CHAPTER 11
Writing the Qualifications Slot

I’ve probably seen more boilerplate in qualifications sections than in a furnace factory, especially from the larger consulting firms, the ones with big research departments. These firms’ proposals list everything they can about what they’ve done and whom they’ve done it to. There’s a better way, and I’ll tell you what it is.

The situation and methods slots allow you to demonstrate your qualifications implicitly. In SITUATION, for example, you can display your abilities as a problem solver by demonstrating your understanding of our problem’s causes and effects and by indicating your awareness of the important questions that must be answered before this problem can be addressed or solved. Your understanding of these matters can be crucial to the successful conduct of the project, and your clear and accurate presentation can serve as evidence of your experience, expertise, perspicacity, ingenuity, insight, and whatever other characteristics you wish to convey. In SITUATION and METHODS, you’re showing your qualifications, implicitly. In QUALIFICATIONS, you’re telling them, explicitly. You’re explicitly attempting to answer the question “Why are you best qualified for this project?”

The answer to that question should focus on abilities and capabilities related to my specific situation. Abilities are qualities of people, such as experience, kind and level of expertise, and personal characteristics. Capabilities are qualities of things, such as your firm or proprietary intellectual capital like methodologies, databases, or models. In a great many proposals, abilities are discussed in résumés (often attached in an appendix) and in staffing sections or subsections that often include brief biographies as well as the roles and responsibilities of those who will play a part in the project. These abilities are certainly part of the qualifications slot, even though they might not be in a section called “Qualifications.”

If you are a consultant, you have electronic files filled with descriptions of abilities and capabilities: résumés of your professional staff; a record of the studies your firm has done in various industries, in achieving various objectives; a history of the firm itself and how it has grown and developed; and prepackaged statements about the firm’s commitment to quality, effective implementation, and so on. All that boilerplate is important. And everyone else, including each of your competitors, has it too.

So you and they keep using it, especially in qualifications sections. I’ve read proposals that didn’t once mention my organization’s name in the qualifications section because that section contained nothing but generic fluff lifted whole cloth from an electronic file. I’ve read other proposals that did contain the name of a firm, but not my own, because the section was lifted whole cloth from another proposal. And I’ve even read one document—you won’t believe this!—that contained place holders for where my organization’s name should have gone, for example: <insert client’s name>. Computers are wonderful things, but they’re not a remedy for laziness or carelessness or a substitute for logical thinking about why you are, in fact, the best firm to meet my needs.

Persuasion occurs at the intersection of your abilities and your firm’s capabilities with my needs. By that definition, a qualifications section that focuses only on abilities and capabilities isn’t persuasive, or at least not as persuasive as it could be. It must focus on those abilities and capabilities as they relate to my needs.

Many qualifications sections don’t address those needs because they are written by someone who doesn’t know them, much less understand them. Consider, for example, a typical situation that occurs at some large consulting firms. The firm has four people working on a particular proposal, and they represent four levels in the firm’s professional ranks. Though the terms differ from firm to firm, let’s call them partner, principal, manager, and consultant.

Although the partner is the only one who has met with the potential client, she will write little, if any, of the proposal. She will, however, review it, though her review will focus primarily on staffing and costs, since she may get the proposal only 15 minutes before it has to go out the door. The principal will manage the proposal-writing effort, composing some of the document’s parts and assigning others to the manager. Partner, principal, and manager will have discussed the situation at the prospect’s firm and the strategy for preparing the document. The consultant rarely, if ever, writes proposals because he spends almost all his time doing research on the projects themselves; he is not involved in selling work. He has neither met with the potential client nor been apprised of the situation or the study’s objectives or possible methodology. Can you guess who is assigned to write the qualifications section?

The consultant finds (he’s often instructed to find) several previous proposals written to similar clients, perhaps for similar studies. These proposals were written by others like him, and those qualification sections were written by still others like him. The sections aren’t directed to specific readers in specific situations, with specific needs, problems, or opportunities. They are directed to what I call “Generic World.” They contain discussions of abilities and capabilities that could be read by almost any reader in almost any situation. They don’t focus on the intersection of your abilities and capabilities with my needs or evaluation criteria, and neither will the new qualifications section that the consultant will write—or copy—from the old ones. In this chapter, I’ll show you how to write a qualifications section that focuses on that intersection.¹

Your Qualifications Section Needs to Be an Argument

In Chapter 5, I showed you how to construct a logic tree to develop the actions in your methodology. That logic tree structured an argument to address the key question I wanted your methodology to answer: “How will you achieve the project’s objective?” Your qualifications section also is an argument, and it also can be developed with a logic tree. Now, however, my key question is not How? but Why? Why are you the best-qualified firm, with the best-qualified team, to conduct this project? (See Figure 11.1.) The principles in building this “why” logic tree are similar to those used to build the “how” logic tree in the methodology. In a “why” logic tree, each box in one row of the logic tree stakes out a claim you must substantiate, and each group of boxes below it argues why that claim is true.

FIGURE 11.1 The qualifications section can be organized by a “why” logic tree.

Typical Qualifications Sections Don’t Present an Argument

Qualifications sections written to Generic World can’t present an argument whose claim is “We are the best-qualified firm,” because best implies in this situation. Such sections tend to be organized by easy-to-boilerplate categories, as in Figure 11.2, rather than as specific claims that answer the question Why?

If I asked you, “Why are you the best-qualified firm?” I doubt that you would answer, “Description of the firm, industry experience, and, oh yes, consulting philosophy.” You wouldn’t be answering my question. You’d be answering something like, “What categories will you use in organizing your qualifications section?” I don’t care about that question. I want to know why you believe you’re the best-qualified firm so that I can judge for myself.

These categories, you see, focus inwardly only on your abilities and capabilities, not outwardly on their intersection with my needs. Consider the subsection “Description of the Firm.” (Yes, this qualifications section was written by the same consultant I previously discussed, and yes, it was part of a proposal sent to me.) The subsection contained information on the history of the consulting firm, the number of employees, and the number and location of offices. Terrific!

All this information could be relevant and persuasive in our situation. For example, assume the proposed project would take one year, require vast consulting resources and expertise, and affect my organization’s facilities around the world. In this case, I might want to engage a stable firm that’s been around a long time, with vast resources and diverse expertise and with offices and capabilities around the world. However, my proposed project could require only specialized expertise and affect only one of our operations. Of course, that was the case. But the consulting firm’s qualifications section was written by someone with scant knowledge of my organization and of my organization’s current situation and desired result. It didn’t matter to the writer that I was reading the section. The section wasn’t written to me and my world but to Generic World.

FIGURE 11.2 The lower-level boxes don’t support the claim of the upper box.

The subsection “Proprietary Methods” began this way: “The general operating practice of QRS Consulting is to develop frameworks and approaches to client-specific problems—not cookbooks that are simply transferred from client to client. . . . We tailor each approach for each client to ensure a unique and competitive solution to that client’s specific problem.” Would you trust someone who uses boilerplate to assure you that you and your organization are unique? This passage is worse than insincere. It borders on the hypocritical. Don’t think I can’t smell boilerplate. Don’t think I’m stupid. You are the one who comes off not necessarily stupid but insincere, untrustworthy, unthinking, uncreative, uncaring, and unworthy. This is no way to gain two to five points.

Use Your Themes Development Worksheet to Structure Your Argument

Themes are related to the qualities of the seller as they intersect with my needs as the buyer. So if you want to focus on your qualifications as they intersect with me, you need to look to your themes. Specifically, you need to capture the information in the Qualifications column of your Themes Development Worksheet. Why are you the best qualified? Because, as that column will reveal, you can respond to my hot buttons. Because your abilities and capabilities are in line with my evaluation criteria. Because you can counter the competition against these criteria.

Let me be more specific. Assume that I and my organization want from our consultants personal service when and where we demand it and that you are a small firm bidding against two much larger ones. Why are you the best qualified? Because your small size avoids levels of bureaucracy. You can move quickly if I need you quickly. You’re lean and fast and therefore attentive. So if I ask you why you’re the best-qualified firm, you can give me not a category but a good reason like that shown in Figure 11.3.

Now you can discuss how big your firm is, not in a subsection called “Description of the Firm” but in this one. That is, you will discuss the size of your firm because it is relevant, in this case, to your ability to provide close personal service, which is relevant to this project because it’s relevant to me. It’s an instance of your qualifications intersecting with my needs. You are describing your firm not simply to describe your firm but to provide evidence for your claim: “We are the best-qualified firm for this project, in part because of our relatively small size. . . .” Now, you can also discuss your consulting philosophy, but again, only as it relates to close personal service, only as it provides evidence for your claim. And so on down (and across) the logic tree. A fully fleshed-out logic tree will have many filled boxes, and every one is there for a reason, because it supplies a good reason that answers my question: “Why should I select you?”

FIGURE 11.3 The lower-level box supports the claim of the upper box.

CHAPTER 11 REVIEW
Writing the Qualifications Slot

1. The qualifications slot explicitly discusses abilities and capabilities as they intersect with the buyers’ needs.

Abilities are qualities of people, such as experience, kind and level of expertise, and personal characteristics.

Capabilities are qualities of things, such as your firm’s proprietary methodologies, databases, models, and other intellectual capital.

Abilities and capabilities are often discussed in résumés and your project’s staffing. This qualifications slot material is often not part of the qualifications section.

2. The qualifications section is an argument that provides evidence for the claim “We are the best-qualified firm.”

That claim forms the top box in a logic tree that can be used to organize the section.

A “how” logic tree organizes the actions in the methodology; a “why” logic tree organizes the qualifications section to demonstrate why yours is the best-qualified firm for this situation.

3. The content for some if not most of your argument can be gathered from the Qualifications column of your Themes Development Worksheet.

The TDW expresses your qualifications as they are related to hot buttons, evaluation criteria, and counters to the competition based on those criteria.

Therefore, that content phrases your abilities and capabilities as they intersect with the buyers’ needs. (See Figure 11.4.)

WORK SESSION 9: Writing the Qualifications Section for ABC

You know very well that a solidly argued and well-tailored qualifications section can provide some of the two to five points that make the difference between winning and being an also-ran. Your qualifications section will have to incorporate and reinforce the themes developed and played out in preceding sections of the proposal and also demonstrate clearly and conclusively that Paramount is superior to its competitors in having the resources and the ability to conduct the proposed methodology expeditiously; to produce a more comprehensive and effective plan; and, if necessary, to help ABC implement the selected alternative in a timely manner.

You feel that your own time pressures are building, and you’re hopeful that you can draw on materials from previous proposals that responded to similar situations. When you access your firm’s database of previous proposals, you find a few that look like they might be helpful, but you’re disappointed again—though not really surprised. All the qualifications sections appear interchangeable, and, in fact, you conclude that they pretty much are. They contain some useful and well-written paragraphs on Paramount’s history and on its experience within ABC’s industry. But they all sound as if they were written by Marketing. They are generic: they use too much boilerplate and never read as though they were written to real readers in specific situations with specific problems. The paragraphs aren’t formed into an argument. They won’t sufficiently differentiate you from the competition and won’t convince ABC that Paramount is the firm that should be engaged for this project.

FIGURE 11.4 The TDW’s qualifications column can provide the answers to why you are best qualified. These answers can be structured by a “why” logic tree. In turn, the logic tree can structure the argument in your qualifications section.

When you and Gilmore began developing a strategy for the proposal to ABC, you and he spent considerable time preparing a Themes Development Worksheet. You now want to take advantage of the thought that went into that effort, so you review the worksheet’s column labeled “Qualifications.” You use a “why” logic tree to structure that column’s content (Figure 11.5).

In supporting the claim that yours is the best-qualified firm for this project, you write that Paramount has:

The resources to begin this engagement immediately and to complete the study in as little as four to five months

Substantial manufacturing, financial, and strategy-development experience within the household-appliance industry

FIGURE 11.5 The “why” logic tree for the qualifications section in the proposal to ABC. The supporting claims come from the Themes Development Worksheet’s quali. cations column.

The ability to address the wide range of issues related to this engagement

The ability to develop a sound, joint ABC/Paramount team

Proven experience in planning and controlling implementation of the strategy we will develop with you

With that content, you construct your argument, using these five claims as subsections in the body of your qualifications section. The last claim, you realize, provides an opportunity to look ahead to what you hope will be another project at ABC—implementing the plan developed during this planning project.

One group of themes not addressed in your logic tree is that related to comprehensiveness, thoroughness, and complexity. This theme you decide to include in the introduction to the section by stressing that ABC’s problem is complex, that the right solution will not come easily, and that ABC doesn’t have much time left to conduct a comprehensive study. The results of your efforts are shown in the following:

Qualifications of Paramount Consulting

ABC is faced with a most formidable challenge as it begins the task of providing additional manufacturing capacity to avert the shortfall expected in the next few years. This capacity shortfall should be considered imminent as you examine the numerous tasks that must be completed effectively within the narrow available time frame.

Time will be required for sufficient interchange between ABC and Consolidated to agree on the decision to commit scarce financial, planning, managerial, and other resources needed to implement the selected option. Substantially more time will be needed to put in place additional resources and to provide the necessary training for an effective start-up.

As described in the following paragraphs, Paramount has the diverse capabilities to help you complete this challenging engagement successfully and expeditiously. Specifically, we have:

The resources to begin this engagement immediately and to complete this project in four to five months

Substantial manufacturing, financial, and strategy-development experience within the household-appliance industry

The ability to address the wide range of issues related to this engagement

The ability to develop a sound joint ABC/Paramount team

Proven experience in planning and controlling implementation of the strategy we will develop with you

Paramount Has the Resources to Begin and Complete This Project Quickly
Of the nearly 100 consultants in our nearby Midwest office, we have already identified several individuals with the skills and experience needed to help develop a sound plan for increasing capacity. Each of these professionals has worked on similar engagements, is substantially “down the learning curve,” and will therefore be able to function effectively at the beginning of the engagement. In fact, several of them have participated in developing this proposal. Our proposed engagement team of four consultants will be drawn from this group, and we would like to introduce this team to you so that you feel as comfortable with them as we do. We will use no subcontractors without your concurrence, and we will be able to begin the engagement immediately after your approval to proceed.

We Have Substantial Manufacturing, Financial, and Strategy-Development Experience Within Your Industry
For almost 40 years, Paramount has served clients with a high level of satisfaction. In fact, over 80 percent of our consulting engagements come from previous clients. Paramount originated with a strong manufacturing and strategy capability that has grown significantly over the years; this strength will enable us to address all the diverse issues that must be resolved during the proposed engagement. In the last five years, we have conducted over 200 manufacturing strategy engagements, of which nearly 25 were conducted for companies within the appliance industry. Furthermore, approximately 60 of those studies specifically involved our developing a broad range of manufacturing capacity plans. Many of them were designed to answer questions similar to yours: “How can we provide additional manufacturing capacity most effectively?”

We Are Able to Address the Wide Range of Issues Related to This Study
The team proposed for this engagement will have expertise in all aspects of this study. We understand the marketing and manufacturing issues from a business perspective so that we can develop various capacity expansion options; evaluate them with your management team, considering each of the team members’ individual (and often differing) perspectives; select the most appropriate option; prepare for Consolidated a comprehensive appropriation request; and plan for its successful implementation within your tight time frame.

We Have the Ability to Build a Sound ABC/Paramount Team
Because the staff to be assigned has considerable expertise in conducting similar studies, building consensus, and transferring their knowledge, skills, and expertise, we have been able to carefully structure our approach so that ABC management will participate actively and become an integral part of the engagement team. Thus, on completion of the engagement, ABC will possess a base of residual knowledge that will be invaluable in addressing future capacity and other strategic manufacturing questions. For example, we believe that ABC members of the engagement team will be able, even more effectively than at present, to monitor sales forecasts, plant productivity, and capacity utilization to project accurately when additional capacity might be needed in the more distant future.

We Have the Ability to Plan and Control Implementation
Once the most appropriate capacity expansion option has been selected, it will be extremely important to implement that plan without delay. Although an implementation phase lies outside the scope of this proposed project, you should be aware that our significant experience in successfully implementing comprehensive plans for increasing capacity could be invaluable to ABC.

Our project teams that work on such implementation projects routinely use a variety of sophisticated project-control software packages. These programs are necessary for properly allocating resources; monitoring task completion and costs, thereby assuring adherence to budget; identifying potential problems or delays; and reallocating resources to maintain schedules and achieve time and cost objectives. These control techniques will ensure that implementation of the selected option will proceed smoothly and will be completed on time and within budget.

Even if we are not actively involved in implementation, we will have developed the new manufacturing plan considering ABC’s resources and capabilities. Our goal is not just to produce a plan for increasing capacity but to bring that capacity on line as soon as possible. That is, we are not in the business of just developing plans. We want to see those plans implemented whether or not you decide to engage us to help you do so.