Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

41
Ghosts or Hobgoblins? Wendy Frieman Lohfeld Consulting @Lohfeld

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 of Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

Page 2: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

2

AgendaDefiningGhosting When to Use Gates Techniques

BD Phase

Proposal phase

Post- submittal

Proposal development

Pre-proposal preparationPursuit

Opportunity ID & assessment

Capture Phase

Page 3: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

3

Defining Ghosting

Sun Ze Shipley Frieman

Using information about the competition to win

Page 4: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

4

Defining Ghosting

Ghosts can more visible…

…Or less visible

Ghosting to win: the context determines how visible

Page 5: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

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!

Page 6: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

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

Page 7: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

7

CASE STUDY

Page 8: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

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

Page 9: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

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

Page 10: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

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

Page 11: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

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

Page 12: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

12

SUMMARIZE

• Definition• Levels of Intensity• When in the Lifecycle Should we Ghost

Page 13: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

13

Page 14: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

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

Page 15: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

15

GATE 1: Requirements, Requirements, Requirements

Page 16: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

16

GATE 2: Know Your Solution

Page 17: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

17

GATE 3: Accurate Data on Your Competitor and Your Customer

Page 18: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

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.

Page 19: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

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

Page 20: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

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.

Page 21: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

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.

Page 22: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

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.

Page 23: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

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.

Page 24: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

24

Lessons From This Exercise

• Mathematical abstraction• Incomplete information• Judgment calls• Context• Two Farmers

Page 25: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

25

Getting Accurate Information

• Competition

• Customer

• SunZi

Page 26: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

26

Principles

• Subtlety• Glass houses• Exercise restraint• Keep it simple

Ghosting to win: less is usually more

Page 27: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

27

Techniques

• Explain tradeoffs• Emphasize discriminators• Reference third party information• Anticipating ghosting by the competition

Ghosting to win: be deliberate

Page 28: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

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

Page 29: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

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

Page 30: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

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

Page 31: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

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

Page 32: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

32

Discriminators

• Excellent way to ghost• Our discriminator is a competitor’s weakness• Customer knowledge critical

Discriminators point to ghosting opportunities

Page 33: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

33

EXAMPLE

Page 34: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

34

Easy Formula for Using Discriminators• What is our discriminator?• What is great about it?• What is the disadvantage of not having it?

Page 35: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

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

Page 36: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

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

Page 37: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

37

Apply our Knowledge

Page 38: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

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

Page 39: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

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.

Page 40: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

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?

Page 41: Ghosting in Proposals-APMP 2011-Wendy Frieman 6-2-11

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.