Posted by Jon
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)?
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:
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.
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.
RSS Feed
