ghosting in proposals-apmp 2011-wendy frieman 6-2-11
DESCRIPTION
Sun Ze said, “You may advance and be absolutely irresistible, if you make for the enemy’s weak points.” In the proposal world, this means ghosting. Ghosting is an advanced proposal technique that we can use to influence buying decisions if we know our own strategy and have accurate information about the market, customer, and competition. This session explores when to use (and when not to use) this technique and provides the information and knowledge needed to use it effectively. The session explores the steps you need to follow throughout the business development life cycle to use ghosting in your proposal, and it emphasizes the type of competitor intelligence that supports ghosting—and how to get that intelligence. It includes sample proposal text you can use as templates for developing ghosting in your proposals.TRANSCRIPT
Ghosts or Hobgoblins?
Wendy FriemanLohfeld Consulting
@Lohfeld
2
AgendaDefiningGhosting When to Use Gates Techniques
BD Phase
Proposal phase
Post- submittal
Proposal development
Pre-proposal preparationPursuit
Opportunity ID & assessment
Capture Phase
3
Defining Ghosting
Sun Ze Shipley Frieman
Using information about the competition to win
4
Defining Ghosting
Ghosts can more visible…
…Or less visible
Ghosting to win: the context determines how visible
5
When to Ghost
• Throughout the lifecycle• Capture stages
– Solution development– Teaming– Validate ghosting ideas
Opportunity ID and assessment Pursuit Pre-proposal
preparationProposal
development Post-submittal
Capture phaseBD Phase Proposal phase
1 2 3 4 5
Ghosting to win: early is better!
6
When to Ghost, cont’d
• Proposal phase– Price proposal– Technical and management
approach– Legal and contractual approaches
Opportunity ID and assessment Pursuit Pre-proposal
preparationProposal
development Post-submittal
Capture phaseBD Phase Proposal phase
1 2 3 4 5
Ghosting to win: opportunities exist at each stage
7
CASE STUDY
Case Study: Background
• Medium-sized IT company • Bidding against incumbent that—
– has been in place for 10 years– is similar in size– has virtually no turnover for the past five years– has a rich benefits package and nice offices– staff organized into four teams– deals with the customer through four different
POCs in different offices
9
Case Study: Ghosting Options• Perceived incumbent weakness: COST
– Hire incumbents and create cost center with lower rates
– Hire less expensive labor– Do the work with fewer people
• Perceived incumbent weakness: INEFFICIENCY– All proposed staff in one location– A single point of contact
10
Ghosting Text for the Proposal• Less visible
– A single point of contact with ABC company in will result in efficient communication, less travel, and lower administrative costs.
– Collocation of all ABC personnel in one building will result in economies of scale, opportunities for cross training and knowledge sharing, and higher productivity.
Ghosting to win: subtle is usually better
11
Ghosting Text for the Proposal
• More visible– A single point of contact with ABC
company in will result in efficient communication, less travel, and lower administrative costs. With multiple POCs, the possibility for miscommunication and unnecessary duplication of effort increases dramatically
Ghosting to win: name without naming
12
SUMMARIZE
• Definition• Levels of Intensity• When in the Lifecycle Should we Ghost
13
14
Gates to Pass Through Before Ghosting
• We can win without ghosting
• We can ghost and lose
Ghosting to win: make sure we can ghost effectively
15
GATE 1: Requirements, Requirements, Requirements
16
GATE 2: Know Your Solution
17
GATE 3: Accurate Data on Your Competitor and Your Customer
18
GATE 4: Is Your Information Current?故 兵 无 常 势 , 水 无 常 形 Just as water retains no constant shape, so in warfare there are no constant conditions.
19
Let’s Apply What We Have Learned
• 10 data points provided• For each one, rate the validity of the
information on a scale of 1 to 10• 1 is relatively useless; 10 is solid and credible• Add the total number of points when we are
done
20
How Valid Is Our Information? (1)1. Someone we know overheard a phone conversation in an airport about our competitor being investigated for fraud. 2. The customer we are targeting told us he really wants us to bid when the contract is recompeted.3. A representative from our customer’s organization makes an announcement at an industry event about the date of the RFP release.
21
How Valid Is Our Information? (2)4. Our partner’s (teammate’s) employee lives next door to someone from the customer’s organization who advises us not to bid on the recompete. 5. The recently (2 months ago) retired CIO from the customer’s organization, whom we met at an industry event, told us that the contract is ours to lose.
22
How Valid Is Our Information? (3)
6. Someone from a company on our team who has a contract with the same customer says the incumbent can’t possibly lose.7. The president of our company calls and says a board member told him that the incumbent is going to cut its price by 30%.8. We find the incumbent’s current contract on the internet; it shows where they took exception to terms and conditions.
23
How Valid Is Our Information? (4)
9. We read an article in the trade press that says our competitor is on shaky financial ground and reports that its stock price has been dropping.10. Our corporate business intelligence unit tells us that we have bid against this competitor nine times and lost each time on price.
24
Lessons From This Exercise
• Mathematical abstraction• Incomplete information• Judgment calls• Context• Two Farmers
25
Getting Accurate Information
• Competition
• Customer
• SunZi
26
Principles
• Subtlety• Glass houses• Exercise restraint• Keep it simple
Ghosting to win: less is usually more
27
Techniques
• Explain tradeoffs• Emphasize discriminators• Reference third party information• Anticipating ghosting by the competition
Ghosting to win: be deliberate
28
Tradeoffs
• Our solution is the logical conclusion of a process
• Alternatives include the competitor’s approach
• Pros and cons of each alternative
Eliminate alternative approaches
29
Tradeoff Example-1
• Management approach featuring 4 distributed teams and 4 points of contact– Pros
• Direct access to an expert• Quick resolution of issues
– Cons• No integrated record of customer issues• No cross training or knowledge sharing across teams• 30% more expensive
30
Tradeoff Example-2
• Management approach featuring single location and single point of contact– Pros
• Saves 30%• Ensures accountability• Provides single record of interactions
– Cons• Single POC needs comprehensive knowledge to route
issues
Conclusion: A Single Point of Contact is Best
31
Tradeoffs-Making Them Persuasive
• Does the customer want to save money?• What other possibilities exist?• Tally up from the customer perspective
Tradeoffs: Test Against Customer Intelligence
32
Discriminators
• Excellent way to ghost• Our discriminator is a competitor’s weakness• Customer knowledge critical
Discriminators point to ghosting opportunities
33
EXAMPLE
34
Easy Formula for Using Discriminators• What is our discriminator?• What is great about it?• What is the disadvantage of not having it?
35
Third Party Information
• Our assertions can seem like hand-waving• Impartial evaluations convey credibility• Find out what sources the customer trusts• Continuous monitoring and data collection
Objective information enhances ghosting
36
Will Our Competition Ghost Us?
• Every offering has vulnerabilities• Invisible to people vested in the solution• Should be offset• Not really ghosting
Vulnerabilities should have already been addressed
37
Apply our Knowledge
Case Study: Background
• Medium-sized IT company • Bidding against incumbent that—
– has been in place for 10 years– is similar in size– has virtually no turnover for the past five years– has a rich benefits package and nice offices– staff organized into four teams– deals with the customer through four different
POCs in different offices
39
Case Study UpdatedNEW INFORMATION• 1. Per an announcement in the newspaper, the customer’s
budget has been cut by 30%.• 2. 25% of the incumbent staff has posted their resumes on
Monster.com• 3. According to someone who just retired from the customer’s
organization, where he worked closely with the program manager, the customer program manager is about to retire.
• 4. According to the incumbent company’s website, they have just won an award from the customer we are targeting for the high quality of their work.
• 5. The RFP is out.
40
Applying Our Knowledge
• Based on the information presented in the case study– 1. Do we have enough credible information to
ghost?– 2. What ghosting techniques should we use in this
scenario?
41
Summing Up
• Knowledge is key• Exercise restraint• Ghost early • Be deliberate• Ask what happens if you are wrongFor more proposal knowledge, visit www.lohfelcconsulting.com/news-knowledge/ and sign up for our Section L E-zine.