Delivery Matters

I’ve been flying far too frequently these days.  On the up side, it means reconnecting with family, friends, and clients from around the country.  On the down side, it means listening to the airline safety announcement over and over – to the point where I can recite it verbatim.  Nonetheless, as a presentation coach, I find myself really listening to the safety instructions, wanting to give the flight attendant an audience to which s/he can deliver this most important presentation. 

This morning, I observed a delivery style that occurs far too frequently on airplanes and in many other types of critical presentations. The flight attendant rattled through her information so quickly, I doubt anyone really heard her, to the point of slurring and missing words.  She used no inflection, delivering her monologue in a monotone, devoid of emotion or interest.  Her demonstration of the safety equipment was lackluster at best, disconnected from the speed-speak flow of the words.  I found myself thinking from the perspective of a first time flyer who really needed to know this information.  “Should I put my oxygen mask on first, or should I help the person next to me?  Where are those exits again?  What if the exit door is behind me? Will anything direct me to the nearest exit? What about the unlikely event of a water landing?”  Though I’ve heard the instructions hundreds of times, I know that in the event of an airline incident in which I were called upon to act on those instructions, only the ceaseless repetition of the instructions would enable me to act.  I fly ten or more times each month; I’m betting most of my fellow passengers don’t have the benefit of hearing the message that frequently and may have to rely on the instructions they heard this morning.

How many presentations in our industry do we deliver like this flight attendant?  I believe that in many cases, the most boring content in presentations is often the most important, despite the fact that many audience members have heard it before.  For example, in short-list interviews, I’ve seen project management presentations that had selectors on the edge of their chairs, and I’ve seen similar presentations that put audience members to sleep.  I’ve witnessed safety meetings where team members were engaged and asking questions; I’ve also seen the same content delivered to an audience whose sole interest was getting out on the jobsite vs. hearing the information.  What’s the difference?

The major difference between a great presentation of common content and a bad presentation of the same content lies in delivery.  A great speaker takes the content and personalizes it: There’s nothing more important than delivering this particular message to this audience.  Great speakers know that even the best content is not enough to make a great presentation; great presentations take passionate, appropriate delivery combined with a genuine interest in the audience and audience members’ understanding.

The elements of great delivery are fairly simple; it involves intentionally focusing on how you move, how you look, and how you sound.  How you move has to do with appropriate gestures, eye contact, and body movement.  How you look has to do with relaxed posture, comfortable and appropriate dress, and orientation to other team members.  How you sound has to do with the pace, pitch, volume, and tone of your words.  While we could write a book about each of these elements, the bottom line is that great delivery involves intentionality – making a choice to adjust any one of these elements to fit the needs of the content, the situation, and the audience.

Most importantly, great delivery involves a genuine interest in the audience and audience members’ comprehension of the material.  This interest changes everything.  Being interested in audience member comprehension forces speakers to really look at audience members.  Being interested makes speakers change their voice to communicate interest, concern, or excitement. And, being interested engages team members, audience members, and the speaker in the importance of the content – collectively and individually.

What if this one presentation of the airplane safety information was the time it really mattered?  Would that knowledge change the delivery of the information?  I’d like to think so.  The takeaway for me is this:  Each time we have the opportunity to speak to an audience, we need to deliver the information as if this time it matters. While many of our presentations don’t have potential life or death implications, they are important.  At all times, in all situations, to all audience members, make a choice to speak like what you are saying makes a difference.

Measuring Partnership

Project partnering has been around for a long time, and candidly, the jury is still out as to whether or not it creates lasting value for projects and teams.  In some cases, I’ve seen partnering deliverables guide team members to more positive, team-based behaviors that have had profound impact on project success.  In other cases, I’ve seen team members revert to pre-partnering norms more protective of their own interests vs. common team needs at times when the project really needed stronger teamwork.  In recent partnering processes both in the public sector with the USACE and in the private sector on some large, high-impact projects, I have been working with teams interested in finding a methodology for improving the “stickiness” of the partnering mindset throughout the duration of the project.

One method we’re using with great success is to create partnering metrics that can be used throughout the project duration to measure team performance against partnering objectives.  While useful to assess team member perceptions, the usefulness of the partnering measurement tool is more in how it drives a conversation about teaming and partnership throughout the project schedule.

This is not a new concept.  Early partnering facilitators recommended establishing and documenting what they called “partnership expectations” for the team.  However, as partnering has evolved, few teams actually went so far as to create a real measurement tool.  With the costs and benefits of team performance so high, it’s time to “add some teeth” to how we use partnering.  Clearly established partnering metrics are one way to accomplish this.

Establishing the measurement tool requires two things:  a useful and recognized scale and meaningful, discrete “variables” that indicate team performance.  The quantitative scale makes the measurement and subsequent interpretation of the results more objective, resulting in higher quality discourse about team behavior. The variables enable conversation about core team elements in a way that enables behavior change on a more micro level that is more achievable and lasting.

When establishing a scale, I typically prefer a seven-point Likert-type scale that is evenly balanced at the poles.  The scale is broad enough to enable one to see variance across the response population, but doesn’t mimic a ten-point grading scale.  Plus, though others in the industry might disagree, I like having a midpoint between positive and negative ratings since in many cases, “I neither agree nor disagree” is the real answer vs. “N/A – not applicable”.

While there are certainly some common variables teams might use in the creation of a partnering measurement tool, the most valuable metrics are specific to the team and the project, with variables that are meaningful and communicative to team members.  And, these metrics are best created with the team itself. 

As one of the early partnering activities for any project, I divide the team into two groups.  For the first group, after explaining the concept of a metric, I ask them to create a draft measurement tool of discrete items that once measured would give the team an indication of how successful they are relative to partnering. I ask team members, “How would you know partnering has been successful at key stages of the project?”  An example variable might be “Communication of issues at the appropriate level” or “Decisions made in a timely manner.”  Both of these could be measured on a scale through gathering perceptions from all team members.  And, the results would give the team an understanding of how the entire team feels it is doing in each area, and more importantly, would foster a discussion on how to improve.

The second group works on listing, based on past experience and their concerns for this project, risks or roadblocks to success.  This list is used as a test of the measurement tool and the individual metrics:  Given what we know about this project and the real challenges we have ahead, do the items we’ve listed get at the real issues our team is going to face?  For example, if the team is aware that a significant challenge on the current project is going to be the transition of team members from one phase to the next, we might create a metric in our measurement tool, “Orientation of new team members to partnering goals and objectives.”

Partnering takes considerable time and investment at the beginning of a project, and for larger projects, throughout its duration.  Teams that find ways to continue the partnering conversation in productive ways without multiple formal sessions make a wise investment in their future success.  Establishing and using a tailored partnering measurement tool is one way to continue the conversation and target real improvements in teamwork to achieve project goals. 

An Approach to the Approach: Writing a Winning Approach Section

In my experience, clients carefully read four parts of most proposals:  the cover letter (“the invitation”), the approach section (“How can you help me?”), the resumes (“Who are you?”), and the cost or budget section (“And, just how much will this cost me?”).  While the pretty pictures of your projects and descriptions of your work are certainly interesting to most clients, nothing is more interesting to a client reader than the client’s own project or problem.  As a result, one of the most important sections of any proposal that we write is the Approach Section.

The Approach Section, in fact, distinguishes a proposal from a statement of qualifications (SOQ).  An SOQ asks for information about your firm and your experience.  A proposal asks for an approach to doing the work requested and/or solving the problem described.  Experience in a proposal, while important, has a different purpose than qualifying your firm.  In a proposal, experience proves that you can do what you said you could in the approach.

The first step in writing any good approach section is to carefully read the RFP.  Most RFPs are written with clear instructions regarding the information for which the client is looking; sometimes, there are even clear instructions on how the client wants you to organize that information.  Read it, clarify it, underline it, and follow it.  While writers need to bring their creative writing skills to the cover letter, writers need different skills for the approach section.  Approach sections require the very best expository or descriptive writing. 

If the RFP asks “how” your team will resolve a problem or accomplish a key scope of work, it’s important to really write about what your team plans to do and how this approach will resolve the problem or accomplish the work.  Anytime you read the word “how”, this should be a clue that the reader expects to know what you are going to do and how it will meet his need.  Too often, when I read an approach section, the section starts with statements of experience or skill:  “XYZ has extensive experience in this type of work, and we are excited to bring this experience to your project.”  The writer then spends considerable proposal “real estate” describing this experience, even though it’s usually also described elsewhere in the proposal. 

Approach sections generally should not include details of your experience, your awards, or even client testimonials.  Rather, the approach section should detail how you are going to do the work.  The key evaluation criterion for any approach section is “responsiveness.” Does your approach to the work respond to the client’s stated problem, need, or request?

Any large document, like an approach section of a major proposal, can seem daunting when one considers writing it all at once. Fortunately, for most proposals, an Approach section can be logically segmented into prompts to make it easier to write, and coincidentally, easier to read.  Generally, the section should be organized chronologically in clear subsections, or should follow the structure dictated by the “prompts” in the RFP.  The first step in writing the approach section is to find the logical structure and define the “bundles” of information.  These bundles – or subsections – can reflect the logical stages of the work (such as Schematic Design Activities, Design Development Activities, etc. ), or they might reflect logical topics that need to be discussed (such as Quality Management, Safety, Communication, etc.).  A writer might even organize the section spatially, bundling content around sections of the site, floors of the building, or areas of the facility.

The writer can then add opening and closing sections to the beginning and end of the approach section.  These might be “Approach Philosophy” in the beginning and “Concluding Thoughts” at the end.

Like the entire document, each subsection should have its own logical organization.  In fact, a savvy writer creates a common organizational template for each subsection of the overall approach. This establishes a rhythm and flow to the reader, and it makes the writing much faster and easier.  There are several common organizational structures a writer might use for a subsection, including:

Problem, Cause, Criteria, Solution:  What’s the problem?  What caused the problem?  What are the solution criteria?  What is your solution?

Vision, Process, Result:  What’s the aspiration or vision for the work?  How are we going to get there?  When we do this, what’s the positive result?

Knowledge, Resources, Solution:  What do we have to know in order to deal with the challenge?  What help or resources do we need to be successful?  What’s the solution we need to bring to the challenge that will meet the client’s goals and objectives?

One other way I make these sections easier to write is to borrow from my work as a presentation coach (writing and presenting are, after all, both communication skills).  When speakers are having difficulty outlining parts of a presentation, I direct them to always use a four part outline:  What are you going to do for the client to solve the problem?  Why is it important to do that?  How are you going to get it done?  Can you prove that this approach will work?

The “What” becomes the topic paragraph for the subsection.  If the subsection were about an early project process such as Partnering, I might start with the following:

“The most important first step in any project is the Initial Partnering Session.  Our team will hold a partnering session during the first week after Notice to Proceed that will set the stage for project success.”  

The “Why” provides the value proposition for the “What.”

For example, I might write, “A well executed partnering session can save a project like yours millions of dollars by avoiding changes and claims while dramatically increasing end user satisfaction.  In partnering, we establish the rules of engagement for all team members, integrating team goals so we are all working cohesively toward the same delivery goals.”

The “How” refers to the “guts” of the subsection.  Fortunately, since the writer wishes to describe the approach to a scope of work, the logic of the work dictates the logic of the subsection.  Each subsection might be organized around the sequential steps it takes to resolve the problem or complete the scope of work.  The easiest way to determine this organization is to refer back to “Project Management 101” – the good, old Work Breakdown Structure or WBS.  A WBS details discrete tasks that in order lead to scope completion, a step-by-step XX to accomplish the work.  The writer can use a WBS to organize each subsection of the Approach. 

For example, continuing my partnering subsection, I’d organize this subsection chronologically by the logical, sequential tasks needed to accomplish a successful partnering:  identify participants, plan agenda, provide facilitation, and document results.

The “Proof” can be examples from projects where the “How” worked.  Remember, these should not be detailed project descriptions, but rather, short statements illustrating success.

For example, “Leaders at Fort XX have found this approach so valuable, they work with us to use it on all projects kicked off at this very busy military training installation.”

Each subsection should stick to its topic and its outline.  This keeps writers from including too much in the subsection and keeps readers “on point.”  Far from being constraining, using a logical, predictable outline helps the writer be more creative and helps the reader understand the finer points of the narrative.

There are certainly many more ways to write an approach section, and I’m sure many of my readers have extensive experience to share as well.  My goal with this short blog is to propose ideas to make the whole writing process easier so readers can clearly understand the value your team brings to the project. 

When writing the approach, writers need to think like readers.  In today’s economy, clients receive numerous proposals – 20, 30, 40 for a single project.  As a result, readers need to review multiple proposals very quickly. Yours needs to stand out by being easy to read and telling a clear, cohesive story.  Far from making your proposal more mechanized or simplistic, these logical organizational techniques will make your Approach Section easier to absorb and eminently more memorable.