Andrés Cordero, Jr.

A common principle used in many environments is the concept of the triangle challenge.  The principle is simple:

Every project has three basic challenges: Get it done fast, make it completely accurate and of high quality, and make it as cheaply as possible.

The sobering reality is that, in every circumstance, only two of the three can be achieved.  For example:

• You can get something done quickly, and it can be of high quality, but it WILL be expensive
• You can get something done quickly, and it can be inexpensive, but it WON’T be of high quality
• You can produce something of high quality, inexpensively, but it WILL take more time

Unfortunately, more often than not in the world of business capture, time can never be sacrificed.  As organizations strive to compete in an increasingly challenging environment, deadlines are never negotiable.

Which leaves you with two options and a key frustrating challenge:  Sacrifice quality, or increase investment in sales capture efforts?

Neither is an attractive option, so one of the key factors any organization must determine is the level of risk involved in either of the remaining options.  Either quality of responses must suffer, exposing the organization to less competitive responses and potential for errors, or costs must rise to address the challenge.

At the core of that decision lies the organization’s need to determine the importance of the business capture function.  How important is growth and/or retention, relevant to other priorities?

A challenging dilemma indeed.

In an effort to provide an equitable approach to evaluating and comparing options, companies will issue RFPs and RFIs requesting metrics - key measurements on business performance that can span from customer service levels to output, to budget efficiency and quality performance levels.

The problem, at times, and particularly in less mature industries, is that many metrics are assumed to be comparable across organizations.  Unfortunately, what is most likely the case in many circumstances is that organizations vary significantly in how they approach generating their numbers.  Further complicating this is that often organizations will select variables, timing methods, or criteria that provide favorable criteria.

The inevitable result, of course, is that the evaluating organization may make false assumptions about organizations, leading to less than optimum choices for organizations.

Best practices for issuing RFPs or RFIs with relevant, comparable statistics

• If possible, determine whether the industry has a third-party organizations that benchmarks companies.  Use this data if possible.
• When issuing requests for metrics to be compared, clearly and thoroughly define the metric.  Research professionals often can provide valuable counsel when defining metrics.
• Recognize that in creating explicit definitions, some organizations may not have the appropriate data in a form that makes it possible to comply.

Metrics comparisons are critical for evaluating prospective business  partners, but recognize the limitations they provide as well.