Category Archives: Process

One Pound in Three

Can we talk about this:

Big opportunities for small firms: government set to spend £1 in every £3 with small businesses

When its predecessor (of £1 in 4) was announced in 2010 many of us were sceptical, so it was fantastic news in 2014 when the National Audit Office announced that this target had not only been met, but exceeded. I don’t think anyone doubts that the new £1 in 3 target will be achieved by 2020; a real measure of confidence in the commitment to these plans.

It’s fair to say that it’s genuinely been a great move forward. It’s taken some time – as you might expect – both for this to trickle all the way down to the smaller end of the SME sector and for departments and other bodies to get their procurement processes aligned, but in the last couple of years we’ve have seen many positive and concrete changes to the way the public sector procures services.

We’ve been involved in quite a few of these SME tendering processes in the last year or so and have seen a full range of tenders from the very good through to the very bad. What’s clear is that things are continuing to improve as buyers and their procurement departments learn to navigate the new types of relationships that the public sector has with these smaller suppliers.
So a lot’s changed, but what could still improve?

Procurement workshops and briefing days

Soon after the 2010 announcement and in the midst of a fashion for “hackathons” and the open web these were all the rage; you could hardly go a week without one body or another running an event of this type.

You know the ones. Every Government department and even most local councils run them; non-government public bodies like the BBC, Channel 4 and JISC love them too. The intention is absolutely sound – you want to get us excited about working with you, outline the projects that we might be working on, help shape our proposals, and ultimately make sure we understand that you’re worth the effort of us pitching to.

There’s no doubt that these are great events to attend. But. They’re often marketed as “great opportunities” and there’s frequently a sense that we must attend to ensure that we don’t miss out. But time out of the office costs money, as does getting half way across the country because the “North” briefing is in London (I kid you not, that’s happened to me more than once). On top of that the audience and content of the talks at these events can be scarily similar regardless of location or presenting organisation. There’s nothing more disheartening than arriving at another one of these events to a feeling that only the venue and speakers have changed.

It’s obviously vitally important that you get these messages across, but please try and make sure that the events themselves don’t feel compulsory. SMEs are time poor (particularly the good ones); if it’s clear that I’m not going to miss out if I don’t attend and that all the information I need will be online then I may well choose not to come. It doesn’t mean I’m not engaged, just that new channels like this are things I often need to explore outside the usual working day.
There’s often a sense of “if we make it really explicit what we’re after at the workshop” that you’ll cut down on the number of inappropriate responses to your tenders. Sadly the opposite is often true – once someone has spent a lot of time and money in attending one of the briefing days they will pitch for absolutely everything, because they now feel invested, and they’ve met you. Sunk cost thinking affects us all.

Luckily the number of these apparently mandatory briefing days is reducing, with some organisations doing away with them entirely, replacing them with live web conferences, pre-recorded video presentations and detailed (and high quality) documentation. I’d love to see them done away with entirely, though.

Keeping contracts aligned

It’s a fair assumption that during the briefing days every single speaker will have made at least one reference to Agile. And it’s likely that Agile was the main topic of at least one talk. Because Agile is good. You get that. We get that. Agile makes absolute sense for many of the kinds of projects that the public sector is currently undertaking. Digital Transformation is certainly not easy, it’s definitely not cheap and it’s absolutely not going to be helped by a waterfall, BDUF approach.

But if you’re honestly committed to Agile please please ensure that your contracts reflect that. We’ve recently had to pull out of two tenders where we’d got down to the last round because the contract simply couldn’t accommodate a genuine Agile delivery. We know Agile contracts are hard, but if you’ve spent the entire procurement process actively encouraging people to pitch you an Agile approach you need to present an Agile contract at the end of it. Companies as old and grizzled as Isotoma may feel forced – and be willing – to back away, but for many agencies it’s a trap they unwittingly fall into which ultimately does nothing for either party.

It’s also worth remembering that it’s unlikely any SME you deal with has internal legal advice, so contract reviews are an expensive luxury. If you present a mandatory contract at the start of the tender process most of us will glance over it before ploughing ahead. We certainly aren’t going to pay for a full scale review because we know it’ll cost a fortune and the lawyer is only going to tell us it’s too risky and we shouldn’t pitch anyway. One contract we were presented with by a government department was described by our lawyer as a “witch’s curse”. We still pitched. Didn’t win it. Probably for the best.

Timelines

They say it’s the hope that kills you.

Small businesses are, by definition, small. The kind of procurements I’m talking about here are for services, not products, which means that people – our people, our limited number of people – are going to be required for the delivery. If the timeline on the procurement says “award contract on 17th February 2017, go live by end June 2017” we’re going to start trying to plan for what winning might look like. This might well involve subtly changing the shape of other projects that we’ve got in flight. If we’re really confident it might even mean turning away other work.

When we get to the 17th February and there’s no news from you what are we supposed to do? Do we hold the people we’d pencilled in for this work back and live with the fact that they’re unbilled?. And then when 24th February comes and there’s another round of clarification questions, but you commit to giving us an answer by the following week what do we do then? And so on. And so on.

The larger the business you’re dealing with the easier they find absorbing these kind of changes to timelines, but that’s one of the reasons they’re more expensive. SMEs are small, they’re nimble, but they also rely on keeping their utilisation high and their pipeline flowing. Unrealistic procurement timelines combined with fixed delivery dates can make pitching for large tenders very uncomfortable indeed.

To summarise

As I said at the start things have made huge leaps forward over the past couple of years. The commitment to pay 80% of all undisputed invoices within 5 days is a great example of how the public sector is starting to really understand the needs of SMEs, as is removing the PQQ process for smaller contracts, the commitment to dividing contracts into lots and explicitly supporting consortia and subcontracting.

In 2016 we’ve been to sadly uninformative developer days for an organisation that has offered wonderfully equitable Agile contracts and extremely clear and accurate timelines. We’ve pitched for work that was beautifully explained online with no developer day, but that presented a bear trap of a contract, and we’ve pitched for work that was perfect except for the wildly optimistic timelines and that finally awarded the contract 3 months after the date in the tender.

Things are definitely getting better, but a few more little tweaks could make them perfect.
Here’s to £1 in 3, and the continuing good work that everyone is doing across the sector.

4 Times That The Misery Of Creative Agencies Made Me Happy

Clickbait titles are fun, but bear with me, good people. I’m trying the make a point.

This report was wafted under my nose the other day. It makes for depressing, but not terribly surprising reading. The first paragraph pretty much nails it:

Anyone who’s spoken to me in a professional capacity for the last 3 months will probably recognise that Smith & Beta’s report is quantitative confirmation of what I’ve been going on about for ages. Each one of these makes me sad – but also, because I am a shallow, vapid person, I still get to feel happy that I’m right.

1) Good quality creative requires good quality technical implementation

Agencies lead with creative vision and lean on technical skills (internal & external) to deliver this vision. No one ever won a pitch by saying that the creative will be a strong C+ but it’s going to be implemented really well. Sadly, the opposite is almost always true. The industry is generally OK with taking an amazing creative idea and delivering it late, over-budget and on top of a pile of bodies of fallen colleagues.

2) This technical resource – where it exists within an agency – is often siloed and over-committed

Because of the way the creative industry works, creative resource is always going to be an expense the agency is happy to invest in. Investing in technical resource however; is a more expensive, slower, trickier business.

Similarly, investing in older, more skilled resource is always going to be a harder sell when there are countless thousands of young and exploitable juniors clamouring for your attention.

An agency trying to walk the line between capability and capacity in order to really call themselves “Full Service” will end up with a safe but middle of the road offer. Conversely, an agency who shoots for the moon and invests in highly specialised and/or highly senior team may find that they’ve painted themselves into a very expensive corner.

3) It’s hard to hire your way out of this problem

I mean, duh, obviously. It’s hard to hire your way out of any problem. Recruitment, training and increasing retention are sloooooow processes. And the problems that this report outlines are problems of the now.

(Side-note: In my role here at Isotoma, I often end up talking to agencies about projects that we can collaborate on. I’m usually talking about projects that might be coming up in, say, 6 months, but people actually want help RIGHT NOW.)

4) These problems when considered together, reduce the satisfaction of the customer and shorten the lifetime of the account

As abusive as the client/agency model can be, there’s a satisfyingly stark bottom line to it: “Do good work; get more work.” Note that this is distinct from “Pitch good creative; get more work.”

As I said above, no one ever won a pitch for outlining a competent implementation plan, but once the project is over and the smoke settles, the customer doesn’t just remember the pitch.

(If you’re really unlucky, the people who were in the pitch don’t even work for the customer anymore…)

The knife edge that a marcomms agency has to walk is being able to deliver creative vision *and* technical competence in a way that doesn’t fundamentally alter what the company is. Go too far in one direction and you’re unable to deliver anything profitably, go too far in the other and you’ve magically become a company that you don’t want to be.

So this is one of the reasons that Isotoma do what we do. We’re already a technical agency. We’re already geared up to help you estimate, deliver and, crucially, support a creative campaign. We’re good partners. And the better we get at ploughing this particular furrow, the better we’re able to help and complement agencies who’ve chosen to plough another.

And that makes me happy.

(See? I was being cynically provocative to attract clicks. And the pug at the top? The cherry on the cake, my friend. Truly I am a monster.)