in recent years. Yet the current model draws on benchmarking data from a study nearly ten years old – at a point where the Association was largely US and government / defense oriented. That means that the competency definitions are skewed (and irrelevant for many who wish to become accredited) – whilst some of the syllabus feels increasingly dated. The competencies and questions urgently need updating; there needs to be a vendor-independent study guide (rather than a proprietary textbook, no matter how good that is); we need an exam in languages other than English. And the investment needed to make that needs to be generated and made available – surely not infeasible, given the revenues and memberships that accreditation has generated. Moreover, far too few members have reached the higher levels of accreditation (Practitioner & Professional) – progress in this area needs to be accelerated.
6. Financial openness. I’d like to see the Association’s financial accounts and plans published openly every year for all to review, along with a review of central spend versus monies invested back into local chapters. It’s tough for a not-for-profit organisation to balance financial robustness with the investments that we’d all like to see; letting members understand the finances can only help.
7. Exploit the website. How many members regularly access the www.apmp.org site, or really make use of the wealth of wonderful information in the APMP “Body of Knowledge”? I genuinely believe that there’s far more potential for the APMP website to become the focal point for proposal professionals – the daily “must visit” site for all members over their morning cup of coffee.
8. Focus on proposals. I know I’m fighting an unpopular cause here, but we’re called the Association of Proposal Management Professionals. The clue’s in the name. By focussing more and more on “business development”, I believe we’ve diluted our message and lost a degree of focus.
I’m sure there’d be other things on my wishlist, if I kept writing, but that’s enough for now. And I know I write from the luxurious position of being someone who’s served as an officer of the association in the past, but whose commitments mean I can’t take on elected posts again myself at the moment – especially in such a US-oriented organisation. But I’d welcome readers’ thoughts on the future priorities for the association, to assist the new Executive Director, whoever that may turn out to be.
Posted by BJ under Musings | Add your comment
In the book “The Presentation Secrets of Steve Jobs” (C. Gallo), the author references two events – The TechCrunch 50 and DEMO – at which dozens of entrepreneurs are invited* to pitch their ideas to investors.
As the book presents, these are ‘high stakes’ presentations for the entrepreneurs, as they can mean the difference between success and obsolescence.
The organizers of both of these events allow very little time for the presentations. TechCrunch allows eight minutes, and DEMO only allows six. According to the organizers of TechCrunch, “If you cannot express your idea in eight minutes, the thinking goes, you need to refine your idea.
As the book points out, the consensus among venture capitalists listening to the presentations is that those presenting fail to create an intriguing story line and ‘jump right into their product without explaining the problem.”
According to one investor, “You need to create a new space in my brain to hold the information you’re about to deliver. It turns me off when entrepreneurs offer a solution without setting up the problem. They have a pot of coffee – their idea – without a cup to pour it in.”
The investors profiled in this example are buying into an idea. As such they want to know what pervasive problem the company’s product addresses. It is very similar for those reviewing the proposal we submit, they want to know that you understand the problem and they want to be able to quickly and easily understand how you intend to solve their problems/help them meet their objectives.
*DEMO charges entrepreneurs an $18,000 fee to present…that’s $3000 a minute! Imagine if a company putting out an RFP charged the responders a fee to submit a response – say $100 a page. I’m pretty sure that would drastically change how opportunities were qualified and both the size/quality of the responses submitted.
