It’s Time for Buyers to Re-Think RFPs

Article Details

Global Watchtower

Common Sense Advisory Blogs

Posted by Rebecca Ray on September 5, 2012 in the following blogs: Best Practices, Translation and Localization, Business Globalization
Pages \| \|

Buyers and suppliers of language services may not always see eye-to-eye on every issue, but there is one area where they do agree: Both sides continue to experience a high level of pain with the request for proposal (RFPs) process. Common Sense Advisory conducted a detailed analysis of 91 RFPs collected from buyers and providers representing the private sector, government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and non-profits. Our research confirms that it's high time for buyers to seriously review how and why they conduct RFPs (see "How to Write Translation Requests for Proposals," Jul12). Here's what we found:

There are many things wrong with today's RFPs. Because these tenders take considerable time to develop and administer, buyers only conduct them every three to five years. Both language service providers (LSPs) and buyers estimated that more than half of the questions on larger RFPs applied to procurement or compliance issues that had no bearing on actual deliverables. Corporate RFPs rarely describe the selection criteria or the evaluation process, so LSPs are left guessing as to how their responses will be judged.
Language buyers have been slow to make the case for revenue enablement. The people whose budgets often pay for translation services have been tardy in elevating the conversation beyond cost to the critical role that translation plays in augmenting global revenue. Purchasers need to ask themselves if their primary goal with LSPs should continue to be "translate, test, and validate linguistic quality." Or rather, if it is now time for a major change in mindset to allow them to view these same providers as essential partners for unlocking revenue outside of their home markets.

Before translation consumers kick off their next RFP, they should ask themselves two questions:

"Would my organization be better served by our LSPs spending more time on innovation or technical integration for us, rather than filling out another RFP?"
"Would it make more sense for my group to focus on improving the quality of original content for our current vendor pool, or even training suppliers, rather than spending hours and hours reviewing pricing matrices that will at best save us a half-cent per word?"

Buyers can continue to view the tender process as a cumbersome, cost-driven exercise that everyone dreads (see "How to Write Better Translation RFP Questions," Apr11). Or, they can choose to recast it as a strategic opening to help push globalization forward at their organizations. They can do this by leveraging the RFP process to focus on increased international revenue, enhanced brand awareness, and higher levels of global customer satisfaction. They hold the power – it’s up to them to decide how to exercise it.

Categories