Corey Eastman is a Director at Climax Media, an agency of digital technology that specialize in building platforms tailored for enterprise customers.
For many of us who work in projects daily life without request for proposals (RFP) can be almost unfathomable. While it would certainly be simpler, it would also remove what appears to be a crucial process in the evaluation of suppliers for projects.
New York, meet the tech world scene
5000 Tech leaders coming to New York in November to learn and do business. This is your chance to join them.
As Adweek points out, a study of brand managers found that 42 percent of respondents found the current agency search process for take time, and 28 percent saying "we told you so many things that you are not sure what to believe"
start with why the DP still exists - its .. main advantages and strengths
the benefits of RFP
the proposed process can be scary. It starts with a vision, but the opportunities and invisible fog insurmountable obstacles which expressed the most appropriate solutions for you. This is where suppliers come in.
As you search firms to bid on your project, you will naturally lead much more research and criteria in place to assess each bid with. You will start to look at how each of them stack up against others, and select you based on the one that best fits your priorities and constraints. The information you acquire will help you to reduce the risk a little.
RFP practically force you to take such a comprehensive approach to assessing potential employees. It helps you transform previously disorder and stress wave (set up a Web site) in a set of more detailed objectives, needs and results.
Ideally, meritocracy that appear to facilitate RFP also led to a more objective and transparent selection of suppliers. The development of criteria seems much fairer to participants.
The proposals also come with the advantage of free information. Whether potential feature sets and solutions, or just information on prices, suppliers to share information with you that may have required an outpatient or more time to the company. But just how accurate is this information?
The case against RFP
There are years, Google took its data from tens of thousands of interviews to determine whether the correlation scores Interview with job performance.
vice president of Google in Persons Operations summarizes in an interview with The New York Times:
"It is a randomized complete mess, except for one guy who was highly predictive because he interviewed people for a very specialized field, where he happened to be the first expert of the world. "
most tender, as with most interviews are imprecise indicators for supplier performance. in fact, the time spent on project teams RFPs have been spent actually getting to know potential suppliers more closely. Digiday highlights certain inefficiencies in . RFP in the media market
One of the RFP forces become also its greatest weakness: the RFP goal is to put all companies on the same level and comparing the same parameters. They help you compare apples to apples.
But because each key supplier RFP next to each other they commodify the process. They overlook the creative solutions or value of the innovation potential that companies may have, which may be the result of the project team really wanted to sink their teeth.
Due to the defensibility RFP, it also acts as a layer that surrounds the real sticking point. Although this project can be sloppy, if a company could understand what went wrong so they could learn and remove this stumbling block next time.
Unfortunately, the complexity of the DP introduced - all great for individual teams and project leads - also means that each party could transfer responsibility to others, such as procurement teams or subcontractors
.You should not look further than the revival of Law website Affordable Care to understand the falls of the RFP. Not only did he disqualify smaller teams (including very own Obama - successfully - the technology team that helped win the election). He also introduced a complex process that the project wrong in several respects
the seed development chairman, subcontractors who worked on the product, said in an interview with Slate: "the problem here is that nobody knows what happened and this is not acceptable. "
the restricted RFP process your selection of providers to those who are quite that big proposal can hire writers. this means that an innovative shop more little would be automatically disqualified, despite its good potential for your project.
the costs that are written in a tender may not be accurate (at least). As you can imagine, many enterprises are spread thin - and probably devote more resources to their existing customers as potential ones. As the information in the RFP does not make money, they will not devote too many resources to it.
This means that the information provided may not be of value and is based on conjecture and a very brief analysis in your industry, and the challenges of society. The questionable validity of this information also compromises the precious objectivity RFP bring to the table.
In the RFP, there are also political and informally recognized inside track (when some providers are more likely to work than others through previous connections). As you can imagine, this also removes objectivity that is supposed to be a major asset RFP.
The problem perpetuated
The inertia of the RFP process naturally allows to remain meaningful and relevant longer than he should have.
For example, the DP has forced companies to invest resources in such positions as "research consultants" (headhunters for sellers) and supply departments (Costcutters who fail often consider the value of the project). While people in these roles certainly provide some value their existence and sales, and resource marketing dedicated to the dissemination of these messages exaggerate the need for the RFP.
better alternatives to RFP
instead of seeking free information through a proposal, these providers offer a brief engagement paid for in-depth exploration of the project. Just like how it is not wise to rush the doctor's diagnosis and pressed with the prescription, it is also important to devote resources and time for the experts to evaluate your challenges and your project.
Although slightly more expensive, these commitments "discovery" allow providers to really hone in on your problem and provide a detailed analysis. More importantly, you can slowly see if communication, reliability and expertise of the company to meet your expectations or not.
You can get more valid information on your end. Although this is a bit of an investment up front, it will save you tens of thousands in the future.
Discoveries Measure twice, cut once
The main advantage of the discovery is in its effectiveness: taking a little more time to get a better idea of the target, the final result is achieved more efficiently and effectively.
Generally, any one hour invested in the discovery saves about two on the deployment or the end of the project. Similar to how a pair of programming process saves time by producing overall 15 percent fewer bugs, the findings seem to cost more time initially, but the supplier to save time on fixing mistakes in the long term. According to Business Analysis Benchmark Study of IAG Consulting, a process of discovery short time overruns of 87 percent and the budget overruns of nearly 75 percent.
There are different methods to address the discovery process. Ours is based on the rating system MoSCoW world class, where suppliers trigger your key performance indicators (KPI) and the scope of a suggestion accordingly. Together, we prioritize the goals and objectives based on this framework:
M is for Must Have
- Mission Critical
- Necessary to be included in the delivery and scope of the project
S's should have
- Although not critical, the requirements are very important
- likely including where constraints allow
C is for Could have
- Less critical
- Nice to have
- lowest ROI
W is for Will not Have
- less critical
- not intended for the current project, but could be considered for a later phase
This method has proven to be 85 percent to 90 percent effective in projects control.
Closing thoughts
Think twice before using RFP for your next project. You can free yourself from the lack of correlation with the performance of the DP providers, bureaucracy and inefficiency introduced, and the disqualification of innovative, small suppliers who do not have the resources to respond to tenders .
Instead, try a discovery of engagement on a small project with some providers - just to see how it goes. You may find yourself pleasantly surprised.