Posted by Jon
I’m going to Malaysia in December for my 40th birthday. Vic and I have been there before – on honeymoon, three years ago – and most of the trip will be spent lazing at the resort doing not-very-much-at-all.
I’m going to Malaysia in December for my 40th birthday. Vic and I have been there before – on honeymoon, three years ago – and most of the trip will be spent lazing at the resort doing not-very-much-at-all.
That said, I’m at the stage of starting to look for a good, up-to-date guidebook or two for the trip. So I drifted into the travel section of a bookstore the other day – and stopped dead in my tracks.
For the books were sorted by publisher. To the left, the rows of Lonely Planets. Straight ahead, the bank of Rough Guides. Over there, the stash of Eyewitness Gudies.
Now, I may be in a minority here, but I don’t tend to buy travel books in a store on the basis of “I wonder where Fodors is recommending today?” Instead, I’ll be browsing to see what’s available that could give me insights into the particular destination that I have in mind.
This vendor-centric thinking is sadly inherent in many proposals I read – especially pro-active proposals (rather than responses to defined RFP questions). It seems as if the structure is determined by the list of subject matter experts: “Let’s include a chapter from each department that’ll be involved in the solution.” It’s the wrong way round: far better to start with a brainstorm of the information needed by the customer to make a decision to go ahead with your proposition.
I see similar dangers – even with RFP responses – with material contributed by sub-contractors. I can well imagine this bookseller showing a publisher’s reps around the store. “Look how many of your books we’re stocking!” Perish the thought that any proposal might park the material from any teaming partners, effectively, on a different shelf – written in a different voice (”because we’ve scarcely got time to edit our own material, never mind theirs”), the style and substance not fully integrated with the rest of the document.
For the books were sorted by publisher. To the left, the rows of Lonely Planets. Straight ahead, the bank of Rough Guides. Over there, the stash of Eyewitness Gudies.
Now, I may be in a minority here, but I don’t tend to buy travel books in a store on the basis of “I wonder where Fodors is recommending today?” Instead, I’ll be browsing to see what’s available that could give me insights into the particular destination that I have in mind.
This vendor-centric thinking is sadly inherent in many proposals I read – especially pro-active proposals (rather than responses to defined RFP questions). It seems as if the structure is determined by the list of subject matter experts: “Let’s include a chapter from each department that’ll be involved in the solution.” It’s the wrong way round: far better to start with a brainstorm of the information needed by the customer to make a decision to go ahead with your proposition.
I see similar dangers – even with RFP responses – with material contributed by sub-contractors. I can well imagine this bookseller showing a publisher’s reps around the store. “Look how many of your books we’re stocking!” Perish the thought that any proposal might park the material from any teaming partners, effectively, on a different shelf – written in a different voice (”because we’ve scarcely got time to edit our own material, never mind theirs”), the style and substance not fully integrated with the rest of the document.
RSS Feed
