Take these sub-definitions of knowledge:
- knowledge from the experience of past projects encompases process and client-specific knowledge. This deduces a higher probability of a successful implementation.
- knowledge of technology and/or special skills increases the probability that the professional service provider is capable of implementing what he has promised and reduces the risk of time-consuming learning on-the-job (eventual prolongations)
Now apply these fields to a professional service provider that has a low brand recognition and in my assumption also a small list of references. My visual outcome:
Market Strategies for Professional Service Providers with a Low Brand Recognition
Having just started at a new company, I can talk from fresh experience: Knowledge I have gathered throughout some time has helped me to ask different questions, new questions that helped my colleagues rethink and reword. At the same time, I find that knowledge I thought was very helpful and important seems uninteresting to them – and vice versa: simple concepts can provoke amazement.
Concerning a special service offered to their customers: all performed activities were always taken for granted since they had developed it some time ago – it seemed normal and boring. From my point of view, I’m pretty sure that no other company can offer what they (or now we) do. They had a USP kept unnoticed.
Two days later: we now have a presales presentation that has these features highlighted. Value has been created – not really because special knowledge has been added, but because different knowledge and experience has put the existing into a new perspective.
What you need, however, is time and a culture to share the thoughts. And time to document and establish the new. In our case, we were able to assign these costs to a certain presales project. Would we have extracted a new USP if that presales project hadn’t been around?