Loopio vs. Qvidian RFP & Proposal Automation

I use Loopio specifically for RFP's mostly. I think it is a great and adequate tool for this and much of what I think that needs to improve are not large needle movers for me since the software as a whole is fantastic. It is very easy to upload an RFP into Loopio and begin answering those questions or pulling from previously answered questions. I also will use Loopio for large client proposals and I often use the "search functionality within Loopio to see if I can find answers to clients questions. I like that I can also pull images from Loopio as well and often use those visualizations in my proposals.

Incentivized

Functionality and support are my two main areas. I want to be able to speak to someone when I have an issue. To Quvidian's defense, my company didn't see the value in sending someone to NH for the training. I'd used an RFP machine before so they thought that was sufficient. It was a poor decision on the company's part because although it was similar, it was not the same.

• Ease of use - a few minutes' tutorial is enough for a newcomer to start using the tool.
• Handy options - i.e. support in searching for the right answer
• Often meaningful & useful releases

• The search function ranks information based upon usage and is adaptive, learning/improving rankings with every search. This makes finding the right piece of information quick and easy.
• The tool offers flexibility to build various types of sales documents (proposals, presentations, case studies). This drastically reduces the time it takes to put together a client-facing document.
• The content management functionality allows for various content formats and related content can be connected. This simplifies tracking content updates by knowing which other pieces of information may also need review and update when a change is made outside the normal update cycle.

• Having the ability to directly connect responses in multiple languages.
• Ability to set up more people in the review cycle (we typically have a responder, and at least 2 reviewers).

Incentivized

• This is a weird one but when adding content to the 'Q' the tab in word sometimes disappears. Not sure why that happens and we haven't really tried to trouble shoot yet. My solution at the moment is just closing it and re-opening it. Sometimes it works and sometimes I have to do it a few times.
• While being a great place to keep content for our team to access, there is always the thought of whether the information is still accurate. Especially when comes to statistics and facts. We at times get so used to just using what is in our boilerplate that we forget to question whether information is accurate or not. This is more of an observation for users rather than an issue with 'Q' however the information is only as good as it's accuracy.

We've already renewed our contract with Qvidian and plan on using it for the foreseeable future. Apart from the fact that Qvidian has all the features we need to respond to RFPs and maintain a large informational database, the time that would need to be spent researching and testing out a different piece of software just wouldn't be worth it. All of our users are well learned in Qvidian, and it's easy to teach to new users. Having to learn a brand new application when the current one works great is pointless. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies here.

Usability is good but falls short of excellent. The interface is clean and well organized. They clearly spent some time working on the UI and took some feedback from focus groups to help keep it tidy. On a few occasions, we have experienced a little bit of lag while updating the question database. I'd like to see just a little faster response time on a consistent basis.

Incentivized

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're very supportive and reply in a timely manner. Whenever I contacted the support I received a helpful reply that actually solved my issue. Quite often when my team suggested an improvement that would simplify and speed up our work it happened not long after which is perfect for us.

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

• User friendly--very simple
• Reviews of libraries can be assigned
• Non-named user licenses can be used by various people
• Close Loop--changes can be added to library with just a few clicks
• View text in library and can copy content
• Reporting on reviews and usage and projects
• Help center and assigned representative
• Library duplicates functionality

Incentivized

Of the competitive vendor demos I have reviewed over the years, each may have its own strength. Some may be set up to drive compelling differentiators or solutions (E.g., propLIBRARY.com). Some may be built on existing CRMs (E.g., Qorus). Some may have tablet-friendly interfaces (E.g., SAVO). Others focus on collaboration (E.g., XaitPorter). There is nothing wrong with any of these models. You will just have to perform your own gap analysis and see what best addresses your needs. For Blackboard Inc., none of the aforementioned competition offered a holistic and robust replacement for our current PA tool. We have senior writers to craft compelling differentiators. We use SFDC, not SharePoint as our EA CRM. While our strategic writing and architectural needs outweigh having the slickest tablet-friendly user interface, we still have an interface and user experience that is geared toward usability and performance while being cognizant of adoption. New collaborative tools are a big draw, especially when responding to private sector proposals with a 10-to-20 day turnaround. However, not only has this not been a pain point for us (we currently have a versioning process in place) but the conversion and adoption hurdles just for one feature where there is already a workaround in place does not justify the migration.

• It has helped us keep data up to date and therefore provide better answers.
• The amount of time it takes us to compile RFPs has decreased tremendously giving everyone more time to focus on their main roles.

Incentivized

• Our experience has been largely positive. It's allowed our RFP team to quickly and efficiently produce very professional documents. This has lead to more time being able to speak to the clients needs specifically. We've received lots of positive feedback from clients saying that the RFP looked tailored to them, and not just some content dumped in a binder. That was our goal.