In reply to a post named 'Death to the RFP' by James Robertson to cmpros@lists.cmprofessionals.org - 13 February 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
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

0 comments:
Post a Comment