Posted by Jon
The APMP syllabus would, quite rightly, have us believe that a proposal team should conduct two learning review (or ‘lessons learnt’) sessions. The first should take place soon after submitting the document – whilst the team’s views are still fresh in their minds. Key topics for debate include identifying what the team did well (i.e. techniques and tactics that should be repeated on future deals), as well as what could have been improved (by individuals, or systemically by the organisation).
The APMP syllabus would, quite rightly, have us believe that a proposal team should conduct two learning review (or ‘lessons learnt’) sessions. The first should take place soon after submitting the document – whilst the team’s views are still fresh in their minds. Key topics for debate include identifying what the team did well (i.e. techniques and tactics that should be repeated on future deals), as well as what could have been improved (by individuals, or systemically by the organisation).
Customers then often take forever to make their purchasing decision – prevaricating for weeks and months, often going through an exhaustive process of clarification and negotiation. And even once they’ve appointed their chosen supplier, it may not be appropriate to seek detailed feedback on your proposal until the dust has settled, or until (if you’ve won the deal) implementation is safely underway. The prevailing ‘best practice’ would therefore be that the team needs to revisit their learning once they’ve captured the customer’s feedback – again, a sound principle to follow.
Working with a team in Madrid a while ago, one of the participants made the interesting point that there should probably be a third learning review, say six months after you’ve on a deal. Too often, when projects are delivered, they fail to meet the customer’s expectations or the supplier’s goals; the two organisations’ respective teams struggle to make sense of what was documented and agreed during the bid process. Perhaps it’s a case of “It doesn’t do what it says on the can”, or maybe simply “We hadn’t fully understood or anticipated that”.
Understanding whether this has been the case is critical – and diagnosing anything that could have been done differently in the bid or proposal to prevent the issues from occurring strikes me as crucial. And for those projects that are a resounding success? Again, clear assessment of what went well – and communication of why this was – could add huge value to the organisation.
I thought it was a fascinating point, and it’s one I think I’ll emphasise rather more in future when working with teams who are looking to learn and to improve.
Working with a team in Madrid a while ago, one of the participants made the interesting point that there should probably be a third learning review, say six months after you’ve on a deal. Too often, when projects are delivered, they fail to meet the customer’s expectations or the supplier’s goals; the two organisations’ respective teams struggle to make sense of what was documented and agreed during the bid process. Perhaps it’s a case of “It doesn’t do what it says on the can”, or maybe simply “We hadn’t fully understood or anticipated that”.
Understanding whether this has been the case is critical – and diagnosing anything that could have been done differently in the bid or proposal to prevent the issues from occurring strikes me as crucial. And for those projects that are a resounding success? Again, clear assessment of what went well – and communication of why this was – could add huge value to the organisation.
I thought it was a fascinating point, and it’s one I think I’ll emphasise rather more in future when working with teams who are looking to learn and to improve.
RSS Feed
