[australia] [cmpros] Death to the RFP?

Wed Feb 20 01:11:06 EST 2008

Sorry to come in late. Quality article as usual James and again as  
usual stimulating a flurry of replies (mine included).

Let me start by saying I don't like RFPs at all (no surprise I guess  
- read as: Vendor hat well and truly fixed) and no matter how good  
they are, the process is flawed (again in my opinion - although I  
have seen hundreds and hundreds).

Perhaps let me use an analogy that you can all have fun poking holes  
in ...

I have just moved to Sydney, I need to get from my new home to the  
office, get the kids to school, get around on the weekend and make  
long trips to our Melbourne office and overseas - oh, and I also like  
to get around purely for enjoyment every now and again. Based on  
this, I can get a set of needs and send an RFQ or RFP to Qantas and  
various airlines, the government's public transport  
instrumentalities, purveyors of transport equipment (lets choose  
Toyota, BMW, Hyundai, Kenworth, Volvo, Comeng, Yamaha, Malvern Star -  
Aussie Bicycle company, Learjet, Sunseeker and NASA), as well as some  
service businesses (cabs, chauffeurs, vehicle rental agencies, travel  
agencies, etc.).

I guess you all know where I am going.

My complete need set is fairly unique (as are most businesses),  
however broken into the right parts, it is the much more generic than  
perhaps I realized when I was looking at the whole set (lets call  
that a project). If I send an RFP, I might get a response from some  
of the smaller service businesses but I can't see one coming from BMW  
or the public transport system and many of the other sources I really  
need. If I choose to 'do my own project' I would spend more than my  
needs require and get a sub-optimal result because I didn't get a  
direct benefit from all of the people who had helped create the  
service set described in the analogy. Finally, I am assuming that I  
am able to frame the solution to my requirements better than the  
named businesses who have experience across thousands of users - not  
sure, but I think BMW can design a better car than I could.

The key point here is that: I can best identify my needs but I am not  
best placed to specify the solution to them. Yet most RFPs get into  
specifics of where the cup holders should be, how many passengers  
should be seated and even the mechanical process by which my solution  
needs to be created (more analogy here).

So my core issues are:
1) Most RFPs frame a project that often would be better broken up  
around established market dimensions and component parts (in my case,  
I need at least Public Transport, a Car, an Airline and the Taxi  
service - and wouldn't ask any one of them to do the lot. Apologies  
to Microsoft, IBM and custom builders).
2) Most RFPs lead to outcomes that overweight custom deliverables at  
the ultimate cost of well-travelled common core deliverables.
3) Most RFPs are prepared with a strong knowledge of business needs  
but very little product, market and related technical knowledge.
4) The end result of most RFPs are unique projects that come at high  
cost and exhaust everyone working on them, to the point that 2 years  
later, no one who was there at the time is still working on the  
delivered solution, so someone throws it out and starts all over  
again (usually from scratch - having lost all accumulated knowledge).

Yes I know I'm a cynic, but I am happy knowing that my car only  
provides one part of my total 'project' and that if I become unhappy  
with it (as I am prone to do), I can replace it with another  
standard  / generic / vanilla car that I am not unhealthily wedded to  
because I didn't design and build it from scratch and I just have to  
find other products to fill the other needs in my 'project'.

Still with me? If so, either I said something useful or you are  
preparing a hostile response. Either way, I look forward to more  
conversation on the list.

Thanks again James, you made me shake of the cobwebs and put a post  
out in the ether.

Cheers,

David

David Warwick | Chief Executive Officer

Sydney Office | Suite 5 / 225 Liverpool Street, Darlinghurst, NSW,  
2010, Australia
T + 61 2 9368 7420 | F + 61 2 9368 7421 | M + 61 411 411 555
david at komodocms.com | www.komodocms.com

Create > Publish > Manage
This email and any attached files may contain information that is  
confidential and privileged. If you receive this email in error,  
please notify abuse at komodocms.com, disregard its contents and delete  
it. This email is subject to copyright. The use of Komodo CMS is  
subject to the terms of service (terms) and transactional information  
is subject to Komodo CMS normal terms and conditions. Errors &  
Omissions Excepted.

On 13/02/2008, at 8:52 AM, James Robertson wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> it's been interesting to note the responses to my recent mini-article
> on CMS selection times, particularly the dislike of RFP/tenders/etc.
>
> This is not surprising. For my own part, I have seen more pointless,
> wasteful, poorly constructed, and poorly thought-out RFPs to fill
> an entire life!
>
> The gut reaction is therefore unsurprisingly to reject them entirely.
> I'm going to argue against this.
>
> There are a *lot* of products in the marketplace, 140+ in Australia
> alone with an estimate 1,000 globally. I've often said that these
> are only 30% similar and 70% entirely different in how they
> operate. (Even if all the marketing brochures read the same.)
>
> It's a complex marketplace, and it is far from easy for organisations
> to be confident they are selecting the right product. Where there
> is a lack of experience or clarity around the needs, this is even
> worse.
>
> I like a lightweight RFP/tender process for helping resolve these
> issues, even where it isn't formally required.
>
> It does several things:
>
> * it ensures that requirements are thought through and documented
> * the scope of the project is clarified and communicated
> * vendors are asked to "put themselves on the line" in their response
> * it helps organisations to make informed decisions in cutting
>    down the list to a final few
> * it ensures that organisations spend some time thinking and
>    learning about products (and their own requirements!)
> * it gives internal stakeholders an opportunity to be involved
> * it builds confidence in the final outcome
>
> We do a lot of work helping organisations select a CMS, in both
> the public and private sectors.
>
> Like Martin White's post, we help organisations write good
> requirements, and provide an initial list of potential solutions
> (5-7 in our case). Written responses then quickly drop this to
> 3, for the vendor demonstrations.
>
> (In my personal experience, the greatest amount of time is lost
> when an informal or poorly-defined selection process is followed,
> leading to lots of wandering around and head-scratching.)
>
> I don't believe it is ethical for me as the "expert" to say
> "here, pick this!". Life is simply too complex for that, and it
> ignores the many compromises that will need to be made. (I would
> also not be truly vendor neutral!)
>
> Frankly, if we go through anything less than this, picking a
> product becomes no better than "rolling the dice and hoping your
> number comes up".
>
> So, death to the awful RFPs, and long live sensible, structured
> selection processes!
>
> Cheers,
> James
>
>
> -- 
> -------------------------
> James Robertson, Managing Director
> Step Two Designs
>
> Email: jamesr at steptwo.com.au
> Web: www.steptwo.com.au
> Phone: +61 2 9319 7901
>
> _______________________________________________
> CM Pros members-only mailing list
> cmpros at lists.cms-forum.org
> Subscription controls and archives:
> http://lists.cms-forum.org/mailman/listinfo/cmpros
> Archives: http://lists.cms-forum.org/mailman/private/cmpros/
> Netiquette FAQ and related CMS lists - [cmpros-org], [cms], [cms- 
> forum], [contentmanagers], [cms-pr]
> http://www.cmsreview.com/NetiquetteFAQ.html
> Browse all messages in our blog-style mail archive - http:// 
> www.cmprosold.org/resources/mail_archive/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cmsml.org/pipermail/australia/attachments/20080220/aae1baec/attachment-0001.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: komodoCMS_footerLogo.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 2266 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.cmsml.org/pipermail/australia/attachments/20080220/aae1baec/komodoCMS_footerLogo-0001.gif