Sunday, August 29, 2010
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Strategic Frugality in Action
Within the federal government business sector, cost-effective planning has remained a constrainable rule of conduct. Thrifty execution of business planning has appeared to be the rule of thumb when responding to government initiatives and solicitations, but is the lowest dollar value-really the 'lowest-cost' answer to the government's needs? Certainly, the newest procurement paradigms decry a desire for 'lowest cost' respondents, typically stating pricing generally carries greater weight than technical and managerial capabilities. A natural thought for the solicitation respondent is that conducting business with the lowest dollar value and least cost is the most productive mindset for answering the government mail.
The reality is that while our environment changes rapidly and technology as well as end-users become more and more sophisticated, effective Business Enterprise Architecture (BEA) aids the delicate balance between growth in innovation and cost savings. And, cost savings doesn't necessarily equate to greater value if funding for research and development (R&D) or innovative growth suffers in the process. In fact, recent research states that after years of corporate cost-reduction - without strategic BEA frugality - a counter productivity results in as far as enabling new technology and the introduction of innovative technologies. Corporate patterning is a strong motivator towards growth and potential or maintaining the status quo - even if the status quo is from 1999. When controlling costs is the underlying element of organizational patterning, the introduction of new products, markets or technologies typically hits a change management wall, which isn't written into the fine print of a 'lowest-cost' response.
To achieve strategic frugality in action - there are a few simple steps for entrepreneurs and classic business leaders to embrace:
1. Accountability - greater control over cross-functional resources within the organization
2. Aptitude for innovation - change in business unit reporting to corporate core in order to achieve broader scope R&D towards expansion
3. Pull-based functional relationships - to aid and increase service support (a major proponent of government requirements today) business units should pull services from the corporate infrastructure rather than have services pushed on business units
4. Differentiated capabilities - leverage capabilities of the overarching organization and expand the corporate core portfolio, then build on it strategically invoking effective BEA
5. Ability to leverage scale - through business unit networking and ensuring fluid agility in real-time scale can be leveraged corporate-wide
The revision of thought in the expansion of both R&D 'potential,' as well as corporate growth, hinges on the strategic interactivity between the corporate core, business units and their shared infrastructure and processes. In this way-as respondents to federal solicitations for the 'lowest-cost' service support, can effectively answer government mail through efficient planning of strategic frugality in action, that decries the 'lowest-cost' may not necessarily be the lowest dollar figure in the overall life cycle of a project. The new ideology behind 'lowest-cost' may become equitable potential for growth in proficiency, derived through change management capability, via effective R&D, using a rational BEA frugality at costs that may exceed the 'lowest dollar value' and our competitors, but actually result in the best value to our client, the United States of America.
For more info: strategy+business, Frugal Growth
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Government business and clean contracts (part 1 of 2)
The close of an outgoing fiscal year aligns businesses with a new season for progress, change and innovation. Each New Year provides yet another opportunity to make our mark in best business practices, while meeting company goals and objectives. The advent of 2009, and its apparent potential for fiscal woes, is not any different. As federal sector businesspeople, we understand clients and citizens favor companies that shore up to clean contracting. Further, we hear the universal tone presently permeating our marketplace that says, “Firms who strategize while maintaining financial and moral solvency can be best relied upon for rigorous, comprehensive, and uniform government-wide reforms.” Responsibility and fair business practices are rhetorical echoes of the marketplace today and reform is the horizon.
This universal bellow taking place across our nation is being exclaimed from bedsides of elders to cribs of infants and has risen to an audible roar in recent weeks as we observe the demise of FY08. John and Jane Q. Public have thoroughly embraced concepts of ‘quality, ideals, and business-minded culpability’ in anticipation of clean contracts, job performance proficiency, honest business practices, green initiatives, hyper-management in real-time, performance metrics with positive outcomes as well as a wealth of other social considerations as inherent components for success-driven businesses of the 21st Century. As ostensible trends, ‘ideals’ are no longer opines on the ‘how-to’ of federal marketplace conduct; rather, these are permanent changes backed by Congressional mandates. What once were morays of parent and grandparent cultural musings are now transformations of our professions and serve up the newest repertoire in federal business sector legalese.
Change is revolutionary~
As our nation’s campaign trail blazes across America and candidates speak to change, the tone of their conversation has ratcheted up from previous election years. We are well aware that voter registration exceeds previous decades’ election statistics. The failing monetary system we have relied upon through many generations of business and family planning is reminiscent of a recovering addict still reeling in the aftershock of their present state of affairs. Facts surface daily that seriously concern us. Major financial bailouts are secured through the infusion of intravenous monetary feedings derived from sweat and blood transfused from the citizenry of this great nation and leave us with the same level of distrust that we engage when considering whether to place our pocketbooks or wallets in plain site of the former addict. It doesn’t happen. We want to believe in a cure, but we have driven down this highway before. We want to quell the beast, but we know he isn't easily controlled.
As we are slammed with yet another story of financial mis-management among failing corporate managers, we realize once more we have foot the bill for ‘lives of Raleigh junkies'. We are experiencing lessons-learned (L2) noting corporate giants had stress reduction therapy and exfoliations on our curative tab. We know if we were in their shoes we would have been exorbitantly engaged in the resolution of mission-critical conflicts – resolving the loss of citizen homes – and we recoil in shock over their choices.
We turn out our lights in order to snug home maintenance budgets, then peer out our windows in remembrance of neighbors who lost homes to foreclosure. A wry obscure realization resonates as we realize our neighbors don't have opportunities to exfoliate and steam their cares away. These new American refugees seek solace for their family’s lifetime investments. We look skyward and remain thankful that we have managed to keep the wolves at bay yet another day; we turn from our window and quietly shake our heads.
These daily doses of media make it incredibly easy to comprehend impending FY09 ideologies will reflect public sentiment. And, as wholesome practioners of businesses within the Washington Metropolitan Corridor, we know another layer of culpability and responsibility has just been laid out for us in 2009.
For more info: S.3001
This universal bellow taking place across our nation is being exclaimed from bedsides of elders to cribs of infants and has risen to an audible roar in recent weeks as we observe the demise of FY08. John and Jane Q. Public have thoroughly embraced concepts of ‘quality, ideals, and business-minded culpability’ in anticipation of clean contracts, job performance proficiency, honest business practices, green initiatives, hyper-management in real-time, performance metrics with positive outcomes as well as a wealth of other social considerations as inherent components for success-driven businesses of the 21st Century. As ostensible trends, ‘ideals’ are no longer opines on the ‘how-to’ of federal marketplace conduct; rather, these are permanent changes backed by Congressional mandates. What once were morays of parent and grandparent cultural musings are now transformations of our professions and serve up the newest repertoire in federal business sector legalese.
Change is revolutionary~
As our nation’s campaign trail blazes across America and candidates speak to change, the tone of their conversation has ratcheted up from previous election years. We are well aware that voter registration exceeds previous decades’ election statistics. The failing monetary system we have relied upon through many generations of business and family planning is reminiscent of a recovering addict still reeling in the aftershock of their present state of affairs. Facts surface daily that seriously concern us. Major financial bailouts are secured through the infusion of intravenous monetary feedings derived from sweat and blood transfused from the citizenry of this great nation and leave us with the same level of distrust that we engage when considering whether to place our pocketbooks or wallets in plain site of the former addict. It doesn’t happen. We want to believe in a cure, but we have driven down this highway before. We want to quell the beast, but we know he isn't easily controlled.
As we are slammed with yet another story of financial mis-management among failing corporate managers, we realize once more we have foot the bill for ‘lives of Raleigh junkies'. We are experiencing lessons-learned (L2) noting corporate giants had stress reduction therapy and exfoliations on our curative tab. We know if we were in their shoes we would have been exorbitantly engaged in the resolution of mission-critical conflicts – resolving the loss of citizen homes – and we recoil in shock over their choices.
We turn out our lights in order to snug home maintenance budgets, then peer out our windows in remembrance of neighbors who lost homes to foreclosure. A wry obscure realization resonates as we realize our neighbors don't have opportunities to exfoliate and steam their cares away. These new American refugees seek solace for their family’s lifetime investments. We look skyward and remain thankful that we have managed to keep the wolves at bay yet another day; we turn from our window and quietly shake our heads.
These daily doses of media make it incredibly easy to comprehend impending FY09 ideologies will reflect public sentiment. And, as wholesome practioners of businesses within the Washington Metropolitan Corridor, we know another layer of culpability and responsibility has just been laid out for us in 2009.
For more info: S.3001
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Incentives for Proposal Management and Oversight
In completing work products for clients in the Washington DC and Dulles Virginia Defense and Technology corridor, as well as nationally and internationally, Proposal Management and Oversight has remained a primary service support remedy of DonnaInk. Thus far in 2008, in developing multiple responses for multiple clients, in answer to multiple solicitations, DonnaInk's award ratio has remained steadfast at 100%. Yes, each submission completed this year by Donna Quesinberry, as Consultant, has resulted in client award. And, among these awards, many were not favored to win or the "shoe-in" team for the award - as it wasn't always theirs' to loose. So how has this been accomplished? How does a Proposal Management Consultant achieve a 100% award ratio in any given year? Alluding from these questions and responses is my actual question... Does a Proposal Management veteran deserve an incentive or bonus when they provide an award-winning response to clients? My contention is that, Yes, Consultants deserve incents and bonuses.
The answers to my first two questions regarding how one achieves 100% award ratios are as follows: a) through solid past performance and the establishment of a significant knowledge repository that results in subject matter expertise (SME) delivering award-winning solutions and contracts as a final result; and b) prolonged exposure to Federal requirements, a lifetime of solution method research, significant analyses and metrics, reviews of studies, in addition to inherent intuition derived from working both sides of the house (writing RFPs as well as answering RFPs) coupled with extensive Technical Communication (e.g., technical editing and writing; illustrations; diagramming; graphics; etc.) reach back provides varied market sector prowess. These skills aren't a result of poor planning or a lack of forethought coming up the ranks as a Technical Communication and Proposal Management underling. These 'golden nuggets' are the results of reaching beyond the scope of requirements associated with the proposal submission process and working to achieve SME comprehension, which was attained by many Proposal Management contemporaries, in addition to myself. In my case, through the more than 20 years of proposal submissions I've been involved with, I maintain a solid knowledge repository my clients benefit from. Therefore, their solicitation goals and objectives are reached - through awarded contracts.
In the course of developing this extensive knowledge base, I observed older, more seasoned, professionals who charted the course for us today. These experts were always contracted to receive incentives. In fact, our forerunners wouldn't consider a client that scoffed at incentive based contracting. Incentives were part and participle of Proposal Management and Oversight. I believe it should be the same today. So, my burning questions remain, Where are our percentage incentives? How did the incentives get written out of the Proposal Consultant's repertoire?
In these classic, bygone decades, our predecessors were rewarded with quotients of returns on awards through incremental percentages (e.g., .01 to .10) and easy client payment plans. Payments would be broken down over the contract term through accounts payable through sliding scale or set rate monthly payouts. These methodologies provided insignificant, mitigatable payment terms, that wouldn't be felt as a major pinch in corporate budgets. Conversely, for us as Consultants, awarded incentives over a solid client base, assured retirement planning and benefit capability, offset dry seasons (which was and remains both fair and equitable) and allowed team payouts that benefitted Editors and support personnel. Incentive based contracting achieved and delivered well-deserved bonuses to experts who worked for years to become the best in the solicitation response field. All of us can think of many clients that n would not have won awards without our solution provider services support. And, some of the "nicest" clients fall in to this category.
So why have these deserved and complimentary as well as necessary incentives disappeared over the past decade? It seems many companies hedged investments in proposal solutions that are derived from corporate overhead. Instead of investing in Consulting solutions, these managers deploy a bandaid approach with short Consultant bursts that they intend to leverage short investment with lessons learned for in-house teams. Often, it appears their hopes are to garner language used in award-winning solutions, to secure boilerplates and templates, requesting additional stylus or theme variations, so that just the accoutrements they require to achieve their fiscal goals might be achieved. Short bursting consultancy is hoped to provide the "newest innovations" to be honed in-house. When one or two significant awards are necessary for a client team in order to boost sales and retain accountability quotas, or caps set for the fiscal year, their pitch to consultants is short-lived with promise of the golden arches. Even in these smaller efforts, awards on client investment remain significant (i.e., typically over 500K up to 23M) and Consultant incentives are truly just a drop in that bucket. We won't even extend this discussion to payment preferences of Net 30, which easily become Net 60 and sometimes Net 90 contingent upon contract terms and corporate comptroller guidelines.
Over the years, I have observed incentives disappearing both in conversation and in use. I have noted contract terms are more and more difficult to negotiate; with retainers almost unheard of. Yet, companies’ desire Net 30 payment terms that classically due at Net 60 without compensatory language that is of any benefit to the Consultant. When we are called to consult, some management teams want to secure every aspect of information (e.g., specialized data, boilerplates, templates, frameworks, methodologies, etc.) we've assimilated through coursework and our infusion in to our field of expertise and they envision this all for flat fees or per hour rates not recognizing that certain products require addendums and negotiated terms. If we arrive to perform a quick-turnaround response where some piecework is client boilerplate and then the client steps on review processes to gain additional services (e.g., Quality Control Plans (QCPs), Staffing Plans, Management Plans, etc.) that would be costed separately or for variations on overall price out, an understanding of incentive requirement would preclude this type of tomfoolery.
Other compounding issues such as attempts to corral high-end Consultants and treat them as adjunct employees, typically presented as a courtesy, though actually adverse to contract law decrying employee / hirer reporting authority (that is not complimentary to a true Consultant); or the idea to extend a life long career in order to thwart Consultants' from producing competitor responses (where no conflict of interest [COI] exists); or offers of employment with suggestions that they require a permanent home as though they are the wayward children of the marketplace with salary presented thousands of dollars less per capita than these same consultants are used to receiving per annum are simply balderdash and border on insulting. Consultants smile and take these issues in stride. Yet, I wonder, if we insisted on incentives, would this level of bantering be engaged? Have we lessened our levels of respect as professionals in our own market?
When client companies are mature enough to negotiate contracts and terms - incentives are still met with a degree of apprehension. In the past this certainly wasn't the case. As contemporaries in our market, I believe all Proposal Management Consultants should begin requesting incentives once more. Even if we cannot afford to mitigate them initially, once we begin using the language again clients will hear our voices. With no idea who began dropping the incentive ball and the understanding that the marketplace has tweaked a bit, many new business leaders in the Federal, Defense and private sector contracts are foreign born citizens. More often than not, these leaders are the least likely to consider incentives or per product TSA development; however, I wouldn't state emphatically that this evolution in business ownership has been the cause of incentive cessation. Perhaps emerging Consultants undercut seasoned professionals and stopped requesting incentives in order to land gigs for more money or the same amount or even less up front with nothing on the back end.
Whether a growing trend small business owners comprised of new citizenry altered business as usual Consulting practices; or field practioners discarded incentive traditions for quick gains, the result is, we all have suffered from the loss of classic incentives. Consulting as a tried and true profession is derived from many years of practice. Just as direct hire employees are exemplars in their fields, through organizational steadfastness and commitment resulting in 401Ks and retirement benefits - Proposal Management Consultants with a lifetime of service support history in learning and understanding the Federal and private sector solicitation processes have earned their .01 to .10 percentages as they have and continue to "win" awards for clients.
Let's work together in FY09 to reintroduce incentives to our clients to the betterment of us all.
The answers to my first two questions regarding how one achieves 100% award ratios are as follows: a) through solid past performance and the establishment of a significant knowledge repository that results in subject matter expertise (SME) delivering award-winning solutions and contracts as a final result; and b) prolonged exposure to Federal requirements, a lifetime of solution method research, significant analyses and metrics, reviews of studies, in addition to inherent intuition derived from working both sides of the house (writing RFPs as well as answering RFPs) coupled with extensive Technical Communication (e.g., technical editing and writing; illustrations; diagramming; graphics; etc.) reach back provides varied market sector prowess. These skills aren't a result of poor planning or a lack of forethought coming up the ranks as a Technical Communication and Proposal Management underling. These 'golden nuggets' are the results of reaching beyond the scope of requirements associated with the proposal submission process and working to achieve SME comprehension, which was attained by many Proposal Management contemporaries, in addition to myself. In my case, through the more than 20 years of proposal submissions I've been involved with, I maintain a solid knowledge repository my clients benefit from. Therefore, their solicitation goals and objectives are reached - through awarded contracts.
In the course of developing this extensive knowledge base, I observed older, more seasoned, professionals who charted the course for us today. These experts were always contracted to receive incentives. In fact, our forerunners wouldn't consider a client that scoffed at incentive based contracting. Incentives were part and participle of Proposal Management and Oversight. I believe it should be the same today. So, my burning questions remain, Where are our percentage incentives? How did the incentives get written out of the Proposal Consultant's repertoire?
In these classic, bygone decades, our predecessors were rewarded with quotients of returns on awards through incremental percentages (e.g., .01 to .10) and easy client payment plans. Payments would be broken down over the contract term through accounts payable through sliding scale or set rate monthly payouts. These methodologies provided insignificant, mitigatable payment terms, that wouldn't be felt as a major pinch in corporate budgets. Conversely, for us as Consultants, awarded incentives over a solid client base, assured retirement planning and benefit capability, offset dry seasons (which was and remains both fair and equitable) and allowed team payouts that benefitted Editors and support personnel. Incentive based contracting achieved and delivered well-deserved bonuses to experts who worked for years to become the best in the solicitation response field. All of us can think of many clients that n would not have won awards without our solution provider services support. And, some of the "nicest" clients fall in to this category.
So why have these deserved and complimentary as well as necessary incentives disappeared over the past decade? It seems many companies hedged investments in proposal solutions that are derived from corporate overhead. Instead of investing in Consulting solutions, these managers deploy a bandaid approach with short Consultant bursts that they intend to leverage short investment with lessons learned for in-house teams. Often, it appears their hopes are to garner language used in award-winning solutions, to secure boilerplates and templates, requesting additional stylus or theme variations, so that just the accoutrements they require to achieve their fiscal goals might be achieved. Short bursting consultancy is hoped to provide the "newest innovations" to be honed in-house. When one or two significant awards are necessary for a client team in order to boost sales and retain accountability quotas, or caps set for the fiscal year, their pitch to consultants is short-lived with promise of the golden arches. Even in these smaller efforts, awards on client investment remain significant (i.e., typically over 500K up to 23M) and Consultant incentives are truly just a drop in that bucket. We won't even extend this discussion to payment preferences of Net 30, which easily become Net 60 and sometimes Net 90 contingent upon contract terms and corporate comptroller guidelines.
Over the years, I have observed incentives disappearing both in conversation and in use. I have noted contract terms are more and more difficult to negotiate; with retainers almost unheard of. Yet, companies’ desire Net 30 payment terms that classically due at Net 60 without compensatory language that is of any benefit to the Consultant. When we are called to consult, some management teams want to secure every aspect of information (e.g., specialized data, boilerplates, templates, frameworks, methodologies, etc.) we've assimilated through coursework and our infusion in to our field of expertise and they envision this all for flat fees or per hour rates not recognizing that certain products require addendums and negotiated terms. If we arrive to perform a quick-turnaround response where some piecework is client boilerplate and then the client steps on review processes to gain additional services (e.g., Quality Control Plans (QCPs), Staffing Plans, Management Plans, etc.) that would be costed separately or for variations on overall price out, an understanding of incentive requirement would preclude this type of tomfoolery.
Other compounding issues such as attempts to corral high-end Consultants and treat them as adjunct employees, typically presented as a courtesy, though actually adverse to contract law decrying employee / hirer reporting authority (that is not complimentary to a true Consultant); or the idea to extend a life long career in order to thwart Consultants' from producing competitor responses (where no conflict of interest [COI] exists); or offers of employment with suggestions that they require a permanent home as though they are the wayward children of the marketplace with salary presented thousands of dollars less per capita than these same consultants are used to receiving per annum are simply balderdash and border on insulting. Consultants smile and take these issues in stride. Yet, I wonder, if we insisted on incentives, would this level of bantering be engaged? Have we lessened our levels of respect as professionals in our own market?
When client companies are mature enough to negotiate contracts and terms - incentives are still met with a degree of apprehension. In the past this certainly wasn't the case. As contemporaries in our market, I believe all Proposal Management Consultants should begin requesting incentives once more. Even if we cannot afford to mitigate them initially, once we begin using the language again clients will hear our voices. With no idea who began dropping the incentive ball and the understanding that the marketplace has tweaked a bit, many new business leaders in the Federal, Defense and private sector contracts are foreign born citizens. More often than not, these leaders are the least likely to consider incentives or per product TSA development; however, I wouldn't state emphatically that this evolution in business ownership has been the cause of incentive cessation. Perhaps emerging Consultants undercut seasoned professionals and stopped requesting incentives in order to land gigs for more money or the same amount or even less up front with nothing on the back end.
Whether a growing trend small business owners comprised of new citizenry altered business as usual Consulting practices; or field practioners discarded incentive traditions for quick gains, the result is, we all have suffered from the loss of classic incentives. Consulting as a tried and true profession is derived from many years of practice. Just as direct hire employees are exemplars in their fields, through organizational steadfastness and commitment resulting in 401Ks and retirement benefits - Proposal Management Consultants with a lifetime of service support history in learning and understanding the Federal and private sector solicitation processes have earned their .01 to .10 percentages as they have and continue to "win" awards for clients.
Let's work together in FY09 to reintroduce incentives to our clients to the betterment of us all.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Proposal Development
To achieve a winning proposal, prospective clients need to be assured that your solutions are a cut above the competition. Winning proposals must convey a solid understanding of fulfillment requirements. This is achieved through effective planning and research, in addition to dedication to service. Striking text and qualitative format will deliver your message succinctly and leave no prospects for question in reviewers’ minds regarding your potential as an upcoming team player and respondent contractor. Through seamless compliance to Grant, IDIQ, RFI, RFP, or RFQ proposal requests, coupled with well-developed, easily understood, technical solutions you present your expertise and value-adds that Government (DoD, Federal, State and local), commercial, or industry designees desire. Government or Industry solicitations require comprehensive management and production service fulfillment, which DonnaInk offers. As complement to existing knowledge management (KM) resources, through efficient development process management that achieves award winning results – DonnaInk develops succinct, solutions-based, compliant end-products. And, we support best practice methodologies with proactive returns-on-investment (ROIs).
Win themes, discriminators, and response strategies must weave your story while demonstrating corporate strength, integrity, past performance, and technical comprehension with an ease that usurps competitor prospects. DonnaInk can provide the clear text and qualitative final copy that gives your company a competitive edge in 2007. Let us work for you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
