Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Why I love RFPs

Dave Bressler has a wonderful post about fixing the RFP process.  He looks at it from the vendor perspective.  While I agree with many of Dave's suggestions, I'd like to offer my reasons for loving RFPs.  Of course, I'm predominately looking at it from the client perspective.

Clearly Defined Project Purpose
RFPs force the stakeholders to think about, write out, order and agree what the goals are for the project/software/etc.  Companies will often have very vague reasons for wanting to do something and even less understanding of how to evaluate if its successful.  Forcing executives to agree to and state the purpose of the exercise is critical.  Believe it or not, RFPs are a great way of doing this, if for no other reason than the fact that stakeholders usually have to go to the CFO or Board to get approval to spend that kind of money.  (Note: The longer I've worked in software, the more I've come to love CFOs.)

Checklist for Decision Making
RFPs provides a checklist that stakeholders have to agree to and then use to justify why they want to go with a particular solution.  Many times on the client side, you only get limited amounts of time from critical stakeholders.  Whatever they profess, key stakeholders rarely devote the type of time a major project needs.

First having the meeting to agree to the checklist and discuss the importance of different items is key from an education perspective.  Then when it comes for vendor evaluations, which is often months later, the checklist provides structure from which to have discussions and make evaluations/decisions.

Lacking the structure of a checklist with which to evaluate multiple solutions, stakeholders will often latch onto the first solution they see that seems to address their needs. **please see note below.

Understanding what You're Buying
RFPs go a long way towards addressing the asymmetries in understanding and product expertise.  Vendors know infinitely more about the products and market space than prospective clients.  Hearing different vendors answer the same questions is extremely educational for stakeholders.  For example, often times a stakeholder won't understand answers being given, but if three vendors answer a question in one way, while one vendor provides a completely different answer; one gets an opportunity to have real discussion about why.

Determing the Price to Pay
Price is rarely a deciding factor, but having multiple bids is critical for getting a good price from the vendor you do select.  Especially if the selection period covers one vendor's year-end or quarter-end.  Often times one vendor will drop their price to a ridiculous level because that salesperson needs the sale for some reason.

There's a great line from Warren Buffett: "You can't be any smarter than the dumbest competitor you're competing against."  When there are equivalent products and one vendor is willing to drop their price by say 80%, even if you'd never select that vendor, other vendors have to drop their price to an equivalent level.

Understand, price has nothing to do with selecting who you're going to go with, but having multiple bids has everything to do with how much you pay for the product you've selected.

I hope this helps you understand why I love RFPs so much.

**Note: I don't think people working for vendors fully understand the importance of presenting first.  Most often in client firms, there's really only one way discussed to do something.  So the first person who can suggest a viable way to do it gets to do it that way.  So managers/executives are "trained" to go with whatever way they see that works first and move forward rapidly with it.  There is a huge advantage to being the first vendor who presents.

Monday, October 5, 2009

The Real Reason Twitter is Business Critical

Dilbert answered the question of why Twitter is mission critical.


Sunday, July 19, 2009

Innovation - Not Always all it's Cracked Up to Be


People sing the praises of innovation like it's going to save the world, answer all our problems and grow our markets. There's only one problem, there isn't necessarily a correlation between innovation and growth. Let me give you an example.

The Japanese cell phone maker, Sharp, is currently selling the Aquos 912SH. It comes with an LCD screen that swivels 90 degrees, GPS, a bar-code reader (for researching and comparing products), digital TV, credit card functionality, video conferencing, a camera and it is unlocked by facial recognition.

It is an amazingly innovative phone that is years ahead of anything else, all except for one problem - they can't sell them anywhere outside of Japan. For years Japanese phones have innovated ahead of the world. In 1999 they had cameras, 3G networks in 2001, full music downloads in 2002, electronic payment in 2004 and digital TV in 2005. And what has all their innovation got them? Squat.

Japan has innovated at least 5 years ahead of the US and their market is shrinking. They've developed standards the rest of the world is not adopting. Innovation is only beneficial if there are growing markets that are demanding your innovations. Next time someone starts prattling on about how great innovation is, ask them why their not buying the most innovative cell phones in the world?

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Can Software Save Money in Health Care?

Phillip Longman has an article Code Red in the Washington Monthly talking about how to make health care more cost effective. James Kwak provides an excellent summary of the points in the always informative "Baseline Scenario".
  1. The health care cost problem is largely caused by overtreatement.
  2. The answer is software: "Almost all experts agree that in order to begin to deal with these problems, the health care industry must step into the twenty-first century and become more computerized."
  3. Software implementation projects can go horribly, horribly wrong.
  4. The solution is open-source software.
Point one makes sense, but there is no reason to believe that software will solve this problem. If anything, software will make the problem worse. Why?

Computerization is like paving the cow path. People gather requirements, find ways to do things more efficiently and then, ideally, implement software systems to do this. i.e. they pave the cow path. So now cows move more quickly, one has more visibility to where they are and more people can interact with them in more ways. How will this reduce cost?

Someone is in a medical facility for a certain period of time. Paving the cow path will enable fifty people to interact with them as opposed to five. So now fifty people can over treat and over bill as opposed to five. And anybody believes this is going to reduce overtreatement and cost?

It's like trying to trap a mouse in a house of cheese.

Monday, June 15, 2009

What Kind of Rock Band is Your Team?

Rock bands accomplish different things. The people and their personalities determine the structures and working arrangements. If the structure is right for the personalities involved, the band will probably be successful for a long time - think U2. If the structures and working relationships are not right - think The Police, it probably won't work, no matter how successful you are.

Does your team resemble any of these bands?

U2 - This band has one superstar and three supporting members. This is not to say that all members don't contribute, but one of them is a superstar and the other three are not. What is interesting is that the superstar has never shown an interest in leaving the team, working separately or conflicting with the team. Also, other members have never shown jealousy or resentment. What are the structures and working relationships necessary to keep the superstar and other team members happily engaged? Are you using them?

The Beatles - This band had two superstars and two supporting members. The competition delivered some amazing deliverables, but it also destroyed them. If you have a competitive group that produces great deliverables, maybe it's best to cultivate the competition, enjoy the outputs and move on when the gig is over.

The Chieftains - This group had no easily recognizable members, rotated people through and delivered the goods for 40 years. If you have a group that is founded around a good idea, consistently produces and has the structures to rotate personal for many years, maybe it's best to keep tuning the instruments and letting them make music.

The Police - This band grew to be the biggest band in the world and yet the members personal animosities were so great that they couldn't find a way to stay together. No matter how successful a group is, if the members can't get along there's nothing that can entice them to work together. Have you ever traded off relationships for success? I have and it didn't work for me either.

Jane's Addiction - This band got itself together, produced an amazing album and song and then fell apart. Much as people have tried to put them back together again and recapture the magic, maybe it's better to enjoy it for what it was, enjoy what they delivered and move on.

Most project teams I've been on resembled Jane's Addiction more than any other. They were good for what they were, accomplished what could be accomplished and never successfully got back together again. Maybe their biggest hit was prophetic: Been Caught Stealing

Whatever team you're putting together, do the structures and working relationships match the personalities and goals?

Sunday, June 14, 2009

He who shall not be named


Have you been on a team where one person had an idea they were so passionate about, it almost prevented other discussion? A situation where you could name the person and everyone knew just what you were talking about or you could introduce the topic by saying "He who shall not be named."

We extole passion in classes and in theoritical discussion. We say "It changes the world." We link it to great athletes. How often do we enjoy it everywhere but in our own realities? Isn't it easier to deal with the reasonable, the level-headed and the practical rather than the passionate?

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Newspapers and Their Changing Environment


A lot of people are complaining that newspapers are dieing.  That's not completely true.  Newspapers with an advertising based revenue model are dieing.  Companies that didn't depend upon that model are not.  Consumer Reports, Stratfor and Seeking Alpha didn't choose to follow that model, and they are doing fine.

What happened is that newspapers grew up in a particular business environment, did well and expanded.  A couple things changed that are contributing to their problems.  The economic environment changed and newspapers were/are too big to be supported by their revenue model.  This economic environment changed necessitates a business change that newspapers do not want to accept.  If newspapers were a quarter their current size, their revenue model would be fine.  For people running newspapers, that is not an acceptable solution.

The Roman's had a saying, "Times change, we change with them."  Until people running Newspapers are willing to change, they will continue to bleed a slow death.  More interestingly, other organizations, the Stratfor's, the Seeking Alpha's etc. will emerge and offer a better product with a sustainable business model that is aligned with the new economic environment.