Mitigating Procurement Risks in Creative Services

The biggest risk in acquiring creative services lies in the fact that clients very rarely understand what they need. And that's great! You know you need a website, or at least you think you need one.

But how do you develop a detailed RFP for a need that you still know little about, i.e., if you don't understand what features a solution needs to offer? You will find a simple solution here.

Where's the problem?

After a few Google searches, you're sure you need a WordPress site with Google Analytics and RGB colors, right?

So you put all this in your RFP, in the SOW (Scope of Work) section, and add a sitemap: Home, About, News, Contact. If you're like my clients, you'll also include Events and Resources.

The main problem here is that you're basing the whole project on an initial specification that hasn't had the proper analysis and context.

Result: Countless change requests, several rounds of feedback, divergent views between client and agency, and lack of trust in the professional.

Poor specification

Many creative agencies fear participating in RFPs due to the large amount of work involved in bidding and the problems of communication and specification.

Another factor that contributes to failures in the RFP process is standardization. Agencies that participate in bids, in many cases, have dedicated teams for bidding. The problem is that they use an "assembly line" approach in order to be able to work in high volume.

Some of them even use absurd techniques when producing their proposals. If you wanna see how the creative market sees the RFPs and the "Proposal Building Process" behind the scenes, check out this hilarious podcast.

And let's face it: there are better ways to create personalized user experiences than an assembly line approach. Standardization creates poor designs that don't meet the real needs of the client and end users.

Poor relationship

Also, in many cases, as a result of communication or specification problems, a lack of trust arises between the client-agency and agency-client. Imagine if the project was initially specified (and budgeted) to be 5 pages long and, two months later, everyone realizes that it needs to be 10 pages long; one of two things will happen (maybe both):

• The agency will "feel" that it is not being adequately compensated;

• The client will get angry because the agency is charging more.

What's more, 10 pages usually take longer than 5, so the deadline is also pushed back, starting a series of delays.

Most of these problems started at the very beginning when the context was wrong or incomplete. Fortunately, this can be avoided.

The solution

To prevent problems like these from happening, before making an RFP for your next website/application project, talk to a UX professional who can advise your institution on identifying and specifying the problem technically. This is usually an inexpensive way of gaining "certainty" in your project.

Carrying out this consultancy before creating your RFP will avoid not only standardizations in your project but also a lack of trust in both the client-agency and agency-client relationship.

For many companies, the stage of consulting and specifying the project with the UX professional will be called "discovery," and they can skip this process altogether in RPF since it has already been done before.

Most of the problems in the implementation will be "solved" or addressed during this theoretical phase, while things are easy to change, and the scope/budget of the project is not yet defined. This will give you detailed specifications for your project, such as a site map, resources, and wireframes.

See how the solution is simpler than you think? If you need help with the specifications in the creative construction of your project, we're here to help.