BuiltEnvironment

Sharing knowledge

I've heard it said that you learn (or re-learn) something best when you have to teach it to others. So I try to teach as often as the opportunity arises. In fact, my desire to share knowledge is such that my answers are often way more detailed than the questioner ever wanted!

So far this year, I've had three opportunities to conduct professional workshops, requiring quite a bit of travel.

In late February, I went to Anchorage, Alaska, where I conducted two half-day workshops at the Alaska Surveying and Mapping Conference. In the morning, I did my "Who's Afraid of Marketing?" for the 17th time. I love doing this workshop. It's designed for senior technical folks -- project manager and higher -- who fear marketing as an "unknown" because they don't know they do it every day. In the afternoon, I did my new "RFQs/RFPs -- Writing and Responding" for the first time. This session focuses on the required components of a solicitation and the various ways to respond to them. It also touches on the ethical dilemma of whether or not to write an RFQ or RFP for which only the writer's firm can make a fully responsive submittal.

In mid-April I had two speaking engagements -- one in California and the other in Florida. At Lake Tahoe, I spoke to CELSOC, the Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California, presenting a shorter version of "Who's Afraid of Marketing?". A week later I was at the ZweigWhite 2008 Marketing Now Summit in Coral Gables, where I presented a new workshop on how an A/E firm's marketing staff might be impacted by the firm's implementation of an "integrated services" method of service delivery.

One of these opportunities paid a fee plus travel, lodging and miscellaneous expenses; one paid for travel and lodging; and one gave me only a free conference registration. It didn't matter. The combined opportunities to teach and to learn are always worth it for me.

These are great opportunities to talk about a wide range of "how to's" related to marketing A/E, planning, surveying, environmental and construction phase services. They showcase me and my firm and bring me additional opportunities to teach, write and consult. But the best part is the exchange -- the "question and answer" section at the end of each workshop, where I get to defend my ideas, which helps me make sure they are still relevant, or that I've struck the right chord in developing a new presentation.

I learn more in these "teaching" sessions than in anything else I do. If  you and your firm would like to give me an opportunity to learn by teaching, call me at 559.901.9596 or contact me at bernie@sibenconsult.com. I'll be happy to chat with you about how I can deliver the kind(s) of workshops you want to provide for your staff.

Tom Peters and Me

For a few years now, I have been sharing this mantra with clients and workshops: the quality of the work experience can be a bigger differentiator than the quality of the work product.

Some people get it. But a lot of them don't seem to understand what I'm saying.

So imagine the rush of pleasure I got the other day when I read the same thought in chapter 3 of "design," by Tom Peters. "design" is part of a 4-book group called the Essentials Series. I've already read "leadership" and "talent," and found them both enjoyable reads full of valuable insignts. But neither gave me the warm fuzzies that I got from chapter 3 of "design."

Essentially, it comes down to this:

Think of any service your firm performs, and let's assume you do high-quality work. The quality of your work differentiates you from other firms that don't produce the same high-quality product.

Now, it is pretty much a "given" that there will be at least one other firm in your market that provides the same service at a similar level of quality as your firm -- perhaps at the same price or better -- perhaps on the same schedule or faster. What differentiates your firm from that other firm?

What makes your firm the obvious selection in a market where two or three firms can provide the same work product at the same quality for the same price in the same timeframe? The difference lies in the quality of the work experience. Are you more fun to work with than another firm? Do you give your clients a stronger sense of "all bases are covered, you can sleep nights while we're on the job!"?

That's a very powerful differentiator!

It's always nice to find an idea that I've been "pushing" in the work of someone I respect. Professional validation is a wonderful thing. But finding such an idea in a Tom Peters book was a very special bonus for me. I'm hoping it will be a powerful motivator for me as well.

The Wrong Stuff - part 3

This is the 3rd in a series of items about some of the marketing actions A/E/P/CM/Environmental firms take that are most often a waste of staff time and other resources.

Chasing Strangers

How many times has one of your firm's principals elected to respond to an RFQ or RFP issued by a client nobody in the company had ever spoken with? perhaps a client nobody in the company had ever heard of?

I bet this sounds all too familiar to every marketer in every marketing department of every A, E, P, CM, Environmental or multi-service firm there is. We look at these choices about how to commit our staff time and other resources, and we shake our heads. We have to wonder if the person who made the choice is just "shooting at everything that moves" because he's desperate for to win a new project and thinks this is the way to get one.

One alternative is that your decision maker truly believes your unknown firm has a chance of winning the project even though the client probably has an incumbent and five or six other firms that have been visiting and courting him for a while.

A second alternative is that the decision maker wants to "put your name in front of a new potential client" and thinks this is a good way to do this. I know we've all heard this one befo0re.

But this can be dangerous! If a prospective client has issued an RFQ or RFP, submitting a document that is either non-responsive or a weak response is a waste of the client's time. And since , a selection process adds to the client's workload -- his other work doesn't just go away -- he has even less time to waste than usual. Branding your firm as a non-responsive time-waster is probably not the first impression you want to make.

A better approach is to wait until the selection is made, assemble an SOQ, visit the client and talk with him about what your firm really CAN do for them. Communicate that you didn't submit on his RFQ or RFP because you didn't want to waste his time with a non-responsive submittal (perhaps your major services are not what he was looking for at the time, but could truly bring him value on other projects). Such a truth can help you establish your credibility and integrity.

People give work to people they know, like and trust. They only give work to a stranger as a last resort. The concept of "best value" has made this easy even in the public sector, as the value of the relationship (previously a subjective input) can now get objective points in the ranking of responses.

So what's the answer? We've all said it before, so let's all say it together:

Pursue the client, not the project.

Business Acquisition

This morning, on the SMPS member and CPSM listserves, I started (what I hope will develop into) a discussion of how to define business development (BD) and marketing.

Some people say BD is all the client interaction up to the opportunity to submit an SOQ or a technical proposal and marketing begins when you start developing a submittal. Others say that marketing is all the client interaction up to the opportunity to submit an SOQ or technical proposal and BD begins when you start developing a submittal. Still others separate the writing of SOQs and proposals from both BD and marketing, and give these writer folks their own department!

I think that a lot of industry interaction, among marketers and between marketers and technical folks, would be easier if there were agreed-upon definitions for these two terms that were accepted throughout the industry. But that's not the whole answer either.

Many folks, particularly BD folks, believe that BD must lead the effort with marketing in a support role. Others, particularly marketers, believe that marketing should lead the effort. Personally, I don't think it matters which one leads, nor does it matter what you call the leader or the department. As long as that leader has a good appreciation for both sets of skills and activities.

What we have to remember is that BD and marketing are merely two components of a larger activity. They, along with proposal/SOQ writing, public relations, client relationship management and other activities, are all parts of the overall process of Business Acquisition. And business acquisition is what it's all about.

It doesn't matter whether your involvement is in finding and opening doors, building relationships with potential and existing clients, writing technical proposals and qualifications packages, developing the short-list presentations, making the presentations, attending trade shows and technical conferences, writing articles and press releases, working on public involvement activities, building relationships with the press, or any combination of these and related activities. It is all part of how your firm acquires business.

Every activity that helps your firm acquire business has equal importance and needs to have equal recognition within the firm.

The Wrong Stuff!

This is the second in a series of items about some of the marketing actions A/E/P/CM/Environmental firms take that are most often a waste of staff time and other resources.

No Plan? No Way!

Your firm is chasing every solicitation it learns about. It doesn't matter what kind of work, or what kind of facility, or what kind of client.

You have a "Go/No Go" process, and sometimes your senior folks actually follow it. But you lack a major tool which would make your "Go/No Go" process truly efficient:  a PLAN!

The "Go/No Go" process is designed to help you say "no" when "no" is the appropriate answer. The hard part is determining when "no" is the appropriate answer. With a Strategic Plan, Marketing Plan and/or Business Plan, this determination is much easier.

For example, when the project's primary disciplines are of a type you would have to subcontract, the facility is a type you've never designed, and/or the client is one you have identified as not wanting to pursue, you can say "no" because the solicitation goes counter to your strategic plan. This solicitation may be a great opportunity for someone, but that someone is not you.

Moreover, since a good Strategic Plan helps you define "who" your company is, what it does and where it is going, it also gives you strong clues about what type of work you should be pursuing, for what type of facility and for what type of client. These items say a lot about where to look for solicitations that are truly opportunities for you.

Knowing where to aim is very important; but sometimes, knowing where not to aim can be as important. How to recognize what is an effective and efficient use of your limited staff/financial resources is one of the most important lessons you can learn as you move up the marketing and corporate ladders.

In general, it costs less to develop a Strategic Plan than it does to write one moderate-sized proposal. But over time, the investment in a Plan has a much bigger payoff than almost anything you can do for your business.

The Wrong Stuff!

This is the first in a series of items about some of the marketing actions A/E/P/CM/Environmental firms take that are most often a waste of staff time and other resources.

No "Go/No Go"?

Do your senior folks say "yes" to every solicitation they find in the newspaper or online, or to every potential project they hear about?

I hope all marketers know that, while every solicitation is an opportunity for some firm, NOT every solicitation is an opportunity for your firm. Do your senior folks get this? Do you?

A Rocky Mountain States engineering firm recently went through a "Go/No Go" process regarding an opportunity with their State Department of Transportation. The first few questions were answered as follows:

Do we have a current or recent relationship with this client? -- NO

Has the firm done this kind of work before? -- NO - not as a prime

Did we know about the RFP before its release? -- NO

To top this off, while refusing to visit or call to get the RFP, the office manager insisted that they could turn this DOT into a strategic client of that office.

In another instance, a department manager answered these questions:

Do we have a current or recent relationship with this client? -- NO

Did we know about the RFP before its release? -- NO

Is there adequate budget to build the project -- NO

Can we make money on this project? -- NO

If we can't make a profit, is there a strategic reason to pursue this? -- NO

But the department manager had an ethical dilemma with a "No Go" decision. He interpreted it as "choosing not to help someone." Therefore, no matter how many times he answered "NO" on the form, he said "yes" to every RFP he heard about.

The real purpose of a "Go/No Go" process is to assemble all the information you need to make a good decision, and to then help you say "No" when "No" is the appropriate answer.

In both cases presented above, the wrong person was making the "Go/No Go" decision. And in both cases, the bottom line is, "why should a firm take the time to develop processes if nobody has to implement them?"

The next BIG presentation tool?

A recent online message said "I'm tired of using PowerPoint... what's the next big presentation tool we can use in our industry?"  Here's what I think --

When you prepare an SOQ or a proposal, you demonstrate your technical qualifications to do the work, including the training and experience of your staff and the projects your firm has completed. When you get a letter saying you've made the short list and inviting you to make a presentation, the client is saying "we've decided you're qualified; now we have to figure out if we want to work with you."

Therefore, other than information specifically requested in the short-list letter, the presentation has little to do with technical competence, and everything to do with the "fit" of the personalities of your project team members with the client's relevant staff.

How does the client determine whether this "fit" is good? They put people together in a room and let them interact. They talk with each other. Someone asks questions and someone else answers. People watch each other's body language for the more than half of all communications that is non-verbal in nature. Over the course of the session, the client determines which of the short-listed teams will make for more of a fun experience than any of the others. That's who gets the job.

And PowerPoint pretty much gets in the way of this determination. It's hard for a client to assess who will be great to work with when everyone in the room is looking at the slides on the wall, presenters are speaking "at" the client's staff rather than "with" them, and there is very little real interaction until the Q&A section at the end.

How do I know that the most important thing to the client is the interaction, the relationship, the "fun" quotient? Well, in the last few years, I have seen a number of short-list letters specifically stating that a PowerPoint presentation will not be allowed. Many clients have actually said that the quality of the work experience is as important to them as the quality of the work product.

So much for differentiation based on technical capabilities!

In addition, clients want to hear from the project manager and technical staff, not the principal whom they will rarely see during the actual project. They want their staff to interact with the people who will actually do the work and be in project meetings on a day-to-day basis.

Therefore, the next BIG presentation tool will be HUMAN BEINGS!!

What does this mean for the typical planning and design firm? It means that they have to promote or hire project managers for their management and communication skills, and for their ability to "connect" with the clients.  Firms can no longer afford project managers who think they are simply the most senior designer on the team. As a land development client recently told 175 staff members of a California A/E firm, "if you're designing my project, you're not managing it!"

However, the next big presentation tool will not be just any human beings. It will be those who can stand up in front of a room -- calmly, comfortably -- make eye contact with the listeners, and speak clearly and confidently in a well-modulated voice. These people will not only be experienced speakers, but speakers who have had sufficient rehearsal of the current presentation that they are in control of both the material and the meeting.

For many years, firms have been saying that their employees are their biggest/best asset. This is now more true than ever.

Be Fair to the Little Guy

A client called last Thursday asking for help with a public agency request for qualifications, starting with a detailed review of the RFQ and a Go/No Go decision. The client had allowed 18 calendar days from RFQ release date to due date, and asked for the following information:

1.  A statement of interest for providing on-call, as-needed A/E services for minor construction, repair and renovation projects, including the prime firm's unique qualifications pertaining to task orders; a statement of availability and commitment of the prime, its principals and professionals to the project; a brief history of the prime firm and each subconsultant; a graphic representation of the team (org chart); and a completed SF254 (later amended to allow a completed SF330).

2.  Information on Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) status -- minority- and women-owned firms -- of the prime and other team member firms.

3.  Information on the prime firm, including name, address, years in business, type of operation, number of employees by skill group, and average revenues for the past 10 years; resumes of key project staff including experience with task ordeers, years with firm and city of residence; proposed assignments and lines of authority/communication for principals and key professional staff (another org chart); identification of members of the proposed team who worked on projects presented in the Experience section; firm financial statements for the past two years; documentation of financial stability; information on potential sale of or acquisitions by the company; details of past or pending litigation; information on any current or previous defaults on loans or financing agreements; and a 5-year claims history under professional malpractice insurance.

4.  The same information as item 3 (above) for each of the subconsultant firms, plus information on how members of other firms would be integrated into the team; resumes of key staff; a graphic description of assignments and lines of communication (more org charts); basis for selection of that firm for the team; prime's process for working with subconsultants and integrating them into the design process.

5.  Prime's past performance on projects for similar facilities within the last 5 years including project name, location, contract delivery method and description; initial and final construction and total task order costs; project size in gross square feet; type of construction; start and finish dates for design; notice to proceed and substantial completion dates for construction; description of the professional services provided; name of project manager and project architect; list of all project consultants. Past performance was to be evaluated based on accuracy and quality of cost estimates; design to and control of program scope within budget during schematic, design development and construction documents phases; effective management and tracking of schedules; provision of accurate, complete and coordinated plans and specifications; effective management of change orders and claims.

6.  Representative projects -- three projects involving similar scopes of services, regardless of facility or client type, including all of the information required in Item 5 above; three projects that won awards for design excellence with descriptive information; color images of all projects described in this section.

7.  An explanation of how the prime intends to make sure any project under this on-call contract will comply with the Facility Master Plan and incorporate the requirements of the client's design standards for the project.

8.  Best practices -- using specific examples from three projects described earlier -- related to quality assurance proceedures; the owner's specific system design and construction standards; the prime's service support philosophy; the types of records, reports, monitoring systems and information management systems the prime uses to manage projects; cost control methods for the design and construction phases; ensuring continuity of project objectives from design solutions, to construction documents, to the actual construction project; assurance of timely completion, including methods for schedule recovery if needed; a section based on a review of the draft agreement stating which services the prime considers a part of Basic Services and which would be considered Additional Services.

9.  Problem identification and resolution -- describe your understanding of the administrative, physical and aesthetic challenges and opportunities and your strategy for resolving these issues; what are the critical issues for task orders; using any three projects described earlier, discuss conflicts with owner, consultants, contractor or subcontractors, and described methods used to resolve the confloicts.

10.  References -- owner's name, representative and phone number; contractor's name, representative and phone number; length of business relationship and background information of project (year of project, summary of services performed, etc.).

Responses were limited to 100 pages plus SF254 or SF330 and HUB documents.

For the average small firm, which probably does not track all of this information, and which certainly does not have any fancy response preparation software, is this not just a bit excessive?

I had to recommend that this was not an appropriate pursuit, even though the client was perfectly suited to undertake and successfully complete the assignments envisioned under the contract. The submittal would require more time (his and mine) than he anticipated because he didn't track the required data in any purposeful, organized form. Every piece of data would have to be researched separately.

If he wanted to make this a strategic client, pursuing multiple projects for them each year, he could spread the development costs over multiple opportunities. However, the actual expense would all fall under the current pursuit, and he would have to come up with a big time commitment and a pay a big fee to develop this first submittal.

I understand that there are numerous systems out there today to track this information, many of which are not that expensive. The data can even be tracked using Word templates or Excel spreadsheets, softwares which everyone already has in their offices.

But many DBE, MBE, WBE, 8(a), DVBE and other small firms do the majority of their projects as a subconsultant and rarely think ahead to the time when they will submit as the prime and need this depth of information.

Wouldn't it be more fair if, when public agencies issue RFQs and RFPs for smaller programs and projects, where they anticipate that smaller firms will compete and win the work, they would cut these small firms some slack and only ask for information that is truly required for selection?

Mentoring - benefit #3

When most of us think of "mentoring," the benefits that come immediately to mind are those accruing to both the protege and the mentor.

We know that the protege learns very useful information, about the firm, about the industry, about processes and procedures, about him/herself and other things. And we know that the mentor gets to sharpen knowledge that has perhaps become dull over the years -- it is a proven fact that teaching is one of the best ways to learn (or relearn) something.

And certainly staff members -- of any age and at any level of experience -- who have their knowledge and skills sharpened are a good asset for any company. But there's another benefit that accrues to the company -- a benefit which might be more important than those derived second-hand from benefits to the protete and/or the mentor.

Mentoring is a great way for the company to preserve and revitalize "institutional knowledge."

When someone retires, passes away or takes a new position elsewhere, the company generally loses the knowledge that was stored in that person's head. It's a shame, but it's also a fact of business life. However, a mentor/protege program -- whether formal or informal -- can mitigate that loss. It doesn't matter whether the knowledege is factual or anecdotal; it is of vital -- often critical -- importance that the firm retain that knowledge.

If all of your senior technical staff take junior members under their wing -- talk to them about why processes and procedures are the way they are; tell them about what was tried and why it succeeded or failed; give them knowledge of what the client for each project likes and dislikes; teach them how the firm, the industry and the business world work; and guide their acquisition of new knowledge that would be relevant to their jobs and their imagined futures -- then much of that institutional knowledge will be passed on to the next generation of leaders before the senior members depart.

It may turn out that very few things are as important to the firm as this!

Who's Afraid of Marketing?

In my many years of life, one thing I have learned with certainty is that nothing is common sense until the first time someone tells it to you.

In the last year I have given my "Who's Afraid of Marketing?" workshop to 10 audiences of varying size. Some have been internal (within my employer's company) groups; others have been professional organization groups. All of the groups were mostly technical people.

While all teachers learn from their students, I have been amazed and disappointed to learn the following:

• Everybody had a business card, frequently giving it to people they met and introducing themselves. Nobody knew that giving away business cards and introducing themselves was marketing.
• Many attendees had never heard of an "elevator speech" and those who had were unsure of its components. Some had given one without realizing it. Nobody knew that the "elevator speech" was a marketing tool.
• Most were sort of "iffy" about the need to return calls to clients within a reasonable period of time (hopefully, less than half a day). Nobody knew that returning these calls could be a marketing task.
• Most had, at some point, remarked to a client, "We're almost through with this project; what's next?" Nobody knew that asking this question was a marketing task.
• Everyone said they had done good work on a project. Nobody had made the connection that doing good work could position your firm for the next project, and was therefore a marketing tool.

It seems very strange to me that someone would teach a "newby" to present a business card and introduce himself but not explain the reason for the action, or its value. Or that someone would teach that same "newby" any of the other four items listed above with no explanation of its marketing nature and value.

Perhaps marketing departments have a much greater role to play than simply writing SOQs and proposals. Perhaps marketing departments really exist to teach the technical folks "what it's all about" if they want to have new projects when they finish what's on their desks today.