Effective Pre-Qualification for
Complex Sales Opportunities
Newbury Management Consulting
Introduction
•
Bid costs for complex IT services opportunities can be significant. Managed
service solutions generally require bid budgets in the range 1-1.5% of total
contract value (higher for public sector or regulated opportunities)
•
Organisations that bid for these opportunities are resource limited, and need
to prioritise effort on those with the highest probability of success.
•
Competition for bid resources can be fierce and emotional: sales and
account managers are, understandably, keen to secure the best and biggest
capture teams for their opportunities. It can be hard to say no.
•
We need to qualify opportunities objectively, quickly and fairly so that we
have the best prospects for success
SCOTSMAN Qualification Tool
SCOTSMAN is a common method used to objectively
qualify opportunities.
Newbury Management Consulting
SCOTSMAN: Opportunity
Qualification Tool
SCOTSMAN seeks evidence based scoring against 8 criteria that have a high correlation
with bid success:
S
Solution
Do we have a credible solution that meets the requirement?
C
Competition
How do we stack up against the competition? Who are they?
O
Originality
Do we have a unique proposition that the customer likes?
T
Timescales
Are the timescales for the bid manageable for us?
S
Size
Is the opportunity the right size (not too big, not too small)
M
Money
Can we price our solution within the customer’s budget?
A
Authority
Do we know who makes the selection decision, and how?
N
Need
Does the customer have a burning need for a solution?
Why use these criteria?
Area
Risk if the score is <3
Solu3on
We expend effort trying to shoe-‐horn the customer’s requirements into the solu3ons that we
have. Intelligent customers will spot this and go elsewhere
We over-‐promise: winning the business but not being able to deliver it successfully
Compe33on
The customer is unlikely to select us, even if we submit a compliant and credible proposal. We
are a stalking horse, not a real contender
Originality
The customer will not perceive our offer as dis3nc3ve or value adding to their business, resul3ng
in pressure on margins and a flight to the lowest price op3on
Timescales
We are unable to submit a quality proposal
We divert resources from opportuni3es with more achievable 3mescales
The compe33on is a sham: the customer is using the process to put pressure on the incumbent,
not to genuinely select a new provider
Size
We bid on opportuni3es that are beyond our current capacity to deliver
We waste 3me on opportuni3es that are not big enough to cover our overheads and scaling
requirements
Money
The customer cannot afford our solu3on, even if they like it
We do not price compe33vely
Authority
We pitch to the wrong person (not the decision maker)
We do not know the real “hot buMons” and decision criteria, and so produce an inappropriate/
poorly targeted proposal
Our compe3tors have preferen3al access to the decision maker
Newbury Management Consulting
How the process works
•
Each criterion is scored from 0 to 4, based on the
evidence available at the point of review, and a series of
pre-defined standards
–
A single score of 0 or 1 in ANY area would normally result in a No-Bid
decision.
–
A total score of 16 or less would normally result in a No-Bid decision
–
A total score of 16-21 may result in an initial No-Bid decision, and
actions to qualify further
SCOTSMAN Template
SCOTSMAN Qualification Tool
Customer Scoring Thresholds
Opportunity No-‐Bid 16
Estimated Total Contract Value Consider No-‐Bidding 21
Bid 22
Current Recommendation
No-‐Bid
Scoring Standards
Criterion Score (0 to 4) Rationale/Evidence 0 1 2 3 4
Solution -‐ Do we have an existing solution/product that closely matches the customers requirement?
1
We do not have a solution that meets their requirements
Our solutions and services meet a some of the requirement, but there are significant gaps
Our solutions meet most of the requirement, but require significant customisation or development to do so
Our solutions meet most of the requirement with little or no change, and all of the requirement with some customisation
Our solutions meet all of the requirements with no significant changes
Competition -‐ How do we stack up
against the competition?
1
We do not know who the other bidders are
We know who the other bidders are. Some of them are capable and credible. One of them is the incumbent.
We know the other bidders. We believe that we are the strongest (in terms of solution and price). One of the other bidders is the incumbent.
We are the incumbent, or the customer has voiced clear intent to replace the incumbent. We know the other bidders. We believe that we are the strongest.
We are the only bidder, or we know that all other bidders are weak/uncompetitive. We are the incumbent
Originality -‐ Do we have a unique
proposition or benefit that the customer can only get from us?
0
We do not have any unique sales propositions relevant to this opportunity
We believe that we have some USP's, but have not confirmed this with the customer. We do not know our competitors USPs
We know our USP's and our competitors.
We know our USP's and our competitors. We have confirmed our USP's with the customer
We know our USP's and our competitors. The customer has incorporated some of our USP's into their requirement
Timescales -‐ Are the timescales for
the bid manageable for us?
1
We do not know the customers timescales
We know the customers timescales, and they do not fit within our sales cycle. There is insufficient time for review and QA
We know the customers timescales, and they do not fit within our sales cycle. We must re-‐assign resources from other bids in order to meet them
The timescales are realistic and allow for review and QA of the proposal. We can resource the bid without disruption to other opportunities
The timescales are realistic for us, and we know that the competition will struggle to meet them.
Size -‐ Is the opportunity the right
size? Not too big or too small
2
The opportunity is too small to be profitable, or more than 10 times the size of the nearest comparable win
The opportunity is too small to be profitable, or more than 5 times the size of the nearest comparable win
The opportunity is small, but opens the door for larger opportunities, or more than 3 times the size of the nearest comparable win
The opportunity is within the range of comparable wins in this service area.
The opportunity is within the range of comparable wins in this service area, and is strategically important in developing new lines of business.
Money -‐ Can we price our solution
within the customer's budget?
3
We do not know the customers budget
We have an idea of the customers budget, but it is unrealistic/we will not be able to meet it
We know the customers budget, but we think it unlikely that we will be within it
We know the customers budget. We think we will be close to it (either above or below)
We know the customers budget and are confident that we will be within it
Authority -‐ Do we know who makes
the selection decision, and how they will decide?
1
We do not know the decision makers. There is a strong incumbent
We know who the decision makers are, but have little/no relationship with them
We know the decision makers and the process. We have some supporters within the customer, but so do our competitors
We know the decision makers and have good relationships with them. We believe we are strongly placed
We have excellent relationships with the decision makers, who are coaching/supporting us in the process
Need -‐ Is there a pressing business
need for the customer to make a buying decision?
We do not know/understand the business need for the solution.
We know the business need, but do not believe it to be pressing/compelling
We know the business need, it is compelling, but there are alternative approaches being considered by the
There is a pressing business need, and the customer has no viable alternatives to accepting one of the offers that are
There is a pressing business need for this solution, and the potential for us to meet other business needs as a direct
