atw: Re: Statistics to demonstrate value ...
- From: "Caz.H" <cazhart@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:37:16 +1100
The comprehensibility of a document is crucial, no argument. That, however,
is the tenderer's problem, not the selection committee’s, the latter of
which doesn't have time to fluff around contemplating whether or not the
their scoring has been influenced by poor font choice. That burden is on
the tenderer ... or on the documenter, no matter the context.
"The problem Suzy has been dealing with, as I understand it, is trying to
explain that the combination of developers and Word 2007 is not sufficient
to establish "quality and appropriateness", however appropriate the
underlying logic or value of a proposal may be."
She's been given an impossible task. A good template, no matter how good,
doesn't ensure appropriate or quality content. Indeed, far too many people
turn their brains off when using a template; it's a double-edged sword.
On 10/20/09, Peter Martin <peterm_5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Caz.H:
>
> Meanwhile, as I move back a little closer to the topic...
>
> You wrote:
>
> > Having spent 16 years, equally in public and private sectors, writing and
> assessing
> > tenders on the client side, and writing solutions & contracts on the
> supply side (on
> > and off, not the full 16 years), I have quite intimate knowledge of
> procurement,
> > indeed, I've even been a procurement auditor and train people, as well as
> implementing
> > templates & appropriate processes, etc, etc. So, yes, truly: it IS the
> case that
> > procurement evaluations take no interest in the sales team, and no one
> ever scores the
> > proposal formatting - and yes that IS the way it really IS. It's a
> little mind-
> > numbering to think that people believe tenders in either private or
> public sector are
> > invited or assessed in a manner that would not pass the most rudimentary
> tests of
> > probity. Go figure.
> >
>
> I'm not quite clear on the points you are making here, but not many of us
> would suggest that somehow there is a "score" applied to formatting and
> style in the process of assessing tenders.
>
> And I happen to have been at the blunt end at one stage of one of the worst
> mess-ups in tendering in this country's history, (think "under water") so I
> think I've had cause to wonder about rudimentary competence in some tender
> processes -- if not tests of probity.
>
> The problem in dealing with this kind of issue is that, as we all know, the
> judgement of "quality and appropriateness" of a proposal is not entirely
> separable from a whole series of factors. The problem Suzy has been dealing
> with, as I understand it, is trying to explain that the combination of
> developers and Word 2007 is not sufficient to establish "quality and
> appropriateness", however appropriate the underlying logic or value of a
> proposal may be.
>
> To take an example from another field: in my time, in another era, I had
> to read and assess hundreds of film scripts and draft storylines, as
> candidates for development funding. Try as one might, it was very hard at
> times to ignore not just glaring spelling mistakes, but messy layouts and
> formatting etc... It turned out on occasions, it was important to try to
> do that, because every now and then a rough gem appeared that looked as
> messy and misspelt as hell. In a situation where what was called for was a
> fairly fast rejection of up to 90% or more of the material up for
> assessment, it was all too easy to slip messy stuff to one side, or move it
> quickly into the "out" pile. Is it really any different in the tendering
> process ? I'd suggest it's pretty much the same, but people tend not to
> notice how basic the real "rules" are.
>
> No matter how hard we try, most of us, (even auditors), have trouble
> giving full credit if there are flaws of presentation. And sometimes,
> even where we try to ignore the flaws, our comprehension and appreciation
> of the underlying material is affected. Attention wanders, and
> understanding goes out the door with it. People who assess tenders etc may
> well believe they are just looking at the "basics", and nothing else really
> matters. But they tend not to notice that their understanding of what the
> basics are is affected by the manner of presentation. (And here, I refer to
> "presentation" flaws as including the lousy choice of language that
> developers use almost instinctively -- not just nice fonts and layouts.)
>
> So if the purpose of documents is to convey "quality and
> appropriateness", that purpose can be simply undermined to the point where
> it is clear that reasonably clear and pleasant presentation is actually an
> essential element of the "quality and appropriateness" of the product. It's
> not something to be "scored" independently, if in fact it serves the purpose
> of getting the content read and comprehended better: it is one component of
> the "quality".
>
> But why am I telling you all of this ? You're a tech writer. You know
> perfectly well that it's not just a question of making something look
> "pretty".... you first have to get their attention before you have a chance
> of getting their dollar. And knowledgeable choice of fonts, layouts,
> language etc are all presumably continuing features of your work, and the
> way you seek to gain reader attention. You really can't rely on there being
> a tough-minded "just-gimme-the-facts-m'am" collection of assessors out there
> who are going to take hold of key facts immediately.... and certainly not if
> you have some managers sitting around putting their fingers into the
> selection pie...
>
> We tend not to notice how important some of these apparently obvious and
> "minor" matters are -- until we are faced with a glaring example of a
> presentation gone wrong.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> **************************************************
> To view the austechwriter archives, go to
> www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> "unsubscribe" in the Subject field (without quotes).
>
> To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION modes)
> go to www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter
>
> To contact the list administrator, send a message to
> austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> **************************************************
>
Other related posts:
