BuiltEnvironment

You have to have a good story

So far this year, my reading list has been quite out of the ordinary - a bizarre combination of business books and fantasy.

In addition to reviewing two books for the "Industry Speaks" website, I read Weld Coxe's "Marketing Architectural and Engineering Services," reread "The Chronicles of Narnia" by C.S. Lewis and somehow latched onto Rick Riordan's five-book "Percy Jackson & the Olympians" series.

So far, I have read "The Lightning Thief," "The Sea of Monsters" and "The Titan's Curse." I'm about 120 pages into "The Battle of the Labyrinth" and "The Last Olympian" is sitting on my kitchen counter, (not-so-patiently) waiting its turn.

I know this series usually lands in the "Young Adult" section of the bookstore or library. I'm such an avid fantasy reader, because it takes me away from the technical writing that fills my workdays, that I'll start almost any book of the fantasy genre that looks like it was written for "ages 15 and up", to see if the story grabs and then holds me.

These stories grabbed and held me -- and held me tight! What could be better escapist fare than a story of young teen-agers in today's world, who are the "half-breed" (Riordan's word) children of a mortal and a Greek God (demigods), battling other jealous gods, the Titans and some classical monsters, and saving the world, as every teenager thinks he or she can do standing on one leg with one arm tied behind his or her back?

The point of this admission is not to let all of you in on the secret of what I like to read when nobody else is around. The point is:

You have to have a good story to grab and hold a reader's attention, and to move the reader to some action, even if just to turn the page and keep reading, or to buy the next book in the series.

When you develop a Statement of Qualifications for a prospective client, you want to move that client to ask you for a technical proposal, or to send you his next RFP, or hire you on the spot.

When you develop a technical proposal, you want to move the client to select you for the project assignment, or at least to invite you to make a short-list presentation.

In either case, you have to develop a compelling story to convince the client to take the action you want him or her to take. What will the client consider compelling? Many of the clues are in the RFQ or RFP.

• The RFQ/RFP tells you what to include -- include it -- in the order the client uses.
• The RFQ/RFP explains the evaluation criteria -- make sure you demonstrate that your story proves that you meet those criteria.
• You are presenting your relevant projects -- humanize them -- tell the story of the client's need and your solutions, or the project's challenges and how you overcame them.
• Use pictures with your project stories -- make sure the pictures have people and/or cars in them, to indicate the size and scope of the project.
• Talk about how you resolved community issues, how you made the client the "good guy" and his project something the community wanted.

Remember, a good story touches the heart. Every purchasing decision -- whether the purchase of a new car or the procuring of an A/E team -- has an emotional component. If your story has all the emotional punch of a CSI specification, it will be a very hard road to selection.

 

"Udderly Austin"

(Austin downtown cow art collection)

Good work -- the best sales tool

Here's another post inspired by "Marketing Architectural and Engineering Services," second edition, by Weld Coxe. On page 169, Coxe says,

"There is no better sales tool than good work."

Thirty years ago, when Coxe first wrote this sentence, it was one of the truisms of marketing to private sector clients.

If you did good work for a client, he or she was very likely to call you with another assignment, for which you would not have to compete. There would be no marketing or business development costs, so project profit would be maximized.

If your good work was sufficiently visible, you might get calls from other clients offering you a new project. In fact, you might hear from people you hadn't yet even identified as prospects, offering you a new project.

There was no reference as good as a successful project that was both visible and admired.

Then you have the Brooks Act, the federal law passed in 1972 which requires that the US Government select engineering and architecture firms for design assignments based upon their competency, qualifications and experience, rather than by price.

For many years, this was a (supposedly) cut-and-dried process that led to the most fair and equitable selection of professional design firms. But the process took no account of the inherent value of previous experience working for that client, or a team's previous experience working together.

Then came the evaluation concept of "best value," which was created as a way to give the subjective criteria of past relationships and experience with the client and with other team members an objective value that could be considered in determining the most competent, best qualified, most experienced design firm from among a number of submittals.

All of a sudden, federal selection committees could recognize the added value of an architecture or engineering firm that had worked for the agency before. who knew the agency's processes and working preferences, how they liked their plan sheets to look, what modes of communication they preferred, what kinds of documentation they wanted with their invoices, etc.

The same selection committees could also recognized the added value of a team that had worked together on other (possibly similar) projects, which meant that they already knew how to collaborate and cooperate with each other, had communication processes already in place, and knew what to expect from each other.

So good work -- which ultimately also results in a good reputation with a client and a solid reference from that client -- could now be counted by public sector clients in the selection process for architectural and engineering services. Never underestimate the value or importance of such criteria.

A word of caution: DO NOT confuse "best value" the evaluation process with "best value" the selection process. The former is a way of recognizing the objective value of subjective criteria in evaluating the submitting team's experience and relationship with the agency.

The latter is simply a way of reintroducing PRICE into the initial selection of a short list. The theory is that the selection committee will determine the short list based on BOTH qualifications and price. But we all know that once price information is introduced, very little attention is paid to any of the other information in the submittal.

 

"Texas Moosicians"

(Austin downtown art-cow collection)

What they don't know . . .

In my ongoing praise of Weld Coxe and his book, "Marketing Architectural and Engineering Services," I want to tell you that I actually said an excited "Yes!" out loud when I read the following (on page 84):

"Who they know" matters not in the sense of who will get the job, but "who they don't know" may have a lot to do with who will not get it."

You may know the key person who will swing the selection committee to a final decision regarding the firm or team to which they will award a project. But I promise you, many of the other firms competing for the award also know that person.

In fact, you may know that person very well. And again, I promise you that at least a few of the other firms chasing the project will also know that person very well.

But what if principals and senior staff at many of the other competitors know that key person very well, and you have never spoken with him/her in person, or at least on the phone? In that case, the chances are pretty good that you can kiss the opportunity good-bye.

Maybe the client is specifically looking to hire a consultant who has not already taken sides or staked out a position on a local political issue; or who has not already completed four similar projects in other states, all sharing design elements and looking like "site adapt" projects; or whose reputation has not been tainted by involvement in a project that "went south." If any of those situations is the case, being an "unknown" may very well work in your favor.

But it is more likely that, if you don't know the client and the client doesn't know you, this first-time submittal will be an introduction -- a way to put your name and/or face in front of them -- which would be better done when the client is not in the middle of a selection process.

When a complete stranger submits a proposal, the client's decision-makers wonder:

• can they really do this kind of work?
• can they deliver the level of creativity and innovation I want?
• can they really produce the quality of work that I expect/require?
• can they really complete the project within budget and schedule?
• do I know anyone who has used their services before?
• can they really provide me a more enjoyable project experience than these other firms I already know?

When the individuals on the selection committee are stressed by committee responsibilities heaped on top of their normal workload, it is easier and less time-consuming for them to select a known firm than it would be to research the references, reputation and other attributes of an unknown firm.

Coxe is absolutely correct here -- "who you don't know" can impact the selection committee's decision far more than "who you know."

By the way, this is very similar to my argument about the "Go/No Go" process where, if you can't win the project and there is no strategic reason to expend resources on a losing effort, that's an automatic "No Go." In this case, if you are a stranger to the client, and he hasn't expressed a desire to hire a stranger (i.e. hire someone outside the local politics or giving a new firm a chance), there is similarly no reason to expend resources on a losing effort.

 

"Cow-quarium"

(Austin downtown art-cow collection)

Danger, A/E/C Marketer! Danger!

As I mentioned in my post of March 16 regarding validation, I have been reading the A/E/C marketing bible, Weld Coxe's "Marketing Architectural and Engineering Services." For the most part, I have been amazed at his insights, and at how much of what he wrote in 1983 and 1990 about A/E/C marketing is still true and important.

But I have to take issue with one of his observations that I believe is not only incorrect, but can be dangerous to an A/E/C firm's success.

On page 95, in a discussion of "The Qualifications Paperwork Process" as part of the overall proposal process, Coxe says:

"...the real purpose of the documents submitted at this stage of the business development process is to get an interview, not to get the job."

On page 110, he continues:

"The primary purpose of the transmittal letter is to get on the short list. The job getting comes later."

My own experience says this should not be so. I offer two examples:

When I worked in a branch office of a major national A/E firm in the 1990s, the senior principal brought me an RFP and said, "There will be multiple projects coming out of this, so the short-list will be pretty extensive. Don't go all out. Just get me in the top 10."

I followed his instructions, did what I thought was good work, but didn't totally immerse myself in that effort. In other words, I didn't do my absolute best work. Our submittal came in at #8. But the client decided to short-list only seven firms.

The lesson: if you're making the effort to compete, ALWAYS compete to win!

The same firm had a project for a large urban public transit agency. Phase 1 included the initial planning and conceptual design. Phase 2 included detailed design and CM services.

Just before the end of Phase 1, the client decided to release a new RFQ for Phase 2 (as a separate project), thinking this might bring more minority firms to their project mix. Our senior principal decided that Phase 2 was a "must win" for us, and told me, "For the next 30 days, this SOQ is the only thing you work on. If anyone asks you to do anything that will take you longer than 2 minutes, send them to me."

Over the next 30 days, I ate, drank and slept this qualifications package. I wanted us to have the psychological boost of entering the proposal stage as the firm that ranked #1 after the SOQ.

When the evaluations were completed, and the results announced, I had gotten that first place ranking. Best of all, however, the client decided that, since our SOQ had beat the second ranked firm by more than 400 points, there was no need for technical proposals, and we were awarded the Phase 2 contract on the basis of the SOQ alone.

Once again, if you're making the effort to compete, ALWAYS compete to win!

Aside from this issue, I'm now up to page 112, and I'm very glad I finally pulled this book off my shelf to read. It was about time, and very much worth it!

 

"A psy-COW-delic Crossword Puzzle"

(Austin downtown art-cow collection)

Validation is a good thing!

Just like everyone else, I get a big kick out of validation -- it's true! Especially when a book or an article by a respected expert in my field says something I tell my clients all the time. This morning, the validation came from Weld Coxe, the ultimate guru of A/E services marketing.

So what is the great advice I give my clients that I found this morning on page 77 of Coxe's "Marketing Architectural and Engineering Services"?

"...the energy that is spent putting together long-shot proposals... detracts from the kind of maximum energy that should be applied toward the ones you really can win."

I have had a number of clients who subscribed to the theory, "shoot at everything that moves!" This philosophy helped them justify submitting on every RFQ and RFP they found, even if:

• they've never heard of the client and the client never heard of them;
• they don't have any similar projects in their portfolio, but they think the project would be "interesting" or "fun" to work on;
• they don't have any real capabilities in the required technical discipline(s);
• they don't have a viable project manager to propose;
• they know they have absolutely no chance of being short-listed, much less selected; and finally
• spending time on this submittal jeopardizes the success of one or more other submittals which they are currently preparing.

In an informal SMPS Listserve post a few years back, I asked anyone whose firm had a hit rate of 60% or higher to drop me a line and tell me why. Frankly, I didn't expect that there would be a lot of firms with hit rates this high, so I wasn't worried about the time it would take to read and digest the information.

I received 13 responses, and they all said basically the same thing:

"We have a hit rate greater than 60% because we NEVER submit on something we know we're going to lose unless there is a strategic reason to do so."

One of the most logical "hit rates" to track is projects won vs. competitive submittals. Just keep in mind that every time you submit on an opportunity for which you have no real qualifications or relationship, you drop your hit rate. So if your marketing staff's performance evaluation is going to be based on its "hit rate" for competitive proposals, does it make sense to assign staff and resources to something you know you can't win?

(Here comes my soapbox!) This is why you need to have a strong "Go/No Go" evaluation process to help take the "ego" out of "Go/No Go" decisions, along with strong and loud support from your firm's top leaders that make use of such a process an absolute requirement for every pursuit.

I am convinced that strong decision-making processes and equally strong senior-level support for their use are important keys to allocating scarce human resources (marketing and technical staff hours) to pursuit efforts and, ultimately, to successful A/E marketing. And I was really happy this morning to find that Coxe spoke much the same way I do on this subject.

 

"Batsy at Twilight"

(Austin downtown art-cow collection)

Better than the competition

Many marketers in the A/E industry refer to Weld Coxe, Hon. AIA, as "the father of A/E marketing." In 1983, Coxe published "Marketing Architectural and Engineering Services," which came to be recognized as the A/E marketing "bible." In 1990, the second edition of the book was published.

Now skip forward to 2012. I am FINALLY getting around to reading this book! And while I do take issue with some of what Coxe wrote almost 30 years ago (which is probably no surprise to my readers), I do think that most of his analyses, concepts and recommendations are as correct and relevant today as they were when the book was first published.

In the first 50 pages (that's what I have read so far), one of the ideas I like most, and find myself agreeing strongly with, is the following:

"There is always room... for somone [who is] providing something better than the competition."

This would seem like an absolute "no-brainer," but we have to keep in mind that whatever we say is "better" must be "better" from the client's standpoint. Too often, we make the mistake of presenting features that WE value that lead to benefits WE think are important, when we need to be presenting features and benefits THE CLIENT will value and think are important.

In the typical public sector A/E selection process, the client has three specific questions for which the A/E firm/team must be able to provide credible and supportable answers -- and those answers must be meaningful to the client. The three question are:

1. What projects have you done lately that are similar to mine?
2. What does your firm do that no other A/E firm does?
3. What does your firm do better than any other A/E firm?

If you can answer these three questions to the client's satisfaction, and provide compelling evidence that the client understands and values, you will be well on your way to making the short list. For example:

1. When you tell a client that you have just finished designing a building of similar size, scope and end use to his or her current project, you are answering question #1.
2. When you tell a client about a proprietary software you have developed that aids your technical folks in analyzing or designing some critical aspect of this type of facility, and that no other firm or team is licensed to use this product, you are answering question #2.
3. When you show letters from clients stating how much they enjoyed the experience of working with you, and point to your Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, making the case that you can provide better client service than other firms/teams, you are answering question #3.

CAUTION: In stating that you do something no other firm does, make sure this capability is truly unique to your firm. When stating that you do something better than any other firm, make sure your client testimonials are solid and their project contacts will give you stellar recommendations.

 

If any other firm makes the same claims in their proposal, and can support those claims, it can do serious damage to your credibility.

 

"The Ol' Cowskin"

(downtown Austin art-cow collection)

 

Changing my mindset

A few years ago, I joined Facebook. I created personal and company pages to connect with family and friends AND to promote my business. But I couldn't make the two pages do what I wanted; there were so many worthless items appearing that other people had written.

For example, one night, a contact in Dallas made four posts just before 11pm about the fact that he was tired and was wondering whether he should go to bed. These four posts showed up on my business page, accompanied by 15+ comments from HIS friends urging him to go to bed if he was that tired.

And I couldn't figure out how to delete individual items, so I ended up deleting people as fast as I was adding them. I finally decided that Facebook had insufficient value for me to put up with the frustration it caused me, so I deleted both pages.

I never did anything with Twitter. I didn't think I had much to say that would interest many other people, and I didn't think I had the time to follow a bunch of other people and/or companies. I didn't see that any value could be packed into 140 characters.

On the other hand, I have been an active LinkedIn user for many years. I keep my profile updated and spend time every week looking at questions and answering those where I have more to say than just "me too!" I congratulate people on promotions, keep up with folks who change jobs, and offer help where I can. And I look at new people who have joined to find those I already know, or with whom I have many connections, to expand my own list of connections.

Opportunities have come my way through LinkedIn, and I have reconnected there with people when emails to them bounced back because they had changed jobs. I have made some solid business connections and friends with whom I regularly interact online and on the phone.

I often ask other marketing professionals about their A/E or related firms' use of Facebook and Twitter. They all said they couldn't tie specific new sales or clients to either outlet. They said they were using those tools "because everyone else is," and we would laugh.

I thought that using a service because everyone else is, even though one couldn't identify real benefits from using the service, was a bit like 25+ years ago, when we all still used Yellow Pages advertising. It told our competitors that we were still in business but didn't often result in new clients or business.

I've changed my mind -- and my mindset!

After all, marketing is about tomorrow -- who we will work with/for tomorrow, what we will work on tomorrow, what we will bill time to tomorrow. Therefore, marketing leaders have to be concerned with what technology we will use tomorrow. We need to get, and stay, ahead of the curve on relevant technologies.

So I'm embarking on a course of self-education about all the technologies I've pooh-pooh'ed and ignored. I owe it to myself, my clients, and anyone in my industry who thinks I have anything of value to say. By the time I'm done, I expect to be using Facebook, Twitter and other tools I discover along my journey.

That's my resolution for 2012 - a few weeks late perhaps, but it doesn't matter when I catch up as long as I DO catch up!

Missed opportunities

Over the last 20 years, I've received a lot of phone calls from A/E industry recruiters. The calls were sometimes about low- to mid-level marketing positions, but most often were about engineering or architectural positions in which I had neither qualifications nor interest. Once that was established, the recruiter almost always asked me I knew of anyone else who might be interested.

My stock answer was something to the effect that I saw no reason why I should do their job while they collected the commission. (I thought that I was being very smart!)

Now, I'm reading a book called "Never Eat Alone," by Keith Ferrazzi. On pp.132 and 133, Ferrazzi says, "Headhunters are professional matchmakers... I return every call from them, helping to tap my network to find people for their jobs. I know they'll help me with access to some of their clients when I need their help. After all, they are in the networking business."

Now, 20 years later and, I hope, 20 years smarter, I know that my standard answer to those recruiters was not smart, but merely "smartass!"

Now, after a long and (mostly) successful career as an A/E/C/environmental industry marketing professional,  I know that successful networking starts with giving, with helping others, and that you can only ask for favors after you have created the relationship -- you have to give before you can get.

So I have to wonder how differently my three job searches over the last 12 years might have turned out if I hadn't been such a smartass... if I had developed solid, respectful relationships with a few successful recruiters... if I had understood 20 years ago that "what's in it for me?" is not always the best attitude with which to build a relationship.

Would I be just where I am now? Would I be working at my dream job at my dream firm? Would my company, The Siben Consult, LLC, have have a staff of five or six people and need to turn away work for lack of bodies to execute projects?

There's no way to know.

But I do wonder.

 

 

 

                                    "Remember the Alamoo!"

                                    (downtown Austin art-cow collection)

Efficient and ineffective

There are a great many people who think that the words "effective" and "efficient" are interchangeable -- that they mean the same thing. But this is not the case.

I have on occasion explained to a person or group that being effective means doing the right thing, while being efficient means doing the thing right (i.e. in the correct manner). Often, the person to whom I offered this explanation will look at me like I've grown another head!

Anyway, I've just started reading "Never Eat Alone" by Keith Ferrazzi (with Tahl Raz). On page 44, Ferrazzi observes that "Too often, we get caught up efficiently doing ineffective things..." Many of us spend hours painstakingly following a complicated process, getting every step right, without ever considering that we might have chosen the wrong process to follow or the wrong outcome to pursue.

Obviously, we should want to make sure we are doing the right thing before worrying about how to do it right.

And here's a somewhat philosophical question to ponder: if you chose the wrong thing to do, does it really matter how well you did it?

Of course, growing a second head might enable me to be both more effective AND more efficient, that that's another post altogether!

It is, however, always nice to have one's thoughts validated by others.

Words of praise

First of all, I hope all my readers had a wonderful and safe Christmas holiday, and that we'll all have an equally great and safe New Year's Eve.

Now, on to today's thought.

When I was a youngster, my mother thought the sun rose on my left shoulder and set on my right. And she frequently praised even my smallest, least important efforts. But praise in one's professional life is generally harder to come by.

I wrote an article for the September issue of CE News ("So you want to be a project manager?"). I received some emails with feedback about the article, and was pleased that some readers had found enough value in my writing to contact me with their comments. I was so tickled by the emails that I forwarded them to the magazine's editor. I thought it ended there.

This afternoon, I finally found some time to catch up on my reading, and picked up the November issue of CE News. At the top of page 10, I discovered two of those emails - the editor had elected to publish them as "Letters." Finding those two letters in the magazine was as big a charge as seeing my article in the first place!

I just wanted to take this opportunity to point out this article to any of my readers who might not usually see CE News, and to brag just a little about the letters of praise.

AND to let you know that I have another article in the December CE News. That article is about strategic marketing.

Happy New Year!