Proposal Best Practices Importance versus Actual …...Study of 15 recognized proposal best practices Feedback on importance to proposal success Self-assessment of respondents’ actual

BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE INTERNATIONAL

Insights and Innovations for Sustainable Business Winning© 2018 All Rights Reserved

A Research Study Report

Presented to

APMP Greater Midwest Chapter

19 September 2018

Proposal Best Practices –Importance versus Actual Usage



Findings Summary

◼ Study of 15 recognized proposal best practices

➔ Feedback on importance to proposal success

➔ Self-assessment of respondents’ actual usage

◼ Data from 43 APMP members

➔ All part of Greater Midwest Chapter

◼ Survey performed during 3Q2018

➔ Data collection closed on 7 Sept 2018

2

Targeted Best Practice Relative Gap Analysis

Proposal Baselines before Kickoffs

Planning for Proposal Kickoffs

Use of Proposal Management Plans

Coordination of Mgmt/Tech/Cost

Use of Management Team Reviews

Timely Application of Training

Storyboards and Similar Writing Aids

Strategic Use of Themes

Strategic Use of Graphics

Senior Management Reinforcement

Availability of Templates, Reuse, etc.

Dedicated Knowledge Managers

Defined Proposal Training Programs

Appropriate Physical Work Spaces

Appropriate Virtual Environments

Pro

po

sal

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

Pro

po

sal W

riti

ng

Pro

po

sal

En

ab

lem

en

t

1 2 3 4 5

Weighted Averages

Extent

of Usage

Relative

Importance

Importance Usage



PROPOSAL MANAGEMENT:

Proposal Baselines before Kickoff Meeting

◼ Issue is solution readiness to begin proposal preparation

◼ 50 percent of respondents report “somewhat regular” implementation

3

0 1 2 3 4 5

Weighted Average

IMPORTANCE

USAGE

RelativeGap

AbsoluteGap

Not Very

Important

Seldom,

If Ever,

Used

Fairly

Important

Occasionally

Used

Important

Somewhat

Regularly

Used

Very

Important

Regularly

Used

Critically

Important

Nearly

Always

Used

0

10

20

30

40

50

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

sp

on

de

nts

Summary Analysis 70% of Respondents

View as Important

Nearly 40% Report

Little Implementation




Proposal Manager Planning for Kickoff Meetings

◼ Issue is having a mature proposal plan before engaging proposal team

◼ Only modest gap reported between importance and implementation

4

0 1 2 3 4 5

Weighted Average

IMPORTANCE

USAGE

RelativeGap

AbsoluteGap

Not Very

Important

Seldom,

If Ever,

Used

Fairly

Important

Occasionally

Used

Important

Somewhat

Regularly

Used

Very

Important

Regularly

Used

Critically

Important

Nearly

Always

Used

0

10

20

30

40

50

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

sp

on

de

nts


View as Important,

with 70% Implementation




Use of Proposal Management Plans

◼ Issue is assuring ability to lead the proposal team through disciplined process

◼ Uneven recognition of the importance of detailed planning

5

0 1 2 3 4 5

Weighted Average

IMPORTANCE

USAGE

RelativeGap

AbsoluteGap

Not Very

Important

Seldom,

If Ever,

Used

Fairly

Important

Occasionally

Used

Important

Somewhat

Regularly

Used

Very

Important

Regularly

Used

Critically

Important

Nearly

Always

Used

0

10

20

30

40

50

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

sp

on

de

nts

Summary Analysis60% of Respondents

View as Highly Important




Coordination of Technical, Management, and Cost

◼ Issue is an integrated proposal solution that minimizes performance risk

◼ Gap reflects significant problem in some respondents’ companies

6

0 1 2 3 4 5

Weighted Average

IMPORTANCE

USAGE

RelativeGap

AbsoluteGap

Not Very

Important

Seldom,

If Ever,

Used

Fairly

Important

Occasionally

Used

Important

Somewhat

Regularly

Used

Very

Important

Regularly

Used

Critically

Important

Nearly

Always

Used

0

10

20

30

40

50

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

sp

on

de

nts

Summary Analysis 80% of RespondentsView as Highly Important,with 55% Implementation

Unusual

Anomaly?




Use of Management Team Reviews

◼ Issue is productive involvement of key managers in disciplined process

◼ Small summary gap belies uneven pattern of implementation

7

0 1 2 3 4 5

Weighted Average

IMPORTANCE

USAGE

RelativeGap

AbsoluteGap

Not Very

Important

Seldom,

If Ever,

Used

Fairly

Important

Occasionally

Used

Important

Somewhat

Regularly

Used

Very

Important

Regularly

Used

Critically

Important

Nearly

Always

Used

0

10

20

30

40

50

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

sp

on

de

nts


View as Highly Important



PROPOSAL WRITING:

Timely Application of Training

◼ Issue is assuring proposal team’s ability to create a winning proposal

◼ Major gap is consistent with research into root causes of poor performance

8

0 1 2 3 4 5

Weighted Average

IMPORTANCE

USAGE

RelativeGap

AbsoluteGap

Not Very

Important

Seldom,

If Ever,

Used

Fairly

Important

Occasionally

Used

Important

Somewhat

Regularly

Used

Very

Important

Regularly

Used

Critically

Important

Nearly

Always

Used

0

10

20

30

40

50

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

sp

on

de

nts


View as Important

More than 60% Report




PROPOSAL WRITING:

Storyboards and Similar Writing Aids

◼ Issue is ability to manage writing activities to achieve high quality

◼ Perceived lack of importance contradicts industry best practice

9

0 1 2 3 4 5

Weighted Average

IMPORTANCE

USAGE

RelativeGap

AbsoluteGap

Not Very

Important

Seldom,

If Ever,

Used

Fairly

Important

Occasionally

Used

Important

Somewhat

Regularly

Used

Very

Important

Regularly

Used

Critically

Important

Nearly

Always

Used

0

10

20

30

40

50

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

sp

on

de

nts

Summary Analysis Only 50% of Respondents

View as Important,

with >30% Implementation



PROPOSAL WRITING:

Strategic Use of Themes

◼ Issue is disciplined ability to present an effective “why us” story

◼ Substantial gap has major implication for preparing a “winning proposal”

10

0 1 2 3 4 5

Weighted Average

IMPORTANCE

USAGE

RelativeGap

AbsoluteGap

Not Very

Important

Seldom,

If Ever,

Used

Fairly

Important

Occasionally

Used

Important

Somewhat

Regularly

Used

Very

Important

Regularly

Used

Critically

Important

Nearly

Always

Used

0

10

20

30

40

50

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

sp

on

de

nts


View as Highly Important60% Report

Some Implementation



PROPOSAL WRITING:

Strategic Use of Graphics

◼ Issue is visualizing proposed benefits – essential for decision-makers

◼ Major gap re-enforces a common weakness found across industry

11

0 1 2 3 4 5

Weighted Average

IMPORTANCE

USAGE

RelativeGap

AbsoluteGap

Not Very

Important

Seldom,

If Ever,

Used

Fairly

Important

Occasionally

Used

Important

Somewhat

Regularly

Used

Very

Important

Regularly

Used

Critically

Important

Nearly

Always

Used

0

10

20

30

40

50

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

sp

on

de

nts






PROPOSAL WRITING:

Senior Management Reinforcement

◼ Issue is getting senior management to add value to proposals

◼ Major gap re-enforces a common weakness found across industry

12

0 1 2 3 4 5

Weighted Average

IMPORTANCE

USAGE

RelativeGap

AbsoluteGap

Not Very

Important

Seldom,

If Ever,

Used

Fairly

Important

Occasionally

Used

Important

Somewhat

Regularly

Used

Very

Important

Regularly

Used

Critically

Important

Nearly

Always

Used

0

10

20

30

40

50

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

sp

on

de

nts






PROPOSAL ENABLEMENT:

Availability of Templates, Reuse, & Similar Tools

◼ Issue is to make proposal development faster, better, and more efficient

◼ Very minor gap indicates an area of high implementation

13

0 1 2 3 4 5

Weighted Average

IMPORTANCE

USAGE

RelativeGap

AbsoluteGap

Not Very

Important

Seldom,

If Ever,

Used

Fairly

Important

Occasionally

Used

Important

Somewhat

Regularly

Used

Very

Important

Regularly

Used

Critically

Important

Nearly

Always

Used

0

10

20

30

40

50

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

sp

on

de

nts

>90% Importance

and Implementation

Summary Analysis




Dedicated Knowledge Managers

◼ Issue is to leverage emerging approaches to proposal content

◼ Gap shows uneven adoption of emerging best practice

14

0 1 2 3 4 5

Weighted Average

IMPORTANCE

USAGE

RelativeGap

AbsoluteGap

Not Very

Important

Seldom,

If Ever,

Used

Fairly

Important

Occasionally

Used

Important

Somewhat

Regularly

Used

Very

Important

Regularly

Used

Critically

Important

Nearly

Always

Used

0

10

20

30

40

50

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

sp

on

de

nts

Summary Analysis 100% Consensus on Importance




Defined Proposal Training Programs

◼ Issue is to create sustainable proposal competencies in organization

◼ Major gap reflects common problem of poor investment in broader capability

15

0 1 2 3 4 5

Weighted Average

IMPORTANCE

USAGE

RelativeGap

AbsoluteGap

Not Very

Important

Seldom,

If Ever,

Used

Fairly

Important

Occasionally

Used

Important

Somewhat

Regularly

Used

Very

Important

Regularly

Used

Critically

Important

Nearly

Always

Used

0

10

20

30

40

50

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

sp

on

de

nts

Summary Analysis 85% of Respondents View as Highly Important

55% Report





Appropriate Physical Work Spaces

◼ Issue is to provide basic environment for proposal teams to work

◼ No gap implies appropriate implementation of important capability

16

0 1 2 3 4 5

Weighted Average

IMPORTANCE

USAGE

No RelativeGap

AbsoluteGap

Not Very

Important

Seldom,

If Ever,

Used

Fairly

Important

Occasionally

Used

Important

Somewhat

Regularly

Used

Very

Important

Regularly

Used

Critically

Important

Nearly

Always

Used

0

10

20

30

40

50

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

sp

on

de

nts


View as Important,

with Equal Implementation




Appropriate Virtual Work Spaces

◼ Issue is to support contemporary environment of distributed proposal teams

◼ “Positive gap” illustrates successful transition to virtual proposal operations

17

0 1 2 3 4 5

Weighted Average

IMPORTANCE

USAGE

Positive Relative Gap

AbsoluteGap

Not Very

Important

Seldom,

If Ever,

Used

Fairly

Important

Occasionally

Used

Important

Somewhat

Regularly

Used

Very

Important

Regularly

Used

Critically

Important

Nearly

Always

Used

0

10

20

30

40

50

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

sp

on

de

nts

Summary Analysis

72

Pe

rce

nt

>90% Highly Importance

and >80% Strong Implementation



A Strategy Roadmap

to High-Performance Business Winning

OptimizingYour Business Winning Capability

Capability Maturity Model®, CMM®, and CMMI® are registered in the US Trademark Office by CMMI Institute LLC



Typical Companies Lack BD Capability



Low Capability = Suboptimized Results

WinRate

CaptureRatio

BD-CMM Level-1/2 BD-CMM Level-3 BD-CMM Level-4/5

Legend:

⚫ Win Rate = Number of Projects Won Number of Projects Bid

⚫ Capture Ratio = Value of Projects Won Value of Projects Bid

BASE 30-35%Decrement

BASE

Business Winning Goals:



BD Maturity = Major Performance Gains

WinRate

CaptureRatio


Legend:



Typical 30-35%

Increase

BASE

200-300%IncreasesReported




Advanced Maturity = Sustainability over Time

WinRate

CaptureRatio

WinRate

CaptureRatio

WinRate

CaptureRatio


Legend:



BASE 30-35%Decrement

Typical 30-35%

Increase

BASE

200-300%IncreasesReported




BD-CMM Provides Path to High Performance

◼ Demonstrated improvement strategy

◼ Proven in industry

◼ Used around the world



Range of BD-CMM Options Make It Easy

24

◼ Multiple appraisal approaches,

including self-assessment

◼ Special offer to use

BD-Institute’s BD-Baseline™

➔ Exclusive, web-based survey

instrument

➔ 360-degree view of your

organization’s BD capability

➔ Available for only $2,500-$5,000



Research Assures Continuing Relevance

◼ Data from geographic regions around

the world

◼ Insights from organizations, large and

small alike

◼ Applicability to product, service, and

system-integration providers

◼ Relevance to government and

commercial markets

Now accepting pre-orders!

25



Adding BD-CMM ➔ Performance Excellence

26

BD-CMM

BUSINESSSTRATEGY

PROPOSALMANAGEMENT

CAPTUREMANAGEMENT

Documents

Proposal Best Practices Importance versus Actual …...Study of 15 recognized proposal best practices Feedback on importance to proposal success Self-assessment of respondents’ actual