Page 178 - Writing Winning Business Proposals

Writing the Methods Slot 169

1. The tasks just don’t have to be PIP-ed. That is, during the business-development
process, you have already persuaded me that your methodology is sound; as a
result, you don’t have to provide me with a rationale for why you are proposing
the tasks or with a discussion of the benefits of your completing the tasks.
2. You don’t fill the opening and closing P-slots because you fail to consider my
needs. Although you know why you are completing the tasks as well as the
benefits of your doing so, possibly because you have done similar projects
dozens of times, I don’t know what you know.
3. You don’t know about or understand the strategic benefits of using PIP.

Now you know.

PIP at the Methods Section Level

Your methods section is more than a collection of tasks. It has a beginning,
middle, and end; an introduction, body, and conclusion. Let’s focus on the
introduction, on the introductions in proposals you’ve written and read. If your
experience is like mine, those introductions begin something like this:

We recommend the following six- [or five- or ten-] step approach.

Ask yourself: Is that information or persuasion? Of course it’s the former. It
doesn’t provide a rationale for why you have constructed your methodology as
you have. It doesn’t answer the question, “Why out of a universe of possible meth-
odologies have you chosen this one?” It doesn’t, that is, fill the opening P-slot at
the methods-section level.
As Figure 10.8 illustrates, all your tasks (all of which could themselves be
PIP-ed) form the middle or the body of the methods section. At the methods-sec-
tion level, those tasks are the I-slot, explaining how you will achieve the project’s
objective. As is always the case, above and below the I-slot are P-slots, which you
must decide whether to fill. The entire methods section can be organized accord-
ing to PIP.
When you write the introduction to your methods section, ask yourself if you
have filled the opening P-slot. For example, does your introduction “recommend
a three-phase approach” and pretty much leave me with only that information?
Or should it go on to explain persuasively that such an approach will be employed
because the phases will, for example:

◉ Allow me to achieve short-term results to make subsequent phases “pay as you go.”
◉ Allow me to address broader strategic issues early on before focusing on more
tactical questions.