Technical proposals: is speaking the same language enough?
In high-value-added selling, a salesperson often has to circulate a proposal among specialists who attach different meanings to the same terms. The managerial question is specific: how can we check whether a technical proposal is understood well enough for the client to work with it?
What the literature establishes
Drawing on a field study in product development, Paul R. Carlile (2002, Organization Science) examines the difficulties of sharing knowledge across functions. That knowledge is embedded in each function's practices: transmitting information does not necessarily make it usable elsewhere. Shared tools, such as models or product representations, can help participants make their differences and dependencies visible.
Transferring, translating or transforming
Paul R. Carlile (2004, Organization Science) proposes a framework distinguishing the transfer, translation and transformation of knowledge across functional boundaries. A common vocabulary may suffice when the problem concerns transfer; different interpretations call for translation, while divergent interests may require changes to the knowledge and practices involved. Applied to selling, this framework suggests that a glossary will not resolve a disagreement over a proposal's operational consequences.
The hasty conclusion
One might conclude that proposals simply need to be shorter and free of jargon. That can help, but more accessible wording does not necessarily resolve differences over responsibilities, conditions of use or acceptable trade-offs. The challenge is not merely to make the document readable, but to make its implications open to discussion across functions. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What these studies do not demonstrate
These articles address knowledge boundaries within organisations, rather than measuring the effectiveness of commercial proposals. Neither the field study nor the conceptual framework establishes that a shared tool increases contract conversion rates. Their value for selling is to provide a working hypothesis to test, without confusing shared understanding with commercial agreement.
A practical check in Bâle
Within SHR's « Vente à forte valeur ajoutée » programme, one possible exercise is to revisit a proposal intended for pharma, life sciences, Rhine logistics or an international R&D team in Basel. For each critical technical commitment, ask the client's technical lead and the person responsible for implementation to restate, separately, the success condition and the associated responsibility. Then measure the proportion of commitments for which their restatements align, using a predefined assessment grid, and record the differences requiring clarification before the proposal is revised. This indicator checks shared understanding; it is neither a satisfaction measure nor evidence of purchase intent. To go further: explore the High-Value Selling training in Basel, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: High-Value Selling in Basel
- high-value selling
- Basel
- research
- training basel