How to Sell Whole Product in Government Markets
By Bob Rutherford
How Strategic Marketing Course Concepts ApplyGovernment requests for proposals (RFPs) offer a level playing field for competition against stated operational requirements. Since all competitors see the RFP, the process drives commoditization, and competition will gravitate toward enhancing cost effectiveness by innovation. RFP technical requirements are explicit and collected in stratified groups of descending priority. As with Generic Product, Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) are most easily quantified, and considered so important that a proposal that does not offer a credible plan to meet them is typically disqualified. Likewise similar to Expected Product, Key Systems Attributes (KSAs) are characteristics considered crucial in support of achieving a balanced (affordable or acceptable risk) solution. Failure to meet a KSA may not necessarily be disqualifying, although it will be a competitive disadvantage. Finally, as with Augmented Product, a tertiary category of requirements is Additional Attributes (AAs). AAs may offer one supplier an opportunity to uniquely satisfy a requirement, however, other suppliers’ failure to adequately address an AA is typically not disqualifying.
The final plank in our bridge from the Whole Product model to the government market is Potential Product. Because the requirements defined by the government are so explicit, any competitive proposal is expected to meet them one way or the other. Proposals will be evaluated by the government on the credibility and cost of the approach to meet the required capability. Thus the generic, expected, and augmented product zones are fused in the government model to include all three technical requirements groups. The potential product zone is a different matter. This is a space where the government is allowed to establish an amorphous and often subjective classification called “best value”. This is also where a solution supplier can establish a competitive Vector of Differentiation (VOD). Typically, what Ted Levitt calls potential, the defense department refers to as “growth capability”. This may take the form of open architecture to support future data protocols, or simply physical cavity size, or excess power generation to accommodate a future electronic component. The parameters for growth capacity are often only casually defined if at all. The opportunity for competitive differentiation becomes clear as the merits of the whole product extend into the best value and growth capability zones.
