Those of you who've been reading our blog for years will know that BJ and I share a passion for music - although I'd argue that while we're about equal on the passion front, I win hands-down on taste...! 

My tastes might be described as eclectic. A recent long flight saw me hiding away in my headphones listening to a real mix of things I'd downloaded recently. The new Arctic Monkeys album. A couple of artists I'd read about and loved - world music from Bombino, electronica from Jon Hopkins, and a smattering of classical work I'd not previously heard by Gabriel Faure (whose Requiem is one of the most amazing things I know). 

And then I went back to some older stuff. Editors' most recent album, from last year, lasted a few tracks before I swapped over to their masterpiece, "In This Light And On This Evening" - track after track of pure brilliance. That led me to Beirut's "The Rip Tide", and onto Latvian band Brainstorm's  "Among the Suns" (from ). And then I moved onto the award-winning score of King Charles III, very probably (and this really is saying something) the best new play I've seen in London so far this decade. 

But on the way through my latest downloads, I did find a few new things that didn't detain me for very long at all. That first chord that didn't chime, for me. That lyric that seemed too contrived. That highly recommended artist, whose stuff just wasn't to my taste. That band I've tried over the years, loved by friends, who somehow simply don't work for me. 

The relevance to proposals? The desire of evaluators to hear something new, especially from folks who've come highly recommended. The way they'll take quick decisions: does your document resonate - or jar with them - from the very start? Does it create an emotional bond? 

The suppliers you'll keep inviting back, but who are never going to win. The old favourites, whose new proposals you'll always approach in a positive disposition. 

How would your next proposal fare on Spotify? Would it even make the evaluators' playlist? 

​And will it be so good they'll be talking about it in years to come? 

You send your draft document out for review. 

Back comes the comment, from a senior exec: "In question 28, we should be saying 'green' not 'purple'." 

Now, as a team, you had extensive, well-informed discussions about this. Shall we do it in green? Or what about purple?
Green? Maybe purple. No: after careful analysis, green's the right thing to say. 

So do you simply capitulate to the demands of the reviewer? 

There's an important principle here, which I always like to set out clearly at the start of the review process - sometimes to the surprise of very senior managers, but rarely provoking disagreement:

"Reviewers are not gods."

We value your suggestions. We'll look at whether they'd enhance our proposal. But, no matter how senior you are, we reserve their right to decide not to act on the recommendation you've offered up. 

Posted by Jon

I have a lovely day ahead of me today. Meeting one of a client's board of directors: it's great when the C-suite really starts taking notice of the benefits of proposal best practice. And this afternoon I'm working with two colleagues, Amanda and Andy, to put the finishing touches to the recordings for a new online training programme for another client.

But last Monday was more fun. More fun that proposals, I hear you cry? Well, centre court at Wimbledon takes some beating!

Two things stood out: first, seeing the great Serena Williams en route to the final, in a year when she was battling against a low seeding thanks to a points system that, disgracefully, doesn't recognise that women should be entitled to take maternity leave without being penalised in their career. 

And then: the first set of Roger Federer's match againt Adrian Mannarino. Won by Federer. 6-0.  In sixteen minutes. I've rarely seen such a demonstration of concentration and power on any sports pitch. As the demolition continued, other fans around me were hoping that the underdog might claim a game. Not me!

See, I recognised in that performance on the tennis court the same desire that characterises great proposal managers. Winning every game; wanting to score highest on every single section. Winning almost every point; wanting relentlessly to score highest on every single question. Recognising that merely 'good enough' isn't 'good enough' if you want to win: you have to tower above the competition.​

I've written here before about what I perceive to be the lamentable state of public sector procurement in the UK.  Indeed, our survey last year into "Bidders' Views of Buyers" confirmed that most on the sales side take a dim view of the skills and tactics of their buyer counterparts, whatever their sector.

The latest example of purchasing ineptitude was flagged last week by the Daily Mail  - not, I confess, a paper of which I'm usually too fond. They'd done some digging into police force spend across England and Wales, and the results were staggering (even, perhaps, allowing for some journalistic spin).

Take handcuffs. For the same item, North Yorkshire police pay £10. West Mercia pay £23.50.

Motorcycle leathers? More than a sixfold difference. Helmets? Yours for £12.59 if you're buying them in Derbyshire, but £36.32 not far away in Staffordshire. Electricity? 8.7% more expensive per kwH in one East Anglian force than for their immediate neighbours.

Some reading this might praise the salespeople involved. After all, if the buyer allows you to make more margin, why wouldn't you? But, actually, it just frustrates me. This little army of pompous procurement bureaucrats dotted across the UK - all thinking they know best, all running tortuous procurement processes, all being paid good salaries from the public purse -are simply wasting the money of bidders and taxpayers alike.

And what of the more senior folks, who are supposed to oversee public sector procurement? It's hardly rocket science to analyse spend and spot anomalies. The system's rotten from the top down.

We're seeing signs of change - our friend Steve Mullins, who works with us to educate sales teams to understand and influence buyers - is engaged on a project right now to assess the calibre of various key procurement people. But it's time that the government and civil service made genuine and speedy efforts to put their own house in order, and to consult with the bidding world as they do so.

Many of you will have heard me discuss “unintentional negatives” before. This is where something is presented as being positive, but it instead leaves the reader with a negative impression.

An example of this is the statement: “In this way, there will be no delays or cost overruns.” Rather than leaving the reader with a sense of confidence that the project will be done on time and to budget, in this case, the lingering thought in the readers’ mind would likely be “delays” and “overruns”.

Another favorite example of mine is what a certain politician who found himself in trouble kept repeating. He said, “I did not have relations with that woman.” Unfortunately for him, the thought this leaves is “relations with that woman”. Not what he was hoping for. Had he instead said, “I have always been faithful to my wife,” the lingering thought would be “faithful.” (He’d have still been lying, but at least he wouldn’t have made matters worse.)

I recently saw an ad for a ski area and it caught my eye for having an unintentional negative. The ad read, “Sorry, I’m out of the office. I’ve gone to <name of skiing area>.”

The lingering word in my mind when thinking about this particular ski area was “Sorry”.  I’m certain that is not what the area intended the ad to convey.  Better wording might have been, “I’ll be skiing at <name of ski area> today. Please leave a message.”

Posted by BJ

An aside in an article the other day reminded me of a technique I used to use all the time: "What if...?" So I thought I'd put myself in the position of a proposal support team, and have a play...

What if... when we’re the incumbent, the opportunity never got to a competitive RFP, unless the client simply had no choice?

What if... we knew about - and had already actively worked on - all of the must-win renewals and new opportunities that we'd be called on to support, many months in advance?

What if... we only worked on new business opportunities when we were absolutely confident we could win?

What if... every time we opened an RFP we'd decided to chase, we recognised our language in the document and knew it played to our strengths?

What if... we'd written most of the content for our proposal before the RFP ever landed?

What if... our win themes were so compelling that, were our competitors to learn them, they'd "no bid".

What if... we could draw on brilliant writers and superb designers, so that proposals were by a long way the best documents to leave our company's doors?

What if... our technology we used to help us run proposals was the coolest out there?

What if... our proposal presentations were so good that the evaluators would be telling colleagues and friends about them for weeks?

What if... we never had to work ungodly hours, or give up our weekends, because "that's the only way we can get it done"?

What if... colleagues clamoured to work on proposals, and found their day jobs so dull in comparison?

What if... as a result of our contribution to our organisation's success, our proposal support function was recognised as a business-critical team, championed by our friends in the C-suite!

What if... we were seen in the profession as the team to be part of, and rewarded commensurately?

Oh, but I could play for hours. And, you know, none of these needs be an impossible dream. Is it time to take the journey from "What if..." to "What happens is..."

Posted by Jon

As those who have attended a workshop I’ve presented - or those for whom Strategic Proposals has provided support on a live response development effort will have heard (and it is hoped, remembered!) - the criteria for what constitutes a high-impact, high-quality proposals fall into one of two categories:
1) Information: “What the proposal says”
2) Presentation: “How the information is presented.”
 
On the list of criteria under Information is ‘appropriately weighed’.*  That is, the amount of information provided is of an appropriate length. The appropriateness being based on the importance of the topic to the client. There’s also the matter of balance as no one topic should be covered in such length as to over-shadow and eclipse the other topics presented.    
 
At last month’s APMP Bid & Proposal Con, many of the sessions were panels**. I was on the panel for “Metrics That Mean Something”. (Thanks to Helene Courard for a great job as moderator). My fellow panelists and I each had a chance to express our views on what we felt were the appropriate measurement criteria for proposals. The panelists*** having respect for one another, as well as Helene having a great set of questions to guide the conversation, ensured the amount of time and information offered by each panelist was - as is the case in a high-scoring proposal - evenly and appropriately weighed.
 
In one panel this was not the case. In that particular session the moderator was less skilled and one of the panelists dominated the session. This was commented on by many of the attendees. They said they would have preferred to hear less from that one panelist and that they were disappointed they didn’t get to hear more from the others. They commented that it appeared the panelist dominating the session showed a lack of respect for the other panelists and the session felt unbalanced.
 
It is the same within a proposal. If one topic is covered in great detail, while other topics, equally important to the client, are covered in significantly less detail, the client will be left wanting less information on one topic and more on others. The proposal will feel unbalanced and will ultimately likely receive a lower score because of it. 
 

*The other criteria under ‘Information’ are:
- Client/customer centric
- Compelling
- Compliant (to instructions)
- Complete (addresses all requirements, answers all questions [all parts])
- Clear
- Concise
- Relevant
- Appropriately weighted 

** The majority of the sessions at this year’s conference were panels, which was a change from previous conferences. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many attendees with whom I spoke, the pendulum perhaps had swung a bit too far and there were too many panels.
 
 *** My fellow panelists included Erin Andersen, Nigel Denis (all the way from Australia!) and Howard Nutt. Nice job all!

Posted by BJ

During a break at the recent APMP Bid & Proposal Con, I noticed an attendee sitting alone, deep in concentration going over what appeared to be notes in a thick binder.

As I was walking by she happened to look up. I smiled and commented, “You’re looking very serious.”

She said, “I’m taking a big exam weekend and it’s got me really stressed out.”

I asked her what exam she was taking. I had everything I could do not to laugh out loud she said, “I’m studying to be a yoga instructor and the exam is for my certification.”

​As the saying goes folks, “you can’t make this stuff up”.

Posted by BJ

Towards the end of last year, I posted a query on LinkedIn about software to manage pre-written proposal content. 

As context: we've designed and kicked off two award-winning projects to build content knowledge bases in the past couple of years. We're wedded to some key principles in this area, having seen far too many libraries of outdated content that merely help people write poor proposals faster. Content is king, and:

• "Cut and paste" is the enemy. It's all about "cut and paste and tailor". 
• FAQs: there needs to be some science behind your decision as to what content to include in the library. What are your clients asking for regularly? ("We know that if we have answers to these 85 questions, we can produce information to help answer 55% of queries in a typical RFP", for example). 
• OAP: the relevant subject matter experts own the content; the role of the proposal centre is to articulate and publish it.
• Content in a library starts to become outdated the moment it's published. The world moves on; the challenge is to reflect that by ensuring that every answer is always the best possible.
• Developing and managing pre-written content takes time, and needs resourcing properly.

My questions on LinkedIn: what software tools do people use to manage their content, and is there value in specialist proposal software? See, the two projects we'd helped initiate both stored their material in SharePoint, which has the advantages for many bid teams of being (a) free and (b) available to all with little effort.

Yet there are incredibly clever software packages out there used by many organisations - including on other major projects we've supported lately to refresh outdated content libraries and to embed more robust processes moving forward. Upland Qvidian's the long-established market leader: I first deployed one of their predecessor products, Pragmatech, with huge success nearly 20 years ago. Others have been around for a fair while. New entrants that have caught my eye in the last couple of years have included Expedience and RFPIO.

[Declaration, for completenesss: I've known, liked and trusted people who work for each of these companies for a long time- all folks for whom I have the greatest respect. And we're sometimes asked to advise software companies; I've always remained strictly vendor-neutral in my recommendations, wanting to give my clients the best possible advice, and have never personally taken a penny in commission from any of these or other software vendors.]

All of these products (and more) offer functionality that goes way beyond even the cleverest SharePoint site in terms of extracting content and managing it on an on-going basis. Some even help to parse the RFP and manage document development (although I've never been convinced that a software product can do that better than a highly skilled team of proposal professionals - in turn suggesting that that functionality might actually be more appropriate on less strategic deals?)

So, what did the bid/proposal management community think? Was there really a strong business case one way or the other?

The answer, despite lots of public and private replies, was a resounding "don't know". I so wish we'd drawn a robust conclusion: that I'd been able to present a clear, validated case for the return on the investment on buying the specialist tools rather than using the apparent 'freebie' that so many companies have thanks to their Microsoft-based IT infrastructure. But none such emerged.

I wish it had. I like the people involved. I see companies using their tools with great success. Logically and emotionally, a product tailored to our profession has to be better for proposal teams than a generic dumping ground (sorry, content management system) like SharePoint. But, to use a phrase we so often deploy working on live bids: "Prove it!" If you're reading this and can, please do...!

Posted by Jon

To coincide with the opening of APMP's conference earlier in the month, Strategic Proposals announced the upcoming publication of our new book. 'Passionate About Proposals' brings together our favourite entries from the past twelve years of this blog. Keep your eyes peeled for news of the publication date. We're both really excited! - Jon & BJ​