How Proposal Process Optimization Increases Win Rates
Table of Content
Introduction
Most companies find it hard to keep the sales good and believe that the issue is on the quality of lead, pricing or sales talent. The true issue is usually in the open view: the very process of proposal systematically kills deal momentum and close deals that should occur.
The standard proposal process is also familiar across companies. The Sales representatives reopen old files, remove old client information, and rewrite the information manually. The structure and messaging differ according to the template that was used as the base. Hours are spent coming up with proposals. When they are emitted in the form of static PDFs they vanish into a black hole and no one can see what transpires. It turns into guess work: did they open it, send it, become frozen on the price or just lost the memory of it?
Several failure points are formed during this process. The delay associated with the production of proposals complicates the speed of responding to interested prospects, which gives time to competitor campaigns to gain momentum. Inconsistent messaging implies that various prospects are treated to various value propositions. It is impossible to intelligently follow up because of no visibility into the buying behavior. Each of the proposals that are submitted will be an act of wishing and not making data-driven involvement.
Institutions that repair their proposal procedure generally experience huge increases in close rates - of 30-50% - without altering other aspects of their selling strategy. The leads remain the same. The pricing remains the same. The product remains the same. It is just the process that changes and results come.
| Manual Process Problem | Business Impact |
|---|---|
| Time to produce | Delayed response, lost momentum |
| Structural variation | Inconsistent buyer experience |
| Messaging variation | Unpredictable conversion rates |
| No behavioral data | Guesswork-based follow-up |
| No optimization path | Improvement blocked |
Key Insight
The most damaging cost of manual proposal creation is delay. Prospects are most engaged immediately after a productive discovery call when their problem is fresh and momentum is high. When proposals take 2-3 days to arrive, that momentum dissipates. Priorities shift, competitors capture attention, and the proposal arrives into a different psychological context than when it was requested. Speed alone often determines whether deals close regardless of solution quality.
Treating Proposals as Sales System Components
The change starts with the mindset changing: proposals are never documents that are written at the end of the sales process. They are also part and parcel of the sales system, which cannot be designed, measured, and optimized like any other element of the system.
The attitude transforms in three ways. To begin with, proposals are not re-invented every time but are standardized. A uniform framework will make all proposals to convey value, irrespective of the representative who prepares the proposal. Second, proposals can be estimated with the assistance of behavioral analytics that demonstrates the way buyers engage with them. Third, proposals are discussion instruments but not documents, and thus are not meant to end; they are meant to proceed.
Speed is then a design principle. In case some proposals have to be made in haste to capture the momentum, the process should facilitate prompt production. This implies the ready-made templates, content blocks that can be assembled modules, and straightforward workflows at the expense of quality.
Brilliance turns into a principle of design. The communication via proposals must be accurate: what will be solved, how will one act, what results will be achieved, what the investment will demand, and what will follow. Fluff and filler waste distract the buyer of these items and cloud the judgement they should make.
The design principle of visibility emerges. The organization must be aware of the events that will follow a proposal once it is sent: when it was opened, the number of times it was viewed, parts worked on, and the other people in the buying organization who had viewed it. This information changes follow-up into a response and not a guess.
Standardized Structure With Personalized Content
Proper proposal models have a standard format that helps buyers on the decision-making process. The following details might depend on industry or type of deal, but the logic will always be the same: define the problem, describe how to solve it, clarify what to do, design scope, clarify investment, and clarify what to do next.
The format is institutionalized; the information in the sections is tailored. The problem section needs to represent what the buyer actually said in the discovery, in their own words and putting their situation in a frame that they are familiar with. The outcomes section must deal with what the buyer specifically told them they were interested in accomplishing not generic benefits.
This balance generates the proposals which are personalized to each buyer and also take 15-20 minutes to create, as opposed to an hour. The representatives are not selling less but they are selling better and consistently and the saved time is utilized in more selling.
Optimization is also possible through the standardization. With all the proposals in the same format, one is able to pinpoint those aspects that result in conversion. Are more focused proposals more successful? Are there types of case studies that are associated with wins? To provide the answer to these questions, standardization provides the consistency.
| Section | Purpose | Customization Level |
|---|---|---|
| Problem | Reflect buyer's situation in their language | High — from discovery |
| Approach | Explain solution methodology | Medium — adapt to context |
| Outcomes | Define success metrics | High — from buyer priorities |
| Scope & Timeline | Specify deliverables and schedule | Medium — project specific |
| Investment | State pricing and terms | Low — standard options |
| Next Steps | Define clear action | Low — standard CTA |
Behavioral Visibility After Sending
The best enhancement is the knowledge of what follows the submission of proposals. Pdfs which are sent as static files are lost in email inboxes with no response until the prospect replies or goes silent. The current proposal platform of behavioral analytics changes the effectiveness of following up, as they are detailed.
The engagement status can be determined by opening patterns. A proposal presented more than once during a few days implies active consideration. The fact that a proposal was never opened after a week means that it is not a priority opportunity, and it is unlikely to be made a priority unless an effort is made. This basic fact alters after-sale plan: active prospects are sent a supporting information, whereas unopened proposals are sent a status request.
Attention by the buyer is shown in section. Price will obviously be the subject of their scrutiny when analytics indicate that a prospect goes through the pricing section more than once. The follow-up discussion must touch upon value rationalization, the choice of payment structure or changes in the scope, not generic check-ins. When analytics indicate that the focus is on the approach section, the prospect might require further clarification of the methodology or demonstration of effectiveness of the approach.
Dynamic between deals is shown by stakeholder access. In case two or more individuals in the purchasing organization are looking at the proposal, the transaction is undergoing internal scrutiny. Although the main point of contact may not have replied, the fact that CFO or legal counsel accessed the document is a point of progress. On the other hand, when only the first is seen to have looked at the proposal although assured that it was sent to others internally, then the deal will be stalling.
This transparency creates a relevant and not intrusive follow-up. Rather than sending a message of checking in to buyers who do not respond, the follow-up deals with certain issues that the buyer has indicated or expressed by his actions. This topicality enhances response rates and progresses deals which would be lost in generic follow-up.
Important
Behavioral visibility transforms follow-up from guessing to responding. When analytics reveal that a prospect repeatedly views the pricing section, follow-up can address value justification directly. When multiple stakeholders access the proposal, the deal is clearly moving through internal evaluation even if the inbox is quiet. This data enables specific, relevant outreach that advances deals generic check-in messages would lose.
Speed as Competitive Advantage
The duration that sales conversation and proposal delivery take has a direct influence on win rates. Each day the enthusiasm of the prospective buyers fades, rival substitutes are developed, and other interests monopolize the attention. Proposals that are submitted early on the same day or within 24 hours will win deals over those competitors that require 3-5 days to submit a proposal, even when the competitor that responds very slowly to it offers a superior solution.
This has a compounded speed advantage that is in conjunction with deal complexity. Enterprise deals usually have a large number of stakeholders who had a chance to meet with a number of vendors. The evaluation framework is determined by the vendor whose proposal is received first. Any further proposals are not evaluated as such, but compared to that anchor. First mover advantage gives structural benefit during the comparison process.
It takes the infrastructure that is brought by standardization to achieve same-day delivery of proposals. Same-day delivery is feasible when the representatives are able to come up with good proposals within 15-20 minutes. Suggestions that take hour or more to be delivered are competing with other activities and, in most cases, they lose.
The speed signal is also an important factor regardless of competitive factors. Speedy presentation of proposals conveys organizational characteristics that buyers attach importance to: the organization is responsive, organized, and professional. It is like inertia - as though making things happen with this organization will be smooth sailing. A slow delivery of proposals is an indicator of the opposite: when it takes a week to send a proposal it will take even longer to receive results.
For related context, review sales channel strategy.
Optimize Your Proposal Process
Transform your proposal workflow into a conversion engine with structured processes and behavioral analytics.
Get Proposal Process AuditProposals as Conversation Tools
The conventional proposal practice takes the document as final. The sales representative prepares the offer, mails it and awaits its acceptance or rejection. This strategy makes proposals dead ends and not continuers of conversations.
A better solution is to present proposals as a draft that is meant to facilitate dialogue. The frame is changed to that of a situation where here is our offer is changed to a situation where here is a starting point based on what we have discussed- let us hone it together.
This placement alters the psychology to buyers. When the prospects realize that the proposal is not a stone, they feel free to give feedback. They interact with adaptations rather than just fading away since something does not fit. Positioning objections are transformed into live parties as opposed to the silence of the email. The relationship is collaborative as opposed to transactional.
The real world application is on the introduction of the proposals:
Such a message as this is what we have discussed, but not the final. In case of anything that is not applicable in your case, we will adapt to that. Is it possible to walk through it during a quick call? has absolutely different engagement than "Please find attached our proposal. Please tell me whether you have a question.
The initial framing is open to discussion. The second framing makes one wait. The former puts the seller as a partner in the direction of the correct solution. The second puts the seller as a merchant in the hope of getting a signature.
This change of sending and hoping to presenting and perfecting turns proposals, which would trickle to moving opportunities. Deals that could have passed without much ado emerge opposition which can be resolved.
Measuring Proposal Process Performance
The procedure of improvement of proposals needs to be measured beyond the usual sales standards. Although close rates and deal values are important in the end, intermediate measures indicate where the process will win or lose.
Operation efficiency is gauged by the turnaround time of the proposal. What is the time between the decision and the sending of the proposal? This metric tells how speed it is enabled by process infrastructure or whether it introduces drag.
The engagement rates of the proposals will gauge the interest of the buyers. What is the percentage of opened proposals? What is the percentage that are opened more than once? What percentage are distributed to other stakeholders? These indicators reflect the success of proposals in attracting or fading away.
Content effectiveness is reflected in the patterns of section engagement. What sections of the proposal are the most focused on? Which are skipped? This information informs the optimization of the content - the parts that are skipped can be refined or eliminated.
Follow-up response rates are used to measure follow-up efficiency. Response rates should be improved when behavioral data is used to inform the follow-up. Measuring this measure confirms the fact that visibility is a measure of enhanced engagement.
The final process metric is time-to-close after a proposal has been sent. Compressions of time between proposal delivery and close deal should be witnessed in organizations that have streamlined proposal processes. When ideas are proposed, discussions are smoother, thereby making the actions to be decided quicker.
| Metric | What It Reveals | Optimization Action |
|---|---|---|
| Turnaround time | Process efficiency | Streamline production |
| Open rate | Initial engagement | Improve subject lines, timing |
| Multi-view rate | Active evaluation | Follow up on engaged prospects |
| Section attention | Content effectiveness | Optimize weak sections |
| Response rate | Follow-up quality | Improve relevance of outreach |
Implementation Without Technology
Although proposal platforms offer good features, the fundamental principles generate results in the absence of technology investment. The process elements may be done manually, which helps organizations to improve significantly.
A discipline is all that is needed to standardize the proposal structure. Delimiting areas: this is necessary to determine the contents that each proposal ought to contain, and the development of a master template on which all representatives are supposed to use it. Re-visit proposals on a regular basis.
This entails a dedication and responsibility in order to reduce the turnaround time. Establish same-day or 24-hour goals, monitor actual performance, and fill-in gaps. The bulk of the delay is due to deprioritization and not real production time - a coded demand commonly fixes the situation.
The issue with follow-up is that one needs to improve questions and not data. Even before behavioral analytics, representatives can simply inquire of the prospect: What did the proposal bring the most questions out of you? or What can make this more sanctionable? Such questions bring out the same insights that analytics would bring up, only via conversation and not observation.
It takes a change of language to present the positioning proposals as conversations. The framing that encourages collaboration is free to put into practice and it transforms the engagement of the prospect at once.
Manually applied organizations undergo enough changes to warrant future technology investment. The process discipline is followed, and the tooling is the improvement of what is already functioning.
The Compound Effect of Process Excellence
The compound returns with time are generated by proposal process improvement. All the elements support each other, producing acceleration which is impossible to create using single changes.
Proposals are more effective because improvements in speed maintain momentum. Standardization makes it fast as production time is minimized. Follow-up is enhanced by behavioral visibility and this enhances conversion. Increased conversion will be the reason to invest further in process excellence.
This compound effect is also found in representative productivity. With proposals that take 15 minutes as opposed to an hour, representatives are able to manage more opportunities yet work fewer hours. Follow-up should be targeted not generic and in this case less effort can achieve more. Opportunities killed by silence are reduced when suggestions bring discussions, as opposed to terminating them.
Companies that repair their proposal process also find that the change opens up performance that they were not able to accomplish in other ways. Investments in training, incentives and lead generation all reach the limit. Process improvement eliminates factors that constrain production of other investments.
The subsequent 30-50% boost in close rates which optimization of processes is likely to bring is a large revenue quantity - in many instances larger than growth efforts which cost more to undertake. The same is the same price, the same representatives are bound to give radically different outcomes when the process facilitates and does not limit their success.
From Hope to System
The basic change is between send and hope and systematic execution. No visibility in manual processes brings about reliance on hope. Behavioral data on standardized processes brings about dependency on system.
Hope is not scalable. Systems are scalable. Companies desiring predictable growth in revenues require sales processes that yield predictable outcomes. Proposal process optimization is utilized to convert one of the most essential conversion points in the sales cycle into an engineering process rather than a guess.
The actual tools are not as important as the principles. Speed preserves momentum. Clarity communicates value. It is responsive as it can be seen. Framing of conversation enhances relationships. Optimization is made possible through measurement.
Companies that apply these principles not only record better metrics but also better experience. The process becomes lighter when it is trackable and repeatable during sales days. The representatives have to spend less time on document formatting and searching the prospects who do not respond. More time is spent on real selling - conversations and relationships that make deals.
The proposal process occupies the point of critical junction between sales dialogue and closed deal. The optimization of this process optimizes the conversion point at which numerous deals are dying unnecessarily. The leads created by marketing and developed by sales should be put through a process of proposals that would maximize the conversion possibilities of those leads instead of wasting it by causing unnecessary friction.
For foundational background, see request for proposal.
Introduction
Most companies find it hard to keep the sales good and believe that the issue is on the quality of lead, pricing or sales talent. The true issue is usually in the open view: the very process of proposal systematically kills deal momentum and close deals that should occur.
The standard proposal process is also familiar across companies. The Sales representatives reopen old files, remove old client information, and rewrite the information manually. The structure and messaging differ according to the template that was used as the base. Hours are spent coming up with proposals. When they are emitted in the form of static PDFs they vanish into a black hole and no one can see what transpires. It turns into guess work: did they open it, send it, become frozen on the price or just lost the memory of it?
Several failure points are formed during this process. The delay associated with the production of proposals complicates the speed of responding to interested prospects, which gives time to competitor campaigns to gain momentum. Inconsistent messaging implies that various prospects are treated to various value propositions. It is impossible to intelligently follow up because of no visibility into the buying behavior. Each of the proposals that are submitted will be an act of wishing and not making data-driven involvement.
Institutions that repair their proposal procedure generally experience huge increases in close rates - of 30-50% - without altering other aspects of their selling strategy. The leads remain the same. The pricing remains the same. The product remains the same. It is just the process that changes and results come.
| Manual Process Problem | Business Impact |
|---|---|
| Time to produce | Delayed response, lost momentum |
| Structural variation | Inconsistent buyer experience |
| Messaging variation | Unpredictable conversion rates |
| No behavioral data | Guesswork-based follow-up |
| No optimization path | Improvement blocked |
Key Insight
The most damaging cost of manual proposal creation is delay. Prospects are most engaged immediately after a productive discovery call when their problem is fresh and momentum is high. When proposals take 2-3 days to arrive, that momentum dissipates. Priorities shift, competitors capture attention, and the proposal arrives into a different psychological context than when it was requested. Speed alone often determines whether deals close regardless of solution quality.
Treating Proposals as Sales System Components
The change starts with the mindset changing: proposals are never documents that are written at the end of the sales process. They are also part and parcel of the sales system, which cannot be designed, measured, and optimized like any other element of the system.
The attitude transforms in three ways. To begin with, proposals are not re-invented every time but are standardized. A uniform framework will make all proposals to convey value, irrespective of the representative who prepares the proposal. Second, proposals can be estimated with the assistance of behavioral analytics that demonstrates the way buyers engage with them. Third, proposals are discussion instruments but not documents, and thus are not meant to end; they are meant to proceed.
Speed is then a design principle. In case some proposals have to be made in haste to capture the momentum, the process should facilitate prompt production. This implies the ready-made templates, content blocks that can be assembled modules, and straightforward workflows at the expense of quality.
Brilliance turns into a principle of design. The communication via proposals must be accurate: what will be solved, how will one act, what results will be achieved, what the investment will demand, and what will follow. Fluff and filler waste distract the buyer of these items and cloud the judgement they should make.
The design principle of visibility emerges. The organization must be aware of the events that will follow a proposal once it is sent: when it was opened, the number of times it was viewed, parts worked on, and the other people in the buying organization who had viewed it. This information changes follow-up into a response and not a guess.
Standardized Structure With Personalized Content
Proper proposal models have a standard format that helps buyers on the decision-making process. The following details might depend on industry or type of deal, but the logic will always be the same: define the problem, describe how to solve it, clarify what to do, design scope, clarify investment, and clarify what to do next.
The format is institutionalized; the information in the sections is tailored. The problem section needs to represent what the buyer actually said in the discovery, in their own words and putting their situation in a frame that they are familiar with. The outcomes section must deal with what the buyer specifically told them they were interested in accomplishing not generic benefits.
This balance generates the proposals which are personalized to each buyer and also take 15-20 minutes to create, as opposed to an hour. The representatives are not selling less but they are selling better and consistently and the saved time is utilized in more selling.
Optimization is also possible through the standardization. With all the proposals in the same format, one is able to pinpoint those aspects that result in conversion. Are more focused proposals more successful? Are there types of case studies that are associated with wins? To provide the answer to these questions, standardization provides the consistency.
| Section | Purpose | Customization Level |
|---|---|---|
| Problem | Reflect buyer's situation in their language | High — from discovery |
| Approach | Explain solution methodology | Medium — adapt to context |
| Outcomes | Define success metrics | High — from buyer priorities |
| Scope & Timeline | Specify deliverables and schedule | Medium — project specific |
| Investment | State pricing and terms | Low — standard options |
| Next Steps | Define clear action | Low — standard CTA |
Behavioral Visibility After Sending
The best enhancement is the knowledge of what follows the submission of proposals. Pdfs which are sent as static files are lost in email inboxes with no response until the prospect replies or goes silent. The current proposal platform of behavioral analytics changes the effectiveness of following up, as they are detailed.
The engagement status can be determined by opening patterns. A proposal presented more than once during a few days implies active consideration. The fact that a proposal was never opened after a week means that it is not a priority opportunity, and it is unlikely to be made a priority unless an effort is made. This basic fact alters after-sale plan: active prospects are sent a supporting information, whereas unopened proposals are sent a status request.
Attention by the buyer is shown in section. Price will obviously be the subject of their scrutiny when analytics indicate that a prospect goes through the pricing section more than once. The follow-up discussion must touch upon value rationalization, the choice of payment structure or changes in the scope, not generic check-ins. When analytics indicate that the focus is on the approach section, the prospect might require further clarification of the methodology or demonstration of effectiveness of the approach.
Dynamic between deals is shown by stakeholder access. In case two or more individuals in the purchasing organization are looking at the proposal, the transaction is undergoing internal scrutiny. Although the main point of contact may not have replied, the fact that CFO or legal counsel accessed the document is a point of progress. On the other hand, when only the first is seen to have looked at the proposal although assured that it was sent to others internally, then the deal will be stalling.
This transparency creates a relevant and not intrusive follow-up. Rather than sending a message of checking in to buyers who do not respond, the follow-up deals with certain issues that the buyer has indicated or expressed by his actions. This topicality enhances response rates and progresses deals which would be lost in generic follow-up.
Important
Behavioral visibility transforms follow-up from guessing to responding. When analytics reveal that a prospect repeatedly views the pricing section, follow-up can address value justification directly. When multiple stakeholders access the proposal, the deal is clearly moving through internal evaluation even if the inbox is quiet. This data enables specific, relevant outreach that advances deals generic check-in messages would lose.
Speed as Competitive Advantage
The duration that sales conversation and proposal delivery take has a direct influence on win rates. Each day the enthusiasm of the prospective buyers fades, rival substitutes are developed, and other interests monopolize the attention. Proposals that are submitted early on the same day or within 24 hours will win deals over those competitors that require 3-5 days to submit a proposal, even when the competitor that responds very slowly to it offers a superior solution.
This has a compounded speed advantage that is in conjunction with deal complexity. Enterprise deals usually have a large number of stakeholders who had a chance to meet with a number of vendors. The evaluation framework is determined by the vendor whose proposal is received first. Any further proposals are not evaluated as such, but compared to that anchor. First mover advantage gives structural benefit during the comparison process.
It takes the infrastructure that is brought by standardization to achieve same-day delivery of proposals. Same-day delivery is feasible when the representatives are able to come up with good proposals within 15-20 minutes. Suggestions that take hour or more to be delivered are competing with other activities and, in most cases, they lose.
The speed signal is also an important factor regardless of competitive factors. Speedy presentation of proposals conveys organizational characteristics that buyers attach importance to: the organization is responsive, organized, and professional. It is like inertia - as though making things happen with this organization will be smooth sailing. A slow delivery of proposals is an indicator of the opposite: when it takes a week to send a proposal it will take even longer to receive results.
For related context, review sales channel strategy.
Optimize Your Proposal Process
Transform your proposal workflow into a conversion engine with structured processes and behavioral analytics.
Get Proposal Process AuditProposals as Conversation Tools
The conventional proposal practice takes the document as final. The sales representative prepares the offer, mails it and awaits its acceptance or rejection. This strategy makes proposals dead ends and not continuers of conversations.
A better solution is to present proposals as a draft that is meant to facilitate dialogue. The frame is changed to that of a situation where here is our offer is changed to a situation where here is a starting point based on what we have discussed- let us hone it together.
This placement alters the psychology to buyers. When the prospects realize that the proposal is not a stone, they feel free to give feedback. They interact with adaptations rather than just fading away since something does not fit. Positioning objections are transformed into live parties as opposed to the silence of the email. The relationship is collaborative as opposed to transactional.
The real world application is on the introduction of the proposals:
Such a message as this is what we have discussed, but not the final. In case of anything that is not applicable in your case, we will adapt to that. Is it possible to walk through it during a quick call? has absolutely different engagement than "Please find attached our proposal. Please tell me whether you have a question.
The initial framing is open to discussion. The second framing makes one wait. The former puts the seller as a partner in the direction of the correct solution. The second puts the seller as a merchant in the hope of getting a signature.
This change of sending and hoping to presenting and perfecting turns proposals, which would trickle to moving opportunities. Deals that could have passed without much ado emerge opposition which can be resolved.
Measuring Proposal Process Performance
The procedure of improvement of proposals needs to be measured beyond the usual sales standards. Although close rates and deal values are important in the end, intermediate measures indicate where the process will win or lose.
Operation efficiency is gauged by the turnaround time of the proposal. What is the time between the decision and the sending of the proposal? This metric tells how speed it is enabled by process infrastructure or whether it introduces drag.
The engagement rates of the proposals will gauge the interest of the buyers. What is the percentage of opened proposals? What is the percentage that are opened more than once? What percentage are distributed to other stakeholders? These indicators reflect the success of proposals in attracting or fading away.
Content effectiveness is reflected in the patterns of section engagement. What sections of the proposal are the most focused on? Which are skipped? This information informs the optimization of the content - the parts that are skipped can be refined or eliminated.
Follow-up response rates are used to measure follow-up efficiency. Response rates should be improved when behavioral data is used to inform the follow-up. Measuring this measure confirms the fact that visibility is a measure of enhanced engagement.
The final process metric is time-to-close after a proposal has been sent. Compressions of time between proposal delivery and close deal should be witnessed in organizations that have streamlined proposal processes. When ideas are proposed, discussions are smoother, thereby making the actions to be decided quicker.
| Metric | What It Reveals | Optimization Action |
|---|---|---|
| Turnaround time | Process efficiency | Streamline production |
| Open rate | Initial engagement | Improve subject lines, timing |
| Multi-view rate | Active evaluation | Follow up on engaged prospects |
| Section attention | Content effectiveness | Optimize weak sections |
| Response rate | Follow-up quality | Improve relevance of outreach |
Implementation Without Technology
Although proposal platforms offer good features, the fundamental principles generate results in the absence of technology investment. The process elements may be done manually, which helps organizations to improve significantly.
A discipline is all that is needed to standardize the proposal structure. Delimiting areas: this is necessary to determine the contents that each proposal ought to contain, and the development of a master template on which all representatives are supposed to use it. Re-visit proposals on a regular basis.
This entails a dedication and responsibility in order to reduce the turnaround time. Establish same-day or 24-hour goals, monitor actual performance, and fill-in gaps. The bulk of the delay is due to deprioritization and not real production time - a coded demand commonly fixes the situation.
The issue with follow-up is that one needs to improve questions and not data. Even before behavioral analytics, representatives can simply inquire of the prospect: What did the proposal bring the most questions out of you? or What can make this more sanctionable? Such questions bring out the same insights that analytics would bring up, only via conversation and not observation.
It takes a change of language to present the positioning proposals as conversations. The framing that encourages collaboration is free to put into practice and it transforms the engagement of the prospect at once.
Manually applied organizations undergo enough changes to warrant future technology investment. The process discipline is followed, and the tooling is the improvement of what is already functioning.
The Compound Effect of Process Excellence
The compound returns with time are generated by proposal process improvement. All the elements support each other, producing acceleration which is impossible to create using single changes.
Proposals are more effective because improvements in speed maintain momentum. Standardization makes it fast as production time is minimized. Follow-up is enhanced by behavioral visibility and this enhances conversion. Increased conversion will be the reason to invest further in process excellence.
This compound effect is also found in representative productivity. With proposals that take 15 minutes as opposed to an hour, representatives are able to manage more opportunities yet work fewer hours. Follow-up should be targeted not generic and in this case less effort can achieve more. Opportunities killed by silence are reduced when suggestions bring discussions, as opposed to terminating them.
Companies that repair their proposal process also find that the change opens up performance that they were not able to accomplish in other ways. Investments in training, incentives and lead generation all reach the limit. Process improvement eliminates factors that constrain production of other investments.
The subsequent 30-50% boost in close rates which optimization of processes is likely to bring is a large revenue quantity - in many instances larger than growth efforts which cost more to undertake. The same is the same price, the same representatives are bound to give radically different outcomes when the process facilitates and does not limit their success.
From Hope to System
The basic change is between send and hope and systematic execution. No visibility in manual processes brings about reliance on hope. Behavioral data on standardized processes brings about dependency on system.
Hope is not scalable. Systems are scalable. Companies desiring predictable growth in revenues require sales processes that yield predictable outcomes. Proposal process optimization is utilized to convert one of the most essential conversion points in the sales cycle into an engineering process rather than a guess.
The actual tools are not as important as the principles. Speed preserves momentum. Clarity communicates value. It is responsive as it can be seen. Framing of conversation enhances relationships. Optimization is made possible through measurement.
Companies that apply these principles not only record better metrics but also better experience. The process becomes lighter when it is trackable and repeatable during sales days. The representatives have to spend less time on document formatting and searching the prospects who do not respond. More time is spent on real selling - conversations and relationships that make deals.
The proposal process occupies the point of critical junction between sales dialogue and closed deal. The optimization of this process optimizes the conversion point at which numerous deals are dying unnecessarily. The leads created by marketing and developed by sales should be put through a process of proposals that would maximize the conversion possibilities of those leads instead of wasting it by causing unnecessary friction.
For foundational background, see request for proposal.
Table of Content
