I'm not sure if it is just me, but does it look as if there is only one RFP (or tender as we call it in the UK) being recycled? This is not necessarily a bad thing, as we now have a nice collection of standard responses, but I can't help think that this is all missing the point.My understanding of a RFP, is to identify vendors who can help improve a particular situation. In our case that situation is usually the need for better management of physical records. So why does the writer of the RFP usually list a series of features from their existing software, and ask if we can do these things, usually with a simple Yes/No response?
A few years ago, I saw this approach demonstrated while working with a City Record Center. After answering Yes to all the questions, I got invited to meet their RFP team, many of who did not work in the record center. They provided me with their current workflow, line by line, and asked me to show how we could do all the things their current software did. Of course, I could have done that but I preferred to ask why? Their purchasing manager said it was because he wanted to compare systems. I then decided to explain all the bottle-necks in their current workflow and how our software would avoid those costly mistakes, but he said that he couldn't let me continue to do that. I am still amazed by that response and told him that, if he was happy with the current approach, why not simply stick with the software they already have! Guess what... they did.
The problem with their approach was the classic "you don't know what you don't know", so a feature to feature comparison was not going to achieve their goal. A different approach was called for.
I would really like to see RFP's written that have:
an overview of the current situation (what is being carried out today);
explains the areas of concern (which is why an RFP is being written);
explains the features that they would like to retain (and why); and
provides an opportunity to present new methods and ideas.
The City, in my earlier example, is in finacial difficulty today, still uses the same software and are still absorbing the costs of those inefficiencies. My conservative calculation showed a 2-year ROI on the project, based on the known savings. That was more than 4 years ago.
It's amazing what a different approach to their RFP back then could have had on the City budget today!
.







