The experience of writing various kinds of material for professional and consulting firms tells me that even the most competent and literate collections of professionals often lack the ability to weave a compelling narrative about their work when they try to put it on paper.
I recently helped a well-known firm of architects submit documentation for a bid on a prestigious Sydney building project. Obviously, they'd prepared a great many such documents over a number of years. Their problem was always, however, that whichever of the partners took responsibility would influence the final outcome such that it acquired a bias not to everyone's liking. But clearly it was not productive for everyone to manage, to be involved in, or even to make their own changes late in the process.
Because of this particular project's landmark city-approach location, its presentation was particularly important. The submission needed, first, to answer the brief in a certain structured way, as well as to talk about projects which each of the partners individually had run.
Yet it had to do so by also offering an overview that gave real insight into the way the practice had solved particular problems, both specific to to those jobs, and within its overall design philosophy, by applying its unique body of acquired knowledge. This company has a fine history. It is well known. And because they had worked together for so long, each partner could individually discuss something of the history of every one of the firm's projects, but not necessarily its finer detail if it wasn't their own job.
Here was a case of a practice not being able to tell its story in a single, unified voice, or with one that most of the judges who were to be sold on its proposal would most wish to read.
The answer to this challenge was disarmingly simple. I interviewed the three partners together. We had a framework for the interview which meant we didn't deviate too far from the requirements of the bid. It meant each could tell me both the detail of their own jobs and how it answered a specific requirement in the competition's brief.
Together, however, they could tell me how each of the respective design solutions was arrived at within the overarching philosophy of innovation and sustainability enacted within the firm's daily work. And in so doing, some of the history that had created the context in which a design was delivered could also find its way into the story, making it more engaging to the reader.
This perspective could not have been given by any of the partners alone.
The result was a piece of work with which all agreed they could not have produced for themselves and which read well enough that not even one change was made to the first draft. It is unusual for that to happen, but, if anything, it proves that the process itself met the requirements of the submission.
I recently helped a well-known firm of architects submit documentation for a bid on a prestigious Sydney building project. Obviously, they'd prepared a great many such documents over a number of years. Their problem was always, however, that whichever of the partners took responsibility would influence the final outcome such that it acquired a bias not to everyone's liking. But clearly it was not productive for everyone to manage, to be involved in, or even to make their own changes late in the process.
Because of this particular project's landmark city-approach location, its presentation was particularly important. The submission needed, first, to answer the brief in a certain structured way, as well as to talk about projects which each of the partners individually had run.
Yet it had to do so by also offering an overview that gave real insight into the way the practice had solved particular problems, both specific to to those jobs, and within its overall design philosophy, by applying its unique body of acquired knowledge. This company has a fine history. It is well known. And because they had worked together for so long, each partner could individually discuss something of the history of every one of the firm's projects, but not necessarily its finer detail if it wasn't their own job.
Here was a case of a practice not being able to tell its story in a single, unified voice, or with one that most of the judges who were to be sold on its proposal would most wish to read.
The answer to this challenge was disarmingly simple. I interviewed the three partners together. We had a framework for the interview which meant we didn't deviate too far from the requirements of the bid. It meant each could tell me both the detail of their own jobs and how it answered a specific requirement in the competition's brief.
Together, however, they could tell me how each of the respective design solutions was arrived at within the overarching philosophy of innovation and sustainability enacted within the firm's daily work. And in so doing, some of the history that had created the context in which a design was delivered could also find its way into the story, making it more engaging to the reader.
This perspective could not have been given by any of the partners alone.
The result was a piece of work with which all agreed they could not have produced for themselves and which read well enough that not even one change was made to the first draft. It is unusual for that to happen, but, if anything, it proves that the process itself met the requirements of the submission.
