Proposition Pugilism
Proposition Pugilism is Lustratus REPAMA’s light-hearted take on the serious issue of competitive marketing. Proposition Pugilism pits two vendors’ marketing strategies against each other in a fight-out to determine which solution a fictional organisation will select for a fiction IT project designed to solve a fictional business problem. Three judges, each with a different role and different perspectives on the same business problem, will evaluate and score a head-to-head battle of two different vendors’ marketing propositions
How Does it Work?
In each Proposition Pugilism “fight” Choice Corporation faces a different business problem for which an IT solution is required. Three individual judges within Choice Corporation are part of the decision making unit that will select a winning IT vendor. Each judge, using their own agenda and bias selects the “best” vendor for their view of the same problem. The two vendors that are selected for the head-to-head competition are then subjected to a desk-based examination using their outbound marketing messages and materials plus any relevant third-party commentary as the basis of the study. Each vendor is scored across a number of different categories arriving at a rating for each vendor from each judge as well as a total rating arrived at by combining the judges’ scores
How Does Choice Corporation Procure IT Solutions?
Introduction of new IT infrastructure relies on separate technical and budgetary/commercial decisions. The IT department is responsible for all technical decisions and the overarching technical strategy of the organisation. IT has budget control of certain shared infrastructure IT purchases. Most IT projects are driven by a specific business need which is sponsored and funded by a line of business manager within the organisation. IT works with the line of business manager to select an appropriate solution that solves the business’ problem and meets the technical requirements laid down by IT.
The Judges
The decision making unit of Choice Corporation contains many individuals but for the purposes of Proposition Pugilism we focus on the needs and perspective of three individuals in each of the 3 Lustratus REPAMA audience stratum (Business, IT Business and IT Technical).
These judges are Bob (Business), Ilene (IT Business) and Tony (IT Technical)
Bob – Business
Bob is Vice President of Operations at Choice Corporation and is under pressure to deliver change without exposing the business to risk. He is responsible for the smooth operation of all areas of the business including customer service and is keen to ensure that new system introduction only positively impacts the business. Bob leans on the IT organisations for technical decisions but manages his own budget for sourcing IT solutions to operational problems.
Ilene – IT Business
Ilene is Vice President of IT at Choice Corporation and is responsible for the organisation’s technical IT strategy as well as managing the budgetary and commercial side of the IT department. She controls a budget for shared IT infrastructure but relies on line of business managers to fund IT solutions that impact their own business areas. Ilene does not posses a low-level technical understanding of technology but instead relies on her team for detailed technical understanding of technical issues.
Tony – IT Technical
Tony is a software developer and architect within the Ilene’s IT organisation at Choice Corporation. His sole concern is the technical environment in which he architects and builds IT solutions to the organisation’s problems. Tony is a trusted advisor to Ilene and plays the role of leading a covert research and development team. Tony likes nothing better than evaluating new technology and sees himself as a technical visionary.
Evaluation Categories
Each judge has their own perspective of the needs of their particular area of the business. We’ve broken down those concerns into the following evaluation categories.
| Evaluation Category | Description |
| “ME” | I want to make sure that the vendor speaks to “me” with content aimed at my specific audience strata. I want to be able to understand the material that the vendor provides on their web site or at least I want to see that the vendor recognises that my job role exists and that it is important that I understand what their solution does. |
| Empathy | It is important that the vendor shows that they understand the problems that I face in carrying out my day-to-day job as well as the specific problem for which we are considering their product as a solution. I want to see that they show that understand what causes this problem and I need the vendor to talk about my problems in language that I understand. I want to see that the vendor has an understanding our our industry and the specific issues that we face. |
| How? | The vendor must be able to clearly articulate in language that I can understand how they will go about solving my problems. I don’t want mountains of technical mumbo-jumbo and neither do I want high-level waffle. |
| Afters | I want the vendor to be able to describe the situation that will result from our organisations buying their product. I don’t want the vendor to focus only on what their product’s capabilities are, instead I want to know what I will be left with as a result of having bought their product. What are the benefits? |
| Differentiation | I want the vendor to explain to me in simple terms how they are different, or better, than the alternatives. These alternatives might be other products from other vendors that we are looking at, or they might be other choices that the organisation has in solving the problem we are faced with. |
| Visibility | To give a feeling of comfort in our decision I want to ensure that we are dealing with a vendor that is widely known and used. I want to be able to find references to the vendor and their products in Internet searches for example. |
| Credibility | Independent endorsement of the vendor and or product is important. Technology analysts, journalists or Bloggers should cover the product positively. |
| Proof | The vendor must provide details of other organisations that they have helped. I want to see names of individuals and companies that have benefited by dealing with the vendor. I need to see the documented results of the project. |
| MITICOR Concerns | I want to see that the vendor understands my particular concerns and that the language the vendor uses to articulate the value and benefit of their products matches with my specific concerns. |
| Decision Making Unit – IGIDBU | I am playing a specific role in the decision to buy a solution to the problem the company faces. I want to ensure that the vendor provides me, as an Initiator, Gatekeeper, Influencer, Decision Maker, Budget Provider or User, with the information I need to play my role in the Decision Making Unit (DMU). |