Shane Ian Murphy: a proposal comparison should explain what is actually being compared

Two proposals can display similar headline figures while describing different things. One may include a wider scope, another may depend on an unresolved assumption and a third may use a different timetable. Comparing the numbers without their basis can give a neat answer to a question that has not yet been defined.

This is a company-origin editorial featuring Shane Ian Murphy, co-founder and partner of Dual Party Capital. It discusses commercial preparation through hypothetical examples. It is not a recommendation to acquire an investment, a statement of available financing or a report of a completed transaction. Actual proposals require their own assessment and appropriate professional input.

Define the comparison question

Imagine a team reviewing two possible approaches to a project. Before selecting a preferred option, it needs to decide what the comparison is intended to establish. Is the question about scope, timing, a particular cost or readiness for the next review? A single ranking may not answer all of those questions at once.

A clear question gives the supporting information a purpose. It helps the team recognise where the proposals are comparable and where a difference needs explanation. Without that step, the presentation may encourage a conclusion based on whichever figure is easiest to place side by side.

Record the shared basis

A useful comparison identifies assumptions common to the options. It also identifies assumptions that differ. The aim is not to force every proposal into an identical form, but to make the distinction visible enough for a reader to understand its effect on the comparison.

In a hypothetical exercise, the team might write a short basis note before preparing the table. It can describe the scope considered, the relevant dates and the treatment of items still awaiting confirmation. That note gives the next reviewer a way to interpret the figures rather than treating the table as self-explanatory.

Keep exclusions beside the total

A headline amount is less useful when a material exclusion appears in a distant attachment. The summary should help a recipient identify whether a figure represents a complete amount or only a component. Unconfirmed items should remain recognisable as unconfirmed.

This is a communication principle rather than a method for selecting a transaction. It asks the writer to preserve meaning when shortening a proposal. A concise presentation can be helpful, but not if its simplicity depends on removing a condition that changes what the number describes.

Explain the timing difference

Two options may depend on different sequences of events. A shorter stated timetable could rely on an input that is not yet available. Another route may allow more time for a review that the first has not included. A calendar date alone does not explain those differences.

The comparison should identify the dependencies relevant to the question being assessed. If an assumption changes, the team can revisit the result using the recorded basis. That is more useful than treating the original table as a permanent conclusion even after its underlying conditions have shifted.

Distinguish evidence from preference

A participant may prefer one approach for a reason that is not represented in the headline figures. That preference should be explained rather than presented as though the table proves it. A decision note can distinguish the evidence considered, the assumptions accepted and the judgement still involved.

This helps a later participant understand how the discussion reached its current position. It also gives the team a sensible route for reconsideration. New information can be assessed against the recorded reason instead of reopening the entire conversation without a shared account of what was decided.

Preserve open questions

A comparison may reveal that a proposal is not ready for a particular assessment. Missing information is then a specific result, not an embarrassment to hide. The team can identify the input required and the person responsible for obtaining it before presenting a more confident conclusion.

At Dual Party Capital, the company perspective described here is about clearer preparation for commercial discussions. A readable comparison supports the next assessment; it does not guarantee financing or an agreement. Further professional background on Shane Ian Murphy is available at https://shanemurphy.co.uk/.

The most useful comparison is therefore one whose basis another person can reconstruct. It shows what is included, which differences matter and what still needs checking. That gives the reader a more honest starting point than a table that appears precise while leaving its underlying question unexplained.

Illustration: supplied promotional portrait; not documentation of a particular proposal review.