how do reviewers really evaluate your proposal

1. How Do Reviewers Really Evaluate Your Proposal? January 19, 2005 Presented by Jayme A. Sokolow President The Development Source, Inc. JSoko12481@aol.com 301/933-3989 www.development-source.com

3. What are Heuristics and Why Should We Care? Three important characteristics of decision-making: Bounded rationality: people make decisions using realistic amounts of time, information, and computational resources. Decision-makers exploit the structure of information in their environments. Decision-makers usually interact with other people to make decisions. Heuristics and the proposal review process.

4. Heuristics and Proposals Develop a comprehensive proposal compliance matrix. Use the principles of good information design to organize your proposal. Depict quantitative evidence, processes, and cause and effect with compelling visual explanations. Sources: David H. Herndon, �RFP Response Mapping and Compliance Identification,� Proposal Management (Fall 2001): 43-49. Roger Munger, �Information Design: Strategies to Make Your Proposal Reader Friendly,� Proposal Management (Spring/Summer 2003): 41-47. Edward Tufte, Envisioning Information (1990) and his other books.

5. Heuristics: A Road Map Recognition heuristic: Decisions made based on a lack of knowledge. One-reason heuristics: Decisions made with a single piece of information. Take the best. Take the last. Minimalist. Affective heuristic: Decisions made in answer to the question � How do I feel about it?

6. Recognition Heuristic Divides the world into two categories: (1) recognized objects, ideas, people, and other things; and (2) everything else. Decision-making: once a person recognizes something from his or her memory, the search for information immediately stops. Simple, fast, frugal, and accurate. Example: Classifying heart attack patients at a hospital.

7. Recognition Heuristic and Proposals Organize your information by: Structuring the proposal according to the RFP instructions. Discussing major points in decreasing order of importance. Summarizing major points and benefits throughout. Focusing on the needs and mission of the agency or business. Develop no more than five major theme statements: directly link them to the evaluation criteria and use them to organize the proposal�s content. Ensure that your major theme statements have solutions, benefits, and proof.

8. Recognition Heuristic and Proposals Write your Executive Summary for non-technical reviewers. Link your benefits and features clearly to the evaluation criteria. Write simply and clearly. Use bulleted and numbered lists to make important points. Use headings with the exact wording from the RFP. Use color visuals to emphasize your benefits, features, and major themes.

9. One-Reason Heuristics Goal: Determine which object has the higher value based on the decision criteria. Four-step process: Step 1: Select the cue criterion or criteria. Step 2: Look for the corresponding cue values for each object. Step 3: Stop and choose the object with the greater value according to the criteria. Step 4: If you cannot distinguish among the cue values of the objects, return to the beginning of the process and look for other cue criteria to make a decision.

10. Take the Best Heuristic Works best in environments where individuals know the signs for cues and which cues are better than others. Example: Clearly delineated RFP criteria with different numerical values. Four-step process: Step 1: Use the recognition heuristic. Step 2: Choose the cue with the value and look up the cue values of all the objects. Step 3: Determine which object has the higher cue value. Step 4: Conclude that the object with the positive cue value has the higher value.

11. Take the Best Heuristic Find cues, assign values, take the best cue. Goal: Find the object with the higher value. Motto: �Take the best, ignore the rest.� Example: Choosing between two adventure treks to Annapurna and Everest, Nepal.

12. Take the Last Heuristic Works best in environments where individuals know the cues but have trouble deciding which cues are more valid than others. Example: An RFP with four evaluation criteria worth 25 points apiece for a total score of 100. Four-step process: Step 1: Use the recognition heuristic. Step 2: Guess which object has the higher value. If possible, use the cue that stopped the last search. Step 3: Determine which object has the higher cue value. Step 4: Conclude that the object with the positive cue value has the higher value.

13. Take the Last Heuristic Use cues from the past, assign values, and pick the last cue. Goal: Find the object with the higher value. Motto: �Take the last, ignore the rest.� Example: Choosing between two adventure treks in the Norwegian fiords or the Swiss Alps.

14. Minimalist Heuristic Works best in environments where individuals do not know which cues are better predictors for making decisions than others. Example: An evaluator had neither read the RFP nor consulted an evaluation form before reading a proposal. Example: An evaluator had either not read the RFP or not consulted an evaluation form before reading a proposal. Example: An evaluator using very brief and general RFP evaluation criteria.

15. Minimalist Heuristic Four-step process: Step 1: Use the recognition heuristic. Step 2: Guess which object has the higher value (if no objects are recognized). Draw a cue randomly and determine the cue value of the object. Step 3: Determine which object has the higher cue value. Step 4: Conclude that the object with the positive cue value has the higher value. Search for random clues, repeat until one works, and assign values.

16. Minimalist Heuristic Goal: Find the object with the higher value. Motto: �Take a random cue until it works.� Example: Choosing between two adventure treks in the Vidzeme Uplands of Latvia or the Black Forest of Germany.

17. One-Reason Heuristics Fast, frugal, and accurate. Also leads to systematic errors and seeming lapses of reason, especially deviations from the laws of probability. Example: Hindsight bias.

18. One-Reason Heuristics and Proposals Goal: Make it fast and easy for reviewers to find all the essential information they need. Follow the proposal strategies for the recognition heuristic. Goal: encourage top-down heuristic thinking rather than a bottom-up systematic processing strategy, which signals to reviewers that there is a problem.

19. Affect Heuristic Works in environments with increased task demands and decreased cognitive resources. Example: An evaluator who believes that the evaluation process is demanding and time-consuming. Moods and feelings influence heuristic judgments and processing strategies.

20. Affect Heuristic Goal: Choose the proposal with the most positive affect. Motto: �Does it make me feel good?� Make it fast and easy for reviewers to find all the essential information they need. Encourage heuristic thinking. Follow the proposal strategies for the recognition heuristic.

21. Using Heuristics When Developing Proposals Design proposals for reviewers to evaluate fast, frugally, and with as little mental effort as possible. Follow the proposal strategies for the recognition heuristic. Emphasize that your solution entails low risks and high benefits, which is the opposite of your competition. Emphasize positive ideas, words, and visuals. Be affirmative.

22. Using Heuristics When Developing Proposals Link your benefits and features, with the benefits first. Link your benefits and features to the evaluation criteria. Avoid information that will arouse fear or anxiety.

23. Conclusion Everyone uses the same kinds of heuristics to make decisions, especially proposal evaluators. Organize proposals to decrease the time, energy, and mental effort required of evaluators. Rely on the recognition heuristic whenever possible. Less is more. Simple is better than complex. A good proposal that is easy to evaluate is likely to be more competitive than a great proposal that is difficult to evaluate.

24. Select Bibliography Damasio, Antonio, Descartes� Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain (1994). Gigerenzer, Gerd, Peter M. Todd, and the Adaptive Behavior and Cognition Group, Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart (1999). Gilovich, Thomas, Dale Griffin, and Daniel Kahneman, eds., Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (2002). Sokolow, Jayme, �How Do Reviewers Really Evaluate Your Proposal? What the Cognitive Science of Heuristics Tells Us About Making Decisions,� Proposal Management (Spring/Summer 2004): 34-50.