Many operatives in the bidding
and tendering space bang
on about “win themes” and
“silver bullets”.
This month, I’d like to use my
column to create clarity on something
particularly important . . . and over
which there has long been confusion:
A “win theme” is not something a bid
team sits around, chews the fat over,
and “comes up with” (which isn’t to say
that that’s not what many think it is).
What it is, is a core, success-critical
competitive strength or advantage
that is identified through careful and
thorough research (including that
which is conducted long before the
tender call documentation is released).
If a proponent’s research is
sufficiently thorough, the true win
theme (or themes) will be uncovered
naturally in the course of that research
(and the associated competitive
analysis) process.
A real “win theme” will, in a sense,
“identify itself”.
By way of example, I refuse to
work with the outputs of external
facilitators who produce a bundle of
flipchart sheets containing skeletal
“mind maps”, barely-connected bullet
points, flow charts, and other squiggles
encircling the latest trendy terminology,
complementing this with a few pages
of captured conversation and passing
off the result as a “bid strategy”.
Yet, believing the contents of this
form of “workshop” will magically
produce winning submissions, this
is close to the standard procedure
for many bidders. That is, they look
outside of their own walls to some
consultant’s generic template,
as opposed to looking within and
conducting their own genuine, deep
thinking processes – thinking processes
which could, done right, win bids
reliably and consistently.
Others simply leap into the writing
part of the exercise without any form
of strategy.
It’s no wonder 99 percent of
organisations produce 99 percent
sheer “brochureware” (as I call it) in
response to an EOI, RFP or RFT.
One Piece of Flawed Thinking that
Crops Up Almost Every Time
One of the many symptoms of
this flawed process is the resultant
confusion between strategy and
tactics. More specifically, it’s the
result of coming up with great “ideas”
without the benefit of thorough
research and a well-formulated
underlying competitive strategy.
“Strategy” and “tactics” are not
interchangeable terms. And they’re
certainly not interchangeable concepts:
Strategy informs tactics. Two
different things. Two different
functions. Two different processes.
A basic, high-level definition of
“strategy” might be: A way to get
from a current “state” to a specific
desired end-state.
Between this current state and the
desired state may be any degree of gap;
it doesn’t matter. “Tactics”, then, are
the components of the plan designed to
achieve the overarching strategy.
Taking this singular example
highlights the folly in sitting around
trying to “come up with” “good ideas” for
“what we can say” in a submission.
