The perils of the RFT, RFP, RFQ, EOI, Pitch Process for business

The pitch.
The prop.
Request for Tender.
Request for Proposal.
Request for Information.
Expression of Interest.

All a bloody pain in the ass at times.

Why?

Lack of clarity. The rationale behind issuing such documents in the first place by the business looking for services and/or product is valid – by publicly stating in a level playing field your business requirements, both valid and validated. The problem is that sometimes (oft if we frank) is that some of the reasons are at times erroneous and totally unmeasurable nor quantifiable.  You are inviting commercially oriented business to respond to the questions posed, with their best shot at what they perceive is the best answer. Commercially.

This in itself isn’t a bad thing. By no means are the above steps wasted time nor effort, as it quickly sorts out those that understand their own product and those that can support said product/services in a tangible fashion which makes sorting out the real deal from the pretenders much easier.

Where it all falls apart is in the assessment criteria. I see so often so many formalised processes which go for the tick box mentality of “meeting requirements” or “displays X functionality” as if the product service is able to be defined down to a piece of paper- and a tick box. The massive divorce in understanding is the consultancy aspect and true understanding from the underlying business value of the proposition at hand.

To paint the picture a different way, I’m going to explain an analogy we’re most familiar with – a broken down car. In this scenario, the facts of the matter are that the car won’t start and its solely due to the fact that the battery is stone dead flat.

Said novice car owner has a bunch of different car specialists in front of him including:

• A starter motor supplier.
• A key supplier.
• An auto electrician.
• A radiator specialist.
• A tyre fitter.
• A car mechanic.

Novice car owner says this (and its the EOI/RFT/RFQ/RFP equivalent) Business Problem: Car won’t start. Desired outcome: Please get my car started.

Now each of the listed suppliers will have a different take on what could be done. The starter motor guy, the key supplier and the radiator specialist might suggest replacing their respective parts, because by their expereince, they know that starter motors fail, keys get broken and radiators leak, causing cars to not start. They have all offered a “solution” to potentially gaining the desired outcome, and as any good due tender process does, they examine the evidence that they present that can back up their assertions that buying their bits & bobs will fix the problem. The tyre fitter is a different sort of beast – their product spread is very specialised and straight forward – they come up with straight out, “sorry, I can’t help you, I only supply and fit tyres, which don’t have anything to do with the start process.” The querying business is appreciative of the honesty and self appraisal. Kudos to the tyre guy, as they have been honest and held a level of integrity which is memorable. Cue the auto electrician. He will take a different diagnostic tact in trying to solve the problem and advocate selling in the time to deliver his services to assess the situation. He’d probably find, by due course of testing the diagnostics of the electrical system across the car, that there was a flat battery involved.

However, if you go to the car mechanic, their experience is led by years of servicing different vehicle types of a myriad of makes and models. They already know that it is likely to be a failure of the battery due to the age and model of the car in question and will be able to quickly test this, at no charge. Their recommended path is to buy a new battery and if they are worth their salt, they will give you a number of options and scenarios which allow YOU, as the business owner to make an informed decision based at the best information at hand. They are consulting.

The equivalent is the tender process where there are a raft of PURPORTED business focussed questions that are put forward putting forth literally ludicrous and untenable technical functionality that, frankly, I’ve never EVER seen on Amazon, CNN, eBay, Facebook, Google, Apple, Sony, BBC World, ABC nor any Government website I’ve ever been involved with nor our teams have built. Someone’s just filling in their time writing the tender document rationalising that in this big bad world of ours, it must be true. Really.

My point is this – tenders and the pitch process in general where a brief is published to all comers and allowed to be responded upon are a valid and verifiable way to operate a Q&A environment with prospective vendors. However business who are issuing such documents need to be aware that the authorship and publication of such tenders MUST include a dose of commercial reality in terms of a pragmatic assessment of what the business actually needs to meet its end user goals. If you don’t have the correct approach in validating your success criteria against operational mandates and imperatives, than you are only travelling a path to certain failure and a black hole of having dropped your companies hard earnt cash into the ether of oblivion.

How best to rectify this? Dialogue. Communication. Ask questions. Learn how to be informed. Use the information you have from one vendor and use this to cross analyse the other vendor. Decide, ultimately, if the proverbial “shit hit the fan”, who you think and rationalise you could go back to and say  “listen, we stuffed up” or “listen, this isn’t working” or “listen, your solution isn’t what we had in mind” and who you believe will be able to best meet your end business requirements.

If you are responsible for guiding your organisations successful foray into digital, than you need to have this outlook in mind, of meeting the requirements and business objectives of your organisations strategic plan,  in order for you to be doing the best by your employer and ensure the best overall result for all concerned.

Combat Arms Review: Pt 1, Nexon and the business proposition

As part of my ongoing research into online communities, I spent some time earlier this year looking around for a First Person Shooter to have a go at. I've always been a fan of FPS games, although I don't profess to be particularly good at them, I do have fun. My preferences were relatively simple -

• it had to be free
• it had to have half decent graphics

So I searched around and found one that looked like it would fit the bill: Combat Arms, created by Nexon Games. In their own words:

Surpassing the two-million user mark before completing its first year of service, Combat Arms excels by offering players a variety of combat styles and game maps, complete with eye-catching graphics, customized characters, and more. Combat Arms also features a high level of socialization with its Buddy Lists, Community Support, In-game Clan System and more. This essential mix of elements represents a truly unique offering in the world of first-person shooters: a dynamic, ever-evolving game that encourages both friendly competition and individual expression.

Some questions I had been asking myself before I got in were:

1. How on earth does Nexon make money, given that the environment and full game play is free?
2. How good is the user interface?
3. Is the gameplay any good?
4. What is the community like?

I downloaded the game files (around 2Gb Compressed) and installed it on my home laptop to have a go. The attractions to have a closer look were driven around the structured setup of its non game environment – a very established You Tube Community Channel, numerous fan sites which feed in particular aspects to the game – weapons reviews, map reviews, interviews with players are all prominent activities which are heavily focused upon.

Addressing the first question – How on earth does Nexon make money, given that the environment and the full game play is free?

At time of writing, there were some 3.5 million registered players.

For a framework, the game enforces a ranking system upon players which reflects the US Military e.g. Trainee, Recruit, Private, Corporate, Sergeant, Staff Sergeant (3 levels), Sgt First Class (3 levels), Master Sergeant (3 levels), Command Master Sergeant (4 levels), Lieutenant etc etc. Playing the game you gain experience  and are awarded "Experience Points" which are calculated on the number of kills you gain in each match. Matchplay is classic One Man Army, Team Elimination with a set target of team kills, Elimination Pro, which is a last man standing team scenario, Capture the Flag, Search & Destroy, Bombing Run & Seize & Secure.

As you accrue more points, this contributes to your overall ability to "rank up". In addition, the game also allocates "Gear Points" or GP which you can use to acquire virtual in game weapons, armour, support items etc. If you stick entirely to the GP, you can have a competitive existence. An example is if you kill say 20 people in a game, you'll get around 200 Experience Points and around 150 GP. To buy a M6A2 SRT Assault Rifle for 24 hours, would cost you around 1,100 GP. This is a really good way to stay free and competitive, however Combat Arms at time of writing had over 150 different weapons, ranging across the different types including Assault Rifles, Sniper Rifles, Sub Machine Guns, Machine Guns, Shotguns, RPG's, Pistols & Grenades of varying types.

So this is how Nexon makes their money.

For these different range of weapons that are beyond the scope of being able to procure by way of the GP you collect along the way, Nexon lists a special set of weapons and upgrades and designates them as Rare, Restricted or only available by lucky chance (Hazard Cases, etc). As a consequence alot of these items are available to be purchased for varying amounts of time from one day up to permanent with REAL money, using the concept of NX, which is Nexon's Virtual Cash World. At time of writing, 30,000 NX = $30 USD, which you'd bill to your credit card via their secure gateway. As an example, you can buy usage for 24 hours of an M39 EMR Desert Sniper Rifle which would cost you 990NX.

Permanent ownership of the same weapon would cost you 24,900 NX. in real world terms, this is roughtly $1 dollar and $25 dollars respectively. Ownership of these weapons and other items is driven around that concept of personalisation – each player can tailor what they look like, what armour/uniform they wear, the weapons they carry, helmets, face masks, combat vests etc. If you consider purchasing a boxed software variant like CounterStrike, Bad Company 2 or Ghost Recon will set you back around $100, than suddenly purchasing unique weapons which you "keep" doesn't seem like such a silly idea, particularly because the game environment is constantly getting updated with additional maps, game modes and a concerted pursuit against hackers.

In the clan I've joined, predominantly made up of people over the age of 25, some of the guys have spent upwards of $1,500+ (!!!!) on weapons, uniform upgrades (armour vests, anti flash grenade glasses, goggles), character upgrades (restricted in game characters) and support gear (air strike designators, mines, proximity explosives). Believe me, Nexon make shed loads of money from selling these "virtual" items. Good on them. As a byproduct, the gameplay and interest for myself has been compelling.

This is part 1 of the review of the Combat Arms website http://combatarms.nexon.net.

Quotations

Last week, I got the below Quotation in my little desk calendar one of my work colleagues had thoughtfully given to me in the Kris Kringle lucky dip.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
James Klass

Another one of my favourites which prompted me to do a bit of scraping around to write this post popped up at the Marketing Now Conference which a colleague attended in September last year.

A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week.
George S. Patton US General (1885 – 1945)

I was lucky enough to be presented a summary internally and got details of what sounds like was a terrific conference. Trevor Young, a.k.a. the PR Warrior and 50% of the dynamic duo in Park Young wrote a particularly good summary post of the activities across the two days.

http://prwarrior.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/09/marketing-now-conference-mashup.html

The above got me thinking about what other quotations I’ve heard and had an affinity with over the years. It was all born about when for my 21st, I was given a book of quotations from a Uni friend.

But in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.
Benjamin Franklin, Letter to Jean Baptiste Le Roy (1789)

” I dunno” Arthur said, “I forgot what I was taught. I only remember what I learnt.”
Patrick White in Riders in the Chariot.

America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.
Oscar Wilde, Irish dramatist, novelist, & poet (1854 – 1900)

Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes.
Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere’s Fan, 1892, Act III (1854 – 1900)

The grand dame of quotations though in my mind is Eleanor Roosevelt.

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt, (1884 – 1962)

One thing life has taught me: if you are interested, you never have to look for new interests. They come to you. When you are genuinely interested in one thing, it will always lead to something else.
Eleanor Roosevelt, (1884 – 1962)

Thousands more can be seen here:

http://www.quotationspage.com

http://www.allgreatquotes.com/

http://www.great-quotes.com/