Is Avoiding Failure the Same as Success?

Looking through a Request for Proposal for help with a technology implementation, I'm struck by the fact that less than half a page, out of twenty, is dedicated to the scope, to describing what it is they hope to accomplish. That's less than 3% of the document dedicated to defining success, to defining what the desired outcome is for the project.

The other nineteen and a half pages are filled with "Thou shalt do this!" and "Thou shalt not do this!" commandments; the impression I'm left with is that this organization has probably had a lot of problems in the past and they're trying to prevent those same problems from occuring again. Now, that's fair enough; learning from past problems is a key part of improving a process.

The problem is, in the half page that deals with the scope of work, it's not really clear what it is they are trying to achieve. More than 97% of the document is trying to prevent failure, but the document never really manages to define success. Even if none of their anticipated problems happens, the odds are pretty good that the project won't really meet their goals, since little effort has been made to communicate what their goals really are.

When you're trying to get somewhere, sure it's important to avoid accidents and mechanical trouble. But it's even more important to have a clear vision of where you're trying to get. How much of your RFP process should deal with scope, and goals, and vision? I don't know, but probably a lot more than three percent.