<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>The Box Fight Analogy: A Blueprint for Pre-Sales Requirements Engineering Workshops</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Christoph Oemig</string-name>
          <email>christoph.oemig@wincor-nixdorf.com</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Wincor Nixdorf International GmbH</institution>
          ,
          <country country="DE">Germany</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <fpage>71</fpage>
      <lpage>76</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>Requirements engineering (RE) is typically associated with the creation of a service or product. Its activities are usually not immediately considered to be part of the pre-sales phase. Yet, not only sales- but a lot of requirements engineering activities actually do occur during this phase. Besides tender processes where customers provide a detailed Request for Proposal (RfP) and a potential contractor provides the answers, there are also alternate ways for a customer seeking a solution. The purpose of pre-sales workshops is to learn more about a specific product or service and to get to know potential vendors to inform a later RfP or to directly proceed with the solution at hand. For vendors they provide a chance to attain some of the customer's goals and business requirements to position their product in a favorable way. Staff having not only sales but RE skills are likely to be involved, since they own a large degree of product knowledge and they know how to run these workshops. The only thing they usually lack is an appropriate workshop strategy for the pre-sales phase mastering its specific challenges. This paper presents an overview of these challenges and a strategy blueprint based on analogy to a famous sports event: box fights.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>Pre-sales requirements engineering</kwd>
        <kwd>requirements workshops</kwd>
        <kwd>box fight analogy</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>-</title>
      <p>
        The major goal of the pre-sales phase is to provide the customer with a compelling
offer that exactly fits his needs and an attractive price indication. In order to achieve
this not only sales but also requirements engineering (RE) activities are applied to
learn about a customer’s business goals and needs. These activities usually differ from
regular or post-sales RE since they encounter a completely different set of risks [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ]
restricting the specialists in what and how requirements engineering techniques can be
applied. Everything in the pre-sales phase is a pre-investment. Customer contacts are
strongly limited in time, and are often rather driven by assumptions than knowledge.
At the same time competitors try to close the very same deals on their end. The share
of the “unknown” is the largest at this stage while the customer’s conception of a
solution is a constantly moving target. U-turns in the customer’s decision making
should not be a surprise but anticipated.
      </p>
      <p>
        Customers typically approach a contractor either by a Request for Proposal (RfP)
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
        ] or by requesting for a workshop where they can learn more about a product or
service. But in the pre-sales phase these often become typical sales events where only
a product’s unique selling propositions, features and advantages get presented. Yet,
with sales approaches like Miller Heiman’s Conceptual Selling®, those events start
assimilating to current RE practices when sales people eventually start listening to
customers and business needs and requirements are acknowledged to be important
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ]. As another incentive a well conducted workshop might lead the customer to skip
the rather unpopular RfP process and to continue with the solution at hand [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ]. In
consequence bid process managers are likely to involve people with requirements
engineering skills, since they own a large degree of product/service knowledge and
they know how to run RE workshops. The only thing they lack is an appropriate
workshop strategy for the pre-sales phase mastering the aforementioned challenges.
      </p>
      <p>This paper presents a strategy blueprint for requirements workshops in the
presales phase stemming from practical experience. In order to understand its concepts
and procedures the pre-sales challenges they respond to are outlined in the first
section. Next the blueprint’s core concept is introduced demonstrating the use of an
analogy to a famous sports event: box fights. The final section provides some discussions
and conclusions from its application.
2</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>The Pre-Sales Workshop Challenges</title>
      <p>
        The pre-sales phase involves lots of challenges that distinguish it from the
postsales phase. This is a closer look at the ones especially affecting the workshop itself.
All of them must be addressed by an appropriate workshop strategy. Taking a closer
look they are not only challenges but the initial set of risks of a project: “A risk is an
uncertain event or condition that, if it occurs, has a positive or negative effect on the
projects objectives” [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ]:
      </p>
      <p>The large unknown: At the beginning of a new relationship there is a large deal of
assumptions and guessing on the one hand, causing a large revealing effort on the
other. There is a lot of room for misunderstandings, false assumptions, the unsaid,
the implicit, and the deliberately false.</p>
      <p>The customer might not be open and honest about his business details and his
attitudes to every potential contractor due to the lack of trust or the lack of another
incentive like an existing contract.</p>
      <p>Especially the customer’s attitudes are to be emphasized separately since they are
the basis of another challenge: the phase’s fragility. It might abort quickly due to
reasons completely unrelated to the proposed technical or business details. Feelings
and attitudes have the potential to break deals even if the solution offered ranks
best of breed.
Dealing with the large unknown becomes even worse when there is only limited
time. Yet, it is the nature of the pre-sales phase to be short. This especially affects
workshops which in this case usually last not days but only a few hours.
Making it even more difficult, the large unknown is a constantly moving target.
Both, not only the potential contractor but also the customer learn a lot in the early
stages and consequently adapt their earlier decisions. U-turns should be
anticipated. A very large angle for decision making is rather sound and common at this
point to find the best solution.</p>
      <p>For the workshop itself it is extremely important to have the right people
participating. Otherwise it becomes a waste of time and a waste of money since
everything is a pre-investment.</p>
      <p>The same accounts for when there is doubt about the seriousness of interest.
Sometimes the customer’s interest might be faked just to acquire some external
proficiency or feedback for free (or rather at the contractor’s expense). It must be
possible to derive a discrepancy (i.e., a business reason or attitude) which urges
him to find a solution.</p>
      <p>Last but not least the timing of the workshop has to be chosen carefully especially
when the customer did not approach the contractor for a workshop himself.</p>
      <p>All of these risks have to be addressed in order to successfully conduct a workshop
in the pre-sales phase. A workshop strategy blueprint to encounter these risks is
presented in the following sections.
3</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>The Box Fight Analogy</title>
      <p>
        An adequate workshop strategy for the pre-sales phase basically needs to define
two major parts: risk responses (i.e., actions to avoid, transfer, mitigate, or accept a
given risk [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
        ]) and exit criteria (i.e., certain levels at which the contractor ought to
quit the bid process). Both of them are needed to secure the pre-investment, eliminate
uncertainty and to safeguard the sale’s aftermath. To address most of the above
challenges at once an analogy to a famous sports event appeared to be very inspiring and
helpful: box fights. It is applied to extend a concept which is based on the pre-sales
requirements engineering grounding on Miller-Heiman’s sales approach [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
        ][
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ]. Its
core is the customer’s concept which starts out as a set of assumptions and is refined
and amended later as the workshop evolves (cf. Fig. 1). The following describes
briefly how this analogy informs the strategy in its setup (roles and phases) and how it
responds to the pre-sales risk setting.
3.1
      </p>
      <sec id="sec-3-1">
        <title>The Idea</title>
        <p>On first sight box fights seem to fit well into the world of sales and marketing with
terms like war rooms and battle cards. Thinking of box fights, a lot of images come
to mind: the box ring, the bell, two opponents, the coaches etc. The most obvious
commonality is probably the limited time. In box fights there is only time until the
next sound of the bell to strike or to knock out the opponent. In between there are
breaks which the coach and his fighter use to rearrange their initial strategy which
was setup before the fight started, i.e., there are phases of preparation, fighting and
rearrangements. The fight is over when the time elapsed, the opponent is knocked out
(i.e., the moving target is not moving any longer) or when the coach throws the towel
indicating he wants to quit the fight (which basically corresponds to meeting one of
the above mentioned exit criteria).</p>
        <sec id="sec-3-1-1">
          <title>Rearrange Rearrange</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-3-1-2">
          <title>Initial customer concept</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-3-1-3">
          <title>Adapted customer concept</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-3-1-4">
          <title>Preparation</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-3-1-5">
          <title>Training</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-3-1-6">
          <title>Workshop</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-3-1-7">
          <title>Fight</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-3-1-8">
          <title>Analysis</title>
        </sec>
        <sec id="sec-3-1-9">
          <title>Analysis/Training</title>
          <p>Inside the box fight analogy there are roles and phases that are to be translated to
the pre-sales scenario: The fighter is the person doing the talking or moderating of
the workshop. S/He is the one actively engaging the moving target. He acts according
to the previously defined customer concept (i.e., the result of the preparation phase,
see below) in a conversation with the customer asking the prepared questions to gain
the knowledge needed. The coach is somebody equally skilled as the fighter, maybe a
little more experienced. His main task is to listen and to make adaptations and
amendments to the concept if needed. He informs the fighter during breaks or even
takes over the “fighting” himself if required. This means workshops are attended by at
least two people from the potential contractor in order to catch every new piece of
information and every change in direction to properly address the moving target
challenge. It is simply too hard to listen, to write and to talk at the same time. Last but not
least: The opponent is not the customer but the moving target solution. In order to
capture it the right way, the customer is actually part of the extended coaching team.
Here, s/he acts as a matter expert for that very particular opponent.</p>
          <p>
            There are three phases in box fights which can be translated to the pre-sales
workshop (cf. Fig. 1): the preparation (or training), the workshop itself (the fight), and its
analysis thereafter. During the preparation phase the initial customer concept is
compiled. Already known information is gathered and amended by confirmation
questions (for assumptions), new information questions (for the unknown), and
attitude questions. They are grouped by topic and topics are ordered by (assumed)
customer priorities. The phase should conclude with a risk assessment and a decision
whether to continue or to quit the process. The workshop is structured in a sequence
of rounds and breaks. A workshop round follows the typical pre-sales requirements
engineering cycle pattern [
            <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
            ] of getting information, giving information, and getting
commitment. It uses the initial customer concept as conversation guideline. During
the conversation a lot of information is gathered which has to be integrated into the
concept. Breaks are used to rearrange the concept and the workshop’s direction.
Finally, when the workshop is over its analysis finalizes the customer concept and
prepares it to serve as a basis for effort estimations and price indications. It also monitors
customer commitment and helps to improve the overall approach.
3.3
          </p>
        </sec>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-2">
        <title>Risk Responses and Exit Criteria</title>
        <p>The phases mentioned in the previous section not only provide the basis for the
overall process but also the risk responses to the pre-sales challenges. Table 1 outlines
responses by risk also adding exit criteria to the overall picture.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-3">
        <title>Risk</title>
        <p>The large
unknown
The lack of
trust
Fragility
Limited time
Moving
target
Right people
Seriousness
of interest
Workshop
timing</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-4">
        <title>Risk Response</title>
        <p>Strong focus on preparation of the customer
concept. Priorities are used to focus on the most
important parts. The workshop gathers
information; its breaks allow for rearrangements.
During preparation a set of trust building
measures like customer references need to be
defined. They are used during the workshop.
Preparation includes attitude questions. These are
explicitly asked during the workshop or
addressed during its breaks.</p>
        <p>Strong focus on preparation and priorities,
rearrange to focus on the most important items.
Workshop phase uses breaks to rearrange
according to the moving target.</p>
        <p>Preparation phase checks on participants;
Workshop asks for customer commitment
(budget, time, data) and about the decision making
process.</p>
        <p>Preparation and workshop ask for customer
commitment (budget, time, data, participants);
preparation and determines a discrepancy or
business need
Preparation determines potential discrepancies
and valid business reasons; these need to be
confirmed during the workshop</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-5">
        <title>Exit Criteria</title>
        <p>No customer commitment to find
answers to reduce the unknown. No
provision of data or extra material by
the customer.</p>
        <p>There are basic issues disturbing the
relationship that cannot be resolved
during the workshop.</p>
        <p>There are attitudes that contradict the
current business approach.</p>
        <p>Customer unable to name priorities;
insufficient time
Target moved far out of scope of the
potentially suggested solution
No participants available to answer
the commitment questions;
Participants not involved in the decision
making process.</p>
        <p>Insufficient commitment; no
discrepancy.</p>
        <p>No discrepancy, no valid business
reason.</p>
        <p>This paper showed briefly how box fights provide a useful analogy to inform the
design of requirements workshops in the pre-sales phase. It puts a large emphasis on
regarding the pre-sales phase’s specific challenges: the large unknown, the limited
time, and the moving target. It was also shown which prerequisites have to be covered
as part of the workshop’s preparation phase in order to save the contractor’s
preinvestment.</p>
        <p>While this paper simply represents a blueprint there are certainly many ways to
actually put it into practice with a customer. For instance, there is a more covert style
which does not state any of the concepts above to the customer but simply uses them.
The ratio of rounds and breaks strongly depends of the overall time of the workshop
and has to be adapted to the particular context. With increasing proficiency the
rearrangement of the concept may be done in course of the workshop instead of using real
breaks. But there are also customers that really appreciate the use of clear breaks to
rearrange their own model themselves. Additionally, breaks also add another
advantage: they are very helpful to learn about the customer’s individual attitudes and
opinions usually not uttered in a larger auditorium.</p>
        <p>As with pre-sales requirements engineering overall, there are some aspects new to
requirement engineers: they might be not used to such time constraints and explicitly
asking for attitudes and feelings. Some might not be used to the strong emphasis on
preparation for a workshop. Having to think about when to quit surely adds a new
constraint as well. Yet, more importantly, RE in the pre-sales phase becomes a team
activity that has to be practiced to unfold its value—with the downside being higher
costs.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          1.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Oemig</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Pre-Sales Requirements Engineering based on Miller Heiman's Sales Approach</article-title>
          .
          <source>REFSQ 1st International Workshop on Requirements Engineering for the Precontract Phase (RE4P2)</source>
          ,
          <year>2014</year>
          : pp.
          <fpage>40</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>45</lpage>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          2.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Paech</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>B.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Heinrich</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Zorn-Pauli</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>G.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Jung</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tadijky</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>Answering a Request for Proposal - Challenges and Proposed Solutions</article-title>
          .
          <source>REFSQ</source>
          <year>2012</year>
          :
          <fpage>16</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>29</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          3.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Miller</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Heiman</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tuleja</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          :
          <article-title>The New Conceptual Selling. (2</article-title>
          . Ed.).
          <source>Kogan Page</source>
          ,
          <year>2011</year>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          4.
          <string-name>
            <surname>Searcy</surname>
          </string-name>
          , T.:
          <article-title>RfP suck! Channel V Books. 2009</article-title>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          5. PMI:
          <article-title>A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge: PMBOK (5</article-title>
          . Ed),
          <source>PMI 2013</source>
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>