APMP BID & PROPOSAL CON 2015 | PAGE 2 Performing a Proposal Premortem MARINA GOREN, PRESIDENT/CEO OF...

APMP BID & PROPOSAL CON 2015 | PAGE 2

Performing a Proposal Premortem MARINA GOREN, PRESIDENT/CEO OF SMART BD CONSULTING, INC.


Introductions

Proposal industry thought leader, active APMP member Presenter at the last APMP Conference in Chicago, in May of 2014 Taught many Capture/Proposal Courses President & CEO of Smart BD Consulting, Inc. – BD/Capture/Proposal

Development firm in MD/DC/VA area Extensive BD, Capture and Proposal experience with a background at

IBM, Raytheon, ASRC, SRA International and numerous other companies Directly responsible for capture of over $4.5B in new business over the

course of last eight years Was instrumental in growing a company (ASRC Primus) from 2 FTEs to

over 1,500 FTEs and over $60M in annual revenues over the course of 5 years


What is a Project Premortem?Applying This Idea to ProposalsConducting a Proposal Premortem (4 Steps)How is This Approach Different From Brainstorming?Some Reasons of Why Proposals Lose and

How Can We Increase Our Chances of Winning?Group ExerciseGroup DiscussionQuestions?

Agenda


What is a “Project Premortem”?


What is a “Project Premortem”?

“A premortem is the hypothetical opposite of a postmortem. A postmortem in a medical setting allows health professionals and the family to learn what caused a patient’s death. Everyone benefits except, of course, the patient. A premortem in a business setting comes at the beginning of a project rather than the end, so that the project can be improved rather than autopsied. Unlike a typical critiquing session, in which project team members are asked what might go wrong, the premortem operates on the assumption that the “patient” has died, and so asks what did go wrong. The team members’ task is to generate plausible reasons for the project’s failure.” – Gary Klein, Harvard Business Review


Historical Background Information

Research conducted in 1989 by Deborah J. Mitchell, of the Wharton School; Jay Russo, of Cornell; and Nancy Pennington, of the University of Colorado, found that prospective hindsight—imagining that an event has already occurred—increases the ability to correctly identify reasons for future outcomes by 30%.

Gary Klein outlines a process to conduct a project premortem in his article “Performing a Project Premortem” in Harvard Business Review.

According to Wikipedia: “A premortem — is a managerial strategy in which a manager imagines that a project or organization has failed, and then works backward to determine what potentially could lead to the failure of the project or organization. … Management can then analyze the magnitude and likelihood of each threat, and take preventative actions to protect the project or organization from suffering an untimely "death".


Applying This Idea to Proposals

People are usually unwilling to confront the failures We always believe that our Team is the Winning Team Yet more proposals lose than win We often do a “postmortem” – after the debrief, but

then it’s too late to fix anything Premortem allows us to create a plan for

circumnavigating the challenges


Conducting a “Proposal Premortem”

Step 1• Imagine a Loss

Step 2• Generate

Reasons for the Loss

Step 3• Consolidate the

Reasons

Step 4• Develop an

Actionable Plan


Step 1: Imagine a Loss

Convene all of the right stakeholders: everyone with a significant Capture or Proposal role on the bid should be invited

Set aside a 3-4 hour time period Appoint the right facilitator Brief the team that they lost the bid Ask the team “What could have caused this?”


Step 2: Generate the Reasons for the Loss

Ask each person to write down why the proposal lost Tap into people’s intuition (the inner voice) Leave no stone left unturned Reward thinking out of the box Encourage to voice issues, typically left unsaid The goal is to create an exhaustive list of things, everyone should feel uninhibited,

this is the brainstorming session Do not think about solutions during this Step, rather focus on identifying the

problems


Step 3: Consolidate the Reasons

Go around the room and discuss each reason at a time

Review all of the reasons as a group Group reasons by related topics Focus on most likely causes of failure/loss Discard any problems you may not have any control

over


Step 4: Develop an “Actionable Plan”

Generate ideas for avoiding or minimizing the problems

Come up with Capture actions to neutralize the threats

Develop and revise Proposal artifacts to counter the impact of the risks

Assign the Action Items to specific team members to complete

Sometimes the right plan is to “no bid”


How is this approach different from brainstorming?

Most of us restrict our thinking when imagining “things that can go wrong”

We want to believe our proposal will win By starting with a strong assertion – “we already

lost” – we are encouraged to identify flaws that otherwise we would ignore

The strategy is to “trick our brains”


Some Reasons of Why Proposals Lose - And How Can We Increase Our Chances of Winning?

Reasons for Loss Plan of ActionCost – too high • Consider a price cut, backed by innovations/cost savings

• If cannot execute based on PTW – consider “no bid”Cost – too low • Adjust staffing to come up with a more reasonable price/cost

• Boost BOEs to demonstrate estimates are based on actual costs on similar scope of work contracts

The Government just wanted the incumbent

• Try to get the incumbent on the Team OR get on the incumbent’s Team OR no bid

Too much innovation/change was proposed – “shows lack of understanding”

• Remove some of the innovations, infuse “status quo” feeling• First stabilize, then optimize

Too little innovation – “ inability to support the mission requirements”

• Hold brainstorming session around innovations and substantiation• Integrate/highlight via call out boxes• Encourage the team to think out of the box

Approach too risky • Demonstrate where it was successful, add proof points

Inconsistencies throughout different parts of the approach

• Ensure consistent approaches, methodology and terminology throughout


Exercise – Background Information Customer: Department of Energy Scope of Work: Large Commodity IT job (Helpdesk, Data Center, Desktop Support, App Dev, Networks) The incumbent is no longer eligible to prime, not too well liked, but the people on the contract have

close ties to the customers We have some incumbent subcontractors on our team Lots of capture information was gathered, Key Personnel brought on board early (from the current

incumbent), lots of customer meetings Right before the RFP release – the customers changed, some SEB members and SSO – new players RFP calls for innovations, improvements, cost efficiencies. Also stresses the importance of “keeping the

train on the tracks” – in support of critical operations The customer is undergoing significant budget cuts – pressure to do more with less and cut costs It’s an FFP contract, but the Government provided a GPM with hours for each labor category Past Performance Volume score is equal to the Tech Volume in the evaluation criteria


Why Did We Lose?


Reasons for Losing – And Counter-Actions

Reasons for Loss Proposed Counter-Actions

We did not have knowledge or understanding of the new SSO’s wishes/desires, could not address their hot buttons

• Conduct online research (since we are already in black out) – learn as much as possible

• Bring in a teammate or a consultant who have successfully worked with/for this customer before

We brought too much incumbent baggage with us – via incumbent teammates and incumbent key personnel

• Consider not naming some of the incumbent teammates, leave them as vendors available for reachback

• Identify new Key Personnel with fresh ideas and perspectivesOur competitor was able to offer a lower price by cutting the hours provided in the GPM

• Consider cutting down the staff numbers (with a good BOE explanation) below the GPM

Our proposed innovations did not clearly quantify efficiencies and cost savings

• Tie cost savings to as many innovations as possible, quantify them and justify (either via previous experience or industry benchmarks)

Some changes we proposed were during Phase In – did not get a chance to stabilize the environment and introduced risk to critical operations

• Stabilize first, then optimize/transform• Develop a stellar, detailed Phase In plan that re-assures the SEB about

no interruption to operationsWe did not pre-vet or prepare our Past Performance references and did not get as good of a review as needed, lowering our Past Performance evaluation score

• Prepare the Past Performance references ahead of time• Pre-vet that they still view us positively• If not sure, provide a different Past Performance reference


Open Discussion

What techniques do YOU use during to increase the probability of winning?


Questions


Marina GorenPresident/CEOSmart BD Consulting, Inc.(410) 456-9993Marina.Goren@

smartbdconsulting.comwww.smartbdconsulting.com

Contact Us

APMPPO Box 77272Washington, DC20013-7272 Phone: +1 - (202) 450-2549www.apmp.org

APMP BID & PROPOSAL CON 2015 | PAGE 2 Performing a Proposal Premortem MARINA GOREN, PRESIDENT/CEO OF...

Documents

Transcript of APMP BID & PROPOSAL CON 2015 | PAGE 2 Performing a Proposal Premortem MARINA GOREN, PRESIDENT/CEO OF...