BuiltEnvironment

Take your training with a grain of salt

There are a number of organizations out there offering A/E/C industry business development and proposal management training. All of these firms have brochures which proclaim that hundreds of A/E/C firms have sent thousands of marketing and other staff members through the training.

I have actually taken one of these multi-day courses and had the opportunity to review the printed materials of two other courses. All three were thick binders with hundreds of pages of text, tables and graphics.

Each offering purports to be "the system" everyone is now using, so each one must be the best system! Right?

For many years, I received emails and printed advertisements for these courses. I deleted or trashed all of them, mostly because I didn't want to do "what everybody else was doing."

Then one day, I got another advertisement in the mail, a large brochure with a detailed course outline, a list of firms that had sent people to the course, and quotes from satisfied customers. Many of those firms were A/E/C firms I knew and respected. So I read and reread the brochure and gave it serious consideration.

I thought to myself,

"The A/E/C industry talks a lot about differentiation today. How can I avoid doing what everyone else is doing if I don't take one of these courses and LEARN what everyone else is learning?"

I didn't have to implement everything that was taught, right? But I did need to know what everyone else was learning.

So I signed up for the next available course, made travel and hotel reservations, and went off to learn "the system."

It was a very instructive two days. There were about 30 people in the class, some from firms I knew or had heard of, and one who was a previous employee of my current firm. We learned system, we learned method, we learned tricks, we learned tips, we learned pitfalls, and we learned the abbreviations unique to that organization's "system."

(You can often tell which course someone has taken by the specific abbreviations he or she uses.)

The instructor was really good. He had many years of experience in A/E/C marketing, and had taught the course before. He covered the materials without going too fast for us to absorb the ideas and left enough time for questions. He was serious when necessary and funny when appropriate. He shared all the information he had. He answered every question we threw at him, regarding both the course materials and our individual experience with proposals. All of his responses hit the mark. He really knew his stuff.

At the end of the course, I felt I had acquired some valuable new information (about 20% of the material). Some of the remainder was information I already knew or processes I deemed inferior to my own. Most important, though, I had some great insights on what not to do because everyone else was doing it.

You can't differentiate yourself by being just like everyone else. And if you learn and use the same system as everyone else, you end up with a product just like everyone else's. But the firms with high win rates achieve them by doing something the rest of the crowd is not doing.

Do these courses really have value?

For me, the answer is "Yes . . . and No."

So I recommend that everyone who takes one of these courses take the materials with a grain of salt--take what you think is good and add it to your process, or if appropriate, fix your process. And let the rest of it sit on the shelf with the workbook.

 

"Guitar" in front of Frost Bank

(Austin downtown art)

Finding your TRUE differentiator

Shameless plug: I am a big fan of Hinge - their webinars, their LinkedIn group (Professional Services Executive Forum), their smart people and, most of all, their research and free publications.

I have been reading a recent Hinge publication called "Differentiation Guide for Professional Services Firms." In Chapter 1, "Understanding Differentiation for Professional Services," the book cites three rules of brand differentiation:

1.  Your differentiator must be true - you can't just make it up.

2.  It must be important to your client - your client must care about that difference.

3.  It must be supportable - you must be able to prove it.

I think these three criteria are all well and good, but they reminded me of a concept I learned in a college economics class: "necessary but not sufficient."

While three three criteria are definitely necessary in establishing your firm's differentiator(s), I am convinced that there needs to be a fourth criterion:

4.  Your differentiator must be unique - it can't be something many other firms can claim.

Let's say it is true that your firm has capabilities in GPS, GIS and BIM, and that all three technical capabilities can be integrated for a specific project. This is admirable. Let's also say that the ability to integrate these capabilities is important to your client. And finally, you can support the claim by providing the version of each software you use and how they interact.

But if another firm, much less many other firms, can also make this claim, it is a positive attribute, but not a true differentiator. In such a case, integrating these three capabilities makes you tech-savvy, but it doesn't make you different from other firms.

Although I hesitate to state the obvious, your true differentiators are things no other firm or team can say. So look at your list of what you think makes your firm/team different from the others and cross out any item that can be said by them. What's left (and, hopefully, there IS something left) is what makes you different.

The problem with all of this is the word "unique." Lots of firms have a place in their proposals where they describe what is unique about their firm, their team, their approach, etc. But take a random look at any 10 proposals in response to the same solicitation, and their lists of what makes them unique will have many of the same elements.

Unfortunately, many of us have come to believe that "unique" merely means "special," and refers to an attribute that would put us in a very small class of individuals or firms.

However, the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, which is located at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary, defines "unique" as "unlike anything or anyone else," "being the only one" or "being without a like or equal."

And since the same source defines a differentiator as something that makes an individual or firm different, any attribute on your list that is also on another firm's list can hardly be considered a differentiator.

You may be able to put limits or boundaries on your claim. For example, if proximity is an important criterion for the client and you are the largest firm with appropriate technical credentials headquartered in the client's city, that might be a differentiator for that client.

If the client is a small city doing a transit project that has both state and federal funding, your firm's focus on transit projects, experience with relevant state and federal agencies, and portfolio of successful projects responding to the regulations of multiple agencies might combine to make a powerful differentiator for that client.

But the bottom line is that if you can only claim to be like other firms, you have not given the client a reason to remember, much less select, your firm or team. The client needs to know what he/she gets by selecting you that WILL NOT accrue if another firm/team is selected.

Be sure that your list of differentiators actually makes you different from your competitors and not just like them.

"Cowbella and Friend"

(Austin downtown art cow collection)

 

How to schedule SOQ/proposal development

 

I am often asked about setting up a schedule for development of a proposal or SOQ. I believe there are two reasons why establishing such a schedule is so difficult.

1. The wrong person is often in charge; and/or
2. The right person often lacks the authority and support needed to succeed.

After 30 years on the marketing side of the A/E/C industry, I still believe that a marketing person must lead the effort. A technical person--whether a principal, project manager or other--can be effective as client manager or advocate, but they are too focused on billable hours to lead a non-billable effort.

However, the project principal must make it clear to the proposal team that the proposal manager speaks with his (the principal's) authority as regards the proposal. Otherwise, people don't worry about their assignments and deadlines, regardless of their commitment, because they believe that "billable work" always comes first.

The following takes you through the proposal scheduling process, based on an article I wrote for the SMPS Dallas chapter newsletter. Use it to work backwards from the due date, adding or losing days based on the number of days available.

On October 1, you receive the RFP and a completed Go/No Go form. The proposal is due to a local agency on October 16. With a full two weeks until deadline, we plan no weekend work (I know, it never happens in real life).

Thursday, October 1 -- Develop an outline based on RFP requirements. Meet with principal to determine which technical people should participate. Invite technical folks, marketing coordinator and graphic designer to kick-off meeting tomorrow.

Friday, October 2 --At kick-off, draft the organization chart, determine win themes, identify subconsultants needed, select projects to include as relevant experience. Make writing/graphics assignments with Tuesday, October 6 as the deadline. Have principal contact subconsultants to secure their participation.

Monday, October 5 -- Assemble resumes and project descriptions. Call/email key people, describe the scope and ask about any relevant projects not yet on their resumes. Contact project managers for information required by the RFP that is not in the project descriptions. Contact subconsultants to confirm their participation and specific role(s), and tell them what information is needed and when.

Tuesday, October 6 -- Tailor resumes to RFP requirements. Complete a set of resumes for review by the principal.

Wednesday, October 7 -- Begin fleshing out the outline with text from proposal team. Standardize project descriptions so that all include the same details. Relate all information to win themes as you insert text or write new information. Begin to fill in required forms.

Thursday, October 8 --Identify information gaps in the draft and request help via face-to-face or phone conversation, or by email.

Friday, October 9 -- Draft cover letter, fill in remaining blanks, check for format and usage consistency, and distribute final draft to technical reviewers.

Monday, October 12 -- Make revisions submitted by technical reviewers. Do a final read-through, tweak document and distribute to Red Team.

Tuesday, October 13 -- Hold Red Team meeting. Reconcile differences in comments for a final master mark-up incorporating all accepted revisions/comments.

Wednesday, October 14 -- Make final revisions. Perform your own final review to catch any blanks or format glitches (font changes, text color, etc.). Compare section headings to RFP to be sure you've answered every question. Make any revisions necessary, print and assemble the required number of copies. If required, assemble the .pdf file for submittal.

Thursday, October 15 -- Spot check a few copies at random. Deliver today, one day early.

"Flowerbell"

(Austin downtown art cow collection)

It's not B2B or B2C -- It's all P2P!

It doesn't matter whether you think your product or service is offered on a business-to-business (B2B) or business-to-consumer (B2C) basis.

Think again.

No matter what product or service you provide, or the business model under which you think you operate, it's all really people-to-people (P2P).

Time and time again, we've heard the phrase "people give work to people they like." It's as true in the A/E/C business as in any other.

In the private sector, this is patently obvious. Clients give their planning, design, construction and related projects (surveying, environmental studies, etc.) to the people they like, people who have a track record of successful projects for that client and manager, people who have good relationships with the client's leaders and/or staff.

The client generally knows, as part of the initial project statement, which planner, architect, engineer or general contract he/she sees executing the project. If they want, they can give the work out that easily, with no protracted selection process, no competition.

Even when there is a competitive selection, the client's project or purchasing manager knows who they want to select before proposals are even requested.

Private sector clients can pick up a phone, call their favorite architect, engineer or general contractor, and say, "Hi there. I like the work you did on Project ABC. Please come by and talk with me about project DEF."

It's all about the client/consultant relationship.

When marketing public agencies, the same holds true.

We know that federal agencies are required by the Brooks Act (Public Law 92-582) to publicly announce project opportunities and select providers of professional services (architecture, engineering, etc.) on the basis of technical qualification rather than price.

Every state, whether by legislation or regulation, developed its own version of the Brooks Act (often called a "mini-Brooks Act"), which forms the basis of its process for selection of professional services firms. And the states have required that a similar process be developed and used by cities and counties.

Enter the concept of "best value," which was developed as a way to give objective value to subjective attributes of firms/teams pursuing projects. Think, for example, of Section G in the SF330, which was developed to allow a selection committee to give objective value (scoring points) to a team where the members have worked together on previous projects.

As you visit clients to build new, or strengthen and expand existing relationships, you talk with them about their upcoming projects. You match your capabilities to the requirements of those projects and, if you do a good job of it, you convince the client that your people are best suited to perform the project. And you do this long before the RFQ or RFP is released.

After a visit or two, the client knows that you are committed to making him/her look good, that you are committed to furthering his/her career and the agency's goals, and to giving his/her staff a great working experience on the project.

You will still have to compete for the project; you will have to make a credible effort and submit a top-quality proposal. But you will have predisposed the client to think your firm is the best match for the project and that your proposal will be better than any other submitted.

All of which will give the client objective reasons to score your proposal higher than others and select you - the consultant he likes - to do the job.

 

"Curly Q Cow"

(Austin downtown art cow collection)