final chakradhar purohith proposal milieu analysis (without account data unpublished)

1

Uncertainty analysis of Proposals via Milieu Analysis

Chakradhar Iyyunni, Ph.D. , Faculty L&T Institute of Project Management Monika S. Purohith, PGPEM Student, NICMAR, Pune 27 September 2013

2 Uncertainty in Proposals via Milieu Analysis in Engineering Outsourcing Industry

Agenda

Plan for the talk

Motivation – 1 slide

Background – 5 slides

Proposal : Role and Characterization of – 5 slides

An Illustration – 4 slides

Results, Conclusion, Future Work – 6 slides

Summary – 2 slides

3

Motivation

• With the induction of “Stakeholder Management” knowledge area into PMBOK 5th Edition, we explore its influence on Project Proposals.

Uncertainty in Proposals via Milieu Analysis in Engineering Outsourcing Industry

• The premise in the work relates to the important role given to the project proposal – address the needs of the customer milieu – determine business viability ( read as: competitive advantage) – Ensure delivery excellence

• The “service provider” / “EPC contractor” should develop flexible, adaptive and innovative ways to market project capabilities and operate beyond transactional (logic) response.

4

Background (1 / 5)

Industry “positioning” in India: • Historical success and “optimistic” growth scenarios is not

enough • Customer focus without technological competence is short-

sighted-ness

• Diversifying capabilities (to include industry-specific expertise and consulting) as opposed to differentiating them

• Global “Plays” (by leveraging their competencies, breadth of industry exposure and project execution capabilities) without inclusiveness (segmented exposure)


Level 3 behaviour – Leadership in Managing Uncertainty needed !

5

Background: Challenges for ESO (2 / 5)

• Teams are – small in size, moderately skilled – relegated to a support function in the minds of the customer's

engineering teams, – use of the bottom of the talent pyramid (0-3years experience)


• Projects are – of short duration, needs to be delivered rapidly, – lacks customer & industry big picture – unable to absorb product liabilities. – diffused scope statements which are lacking in specific work

expectation guidelines • Customer Organizations are

– lack of clear engineering services outsourcing budgets – emerging industry trends (low cost, specific functionality) create

over-optimistic expectations

6

Background: Current State of ESO (2 / 5)

• Teams are: – small in size, moderately skilled – relegated to a support function in the minds of the customer's

engineering teams, – use of the bottom of the talent pyramid (0-3years experience)


• Projects are – of short duration, needs to be delivered rapidly, – lacks customer & industry big picture – unable to absorb product liabilities. – diffused scope statements which are lacking in specific work

expectation guidelines • Customer Organizations:

– lack of clear engineering services outsourcing budgets – emerging industry trends (low cost, specific functionality) create

over-optimistic expectations

7

Background: Current State (3 / 5) • Account / Customer-specific teams fall prey

– to discontinuous usage of engineer's skill, knowledge and continuity in the type of work performed

– lacking both in maturity and value even though increased skill level

– un-clear role among the various actors in the Proposal and Delivery milieu

– significant effort for proposal creation – not billable


The underlying uncertainties become risks and problem situations

• Organizational influence on poor proposals – Undue impact of personality of the project account manager, – Lack of synergy between sales and delivery teams, – intense competition and attrition of account managers. – unable to address the multiple levels of accountability in the

customer organization,

8

Background: Uncertainty Description (4 / 5)


Category Type Uncertainty Description

Market Internal

Business-specific (ESO is either an Imitator or Innovator)

External Market risk (Consumer specific, related to dynamic aspects from PES(T)LE analysis)

Technology Internal Novel to Organization not to the market External Current work by your competitor (unknown to you)

People Interaction & Processes

Internal Motivation, Professional pride, organizational culture

External Technical competence aligned to project requirements

Customer Relationship & Information

Internal Status of Sales-delivery synergy of internal milieu, Tension from cultural dimensions mismatch

External Status of Trust, Matching of requirement to expectation between organization and customer

9

Background: Literature (5 / 5)

• Cova (2002) : reactive to pro-active approach to proposals

• Holstius (2xxx) : relational dimensions of proposals important

• Tikkanen (2007): two levels of relational dimensions – (1)project level relations (2)firm-level relations

• Combined scope-schedule risks be managed at Proposal level (Iyyunni 2013) – address uncertainties: Market, Technology, – role definition in the Milieu


10

Proposal Dimensions (1 / 5)

• The interaction between actors in the Milieu that increases the fitness of the proposal

• Two classes – Functional class : Technical, Financial – Relational class : Social, Political


11


• Technical: – meet the technical specifications – provide technical training to employees – use of latest technology and offer customizations – technology and domain knowledge availability – technical resource availability – alignment of technology with the scope of work – certifications and accreditation – access to and availability of infrastructure – access to engineering consultants – R&D activities in the sector


12


• Financial: – favorable financial terms and conditions – payment schedule and flexibility – insurance against delivery problems – Using right type of contract (fixed price, time and material,

profit-sharing etc.), – financial risk assessment plan


13


• Social: – extent of networking – past customer feedback – relationship with the end-user – alignment with the vision, mission and goals with customer – trust and reputation among customer's milieu – articulation of the customer's need – collaborative orientation of the customer


14


• Political: – consideration of customer market position, – market share of the product/service by customer

organization, – ESO's market presence specific to service/solution – local partners, referrals, influence on customer's milieu, – understand and maintain clients reputation in industry-

segment and market – customer's influence on peer-group in industry segment – association with standard and professional bodies – supply chain relationship, – alignment to government regulations


15

Why is a “Proposal” key to the organization?


Illustration (1 / 4)

16

Illustration: Organizational Snap-shot (2 / 4) • An ESO organization's account strategy is crucial to maintain a

sustained growth.


• Account growth depends on success (size and volume )at proposals

Data deleted

17

Illustration: Account snap-shot (3 / 4) – Account Management is a complex process ~ market influences and

industry trends, – customer organization's strategy and – ESO‘s sales team priorities, technical team capabilities – Age and Health of the accounts (mentioned in paper)


Account Number

Ratio of Current year to Previous Year Revenues YoY-1 YoY-2 YoY-3 YoY-4

1 1.55 1.45 1.30 1.49 3 3.21 1.59 1.16 1.18 4 2.89 1.50 0.92 0.93 6 2.74 1.37 1.97 1.37 7 0.75 1.59 4.01 1.10 8 1.77 2.61 4.82 1.73 11 1.09 1.31 1.15 1.06 12 1.90 1.29 0.99 1.27

18

Illustration: Proposal Snap-shot (4 / 4)

• Proposals should be analyzed by industry type, market conditions, customer profile, customer relationship parameters


No. Proposal Description Win / Loss

Reason for Win / Loss

1 Large scale data (in PDM system) Win

Social, political, Financial

2 Passenger bus for India launch Win Social, Political 3 Asset Management Win Technical 4 Large engineering engagement Win Social, Political 5

Engineering “Program” Win Technical, Social, Political

6 New PLM implementation program Loss

Social, Political, Financial

7 Large Automotive design project Loss Technical 8 Medical device development Loss Political

19

Results: Proposal Characterization on T,F,S,P dimensions (1 / 6)


Proposal No. Rating on these aspects of Proposal

Technical Financial Social Political 1 4 4 3 3 2 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 5 4 3 3 4 6 4 4 2 2 7 2 4 3 3 8 3 4 1 1

• Customer profile is also a key determinant of proposal quality – geography, market segment, R&D spend etc.

20

Results: Assessment (2 / 6)


Dimension Scheme-1 Scheme-2 Scheme-3 Functional Technical 0.46 0.4 0.34

Financial 0.18 0.2 0.22 Relational Political 0.18 0.2 0.22

Social 0.18 0.2 0.22

Proposal No. Weighted assessment Scheme-1 Scheme-2 Scheme-3

1 3.6 3.7 3.6 2 3.6 3.7 3.6 3 3.8 3.85 3.82 4 3.2 3.15 3.25 5 3.6 3.7 3.6 6 3.3 3.4 3.16 7 2.7 2.6 2.9 8 2.5 2.55 2.37

• cut-off score: (1) overall- 3.0 (2) technical dimension - 4.0

• 3.0 to 3.3 to be in the grey area (either a win or a loss)

21

Results: Milieu Characterization (3 / 6)

Internal Milieu

External Milieu

Uncertainty in Proposals via Milieu Analysis in Engineering

Use for managing the appropriate dimensions

Milieu Engagement plans by Proposal Project Manager.

22

Results: Conclusion ( 4 / 6)


Category Type Stakeholder Responsible Proposal

dimension

Market I Senior Marketing team Political

E Sales person, Vertical Head Social,

Political

Technology I Subject Matter Expert Technical

E Discipline Team Technical

People Interaction & Processes

I Project Manager/ Account manager ; Delivery Team Social

E Resource Management Team Social

Customer Relationship & information

I Account Manager Social, Political

E Project Lead/ Project Manager Social,

Technical

I – Internal ; E – External

• Every stakeholder has a key role to play for ensuring proposal quality!

23

Results: Conclusion ( 5 / 6)


• Invest to Build robust project/ program pipeline

• Stakeholder / Milieu role clarity is vital and crucial

24

Results: Future Work (6 / 6)


What else? Translating our understanding of customer needs to functional and relational dimensions How? 2nd level of parameters listed here.

25

Summary ( 1/ 2)

• Relational dimensions play an important role in winning proposals.

• Pre-sales practices facilitating intense action ‘upstream' of project by anticipating, defining and constructing of project scopes have to be developed and refined.

• Managing relationships and networks, during a proposal life-cycle, and good decision making methodologies (like AHP) are crucial. (PMBOK 5th Edition, Stakeholder engagement process group)


26

Summary: Directions and Good News (2 / 2)


The Good news • Engineering Service Organizations have understood the need

for relational dimensions. A rough guess that 40-60% revenues come without the need to bid.

Directions • Strategy dimensions: (1) Articulation of Customer need (2)

organization’s ability to differentiate technology for meeting the need

• Measurement on the Social, Political dimensions and maturity (a la CMM) is yet a distant goal.

• Correct excessive Customer focus with technological competence”

27

Thank You.

Presentation Title