A history of the Proposal Management profession

Source: T. C. Boren - APMP
Publication date: 1999

• Introduction
• The 1950s - The Beginning
• The 1960s - Advances in Equipment and Support
• The 1970s - An Explosion of Changes
• The 1980s - The Proposal Consulting Corporations
• Consulting and Outsourcing
• The Contribution of the Defence and Aerospace Industry
• Books and Publications That Have Influenced Proposal Development
• Where Is It All Going?

During the 1960s and 70s, Proposal Development was shaped into a profession by individuals with strong convictions and foresight. It then changed rapidly, driven by government initiatives, the implementation of new processes, and increased publications capabilities. Companies established Proposal Development Centers, and staffed these centers with Proposal Development Specialists and support personnel able to manage the new processes, capabilities, and competitive challenges. Consulting services became a more frequently used approach as proposals grew in size and complexity. Economics, combined with proposal-unique requirements, drove many companies to eliminate their in-house proposal development capability and outsource to proposal consulting organizations. In recent years, new facets have been added to the profession to meet the exploding demands of electronic media capability.

How humorous and vindictive it would be to transport one of today’s proposal development teams back to the environment of the 1950s. No computers, no printers, no high-speed copying machines, no Proposal Development Centers, no Proposal Development Specialists, no guidelines or established processes, no Technical Publications or word processing support; just engineers, engineers, engineers, with slide rules and secretaries typing on blue carbon-backed “Ditto” paper. We had to scrape off each mistake or change with a knife and repair the text with a little insert of strike over “Ditto” carbon paper. Proposal development was slow and messy, and you certainly couldn’t keep submitting changes (although that part was nice).

In the 1950s, most proposals were sole source bids and awards. The defense world was hungry for new technological capabilities, and wasn’t yet in an environment that required competition and a structured source selection processes. These things did not arrive until the 1960s, when government-imposed requirements forced us to think about a “Proposal Strategy.” The defense industry hadn’t really progressed to having Proposal Development Centers or Specialists. They usually developed proposals in whatever area could be scrounged: abandoned hanger lofts, warehouses, or vacant storage areas. Some proposals were even developed in a series of motel rooms. The minute a proposal was submitted, the proposal area would be stripped of telephones, typewriters and supplies, and desks would be returned to salvage (where they usually came from). It was like the company never expected to do another proposal.

The only Proposal Specialist was someone (usually called a Proposal Coordinator) who seemed to know everybody and could get everything done without going through the company’s bureaucratic processes. On occasion someone from the Program Office might bring experience gained on a few previous proposals.

As we moved into the 1960s our equipment and support did get a little better. We now had typewriters with correction paper (not the Correcting Selectrics, but at least hand held correction paper). We still didn’t have a typing resource, so we had to call all the secretaries to see who could work overtime, or whose boss was out of town so they could handle some typing during the day. Some companies were progressive enough to have typing pools that could be dedicated to supporting proposals from time to time. We also had the Marchant Calculator—the loudest, clunky thing you ever used. When you got one really going it shook everything around it.

The Word “Shall” Takes on a New Meaning

We started to see the Request For Proposal (RFP) with detailed requirements and a Statement Of Work (SOW) loaded with “Shalls.” This started a whole new task for the fledgling Proposal Specialists. Since we didn’t have computers and all of today’s systematic ways of building compliance and cross reference matrices, we had to do them manually. This meant getting a room with lots of wall space, cutting a copy of the proposal outline up by paragraph number, and taping each section up on the wall. We would then make multiple copies of the RFP, cut out each sentence or paragraph with a “Shall” in it, and stack them all up by SOW paragraph number. The next critical step was to determine in which proposal paragraph each of these “Shalls” should be responded to. We would then tape each “shall” on the wall until all of the “shalls” were assigned to at least one paragraph in the proposal. With this step completed we would remove the proposal outline headings and the respective “shalls” from the wall and tape them on sheets of paper. These were then reproduced and given to the respective authors as their checklists for assuring that we would be responsive to the RFP. If any creative Proposal or Volume Leader made a change in the proposal outline, a major shuffling of paper followed.

It didn’t take competitors long to realize that the name of the game was to be responsive. In the past we not only heard that statement “I don’t care what the RFP says, I know what they really want”, but we actually got away with it. Now the RFP had become a document that could not be violated or ignored. As companies developed techniques for achieving responsiveness the playing field was suddenly leveled, and new terms like Discriminators and Proposal Strategy were heard.

Proposal Gurus and Consulting Services

In the 1950s, most proposals were simply technical responses, and were prepared ad hoc, per the Proposal Leader’s direction for writing style, proposal organization, publication methods, and whether the proposal team would collocate or be disbursed throughout the company. The 1960s saw a significant change in consulting services, and in the way we thought about our customers and our products.

The first real guru on the scene was Jim Beveridge. Jim formed JMBeveridge & Associates in 1963 and published his first book, The Anatomy of a Win, in 1964. Jim’s book and his seminar of the same name were to become the cornerstone for a new way of thinking about competitions and preparing proposals. Over the next 20 years, Jim’s book was in such demand that the publishers reprinted it 30 times, and he presented his Anatomy of a Win Seminar to 40,000 attendees at 70 major companies and at numerous public sessions.

Jim Beveridge challenged us to gather intelligence about our competition, understand the differences in approaches, acknowledge any customer biases, and then concentrate on what counted most – discriminators. He was a proponent of the view that just answering the RFP requirements was no longer adequate to win. We had to know how our approach was different, and then make those discriminators and the benefits they offered the customer highly visible in the proposal. Jim Beveridge often said “The actual proposal document may be at the heart, but I think it is only one small part of the anatomy of a win.... The writing of a proposal is test-taking time, and you can’t hope to pass the test if you haven’t done your homework.” Jim liked to see the terms “Only we can...” and “Because we have already....” This brought a new level of complexity, accuracy, and effort to proposal preparation.

A new term also surfaced—the “ghost”. Jim, who was referred to as “A Marketer’s Marketer,” insisted that if we really wanted to win a competition it was our duty to gather the intelligence about our competition; identify customer biases; determine our discriminators; and conduct good technical, operational, and cost trade studies. If we truly had a superior approach, it was also our obligation to “ghost” our competitors by exposing their weaknesses in well-founded trade studies. Jim always said that it would be unprofessional for us to let the customer buy an inferior product if we were aware of a competitor’s problem areas.

Jim Beveridge was also a proponent of keeping it simple, hard-hitting, and honest. He advocated short, direct, active-voice sentences—write like we talk, not in convoluted, wandering sentences, and use the first person (I, We, Our) often, instead of repeating the company name over and over in the text. He also challenged us to discuss our known or perceived weaknesses, to address how we would overcome them, or to prove that they never existed at all. In other words, take on any ghost stories against us head on.

Jim was way ahead of his time in addressing what we now know as Risk Identification, and indeed in all areas of proposal development. Before his untimely death of cancer in 1986, Jim co-authored additional books and took his philosophy into new seminars on proposal procedures and competitive simulations.

TechMedia Offers First Major Proposal Outsourcing Service

Personnel formerly associated with LPI (Lithographic Productions, Inc.) and PMI (Proposal Management, Inc.), who had operated independently throughout the 60s, formed a new proposal support resource in the early 70s. Thomas A. Kaplan, John J. McCosker, Sr., and John Bradley formed TechMedia Corporation. As far as I can determine, this was the first organization to offer a wide range of out- sourced proposal development resources.

Dick Kulda Offers New Insight to Orals and Presentations

As early as 1967, Dick Kulda was offering a new look at the way we presented ourselves during Proposal Orals and Marketing presentations. Following a successful technical and marketing career at Hughes Aircraft Company, Dick formed his own company, Professional Eloquence. He offered video-monitored training for all company levels, from the most senior management down. His seminar “Persuasiveness—A Workshop for Professional People” was rigorous, revealing, and at times shocking to people who thought they were making good impressions on their audience. Dick introduced new ways to reach an audience and maintain its attention by limiting information “jamming,” and through his technique called Progressive Disclosure.

Changes in the proposal development profession during the 1970s affected many areas. The consulting and seminar business blossomed, Proposal Development Centers took on a new meaning, disciplined processes were now becoming accepted, and production processes and equipment were improving rapidly. We could no longer just respond to the “Shalls”. We had to deal with the discriminators between competitors and determine what benefits our discriminators could offer that other competitors couldn’t match. With this new level of competitiveness came even more “ghosting.” Since it worked both ways, we had to be prepared to discuss our perceived weaknesses in a manner that built customer confidence, even if a competitor didn’t bring them up.

NASA was now on the scene as a major customer. NASA’s evaluation criteria brought a new level of importance to Management and Risk. These areas had really been considered in the HO-HUM category in most proposals before NASA put new emphasis on them. In some cases NASA actually rejected some of our proposed “Key Personnel.”

New Types of Consulting Services and Seminars

The 1970s saw a diversification in the proposal consulting and seminar profession. Jim Beveridge was still in great demand with his “Anatomy of A Win” Seminar, but new types of proposal consulting and seminars were also being offered by Hyman Silver, Dr. Judson LaFlash, Shipley Associates, Dick Close, and Communication Management Associates (CMA). Jim Beveridge and Ed Velton introduced a new book called Creating Superior Proposals, and later a seminar by the same name. This period was sometimes referred to as the era of the “Big Four”—Beveridge, Silver, LaFlash, and Close.

Hyman Silver Introduces Technical Marketing and Proposal Preparation Seminar

In 1971, Hyman Silver (better known as Hy Silver), Rockwell’s Director of Marketing, led a very successful win of the Space Shuttle Program. He entered the consulting and seminar profession with the introduction of his new seminar “Technical Marketing and Proposal Preparation” under the name of H. Silver and Associates (HSA). This seminar addressed marketing intelligence gathering and strategy, which were Hy’s favorite subjects, and also encompassed source selection, processes, and presentation style, including themes and graphics. In his seminar, Hy always delighted in telling his stories of techniques for giving misinformation to competitors at the old Cockatoo Restaurant near Rockwell. His seminar should probably get credit for getting middle and senior management involved in the proposal development process, and exposing them to the new emphasis on being competitive. It was not unusual for attendees at his seminars to number in the hundreds.

As the proposal consulting and seminar activities progressed, HSA began to offer a staff of proposal consultants for managing competitive proposals in the U.S. and Europe. As this area grew HSA expanded to include Proposal Development Workshops, and Hy developed his original Seminar into a 2-day video session. This met with only limited success, so Hy returned to live presentations for the seminar, and offered his video sessions for sale to the industry. The HSA organization grew to over 100 consultants and instructors. It continues to be operational throughout the U.S. and in Europe.

Dr. Judson LaFlash Offers Customized Seminars

Dr. Judson Laflash entered the proposal consulting and seminar arena in 1973. Judson was often referred to as “The Dean of American Proposal Consultants.” He offered in-house proposal seminars that were tailored to the client’s business area, the competing organizations, and the customer’s evaluation process. He provided 2- and 3-day sessions during daytime, evenings, and/or weekends. He always offered the customer an opportunity to best match the seminar to the working demands of the company and the proposal activity.

Judson’s background was one of diversity. He had been a marketing manager, U.S. Government official, DOD marketing publisher, university professor, reporter/feature writer for a major newspaper, and a member of the U.S. Military. He was one of the few proposal consultants to lecture at U.S. Naval Centers and at the National War College. Judson was always known for being close to the political issues of the day, and was very effective in developing Executive Summaries.

Shipley Associates Enters Proposal Consulting and Seminars Through a Different Avenue

Richard Shipley formed Shipley Associates in 1974 to train engineers to be better technical writers. Richard collected approximately 30 college and university staff members with Ph.D.s and proceeded to conduct training classes throughout the industry on how to improve writing skills for Statements Of Work (SOW), specifications, and other technical papers and reports. They were attacking the old adage that engineers don’t know how to write. By 1985, Shipley Associates had been introduced to the problems and complexities of writing proposals, and opened a new area of business relating to Proposal Development. Steven Shipley took the helm for this new business area and started offering proposal development seminars and workshops, and proposal management services.

R. N. Close Associates, the First Hands-On Workshop and Seminar

Richard N. Close was one of the first contributors to understand the need for a proposal preparation process, and for knowledge and recognition of the Source Selection Process. Before Dick formed R. N. Close Associates in 1975, he had many years in R&D, Proposal Management, and Program Management. His last responsibility before entering the proposal profession full time was that of President of Raytheon Europe Electronics, Co.

Dick’s “Proposal Win Strategy Seminar Workshop” quickly became the benchmark seminar for companies involved in Government competitions. Dick Close’s seminars were not just a lecture series, they were hands-on, mind challenging, eye-opening workshops. Those of us who attended Dick’s workshop will never forget our first encounter in trying to prepare a “Storyboard,” or proposal plan, for our individual section of a simulated competition for a sailboat.

The long lasting impact of his workshop was to give all of us a different outlook on this new, disciplined process for selecting winning contractors. In the workshop we were forced to think like the customer. We were placed in teams, we individually scored three separate proposals, and then the high and low scorers in each team had to debate and defend their scores. The simulated competition was for a communications system, something we could all understand. One of the three proposals was prepared to include an outstanding technical approach, but one that did not follow the RFP instructions. A second was totally responsive to the RFP, but was less brilliant technically. The third proposal was disorganized and non-responsive. It was interesting and informative to see the wide range of scoring within each evaluation team.

Dick Close’s “Proposal Win Strategy Seminar Workshop” contained many other elements, including Intelligence Gathering, Strategy Formulation, New Requirements, and overall writing tips. While Dick’s philosophy was not as aggressive as some consultants of that time, he introduced us to a new way of thinking about a competition and developing a proposal. Dick was one of the “Big Four” (Beveridge, Close, LaFlash, and Silver) that entered the proposal arena as individuals and made a big impact on the quality of the product we prepared.

Graphics Take a New Role With the GO Process

The Graphics Oriented, or “GO” approach to proposals, was developed by Hudson T. Patton III in 1977. Hudson introduced a public seminar and GO proposal development services in 1978 through Communications Management Associates (CMA), in partnership with Robert Dycus. In the 1980s Hudson’s practice grew to include more than 20 associates.

The GO proposal methodology differed from those for storyboard and text-driven proposals in several respects. Hudson, like others, had learned in practice the benefits of a “Graphics First, Text Later” methodology. GO proposals favored the use of 11 x 17-inch foldout graphics to present and detail a company’s approach. The graphic products were sometimes referred to as “data-rich.” The term “Graphic” was broadly defined, encompassing flowcharts, tables, drawings, photographs, schedules, and all other “graphic” data elements. These elements were selected and annotated to illustrate the proposal’s technical and management approach, claims, benefits and themes. In the GO system, no text was written for the proposal until all desired graphics were complete. Text was then used to provide the proposal’s persuasive argument, citing key points found throughout the graphics, highlighting benefits, and providing graphic-to-graphic continuity. Hudson points out that GO was “not some goofy picture with a theme statement.” The system was used for “putting the proof of technical arguments” into an exhibit, usually in the form of graphical, tabular data.

For a time Hudson's approach brought emphasis to the use of large, data-rich illustrations, one of the formative precursors to the modern publication techniques favoring smaller and integrated illustrations in a multi-column format.

In 1978, Jim Beveridge and Ed Velton collaborated on a new book, Creating Superior Proposals. This book addressed the task of implementing new proposal preparation techniques that would fully exploit the Jim Beveridge philosophies of Proposal Strategy, Discriminators, AHA!s, Ghost Stories (the DAGlist), Storyboards, Themes, Action Titles, and Red Team Reviews. The book emphasized the use of AHA!s, proposal material that made the evaluator feel good or excited. It also discussed OH-OH!s, proposal material that made the evaluator feel uncomfortable, concerned, or suspicious. Then there were the HO-HUMs, material you had to submit to be responsive, but had little or no effect on the competition.

During the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, individual proposal consultants were in demand. The 1980s evolved into a period where consulting “teams” were hired from Proposal Consulting Corporations.

The 1980s started with the individual Proposal Consultants and their teams being predominant. Names like Jim Beveridge, Ed Velton, Dr. Judson LaFlash, Dick Close, and Hyman Silver were all in demand. Early in that decade new names such as Michael J. Ianalli, Steven Myers, and Steve Shipley came to be recognized. These individuals and their companies, along with the growing corporate organization of Hyman Silver, were to become the major proposal consulting resources of the 80s and 90s.

The Government had now moved into an era of rapidly evolving new initiatives and competitive issues like Total Quality Management (TQM), Risk, Past Performance, Integrated Product Teams (IPTs), Integrated Master Plan/Integrated Master Schedule (IMP/IMS), and numerous others. This brought on the need for companies to look outside their own ranks for proposal support. These ever evolving initiatives and requirements, along with the sheer size (10,000 to 20,000 page proposals were common) and number of opportunities being bid at one time, all brought about the very definite need for outsourcing parts of proposals, as well as the management of Proposals and Proposal Centers.

MJI Associates, One of the First New Corporate Organizations of The 1980s

In 1981, Michael J. Ianalli founded MJI Associates Inc. MJI rapidly became an international Business Development consulting company. They provided a broad array of specialized business development services to companies interested in pursuing, acquiring, and developing U.S. and International Aerospace and Defense business. MJI’s services included Strategic and Marketing Planning, Program and Proposal Management and Development, Training, and Technical and Management Advisory Services.

Steven Myers and SM&A

In the early 1980s, Steven Myers was most noted for his individual consulting services in Proposal Management in the space arena. As proposal development outsourcing opportunities had developed, so had Steven Myers & Associates, Inc. (SM&A). They provided competitive proposal management, program planning, and system engineering services to their clients. SM&A grew to over 150 development employees and ranked as one of the largest in the nation.

Shipley Associates Expand Consulting Services to Include Proposal Development

As I discussed in an earlier section, Shipley Associates, when originally founded in 1974, was dedicated to training in the technical writing area. By 1985, Shipley Associates had been introduced to the problems and complexities of managing and writing proposals and opened a new Proposal Development business area. Steven Shipley led this new business opportunity and started offering seminars and workshops, including Developing Capture Plans, How to Write Winning Proposals, How to Manage Winning Proposals, Writing Executive Summaries, Preparing Oral Proposals and Briefings, and Just-In-Time Proposal Training.

One unique program that Shipley Associates offered was a program called “Train the Trainer.” Through this program, industry sent proposal development personnel to extended classroom training where they learned the processes and became certified to train personnel on future proposals within their company. Shipley Associates also added a cadre of proposal development specialists from industry, to provide direct, hands-on consulting for proposal management, managing and staffing red team reviews, and developing cost volumes. The company later added publication personnel to provide support, or total capability, for developing final documentation.

Along the way, Shipley Associates was merged into Franklin Quest in 1994 and then later into Franklin Covey. In 1997 the proposal development business area was reacquired from Franklin Covey, and is now operating again under the name Shipley Associates.

Industry’s transitioning to outsourcing created new proposal opportunities for both proposal management and specialty services.

Positioning To Win Offered as a Book and Seminar/Workshop

In 1982 the book Positioning To Win was authored by Jim Beveridge and Ed Velton, and soon afterward it was offered as a Positioning To Win (PTW) Seminar and Workshop. During this highly intense, two and one-half days (and some times nights) of competitive simulation, competitive teams were formed with going-in scripted positions for each competitor. Executive Summaries were developed and orals were conducted, with each team allowed to monitor the other teams’ presentations. During the second day they were all allowed to re-position to a more competitive approach, and then repeat the oral exercise on last day. Senior management sat in on final presentations, to observe and approve the in-house team’s assessment of where they felt they had to take their approach in order to win.

This was one of the most “Get Honest With Yourself” exercises I have ever experienced. Several have tried to copy it or model seminars after it, but none could put the intensity and realism in it that Jim Beveridge and Ed Velton accomplished. Some presenters in the competitions got so involved and upset that they nearly came to blows. There were so many humorous situations and major proposal approach changes created by the PTW Seminar and Workshop that it would take an entire book to relate them all. Being forced to think like my competitors and the evaluators was the most dynamic and eye opening transition I ever experienced, and I had the good fortune to be a guest speaker from industry at the public sessions where predefined subject material (like tennis rackets, tractors, and transportation) were used by the competing teams. Later, as a consultant, I participated regularly in the PTW Workshops.

Cost and Contract Pricing Enters the Consulting Arena

In 1987, C. E “Bud” Grubbs stepped out of industry and into the Cost Proposal consulting arena. Bud published two books on the subject, The Handbook For Contract Pricing Proposal Preparation and The Defense Contract: Cost Development Methods and Pricing Techniques. The later book is under consideration for use in the U.S. Air Force Academy. Bud offered 2-day, 3-day, and 5-day seminars and workshops on the subjects of cost proposals and pricing, including Preparing Contract Pricing Proposals Seminar, Estimating For Performance/Pricing To Win Defense Contracts, Estimating Systems Requirements, and Cost Development & Contract Pricing.

For many years, the Proposal Industry has been deficient in tying Technical and Management Proposals in with the Cost Proposal. Proposal Cost and Contracts Volumes have lagged behind the industry in competitiveness and production quality. It isn’t just the bottom line number that is impor- tant, it is also how we got to this number. Bud’s philosophy is that Cost and Contracts Proposal Volumes should be Red Teamed, and should contain competitive Executive Summaries like all other volumes.

Orals Became Major Portion of Proposal Preparation

I mentioned Dick Kulda as one of Oral Proposal development’s pioneers. With the new level of emphasis placed on orals, most major proposal consulting organizations have added professional staff to train and assist in this area. One independent consultant in this area was Thomas Leech. Tom has almost 20 years of experience training and assisting companies in preparing orals. He published a book, How to Prepare, Stage & Deliver Winning Presentations, and has a seminar/workshop by the same name.

The Source Selection Process—How It Really Works

In the early 1980s, Tim Coravos began to enlighten us with his seminars and lectures on Source Selection. Probably no one could do it better. Tim had just retired from his position as Deputy Director for the Air Force’s Electronic System Division (ESD), Directorate of Systems Contracts at Hanscom AFB. Prior to that position he was ESD’s Source Selection Officer and Chief of the ESD Source Selection Secretariat. Tim first lectured as a guest speaker at Hy Silver’s seminars. He then moved on to conduct his own series of seminars. Tim’s seminars were light, humorous, and opened our eyes to how the source selection process really worked. We finally had an opportunity to understand the real workings of the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB), the Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC), and the Source Selection Authority (SSA). Tim formed his own consulting company, Northeast Executive Program, and conducted public and private seminars on source selection.

Other Consulting Organizations

I have been addressing many of the pioneers and predominant organizations that have provided proposal consulting services over the years, and have shaped and influenced the direction our profession has taken. Many other individuals and organizations more recent to our profession, and some from the past that few have heard of, have also been fighting the battles of time, budgets, changes, facilities, and long hours, with little recognition. I offer my thanks to all of you, and my apologies to those I have not had time to include in this article.

In the body of the article I address consultants and consulting organizations, and have not yet addressed some of the significant events that took place within the companies of our competitive industry. There were companies in the 1970s and 80s, like Hughes Aircraft Company, Lockheed-Sunnyvale, Honeywell, and Aerojet TechSystems, that made major changes in the way we thought about Proposal Development.

Aerojet TechSystems and the Proposal Development Center

In the early 80s, Jack Dean of Aerojet TechSystems took the Proposal Development Center (PDC) approach to a new level. His PDC was networked to tie everything together. The computers, laser printers, and plotters were all placed on a Local Area Network (LAN) that allowed automation of the proposal process. This now meant that for the first time there could be real time communications between the Authors, Program Office, Team Members (possibly at remote sites), and Technical Publications. It also allowed real time reviewing of drafts in process, and the ability to limit access of authors when changes were to be controlled. Having all authors linked to a LAN also now allowed the proposal team to have access to stored data bases, such as: forms, software packages, previous proposals stored electronically, past performance data, RFP requirements, proposal strategy, and related technical documents.

A New Process For Planning And Controlling Proposal Development

Hughes Aircraft Company has been given the credit for putting into place one of the first, if not the first, procedure for planning the author’s assignments and controlling page count. Previously, most proposal authors used what was referred to as the “River Raft” method of writing. We just went on, and on, and on, until we had written all we knew about the subject matter that had been assigned to our section of the proposal. The heck with page count, that was always someone else’s problem to worry about in the last days of the proposal effort.

By contrast, Hughes used a process called Sequential Thematic Organization of Publications (STOP). Basically, this process called for assigning all elements of the proposal outline in 2-page modules. Each 2- page module was to start with a thematic statement at the top of the first page, along with the heading, and the remainder of the 2 pages was the limited area assigned to the author. Generally, this process was used for “two sided” publications, with the left-hand page used for text and the right-hand page used for illustrations. This was not a rigid rule, and was quickly modified with the arrival of computers and integration of text and illustrations.

In the STOP approach, if the authors felt they needed more than 2 pages they had to renegotiate the outline. This method really worked well for identifying and controlling page count problems, particularly when proposal drafts were being displayed on the walls. Another major benefit of the STOP approach was the ability to easily move sections within the proposal as outlines changed. The STOP method was readily adopted by the industry, and was the primary procedure used for several years. One element of STOP was the Storyboard. It has always been said that this was one of the things Howard Hughes brought over from the movie industry. The Storyboarding technique is still very much used today, with some modification. In some cases it has been given a new name like Scenarios or Story Maps, but it remains the author’s plan for writing the proposal.

Proposal Development Centers Provide New Levels of Efficiency and Competitiveness

I have always felt that Lockheed-Sunnyvale and Honeywell made the first major commitments to collocating proposal teams into one well-equipped area that was dedicated to preparing proposals. This was certainly not the old method of finding an empty space anywhere you could, equipping it with anything you could find, and then tearing it down the minute the proposal was submitted. This collocation brought on a new level of efficiency, improved communications, and created a truly “Team” attitude toward competitive proposals.

Lockheed-Sunnyvale had a system for rotating Program Office Personnel into assignments in the Proposal Development Center, for training and better understanding of the competitive proposal process. They also initiated one and two week, in-house training classes that simulated competitions and evaluations. This Proposal Development Center approach has become the accepted approach for most of today’s progresive companies.

As mentioned previously, Jack Dean of Aerojet TechSystems took the PDC approach to a new level in the early 80s with his LAN-based networking and real time communications. His system also allowed real time review of drafts in process, and the ability to limit author access when changes were to be controlled. Having all authors linked to a LAN also allowed the proposal team to have access to electronically-stored databases of forms, software pack- ages, previous proposals, past performance data, RFP requirements, proposal strategy, and related technical documents.

Here is a list of proposal development-related books, some of which have not been mentioned in this article. Many are older and out of print, but deserve recognition as material that documented our profession and its challenges.

We have certainly moved away from the individual proposal icons and gurus like those of the 1960s and 70s that did so much to advance our philosophies toward competing. Seldom does a company bid alone, we generally team with one or more other companies. We can’t operate out of just any old space that is available. We are constantly faced with new government initiatives and new electronic requirements for proposal submittals. These rapidly changing proposal requirements, along with new company attitudes toward funding in-house capability, have produced a favorable environment for outsourcing to the large, corporate-sized proposal consulting organizations.

Is outsourcing the long-term solution, or just another step toward next year’s or the next decade’s way of competing? Should we turn over New Business Acquisition and key proposal positions to personnel on temporary assignment, or maintain full-time employees who understand our companies and have a long-range interest in their success? Is there a more appropriate place for consultants, such as in training/workshops, specialty services not yet developed in the company, proposal surge periods not capable of being staffed internally, transfer of latest knowledge of new Government Initiatives and processes, or Red Team advisors and participants? Is this the consultant’s place, rather than total responsibility for managing our Proposal Development Centers and overall proposal efforts?

In this article I have referred to several individuals of tremendous talent and foresight that shaped the career of the proposal development professional decades ago. I have also referred to several that have gone on to build the major consulting organizations of today. All have been dedicated to further the professional way we compete, and to delivering a better product to the customer. I hope this never changes.

Source: T. C. Boren - APMP
Publication date: 1999

Proposal Development methodologies and technology has continued to progress rapidly since the publication of this article in 1999. Jeffrey Strategic is at the forefront of new proposal methodologies, combining Proposal Management best practices with specialised industry knowledge. To find out more, contact Jeffrey Strategic.