Proposal Management and Production System (PMAPS) vs. Qvidian RFP & Proposal Automation

Do you need consistency of messaging across multiple countries/products/divisions/languages? Do you want to be able to tailor content access per team/division/country? Do you want to be able to report on/track use by user, document, searches, compliance, etc.? If so, PMAPS is the most versatile proposal management tool I've come across so far.

This software is very well-suited to companies who find themselves expanding their footprint, the number of their Sales representatives, their territories, and/or their products and services and need to maximize their ability to both keep up with those demands whilst streamlining their proposal resources. Further, this is a very powerful tool with a lot of features and functionality including CRM plug-in and reporting. Thus, it may be less appropriate for a very small organization with only one product and that is also blessed with lengthy cradle-to-grave turnaround windows. In addition, to better the odds for success an investment in upfront personnel training and either a dedicated periodic window of time and/or dedicated person(s) for content upkeep are prudent. Finally, working with the vendor is a delight as they make every effort to maintain and deliver a product that both meets your needs and on which you can rely.

• Searching for boilerplate material--PMAPS allows you to search by keywords, as well as filter by categories (e.g., implementation, training, company information, etc.) I set up all the categories, subcategories, audience types, etc. We used to spend a significant amount of time searching for previously written information, but now we can find it within seconds. I only use it to search for information stored within PMAPS, but you can also set it up to point at other places to search for information as well.
• Manage proposals--PMAPS has a dashboard that lists all of the proposals I'm working on as well as key information that I want to have available for each of them. You can decide what information you want to show on your dashboard (I use mine to show due date, production date, review date, salesperson for proposal, etc.) It is very convenient to have all of that information available at a glance. PMAPS also has a built-in calendar that will show you key dates for all of your proposals.
• Generate custom documents--PMAPS allows you to set up templates that you can use to generate documents. You can set up forms that allow yourself or other users to specify what information should be included in that document, and then PMAPS will generate the document based on how users respond to the questions (e.g., what references to include, what products to list, etc.).
• Word Replacement--PMAPS allows you to set up codes that will automatically be replaced with the correct term when you generate the proposal. For example, in our boilerplate information, any place where I would want the final proposal to say the prospect's name, I use the code <>. Those codes are automatically replaced with the prospect's name for that proposal when either I generate a document or when I simply select the icon that searches for and replaces codes.
• Easily edit boilerplate documents--PMAPS allows you to easily edit boilerplate information. You can select a document one at a time, or you can select a whole bunch of documents at once (simply by doing a search and/or filter to limit the results to the documents you want to edit) and download them onto your computer, edit, and then re-upload.
• Store material--PMAPS allows you to store Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and PDF documents.

• Using Qvidian as an RFP tool has made a difference in our RFP process, turn-around time, and content development. It's helped us streamline our RFP process so that we are able to produce the majority of the document before the kick-off meeting, which means we have more time to customize and refine the document before it goes to print.
• Additionally, it took several hours before to gather all of the basic data we needed for an RFP, but now we can have the majority of the response ready in under 15 minutes in most cases. We are also able to start projects from our phones (iPhone thru Safari) or on an iPad. This has been extremely helpful while traveling.
• Finally, our content is centrally located on a searchable database. Previously we had used several free tools to aid in content storage that would allow us access easily via search. It never seemed to do what we wanted, and when we did find something, we weren't sure if it was the most current or usable. The library functions in Qvidian have been a huge help, and has changes the way we collect data, and retrieve it.

• There are times when I'm having a problem and I call the general line and have to leave a message and then wait for someone to call me back. I'd like to be able to speak with a live person every time.
• I'd like to see the program handle Excel documents with the ease that it handles a Word document.

• One area where Qvidian occasionally struggles is feature regression. For instance, the editing option that puts multiple records into one document had always been present in Qvidian; however, when the multi-edit feature that only allows editing one record at a time was released in version 9.1, the original editing functionality was removed. This caused me a lot of frustration, as it severely slowed down my work flow since I could now only see and edit one record at a time. It wasn't until a year later when version 10 was released that the old editing functionality was added back. However, one bright spot of version 9.1 was an added feature that allowed organizing records by simply dragging and dropping them into different categories. This was much easier than having to right click on a record, select Move, then right click on a folder and select paste. However, with version 10, this feature was removed and I'm now back to having to right click on records instead of dragging and dropping. It seems that with each release, I never know if something I like will be taken away or if something I don't like will be added -- sometimes it's both.
• A recent change that was added in version 10.1 that I personally view as a negative is that Qvidian now handles all requests server side instead of on the user's computer. This means that if a user wants to export or edit a large number of records, they have to wait for Qvidian's server to generate a report of those records. Depending on the number of records, this can be very quick (a few seconds) or very long (I've waited up to 20 minutes before) depending on how taxed Qvidian's servers currently are. I understand the reasoning behind the move, in that it takes the load off of a user's computer so that other applications they currently have open aren't affected by added memory usage, but in practice I find that it only slows down my workflow. Any somewhat modern PC shouldn't have any trouble handling a large report request from Qvidian.
• Although Qvidian is certified for use in several different browsers (Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Chrome for Windows), it doesn't offer the same functionality in each one. For instance, in Explorer, when a record is selected for editing or export, it will automatically open in Word. In Firefox, a pop-up dialog appears and a user has to click Open in order for the record to appear in Word. And in Chrome, the file is added to the download bar and a user must click on the file there for it to open, unless they add an exception to .docx file types to automatically open in Word (which I had to do, since I prefer using Chrome). Other simple features such as right clicking on a folder or record to bring up Qvidian's context menu are hit or miss depending on the browser. In Explorer, everything is generally smooth, though the browser itself is slower than the other choice. In Firefox, right clicking generally works but sometimes has some hiccups, and in Chrome, more often than not right clicking brings up Chrome's context menu instead of Qvidian's, which often leads to having to first select a folder and then click the dedicated Actions button in Qvidian to perform the desired action. No matter which browser you use, there will be some sort of functionality that doesn't quite work as expected.

I have been a PMAPS user for over 5 years. I started on their client/server version and renewed/upgraded this past year to their cloud version, WebPro. When you have a good product that delivers all the bells and whistles you need, there is no need to go searching anywhere else. We have a great partnership with the PMAPS staff and find them very resourceful and appreciative of our business

The tool provides us with the functionality we need to perform more efficiently and we have not identified another product that offers enough "nice to haves" in addition to the "must haves" to warrant a compelling reason for changing tools.

The shift they made in architecting documents from content to outline, is now reversed allowing outline creation first, then content which is more natural. But, due to the fact that we went through a migration of content to get to the new version, it feels less optimized than if we would have re-implemented.

End users having to configure settings more often than desired

Qvidian system maintenance is performed on weekends, usually at odd hours, and advanced notice is given so that teams can plan accordingly.

Remote or VPN employees seem to have somewhat slower access time. Server maintenance has improved performance.

Finding occasional recurring prompts to update settings in Microsoft (Explorer, Word, Excel, Powerpoint)

They are very much in support of great customer service. They respond quickly with emails and in some cases phone calls to resolve any issues and often times user questions in the past when I could not figure something out.

Incentivized

Live instructor training is expensive, though we have had instructors come to our offices for a ‘refresher’ before. The refresher was more of a “let us fix that for you” than a training on how to do it ourselves.

Online training is limited in my opinion.

IT works great. UPgrades are handled automatically. I was not involved in setup but I know they are there when we need them

Incentivized

I did the vendor analysis and narrowed my selection to Qvidian (which I had used before) and PMAPS (which I had not). I've never regretted my choice. In ease of use alone, PMAPS wins hands down. We're able to use PMAPS when collecting intelligence from our Subject Matter Experts in ways that weren't possible with other tools.

We have been using Qvidian for years, when Compass was introduced in our company. Having spent over a year using Compass, I would not recommend it for writing proposals. In all fairness, that is not Compass' strength. Compass is ok for general document sharing for informational purposes. It does have a Presentation Builder function for creating PowerPoint presentations, but it is cumbersome and not very flexible. Specifically, the linkage is awkward and files may have to be re-linked when they are updated. In addition, the architecture only allows you to create a couple of levels of content. The search function is very limited. Compass is a newer project and has not fully matured.

• I don't have any actual ROI numbers readily available but I will say that compared to our last solution (a home-grown document repository), PMAPS has made every aspect of our business more efficient.
• One of our primary goals in procuring a vendor to provide a better solution was our increased need to become more consistent in our messaging, more relevant as things change, and more efficient in getting our user's the answers they need quicker. We accomplished all three.

• The positive impact has been to know we have a system that can house legally-approved responses to questionnaires. The good about this is that if we have a simple RFI that does not require a lot of response customization, we can draw upon previously-approved responses and create output MUCH quicker, without the need of laborious and time-consuming legal reviews of RFIs or DDQs we produce for prospective clients. Quicker, easier output with less internal review = efficient RFI process and quicker turnaround time to respond to our client/prospective client base.
• The negative impact has only been the time it takes to orient oneself with the program, and REMAIN oriented. As we do not do RFIs on a daily basis, it is easy for us to become rusty, or to take short-cuts because we do not have time to re-train on the program. Those shortcuts and workarounds tend to cause us not to use the program to its full potential and lead to counter-productivity in some cases.