BuiltEnvironment

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)