| Australia's
premier and major mid-tier law firms are still
playing catch-up with the big accounting firms,
says Dianne Davis despite their best efforts to
narrow the gap. For an activity that consumes
thousand of hours a year, both for professional
staff and specialist in-house business development
and marketing resources, there is remarkably little
accountability when it comes to tendering.
In other words, there is no clear
linkage between tendering investment and actual
performance or key performance indicators achieved.
Moreover, the level of sophistication in tendering
processes and techniques within law firms still
lags, for the most part, behind the major accounting
firms.
While the top five or six law
firms have certainly closed the gap in recent
years, the Big Four accounting firms still retain
the edge in the art of tendering.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s,
the then Big Six accounting firms invested significant
intellectual capital in developing the processes
and infrastructure for advanced tendering. The
industry benchmark was set by Price Waterhouse
(now PricewaterhouseCoopers) with its "Refuse
to Lose" tender methodology.
The "sophistication"
gap between the legal and accounting sector is
most notable in several areas. This includes the
need for a consistent application of robust "decision
to bid assessments", with strategic and candid
assessment of the quality and probability of tender
opportunities before actually committing to participate.
Other areas in which law firms lag are:
- Undertaking solid research
and analysis on the tendering organisation's
specific needs and the industry in which it
operates.
- Adequate preparation and rehearsal
for briefing sessions and tender meetings.
- The production of tender documents
that are effective communication tools. A lot
of documentation is still too generic, often
repetitious and replete with unsubstantiated
assertions and claims.
There
is also a need for proper planning and rehearsal
for oral presentations. And there need to be consistent,
formal and full post-tender evaluations and debriefs
and the inclusion of tender education in partner
and senior associate training programs. Firms
also need to develop tender tools and systems
to increase efficiency and effectiveness, such
as tender databases that contain an electronic
library of relevant tender documents, tender process
templates, CVs, precedents, firm operating procedures
and current performance statistics.
Many law firms especially in the
mid-tier still focus their resources and effort
on producing the physical tender document, and
insufficient focus on strategically assessing
the opportunity and leveraging relationships.
Law firms are understandably reluctant to divulge
their tender success rates, but a well-oiled tendering
capability should be achieving an overall strike
rate of 60 to 70 per cent.
The need for law firms to get
smarter and more strategic about tendering is
now greater than ever.
In the past five years, market
developments such as increased pressure on fees,
the involvement of procurement functions in tenders,
greater due diligence in tender evaluations, the
decreasing number of genuine opportunities for
non-incumbent firms and the need to demonstrate
pro bono commitment, mean firms must lift their
game.
Lawyers must be trained in tender
strategies and processes. Equally, business development
resources should focus more on research and analysis,
tender databases and other tools to enhance efficiency
and effectiveness.But win, lose or draw, full
tender debriefs that genuinely explore a firm's
strengths and weaknesses are critical.
|
