Chapter 19 — Resources

Where Value Lives • Chapter 19 Companion

Co-Creating Value Before the Proposal

The strongest proposals do not introduce the supplier’s thinking for the first time. They capture a shared understanding that customer and supplier have already begun to create together.

Welcome to the Chapter 19 Companion Page

A customer brief may look like the beginning of an opportunity. Usually it is not. It is the visible expression of a need that began earlier — in discomfort, ambition, risk, frustration or a growing recognition that the present approach is no longer enough.

If the supplier waits for the formal brief, it inherits somebody else’s frame. It can respond intelligently, but it is already working within assumptions, language and boundaries that may never have been properly tested.

Pre-proposal co-creation changes the quality of the work. Customer and supplier bring their partial truths together, examine the context, test value hypotheses, explore trade-offs and decide whether a proposal is genuinely justified.

A proposal should be evidence of value creation already under way — not the first place the customer encounters our thinking.

Fred’s Comments

Before Anybody Opens the Proposal Template

There is a familiar moment in many account teams. A customer asks for a proposal, everyone becomes busy and somebody opens last year’s document to begin changing the names.

The request feels like progress. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it is merely an invitation to produce a polished answer to a question that nobody has examined closely enough.

The customer knows its context, pressures, history and internal realities better than we do. We may bring external perspective, specialist knowledge, patterns from elsewhere and the confidence to challenge an assumption. Neither side owns the complete truth.

That is why the conversation before the proposal matters. It is where vague discomfort becomes a clearer problem, claimed benefits become testable value hypotheses, and attractive ideas meet operational reality.

Co-creation does not mean giving away unlimited consultancy in the hope that gratitude will eventually become an order. Good pre-proposal work is bounded. It has a purpose, the right participants, an agreed time commitment, mutual contribution and a decision it is intended to improve.

It may conclude that we should propose. It may show that more discovery is needed, that the opportunity should be reshaped, or that we should pause or decline. All of those can be intelligent outcomes.

My ethical test is simple: if the customer decides not to buy from us, are they nevertheless better informed because we were involved?

If the answer is yes, we have probably created something worthwhile. If the answer is no, we may simply have been disguising persuasion as collaboration.

— Fred

“The proposal should capture shared thinking. It should not introduce a large, polished misunderstanding.” — Fred Mills, Where Value Lives

Key Takeaways

  • The formal brief is rarely the true beginning of the customer need; it is usually the visible result of earlier discomfort, ambition, pressure or risk.
  • Responding accepts the customer’s existing frame. Co-creation respectfully examines and improves that frame before a solution is formalised.
  • Customer and supplier each hold partial truth. Better value emerges when context knowledge and external expertise are brought together.
  • Pre-proposal co-creation should test the problem, consequences, desired outcomes and value hypotheses before locking into a solution.
  • The relevant stakeholder system must be involved early enough for material concerns, risks and definitions of success to influence the thinking.
  • Effective co-creation is bounded, purposeful, time-conscious and mutual. It is not unlimited free consultancy.
  • Mutual contribution is evidence of seriousness: both parties provide attention, access, information, expertise and honest challenge.
  • Strategic account managers must orchestrate selective organisational attention and protect scarce specialist capacity.
  • Proposal readiness is a decision, not an automatic stage. The right outcome may be to propose, continue discovery, reshape, pause or decline.
  • A strong proposal records shared context, customer language, tested hypotheses, agreed evidence, recognised risks and a credible path to value.
  • Co-creation remains ethical only when it improves the customer’s understanding and preserves their freedom to choose.

Chapter 19 Download

Pre-Proposal Value Co-Creation Canvas Workbook

This 17-page executive implementation workbook helps customer and account teams create a shared understanding before a formal proposal is written. It begins with an investment gate and working agreement, then guides the parties through strategic context, friction, consequences, stakeholders, desired outcomes, value hypotheses, options, evidence, mutual contribution and the next useful step.

It also includes a ten-part canvas overview, proposal-readiness decision, co-creation session record, leadership summary and 90-day action plan.

Download the Pre-Proposal Value Co-Creation Canvas Workbook

PDF executive implementation tool • Primary supporting resource for Chapter 19 of Where Value Lives

Questions to Take Back to Your Organisation

  1. What discomfort, ambition, pressure or risk existed before the formal customer brief appeared?
  2. Which parts of the current problem definition are supported by direct evidence?
  3. Which parts are reasonable inferences, assumptions or unknowns?
  4. What becomes more costly, risky or difficult if nothing changes?
  5. Who experiences the consequences most directly?
  6. Which stakeholders hold a material part of the truth but have not yet been involved?
  7. How do different stakeholders define a successful outcome?
  8. What must be protected while change takes place?
  9. What value hypotheses should the customer be able to confirm, refine or reject?
  10. What credible options should be compared before a preferred solution is selected?
  11. What has the customer already tried, and why did it stall or fail?
  12. What evidence is needed before either organisation should invest further?
  13. What will the customer contribute to the next stage?
  14. What will we contribute, and where should the boundary of unpaid work sit?
  15. Is the opportunity ready for a proposal, or should we continue discovery, reshape, pause or decline?
  16. Would the customer be better informed by our involvement even if they chose not to buy from us?

Try This With AI

Use this prompt to challenge the quality of a pre-proposal opportunity without allowing AI to invent customer facts. Remove confidential or personally identifiable information before using an external AI service. Keep people anonymised by role and insist that evidence, inference, assumptions and unknowns remain separate.

Act as a rigorous and ethical Strategic Account Management pre-proposal co-creation reviewer. Using ONLY the information I provide, help me test whether customer and supplier understand the opportunity well enough to justify a proposal. CUSTOMER AND STRATEGIC CONTEXT: [Insert] TRIGGER, PROBLEM OR FRICTION: [Insert] CONSEQUENCES OF INACTION: [Insert] STAKEHOLDERS AND RISKS: [Insert anonymised roles where possible] DESIRED OUTCOMES AND DEFINITIONS OF SUCCESS: [Insert] CURRENT VALUE HYPOTHESES: [Insert] OPTIONS, TRADE-OFFS AND PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS: [Insert] AVAILABLE EVIDENCE: [Insert] EXPECTED CUSTOMER AND SUPPLIER CONTRIBUTIONS: [Insert] CURRENTLY PROPOSED NEXT STEP: [Insert] For every material statement, classify it as: DIRECT EVIDENCE REASONABLE INFERENCE ASSUMPTION UNKNOWN Do not invent customer priorities, stakeholder views, consequences, budgets, decision criteria, risks, evidence, commitment or agreement. Analyse the opportunity under these ten headings: 1. STRATEGIC CONTEXT 2. TRIGGER, PROBLEM AND FRICTION 3. CONSEQUENCES OF INACTION 4. STAKEHOLDERS AND RISKS 5. DESIRED OUTCOMES AND SUCCESS 6. VALUE HYPOTHESES 7. OPTIONS AND TRADE-OFFS 8. EVIDENCE NEEDED 9. MUTUAL CONTRIBUTION 10. MUTUAL NEXT STEP Then identify: A. The strongest parts of the shared understanding. B. Important contradictions, gaps and untested assumptions. C. Missing stakeholder voices or definitions of success. D. Value hypotheses that should be confirmed, refined or rejected. E. Options or trade-offs that have not been examined fairly. F. Evidence required before a proposal should be written. G. Risks that could make an attractive proposal difficult to implement. H. Whether mutual contribution demonstrates genuine shared seriousness. I. Where deeper diagnostic or design work should require commercial commitment. J. Whether the proposed next step improves a real customer decision. Finish with: – a proposal-readiness recommendation: PROPOSE, CONTINUE DISCOVERY, RESHAPE, PAUSE or DECLINE; – the reasons for that recommendation; – the five most important assumptions to test; – the five highest-priority questions for the customer; – the evidence each party should provide; – the next useful co-creation conversation, including its purpose and participants; – a concise shared opportunity statement; – a 90-day mutual action plan; – and an executive-sponsor briefing of no more than 250 words. Apply this final ethical test: “Would the customer be better informed because of our involvement, even if they decided not to buy from us?”

Keep Exploring Where Value Lives

Pre-proposal co-creation helps customer and supplier develop a more accurate picture of the opportunity before positions harden and polished documents begin to conceal uncertainty.

But co-creation should not stop when the proposal is submitted. Strategic relationships can become places where customer and supplier combine experience, insight, capability and attention to develop something neither could have designed alone.

Innovation becomes strategically valuable when it is developed with the customer rather than presented at them.

Chapter 20 explores Innovation With the Customer, Not At the Customer — and the conditions that turn joint ideas into credible, mutual value.

← Back to Chapter 18 Continue to Chapter 20 →