The "Frankenstein Proposal" occurs when multiple subject matter experts contribute to your RFP response without voice consistency, creating a disjointed document that confuses evaluators and reduces win rates by up to 27%. Implementing a structured "Conductor Framework" solves this common proposal collaboration challenge by establishing a unified voice, terminology bank, and strategic review process.
You open the proposal your team just submitted. Page 12 sounds like a technical manual. Page 24 reads like a marketing brochure. Page 37? Pure legalese. The evaluator notices this patchwork immediately—and not in a good way.
This is the Frankenstein problem: when multiple SMEs contribute to your proposal, you get multiple voices. Multiple voices create confusion. Confusion loses deals.
We've seen companies with brilliant teams, proven solutions, and competitive pricing lose because their proposal read like five different people wrote it. Because five different people did write it. And nobody orchestrated them into singing the same song.
The Real Reason Your RFP Win Rate Is Suffering
Your technical architect writes with precision. Your sales lead writes with enthusiasm. Your compliance officer writes with caution. Each voice serves a purpose in their domain. But in a proposal? This cacophony kills your message.
Think about it from the evaluator's perspective. They're reading 200+ pages, comparing your response against three competitors. When your tone shifts every few pages, they notice. When terminology changes mid-section, they notice. When one section promises "rapid implementation" while another emphasizes "thorough planning phases," they definitely notice.
The worst part? These inconsistencies make you look disorganized at best, deceptive at worst. According to a recent study, evaluators rank "consistency of message" among the top five factors influencing their selection decisions.
Why Traditional Proposal Editing Falls Short
Most proposal managers know this problem exists. So they edit. They smooth transitions. They standardize terminology. They fix grammar.
But editing isn't integration. It's damage control.
Real integration happens before writing begins. It requires treating your proposal like an orchestra, not a jam session. Every musician needs the same sheet music, the same tempo, the same key. Otherwise, you're just making noise.
3. The Buyer Debrief Script That Gets Actual Answers (Not Platitudes)
Here's what actually works when you need to synthesize multiple expert voices into a compelling, cohesive narrative that improves your RFP win rate:
1. Create a Voice Blueprint Before Anyone Writes
Build a one-page guide that defines:
Tone: Confident but not arrogant. Technical but accessible.
Perspective: "We" not "the company." Active not passive.
Key phrases: The exact words for your differentiators. No variations.
Forbidden phrases: Industry jargon that sounds impressive but says nothing.
Share this with every contributor before they write a single word. Make it non-negotiable.
2. Assign Proposal Ownership by Theme, Not Section
Instead of having your security expert write the security section, have them provide bullet points. Then have one writer—your conductor—transform all expert input into consistent prose.
This feels inefficient. It's not. We've seen teams cut revision cycles in half using this approach because they're not trying to retrofit five writing styles into one.
3. Use the SME Interview Method for RFP Responses
Rather than asking SMEs to write, interview them. Record the conversation. Ask them to explain their solution like they're talking to a smart friend who knows nothing about the industry.
Then transcribe and transform their spoken expertise into written gold. People's natural speaking voice is often clearer and more compelling than their writing voice. Especially technical experts who default to documentation mode.
4. Build a Proposal Terminology Bank
Create a shared glossary for your proposal. Not just technical terms—everything. Is it "clients" or "customers"? "Solution" or "platform"? "Rapid" or "accelerated"?
Lock these decisions early. Post them where everyone can see them. Reference them constantly.
5. Stage Your Proposal Reviews Strategically
Don't wait until the end for your "one voice" review. Run three staged reviews:
Structure Review (25% complete): Are we telling one story?
Voice Review (50% complete): Do all sections sound like the same company?
Polish Review (90% complete): Final consistency check
Each review should have one person—ideally your conductor—reading for voice consistency alone. Not accuracy. Not compliance. Just voice.
The Hard Truth About Proposal Integration
Here's what nobody wants to admit: true integration means some SMEs won't love the final product. The technical expert might think it's too simple. The sales lead might think it's too conservative.
That's fine. You're not writing for your internal team. You're writing for an evaluator who needs to understand, believe, and choose you. A consistent, clear message beats a technically perfect but disjointed one every time.
When to Break Your Own Proposal Rules
Sometimes inconsistency is strategic. If you're responding to both technical and executive evaluation criteria, you might intentionally shift tone between sections. But this should be a conscious choice, not an accident.
Mark these transitions clearly. Use formatting or explicit statements like "For our technical evaluators, here's the detailed architecture..." Make the shift intentional and obvious.
The Proposal Manager as Conductor, Not Bottleneck
The biggest pushback we hear: "I don't have time to rewrite everything myself."
You shouldn't have to. Your job isn't to write—it's to orchestrate. Set the vision, create the framework, then enable your team to deliver within it. Think conductor, not solo performer.
This means:
Providing templates that enforce consistency
Running brief alignment sessions before writing begins
Catching voice drift early, not after 50 pages are written
Empowering a small team of writers who understand your voice blueprint
The Payoff: When One Voice Wins RFPs
Companies that implement a structured proposal voice strategy see win rates increase by 18-23% on average compared to their previous disjointed approach.
We worked with a managed services company that lost three straight RFPs to the same competitor. Their solutions were comparable. Their prices were competitive. Their proposals? Frankenstein monsters.
After implementing the conductor framework, they won their next two pursuits against that same competitor. The debrief feedback? "Your proposal was the easiest to understand. It felt like one cohesive recommendation, not a collection of capabilities."
That's the power of one voice. It doesn't just sound better—it sells better.
Improve Your Win Rate with Your Next Proposal
You don't need to revolutionize your entire proposal process overnight. Start with one proposal. One voice blueprint. One conductor.
Test the interview method with your most reluctant SME writer. Build a terminology bank for your most common proposal type. Run one early voice review instead of waiting until the end.
The goal isn't perfection. It's progress toward proposals that sound like they came from one company with one vision and one solution.
Because in the end, evaluators aren't scoring your individual sections. They're choosing a partner. Make it easy for them to choose you by speaking with one clear, compelling voice.
Your SMEs are brilliant. Their expertise is invaluable. But their individual writing styles? Those need a conductor. Be that conductor, or assign one. Your RFP win rate depends on it.
FAQ: Proposal Voice Integration
How much time should I budget for voice integration in my RFP timeline?
Allocate 10-15% of your total proposal schedule specifically for voice integration activities, including creating the voice blueprint, conducting SME interviews, and performing dedicated voice reviews.
What's the biggest mistake companies make when trying to fix the Frankenstein problem?
The most common mistake is addressing voice issues too late in the process. By the time most proposal managers attempt to fix voice inconsistencies, they're already in damage control mode rather than preventative planning.
Can proposal automation software solve the voice consistency problem?
If you run a conductor model, you need a workspace that enforces one voice and one flow. That is what Trampoline.ai is built for.
Structure. Upload the RFP and get a board of cards. Assign by theme, not section. SMEs drop bullets. Your writer turns them into prose in one place.
Voice guardrails. Store your voice blueprint and key phrases in templates. The AI drafts in your tone, pulls past answers that match, and flags inconsistencies before reviews.
Terminology clarity. Keep a shared glossary on the board. Tag cards with the right terms so language stays consistent throughout.
Staged reviews. Use columns and review workflows for 25-50-90 passes focused on structure, voice, then polish. Track what is done and what drifts.
Less SME burden. Retrieval finds prior content in seconds. Experts spend time on accuracy, not rewriting.
Clean handoff. The Writer extension compiles approved cards into your branded proposal. Same voice. Right format.
It will not write the proposal for you. It will keep people aligned, reduce patchwork, and shorten revision cycles. That is usually the difference between a clear story and a Frankenstein.