1. Follow directions. If the RFP includes specific instructions on how to prepare and deliver your proposal, follow them, to the letter. Don’t assume you know what the client wants more than the client does, just pay attention to what’s been requested and simply follow directions, especially if the client has asked for you to avoid overly complicated or expensive presentations of your material.

2. Write clearly, concisely, and accurately. Avoid redundancy – most clients do not make selections based on how thick your proposal is. Proofread carefully to avoid errors – no one wants to hire someone who doesn’t care enough to provide a meticulous product even in the proposal stage.

3. Be honest. Represent your work fairly and represent only your work (not the work of employees or subcontractors who may no longer be working with you).

4. Provide accurate contact information. If you’re using old letterhead or boiler plate information that has out of date email addresses or phone numbers, your potential client may not be willing to track you down.

5. Even if the client doesn’t ask for it specifically, identify who will serve on your project team by name and if your team includes subcontractors, include a letter from the subcontractor that indicates his or her interest in the project. This helps clients know that the proposed subcontractors know they’re being included in the team.

6. Provide references that can be contacted and include a few that can speak to your ability to resolve conflicts, not just those with whom you worked seamlessly. Allow your client to get a balanced view of your work style and results.

7. Identify and provide details of the specific tasks that you will do. If there are any limitations to what you can or will do, state that as well. Don’t ever surprise your client after the selection has been made or deliberately mislead your client about your abilities or willingness to perform specific tasks during the selection process.

8. Call attention to the details of your proposal if they are relevant. For example, if you are responding to an RFP from an environmental education center, use recycled products and earth-friendly inks in your proposal and mention that you have done so.

9. Mention any certifications you hold and awards that you or your products have won, including whether your products have helped previous clients receive funding or win awards (here’s a good reason to become certified or to enter NAI’s media awards contest each year).

10. Only reply to RFPs for which you are qualified. Don’t waste your time or the time of your potential client. Call and ask questions if you are unclear about the project requirements. It’s time well spent to find out if you should make the investment in producing a proposal.

As you begin to prepare your proposal, put yourself in the shoes of your potential client. Let your work style and commitment to excellence shine through in the quality of your proposal and your success rate should greatly increase.

There are a number of options for those who are considering the solicitation of proposals from contractors – RFQ can stand for “Request for Qualification” for which the respondent provides only background information and perhaps work samples. It can also stand for “Request for Quotation” for which the respondent provides only a dollar amount for the work (usually used for low-bid awards and NOT recommended for interpretive planning projects).

Any of these options (and a variety of others, such as simple purchase orders) can be mixed and matched to a certain extent depending on the needs of the client for a particular project and the policies that govern contracting for the client’s organization or agency. Generally speaking, non-profit organizations have more latitude in how they approach a solicitation than government agencies, but even government agencies have some flexibility depending on the specific region, district, or individual contracting office’s interpretation of the rules. It never hurts to ask your powers that be what alternatives you have in preparing a solicitation, so that you are more likely to get the types of responses you’re looking for.

The best RFPs are simple, clear, and concise. They should include: a brief description of the project and the organization responsible for it; pertinent background information (has a plan already been started by staff? are there mitigating factors such as schedule or budget? how much assistance can be provided by client staff or other resources?); work products (deliverables) expected; instructions for how to put the proposal together (work samples, resumés of key personnel, references, process steps, cost, etc.); contact information for someone who can answer questions; selection process; evaluation criteria; and delivery instructions (date and time due, street address for delivery, etc.).

Resist the temptation to do the project in the RFP. If you have existing information, let the respondents know that, but allow some flexibility in process among respondents – no two planners or companies work exactly the same way and they may be able to save you time and money if they’re allowed to suggest a process rather than having to hold to a rigid construct that you provide. Having said that, if there are specific meetings that you know must be held, or deadlines that can’t be missed, or work products that you absolutely have to have (such as measurable objectives in a logic model construct), be sure to include those in the RFP.

Because NAI staff will not respond to RFPs in a competitive process, a service we can offer is to review your RFP before it hits the street to see if there are any red flags. There is no charge for this – just send your RFP to me (lbrochu@interpnet.com) and give me a day or two to comment on anything that might put off contractors from bidding or that needs clarification. If you send your distribution-ready RFP to us at NAI, we can immediately send it (or the link to it) to all commercial members so that you get better distribution of your solicitation.

Next week, I’ll address how to respond to an RFP for better success in landing projects. If you have specific questions that you’d like answered related to that, please feel free to comment below.

It’s pretty simple, really. I strongly believe in principle #4 – Every process will be different because every project is unique. What that translates to in plan documents is that the same table of contents probably won’t work for any two (or two hundred) projects. Interpretive planning that follows a template approach isn’t really planning in my way of thinking. Filling in the blanks is just that and doesn’t require much thought. It also doesn’t help you to assess whether your decisions make sense when tested against the filters of management objectives, budget, staffing, maintenance, and other variables. Cutting and pasting whole sections from other plan documents is never a good idea.

The good news is that without a template, you’re free to approach your project in whatever way makes the most sense, as long as you remember to pay attention to all of the 5-m areas (management, message, markets, mechanics, and media). The bad news is that without a template, there’s very little structure to give you guidance if you’re new at this. And therein lies the problem. I’ve watched people look at plan examples and assume that because a particular approach was used in the example, that all interpretive plans should have that same approach. Nothing could be further from the truth.

One interpretive planning class participant recently brought up how confusing and overwhelming the process can be without specific instructions for how to complete a reasonable plan. I wish there were some way to make it really easy and still have it be effective, but I haven’t figured that out yet. The truth is, planning isn’t always easy. It requires a thoughtful process with consideration of a lot of variables and that’s work, any way you slice it.

Having said all of that, I’m now rethinking the sharing of plan samples a bit. I showed a couple of examples of plans I have worked on to the last planning class and was pleased by the response afterwards. I literally walked the class through the process showing what information I was given to start with and how that was applied throughout the process to result in a document. With the explanation that I could offer in person, I was comfortable with this . . . but I still would not have wanted to simply lay the plans on the table or post them on the website without the opportunity to explain why they included the elements they did and didn’t include other elements that some people might have felt compelled to put in.

One of the reasons we do a hands-on real project during the planning course is to provide the opportunity for one on one coaching so that you can see how your approach to the project might be tweaked for greater effectiveness. Granted, the class project may be very different than your own project waiting for you back at your office, but at least it will get you thinking about process and where to start with things and what questions to ask along the way.

In short, there is no one right way to “do” an interpretive plan. Every project is unique, so every process will be a little different to accommodate the variables. And consequently, each document will be a little different as well. Understanding where to start, how to proceed, what to sift in or out, what and when to test, and how to put all the pieces together takes experience and lots of it. But the only way to get that experience is to start . . . and don’t be afraid to ask questions. It’s the only way to get better. In my role here at NAI, I’m available as a resource to help answer questions to the best of my ability. I’m hoping to experiment with some other ways to share examples with explanations – webinars or other on-line tools – as ways to augment what we do in the class and provide some help for those who can’t make it to a class. In the meantime, please feel free to pick up the phone . . . I’ll look forward to hearing from you.

I like the idea of “tweaking” rather than throwing someone’s work effort out wholesale. This activity can require some delicate footwork, depending on whose work is being tweaked. Let’s face it, you don’t want to be the one to tell your boss straight out that he or she doesn’t know anything. And the good news is, you rarely have to. Usually, it’s a matter of making a few minor adjustments before forging on. Let’s take an example:

You’re handed a document entitled “exhibit content” and have been asked to populate an exhibit gallery with interactive exhibits. The document consists of six pages (single-spaced, double-sided) with sentences and sentence fragments related to things that might be included in your new exhibit hall. Some are stories, some are design ideas, some might even be called things you want to accomplish or objectives. It looks like someone took the results of a brainstorming session and simply recorded notes without any filtering, but you’re new here, don’t want to step on anyone’s toes, and you really can’t make any sense out of the document because it gives no real direction about what to do next.

Rather than starting from scratch entirely, take the time to review the document in detail and perhaps color-code the individual items (red dot in the margin for stories; blue for actual design ideas; green for objectives; etc.). Now reorganize the document according to your color coding system. Where are the holes? Starting with what you have, begin plugging those holes.

Is it clear what you’re trying to accomplish in support of the mission? Take the suggested objectives and tweak them into a logic model that makes sense with measurable factors for impacts and outcomes that also help define your audience. Once everyone agrees on what you’re trying to accomplish, see if you can tweak the miscellaneous facts and stories into a theme-subtheme-storyline construct to land on a strong, central message that everyone can support.

Test the design ideas to ensure that the suggested concepts communicate the desired message to the targeted audience so that the objectives can be accomplished. Are there objectives, audience segments, or messages that haven’t been addressed by the ideas in hand? If so, let your creativity take over to fill in those gaps. Round out the effort by preparing a budget and an action plan for next steps.

The people who participated in developing the preliminary document will feel that their efforts have been honored, but you will feel better having a more usable plan that is well-organized and gives clear direction for what needs to happen next. Along the way, trim away the ideas that don’t seem to fit, but retain and build on the ones that do. Salvage what you can and praise the efforts of those who provided the starting point. Sometimes the nuggets you will uncover will be pure gold and sometimes they will require a little polishing to make them worthwhile but learning to tweak rather than toss can save time and effort, build stronger working relationships, and capture the valuable ideas that may otherwise fall by the wayside.

Even experienced planners find themselves asking this question with every project. And the logical starting point is not always the same (remember principle #4 – Every process will be different, because every project is unique). But there are some simple questions you can ask to get the ball rolling.

First, ask if you can have help. Is there any money to hire this done or do you have coworkers who can serve on a planning team? If you can hire it done, it doesn’t mean you can abandon the project once your contractor is hired – you’re still going to need to know how to do this so that you can work with your contractor to get what you want and need. If you can put together a coworker planning team, be sure to assign someone (maybe you) as the project leader to make sure that the project continues to move forward. If you have time, consider taking an interpretive planning class or reading a book to get some familiarity with process and products.

Next, determine the scope of the project and what purpose you want the plan to serve. Is it long-range, short-term, for a single location or multiple units? What is the planning “bubble” that your work will encompass? Perhaps the most important question to ask is what are you really trying to accomplish? Once you know that, then you can begin to look at background material that might be relevant to the challenge you’re trying to resolve.

Certainly, reviewing (or creating) the mission of the organization is critical at this stage because it can help you determine whether the project you’re attempting is even appropriate to the agency. Some plans get, or should get, stopped in their tracks at this point because a quick review of organizational mission and goals reveals that the project isn’t a good fit and shouldn’t be pursued.

Next, you might want to create the impact and outcome levels of your logic model (see previous blogs on logic models). These will help inform what you’re going to do next and what background resources you will need to create the most effective plan.

From there, you’re going to have to start making choices about what to do next. Certainly, gathering information about your resources (not just the natural or cultural artifacts and features, but also operational resources like staffing, facilities, and budget), and your audiences is critical. The analysis of the information you gather and matching that analysis against your objectives will begin to reveal what options you might want to pursue next.

Simply put, the interpretive planning process can be fairly simple and straightforward or it can be extremely complex, depending on the individual project situation. But you have to start somewhere. Pick your starting place and get going – it’s the only way it’s going to get done.

And therein lies one of the biggest problems I’ve seen associated with planning projects – the lack of distinction between planning and design. Generally speaking, planners are not designers and conversely, designers are not planners. Having said that, some people have both skill sets and can take a project through planning and design phases successfully. Others should stick to what they are good at, and recognize that these skill sets are not interchangeable. The best designers will know when a plan has not been well thought out and may even ask to bring in a planner to help ensure that best practices are followed so that everyone ends up satisfied.

Planning helps determine the most appropriate media to communicate a specific message to a targeted audience  in support of the agency’s mission, goals, and objectives. Design helps create the media once good planning has determined what the most appropriate media will be. That may be a subtle distinction for some, but have you ever worked with someone who decides what the solution needs to be before fully identifying the problem? Usually, the problem is not “we need a trail.” The problem might be “we need to have people interact appropriately with the forest environment.” A trail with interpretive signs may be the best approach, but if the primary users of this forest are equestrians, interpretive signs are not going to fill the bill. In fact, they create a trail hazard for horses and riders and cannot reasonably be posted at a height that would be necessary for ease of reading by equestrians.

Planning makes you step back and check yourself – are you asking the right questions without assuming you already know the answers? Good planning saves time and money. I was recently asked to work on a plan by someone who assumed that writing a plan simply meant listing as much media as you could fit on the page and into the site. In fact, at this particular site, less is more and there is little reason to put a lot of media on the ground, given the purpose of the site and the interests of the audience. Going through a planning process and matching the needs of the visitors with the needs of the agency and the physical features of the site and resource clearly pointed out some significant cost-saving measures.

So going back to the original question – is museum planning different than zoo planning? Well, it depends, to a certain extent. According to the fourth principle of interpretive planning, every project is unique so every process will be different. But that doesn’t mean that each venue type needs a completely different approach to planning in general. The 5-Ms still work, whether you’re looking at a museum, a nature center, a botanical garden, a zoo or a commercial theme park. Learn to ask the right questions and your plan is halfway done. The other half, of course, is coming up with the answers to those questions. Then, and only then, are you ready to start designing the media called for in the plan.

First, let me make the distinction between bidders and qualified bidders. You may get bidders that you shouldn’t seriously consider, either because they really don’t provide the services or products you’re asking for (even though they may claim to), or because they are in some other way an unsuitable match for your needs (be wary of contractors who comes in way below other bids – there’s probably a reason why they’re working so cheaply).

So why aren’t the qualified bidders showing up? Most good contractors have networks or use tools that help them learn about available contracts – make sure you distribute your RFP widely unless you’ve already narrowed your choices to a preferred short list of qualified bidders. If people don’t know about your job, they can’t bid on it. National Association for Interpretation will help in this regard by sending any notification we receive about an impending RFP to all commercial members (a good reason to become a commercial member if you’re a contractor).

Be clear about the service or product you’re soliciting. Writing an excellent scope of service helps contractors know exactly what you’re after and whether they are qualified to provide that service or product. With any luck, the contractor will be responsible enough to bid only on what he or she knows what to do, and not try to use your contract as on the job training for a new skill set. If the scope of service is unclear about the expectations you have for your project or what you can provide as technical assistance, contractors will either ignore the RFP for fear that you’ll be a confused client throughout the process (not a cost-efficient work effort for them) or you may end up with something you didn’t want because you’ve left leeway for the contractor to interpret your project based on the skill set they actually have.

Don’t demand project work in the proposal. Proposals cost an extraordinary amount of time and effort already without asking contractors to fabricate the work product before they actually have the job. This practice borders on unethical as many clients assume they can use the ideas of a higher-priced and more qualified firm but award the project to a lower-priced and less qualified firm to further develop and implement those ideas. Even if you state your right to do so in the RFP, you may find that qualified bidders won’t touch that request. The better approach, if you want to test run some ideas and your compatibility with the proposed project team before awarding a large project, is to commit to paying two or three short-listed finalists to provide a one or two day charette/interview before final selection. Having paid for the work produced in the charette, you could then reasonably use those ideas regardless of who was selected, and you’ll have the luxury of having seen the project team in action. This approach is well worth it if you have a high dollar project on the line.

Be sure that your project requirements are reasonable. Although you may be able to negotiate a great deal in these troubling economic times, be prepared to pay for the work you need at fair prices. Don’t assume that the contractor can work a miracle at rock bottom rates or according to a schedule that is humanly impossible. Most contractors do not have the luxury of working only one project at a time, which means that your schedule has to fit amongst the schedules for other projects already underway or under consideration. If you specify unreasonable requirements and have no flexibility for budget, work product, or schedule, you may find that qualified bidders will simply take a pass.

There are certainly other reasons why contractors won’t bid (maybe they’ve heard that you’re a client who isn’t great to work with for another whole set of reasons), but if you can provide a great RFP and get it out to those who should be bidding on it, you should be able to find the perfect match to help you get the perfect results you’re looking for.

The person (or people) with authority are the ones who actually sign off on the project. Generally speaking, this person will be the designated project manager (hence the term, “authorized signature” on most contracts). You might think that the person who signs off is also the person who is making decisions, but very often that’s not the case. What you may learn, hopefully sooner rather than later, is that there is a higher power that drives the signature. In other words, some project managers may still be responsible to a supervisor somewhere who is making them approve things or disapprove things that they don’t necessarily want to approve or disapprove.

Unfortunately, when this is the case, last week’s blog on bad ideas may come into play. The influencers are the ones who may look like ordinary people on the outside, but are really what we call “stakeholders.” Maybe they hold the pursestrings on the financial support for implementation of the project. Maybe they simply have the ear of the authority or power figures and like to manipulate people or processes for their own reasons. Maybe they talk the loudest or complain the most bitterly and so are listened to over more reasoned individuals in a simple attempt to quiet the maelstrom. They may influence the process in many ways, not all of which will be constructive.

So how do you identify who fits what bubble and use the strength of that knowledge to help the process be productive? The authority figure is usually easy to identify, just look for the signature. He or she should be identified in a contract if there is one, or if your project is taking place totally in-house, this person is usually going to be your immediate supervisor. Keep this person happy with great communication – document conversations and keep him or her informed of what’s happening with the project. Involve him or her in the process at each step to foster a strong connection and feeling of ownership with the project.

Should the power figure come into play, again, communication is key. By providing your authority figure with all the information needed, the power figure often becomes a supportive, positive power for good instead of an obstruction to overcome. Keep this person in the loop at key points along the way in the process, to whatever extent he or she requests. Recognize that there may be times when you will not sway a power person from his or her position, and that there may be good reasons for that which you may not fully understand – perhaps there are other factors at play in the big picture scheme of things that are causing the power person to play that card as necessary.

The influencers are perhaps the trickiest to deal with, but taking the time to assess what motivates these people is definitely in your best interest. Once you understand their motivations, you may find ways to influence the influencers so that their input supports the project instead of derails it. Asking what motivates them is rarely successful, so get to know them. Take the time to ask questions and listen (first principle of interpretive planning) to their responses and to what they’re not saying out loud. Help them understand how to be helpful and they may just become your project’s biggest fan. Once in that position, influencers can help you overcome power people problems or authority issues.

The main thing to remember is that it takes a lot of folks to work through any process and all of them are important. Keep that fifth principle in mind – everybody has to win, but the big winner has to be the mission of the organization. Ultimately, that’s what everyone must be after to be truly successful.

If your project team is good-natured and open to suggestions, bad ideas can easily be discussed and discarded in favor of better ideas. But let’s say the bad idea comes from someone who is unwilling to let it go and may have the authority to insist on going ahead with it. What are your options? Generally speaking, you have three choices, whether you are an employee of Bad Idea Person or a contractor.

1) You can always quit rather than doing something you think is dangerous or morally reprehensible. This drastic action would obviously be reserved for those ideas that are seriously bad in ways that may compromise your personal or professional integrity.

2) You can nod, smile, pretend to like the idea and talk about Bad Idea Person behind his or her back later. I’m not a big fan of this option. It usually comes back to haunt you later and tends not to be productive for a lot of reasons. Not only is it dishonest and petty, but it may be downright dangerous and expensive if Bad Idea Person later tries to blame the bad idea on you (well, you should have told me it was a bad idea, so this is clearly your fault, not mine).

3) You can register and document your concern, but stick with the project to attempt to mitigate the problems the bad idea might create. This action may require some delicate handling of the interpersonal relationships on your project team. Understanding group dynamics and the psychology of facilitation is a huge plus if this option is going to be your approach. Sometimes simply asking Bad Idea Person to help you understand the idea better allows him or her come to grips with its true level of badness. If not, I will sometimes propose documenting the advantages and disadvantages of all options in the final plan. I have even gone so far as to put in the draft document “against the advice of consultants, option BI has been selected for further development.” This puts your concerns on record. I’ve found that more often not, Bad Idea Person will back down once they see the disadvantages or the phrase “against the advice” in writing. If the idea still goes forward, making minor modifications that Bad Idea Person will find acceptable can usually help it be not quite so bad (spoofing Indiana Jones so that the archeologists can roll their eyes and get a laugh; phasing so the budget hit is more workable; finding a lower maintenance technology).

Finally, learn to get over it and get over yourself. The world is filled with bad ideas and you cannot control the process perfectly every time. Move on and hope for better days and better ideas to come.

I’ve been both in my career – I’ve done front-line programs as an interpreter on a variety of topics including both history and nature. The bulk of my career has been spent as an interpretive planner. And while I can say that I certainly benefitted as a planner from having good interpretive skills and understanding what it takes to be an interpreter from a programmatic standpoint, I can also say that those skills do not necessarily provide all the needed basics for sound interpretive planning.

Interpreters should have excellent communication skills to convey an interpretive theme, whether in writing or in personal presentations. They should also be extremely well-versed in the resource information needed to support their theme. Although some interpreters do their best work behind the scenes as writers, most tend to want to be in front of people. Interestingly, many would classify themselves as introverts on a personal level, but on a professional level they usually enjoy that daily interaction with the public that occurs when they’re providing personal interpretation services (programs).

Interpretive planners, on the other hand, may or may not have a great deal of public interaction as they perform their duties. If public input is one of those tools that is required for a particular project, then learning good facilitation skills (different than interpretive communication) is a real plus for a planner. Certainly, an interpretive planner must not only understand what interpretation is and how to craft a theme on a much broader scale than a single program (requiring an entirely different process), but they must also have a basic understanding of the many related disciplines that will be involved with the process – marketing, architecture, landscape architecture, business management, exhibit design, strategic planning, and more.

Any interpreter who has attempted to write a site-wide or region-wide interpretive plan quickly learns that knowing how to put together a single program does not prepare you for the intricacies of successful interpretive planning. Conversely, many, if not most, interpretive planners, would be at a loss if asked to present an interpretive program to a group of people visiting the beach on the weekend. And that’s okay. They are different jobs, with different skill sets required. Some people can do both, and that’s okay too. In fact, it’s a real bonus in my view.

There are many, many different jobs and job titles related to the interpretive field. Interpretive planner is just one of them (and it’s also different from exhibit designer, or architect, or landscape architect, or marketing specialist, or strategic planner, or any number of other jobs), but it is most definitely not the same thing as “interpreter.”

For more information, visit NAI’s Certification Handbook and Study Guide to see the knowledge, skills and abilities listed for Certified Heritage Interpreters and Certified Interpretive Planners.