E. Hamer Associates, Ltd.
career in motion banner

Performance Pointers Archives

Death by RFP; or: Tell Me About the Elephant

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away ... the Request for Proposal (RFP) process was designed to bring a measure of fairness and equity to government and corporate purchasing of goods and services. The intent of the early developers of the process was, presumably, to ensure that public --or corporate-- funds were spent in a way that would ensure the best possible product or service for the best possible price, while at the same time ensuring that the process was not skewed in favor of some suppliers, to the exclusion of others. “May the best firm win.” The concept is sound, and in some rare cases, this is actually what happens. In most cases, however, the RFP process has become fatally flawed.

Like many consultants before me, I too have spent countless hours meticulously addressing the requirements listed in many an RFP, making the case for the suitability of my company to perform the work. And it was with great frustration that I subsequently discovered, time and time again, that my company would not be considered further. Through my work as a private career consultant, helping individuals reestablish their career after a lay-off or after completing an advanced degree, one day it dawned on me, that I wasn’t practicing what I preached to my career clients. I too, was wasting an inordinate amount of time responding to ‘job advertisements’, when what I should be doing is speaking with the problem-owner, performing a needs analysis, and then putting together a proposal to solve the problem.

And this is where the RFP process breaks down --in the case of human performance management or change consulting-- the RFP seeks the cheapest (or most experienced) provider of a solution to a problem; a solution that the organization has already chosen. However, as I reflected on past RFP responses, in too many cases the problem either was not defined, not communicated, or so poorly defined that it begged discussion. And even in cases where the problem was defined, the chosen solution often would not have solved the problem.

Let me give an example. A company put out to tender (released an RFP) that they required a consultant to provide teambuilding programs. I’m certain that many responses came in; all describing how each consultant would develop, deliver and evaluate these teambuilding programs. But nowhere in the RFP was the problem defined, and I was left with the question “What’s wrong with the team that a teambuilding program is supposed to correct?” Not to be outdone, I phoned the contact person mentioned in the RFP, and got someone from Purchasing. This person, of course, had no idea what the problem was (that wasn’t her concern; she was only responsible for the RFP itself) but she graciously put me through to the department manager. The discussion that followed after my introduction is in my experience quite typical:

Q: What do you expect to be different --changed for the better-- after the teambuilding program?
A: Well, we expect that everyone will get along better.
Q: How is it hurting your department now, when they aren’t getting along?
A: Well, it’s bad for morale, which is why we need teambuilding.
Q: Yes, I understand that, but how does it affect the work?
A: I’m not sure I understand what you mean ...
Q: Is it affecting productivity? Or the quality of the work? Are you missing deadlines because of interpersonal issues?
A: Actually, we’re not totally happy with the amount of work that gets done.
Q: How much work would you like to get done?
A: Umm, more than now, obviously, without having to hire more people.
Q: Do you have any specific targets in mind? Increase productivity per individual worker by how much percent?
A: No, we don’t look at individual productivity here, we’re a team.
Q: Are you telling me that you don’t keep track of who is pulling their weight, and who isn’t?
A: That’s correct—we look only at overall output.
Q: Do you know who your best performers are?
A: Sure we do; they’re not the problem.
Q: So what --or who-- is the problem?
A: You know, we do have a couple of people who are resistant to using the new system, and they’re slowing everything down ...

And on and on it goes.

Perhaps it’s just me, but it became pretty obvious that the issue is a very different one, and not one that can be resolved with any kind of teambuilding program. If one or more staff members resist using a new system (whatever that system is or does), the problem would be better addressed by for instance one-on-one coaching, or remedial application training, or some innovative workflow management, or redeployment to another department, or --if all else fails-- termination of their employment.

This example illustrates the very common corporate urge to ignore the elephant in the room, and instead talk about how the color of the walls makes the room feel smaller. The result: let’s organize a party (put out an RFP) and paint the walls a different color! Yeah! That’ll solve the problem, won’t it?

Frankly, no it won’t. It will cost the company a great deal of money, time, and effort, and it will get them absolutely nowhere. I for one am no longer bidding on the painting jobs; I want to help companies remove the elephant. And for that, they’ll need to acknowledge its existence. I am going to double my efforts to have those kinds of conversations with corporate leaders: “Tell me about the elephants in your house.”

Last updated on Mar 31, 2009 at 05:47 AM
Category: Knowledge Management Training and Instructional Design Human Performance Improvement
0 comments | Leave a comment (must be logged in)

 
© 2008 E. Hamer Associates, Ltd.   Home | Contact | Privacy | Legal