Gail Severini’s post today, “the Enlightened Program Manager-Partnering with Change Management” got me thinking.
She says (correctly by my experience):
“The reality in most organizations is that strategy is parsed into Strategic Business Units and/or Divisions and the leader assigns it to a program manager to organize.”.
What if all strategy in organizations was not treated the same?
We have to start with those situations where this really makes sense-transformation.
True transformation- not something that just picked up the label because it is big and/or Enterprise wide. If the organization is really going to be different after this change- process, approach,technology and people (yes it is probably all of the above)- then a different kind of strategy is called for.
This would be a strategy that is orchestrated at the highest levels- CEO and Board of Directors. Everything would connect (and would be communicated as connecting) across the organization. If this is a picture it would be one map as a whole with parts and pieces within. And it would not be the map (I have seen many of these) that is drawn AFTER the parts and pieces have been parsed.
As an aside this parsing process is similar to a present to future perspective for change. It almost eliminates any view of the whole. Contrast that to strategy that is whole focused and high in the organization and an end state focus for change. Both give the whole, provide context and effectively put the “parsing” into perspective.
If all strategy were not treated the same there would always be an element that raises work (which carries lots of internal political baggage with it) to a level that is shared by all.
What if the “Program Manager” was above the units and divisions?
One way to do that would be to elevate those Program Managers Gail mentioned to this higher level-if only for the transformation.
This is done frequently in organizations by naming an SVP as the leader (In my taxonomy this would be the Implementary Leader) of the transformation. The inherent problem with this is that now you have a peer leading a horizontal (the one with the “S” ego’s and reputations). In my pie in the sky vision this Program Manager would be a role that stays after the transformation. In fact it might have been a role that was created early on in the organizations history in preparation for the big change every company goes through eventually.
I see this role as the business version of a very high level change management consultant. (In fact they would partner as right and left/left and right, in a perfect world).
The CEO would still need to be the owner and own the change, but this set up would signal to the organization that there is also an important leader to implement (and in this case the support of a senior change person who will focus on the whole, the context and the people).
What if unit and division tactical strategy scaled up?
You could edge toward this structure by creating more scale up from inside the organization to a holistic strategy.
Most companies would argue they already do this with some version of committees, executive summits, golf games etc. I have been in 70+ companies as a consultant and have yet to see any of these arrangements do anything more than quickly parse work. They all basically scale stuff up and then get parse stuff back in (maybe it is more of a grand permission process than strategy).
All strategy is not the same. Approaching transformation as if it is a program of Divisional/Business Unit work streams is status quo. Change and status quo do not blend well.
Take one day at the office and turn your listening dial to “Compliments”.
‘Bet you don’t hear many.
Maybe those “fake” Kudos (fake because they are not well thought out, but admittedly anything positive is helpful) given out by supervisors to rally the troops. While I get where they are coming from the insincerity in their tone disillusions me.
You might hear perfect praise, obviously well thought out, roll off a tongue with beautiful sincere pitch… until… the word “but” is inserted. I hate to disillusion anyone, but, anything after that word negates the previous statement. In other words, if you use the word “but” you mean to say what you just said, not what you are about to say.
When I hear no compliments with my dial turned to attune, not even the sloppy ones, I am VERY disillusioned.
I personally happen to be one of those that thrives on real, genuine compliments (gotten AND given). My attuned change-management-people-focus has revealed hundreds of others who feel the same.
To not have that need satisfied is disillusionary.
Not to fret though, I have the wonderful example. True not from an organizational setting (tune that dial at Starbuck’s and your results will be closer to wonderful than our opposite), but still human nature gone good.
Yesterday I gave you Piece by Piece, a slice of life post about change one thing at a time.
Today the view in the other direction.
Yes I have lots of work to do.
Yes the back yard (bigger) has even more.
Yes that tree did die with replanting. Oops.
And yes that is my dog (picked up from a family members’ divorce proceedings… how does THAT work?).
And yes Oreo is NOT happy we have no lawn. He is however a stakeholder who will not resist this change. HA!
Yesterday’s example shows one of the walls I am building (more will appear later for today’s view).
Today show’s the blank canvas (with the first splashes of “paint”). I see the end state. In fact while I am working it hovers in front of my eyes to keep me going (if only I could teach that talent to others- floating end state creation). Passersby see a lot of dirt (and a lot of work).
The WONDERFUL: 40 people have now stopped to talk, ask questions and compliment. I live in a Zillow registered “walker’s paradise” so LOTS of people walk by our house.
The truly wonderful (after the compliment is absorbed) are the questions.
“What are you going to do here or there?”
“What is your overall feeling for the yard as a whole?”
“Will there be height changes?”
“Will there be rocks?”
“A water feature?”
“You are going to be the healthiest guy in town!” (Not a question and not a compliment, necessarily, but one of the best statements I have heard- a personal motivator, always crucial for change).
The wonderful, truly, is that some asked about detail, some asked about the end state, some asked about relationships, some wanted to know how I was personally connecting to this work.
If only this was an organizational example. Wonderfully Disillusioned I am.
During a little consultant “beach” time I am doing work on my house.
It is turning out to be revealing and an interesting exercise about change.
A local author stopped by on her daily walk as I was on my knees wiggling in a 40 pound piece of a wall next to my driveway. After a “few” of those lifts I was ready for a break and conversation. This was the third day into that part of the project so she had seen progress. What followed was a discussion about end states, process and all the little pieces that go into finishing change.
Like her book I am working piece by piece to put together a whole. For me, with this project (as part of the program of changes to our house which is then part of the remodel initiative) it is literally block-by-block.
She was fascinated with the piece by piece nature of this wall building. It’s like a giant puzzle, we both said. Or a big adult LEGO set.
“Did you know what you wanted when you started?”, she asked. Yes was of course the answer.
“Do the blocks fit that plan?”
Not so much there. The space had to be bigger to get the blocks to fit. I knew what height I wanted, but even a 3D plan does not give you the same visceral feedback as the real thing. So the wall got an extra layer of blocks.
In the grand scheme of this remodel that layer just changed the end state ever so slightly.
A higher wall might now mean a lower balancing plant. Or a bigger rock to balance the extra visual weight (these are big heavy-looking blocks, lots of balancing and softening will take place as I move forward).
While I have in mind the overall feel, while I have addressed form and function,while I know there will be a mix of this and that type of plant, I do not know EXACTLY how that will play out. Adjusting and adapting, piece by piece, will happen.
So back down to my knees for a bigger 60 pound block I lifted, grunted and thought about how organizational change works. Big plans, lots of process and many, many pieces that may have to be rearranged.
Organizational change is like building a block wall, best accomplished with an overall vision, lots of effort and adjustments piece by piece.
Big change around the corner?
Thinking of setting up some kind of group to organize and consolidate your change work?
The end of that thought about the change group thing is where you need to pause.
Do this wrong and I guarantee you will reinforce your current problems and stroll along with them into your future.
Enough organizations have gone before you to illustrate what works and what does not.
Change Entity is For?
Most change management tends to jump quickly to the to-do list (and so it fails in some way).
Most organizations that want to set up a change group follow the same process (and so the groups are busy hives of the same status quo).
Ask, and answer, why you want this group. (And you thought gathering “best practices” was the first step).
I will change a word to help you- group becomes “entity”. Change Entities are different.
If your organization is about to go through genuine transformation (transformation is an overused word sometimes used disingenuously) a change entity might make sense. In this case the entity needs to be autonomous, it has to be connected as a partnership to the CEO/Top Leader and it has to have leverage and visibility.
For the really big stuff it absolutely HAS to have early outside influence. We just do not see the future from our own present without help.
“Why” in this case is to craft, guide and build toward a brand new future.
Does your organization come up with plans and then pass them off to someone or some function to “implement”? Is that really working for you? Could you make a list of how that is not working?
A Change Entity placed high enough, with enough autonomy, can knit together strategy and work. One well designed (outside influence set up correctly will help here too) can even help to craft smart strategy. If not crafting then planting the seeds for smart ideas.
Implement was in quotes earlier. Integrate and implement have a different feel and a different meaning. Implementation ends, integration continues. As you are thinking through this change entity thing keep in mind times when continuation makes sense and times when beginnings and endings need to be clear.
Are you short of competencies?
Is half of your stakeholder base contracted?
Is the reason it is tough for your organization to change because the resource loading takes so long (and never really fills needs)?
You can create a change entity that pays attention to old fashioned OD. Use projects, programs and initiatives as the forums to build skill and competencies. A change group can pay attention to who those externals are and how that knowledge and capability is being transferred to internal resources.
Improve Project Process
This is the most common reason Change Functions (a purposeful change of our word) are created.
The project teams are not doing their job.
STOP again. It is likely not their fault, but a combination of many things, that is making projects “fail”.
A well constructed change entity that knows CM is very different from project management, can help address the people equation, the project process itself and the ties to strategy and competency building.
Has to be said- do this on your own and things will get MUCH, MUCH worse. This is a scenario where a trusted adviser is your best bet. That and some dedicated, talented internal leaders.
This is the most common kind of change group with a long list of “should not have done’s”. The amazing thing about these groups is that they do not see the damage they are doing. They often have motivators beyond actually getting change to happen…
Maybe you just want to make the future arrive smoothly?
Maybe you are a young organization that will most likely change soon, but you are not sure when or what that might be?
Maybe you want to build capability and capacity?
A change group calmly designed and put together before that fact (the fact being inevitable change) gets your organization ready with all the tools, processes and a few good people, to tackle that upcoming change.
That entity can morph and grow when the change arrives. In the mean time it can also help facilitate our other categories of project process and strategy integration. If you truly are small all that is close together now- manageable.
Are you thinking of a Change Entity for your organization? First ask for what. Good answers might be: true transformational change, strategic integration, organizational development, improving your project process or smartly preparing for your organizational future.
These layers don’t stack, they are not a hierarchy, they are horizontals of focus that should be happening within change initiatives. I personally address all of these early on with clients. Change will suffer without those conversations.
Not the kind of “ownership” that is marketed with most approaches. That kind of ownership is more about getting people to lead when they will likely choose otherwise. The kind of ownership I am talking about is at the top- the person who can spend the money. This layer takes a lot of explanation. Ideally that starts with the true owner. Often though it begins with implementary or organic leaders.
Those dialogues are just as powerful.
Helping people to understand the significance of the owner, of the owners visibility, of the way the owner will empower and honor expertise can make a big difference in how the change process plays out. In a way, this understanding helps stakeholders to push some of the buttons that need pushing to get both the change reeled in and to have regular operations move smoother.
Change Management Horizontals addressed the need for translation. Translation is taking ideas and turning them into work. Translation is converting vision to objective to goal to task/work. Organizations should be doing this already with their strategy to implementation process, but they aren’t.
So a layer within change is teaching how to make these translations so they make sense at the level of translation (that may mean type or spot in the organizational hierarchy).
This may be THE area that causes change to fail.
Organizations are terrible at prioritization. And executives are typically late with the decisions needed to prioritize (they react to “scale-up” urgency).
This HAS to be addressed. I can look back at some of my own as a junior consultant engagements and see how tackling this layer would have made a difference.
When you ask this stakeholder to do something are you taking something else off their plate? Do they see where this effort lies compared to other projects, programs and initiatives floating around the company? Are the executives (especially the owner) able to white board prioritization (in something more definitive than pillars or “focuses for the year” or some measure of the things that bring in quick revenue)?
Work has to be prioritized at multiple levels. Change is adding work. Change causes a need for re-prioritization.
Is a layer that is everywhere.
There is the project process. There may be a change process. There are processes for work effort. There is a process for communicating in every organization. There are hidden processes (like internal politics, permission-getting and silent bargaining).
Some time has to be set aside to decide process, to question current process and to create new processes that fit the end state and the path to get there.
Why is it so hard to put work in context with a whole?
Why does the explanation always come out as business speak that has little to do with the individual?
How come there are never clear, clean pictures of everything going on at a high level in the organization with a way to dig into the detail?
I spend a lot of time explaining, teaching (and likely harping about) context. Work has to have meaning. When work is part of change the stakeholders deserve an explanation of the context of that asked for effort.
Five layers that weave and dodge and layer onto and over change: ownership, translation, prioritization, process and context. Make sure you address and dialogue over these layers early, often and throughout the change process.
Change to change?
I got my new Linkedin profile yesterday. (Twitter is also a new look).
On first glance:
- There is the option to add media within each of your categories
- Will monochromatic be the next “color” wave?
- A bubble graph is added to show how things are connected
- Editing is iconic now
- Previous changes (like adding endorsements) now are pulled to the forefront
- Other tidbits to be found?
Thanks to a better broadband spread and cheap storage we are finally able to share and watch video. (I remember years ago on an engagements thinking… if only… we could add the video aspect to communicating). So the media add is probably a good idea. Although I am beginning to get irritated with the number of videos for things that would provide much quicker answers with text. I do, admittedly, search from the images category for things that do not really have to do with images though (lots of my blog traffic is image lookers who stay too, so this is a trend). That, maybe is a different visual orientation.
I am all for the monochromatic-use-color-to-highlight approach.When coaching clients on presentation design I am a stickler for everything having a reason. Is there a reason that square is big rather than small? Is there a reason you keep using that particular color? Yes answers make the design usable. Much of our Linkedin profile content is text based stuff. Too much design (like having to watch a video) gets in the way of the assimilation of information.
I like those bubble graphs. They are also excellent, by the way, for stakeholder maps. You can even (subjectively) change the size of the bubbles to represent something about the stakeholders- “impact” if you have to. Anything visual when visual is the right medium- for comparisons, relationships and spatial display- is a HUGE plus to both Linkedin and change management.
I had to click the editing buttons on the right of each of the sections to figure out what the heck they were. Mystery meat as Vincent Flanders would say. I personally like icons, they take up little space and add interest, assuming I can tell what they are for or am willing to check (and remember).
Some of these “spread your network” Linkedin things are not well thought out. I keep getting embarrassed by clicking a button to link with someone and not getting a chance to write a note. No note requests to me are the ultimate breach of manners. I have to waste time apologizing. And note to Linkedin- apologizing for your poor function at the same time. The endorsement thing (however useless with its potential to get completely watered down) is a fun twist. The more we dilute networks though the closer we are going to get to two or three billion people all “connected” or “linked” to each other.
There may be some new fun, maybe even useful from a stakeholder perspective, changes. I am going to keep digging.
In general Linkedin’s change to change makes enough sense that I can participate (at new levels since I was already a champion).
I am working on these in my lab.
Some of my initial specs:
- With these you can see past silos.
- They will have a cross functional filtering capability that shows you the things they are doing over there that have to do with what you are doing here.
- The higher priced custom edition focuses clearly on end states.
- Each set adapts to the end state of the particular user.
- If you point them at a list of tasks the filtering mechanism reduces the list to a sensible level.
- There will be a special option that filters out audio in meetings that does not have to do with team building or movement toward the end state.
- The ability to see over hills and obstacles will also be an option.
- Night vision will be built in for those late planning sessions (or Alaskan engagements).
- You will be able to turn them around, look into the mirror mechanism and see clearly where you are in relation to the change.
- I am considering a software add that, when you turn them toward yourself, gauges your ability (possibility?) to get consensus on something.
- Yes you will be able to use them to take pictures at the company holiday party.
- Of course it will have Facebook link up for those pictures.
- They are, of course, rose-colored.
If only there were binoculars that saw ahead, zoomed out past silos, narrowed down lists, revealed your strengths and inadequacies and also took good pictures. Change Management would be so much easier.
Change Management has gone through some stages (and has many left).
Early on it was OD, Organizational Development. Changing was about development and skills.
That led to theories and research based on motivation, systems and efficiency. That period felt very formal, very theory based (which is usually true when a pursuit is exploring and building credibility).
The heaviness of theory led to “theories” based on other things. The Kubler-Ross five stages fad comes to mind.
At some point in any pursuit a vacuum of possibility opens up and things get really informal. Someone comes up with an approach that is simple, easy to communicate and so very sell-able. (With the knowledge we have now I would not urgently rush out to follow certain approaches). This thing that fills the vacuum is marketed as simple and sold as a model. (In my hidden example 8 steps that HAVE to be in order). Simple models with great marketing support always grab evangelists. That is when it gets formal as they insist on sticking to the model despite any signs that things might not be working.
Success breeds competition (and lack of success for the first wave makes for more competitors). MORE models come along for change management. If you can come up with a new shape, color or diagram (see 91 to 134 on this list) you have your change model.
Then comes the backlash to the formal. No model fits everywhere. Smart change leaders began to ask themselves, “what do I REALLY need to do to get this to work”. The answer is often informality. Can you connect in person with more people? Can you support anything you are doing formally with informal connection? Can you get to the individual level more?
The Informal List:
- The change owner to individuals. This is the most difficult and most effective.
- Others to individuals. Call them “Change Champions” if you want. Just make sure their connection is honest and truly connects end states to work and vice versa.
- Individuals to individuals. Causing this to happen means you are doing the right thing… or not. Word travels fast. Set up an approach that takes advantage of that. And, yes, support that with a formal structure.
- Individual to group. Brown bag lunches, surprise executive visits, informal Q & A sessions, anything that casually presents the change and allows for interaction.
- Integrated in to operations. There are times when it makes sense to separate out change. There are many times when it makes sense to smartly integrate the change process into the regular operational process. Your change will need to hang on and sustain at some point. It makes sense to start the integration at the most informal level- day to day work.
- Re rinse. This is a list of five that can repeat itself. Going back again with each informal approach carries new information and brings back the interpretation of that content, explanation and dialogue.
Change Management has gone from unnamed soft skills and development to theories, fads, models and an informal backlash. This list of 6 informal ideas will help you through the current change wave.
Running through the alphabet of change.
Some new ones:
Had to look this one up, I admit.
One definition: Change based on the rearrangement of existent elements.
This has to be Organizational Design. Org. Design being of course the nicer sounding term.
Many a change is this rearranging of what we have. And many big change initiatives have this as a component within.
With this term Permutation Management I would make sure that the reason for the rearranging was understood. I might first design a process to come up with and describe the end state, but close on the heels of that have a strong business case around the improvement to be seen (and maybe the reason if that was good for languaging).
Are we permuting (couldn’t resist) to streamline process? Maybe to make innovation easier because of collaboration? Does this rearranging make task easier? Planning?
With this form of Permutation Management reasons and possible results are very important to success.
The second definition is just as much fun: “the act or process of changing the lineal order of an ordered set of objects “.
I could see doing this on purpose for set-in-concrete status quo processes within the organization. So many times I find myself saying,”why do you do this thing in this order” with a strange face and silence as a response. (Those scrunched up silent responses for everything change either signal they can’t believe I saw that and have the guts to call it our OR they think I am meddling- PS meddling is a competency for change practitioners).
For those times when the process absolutely HAS to do this or that at this specific spot or time Permutation Management may be the way to call it out. Justify it and it stays. Unable to give a solid argument for status quo? It changes.
A friend of mine goes into parts of his organization and fixes process at a high level.
His explanations show that sometimes he has to start from scratch, other cases are rearrangements and most are rebuilding what was once good. He is practicing Reconstruction Management.
This term is a tricky one.
You can rebuild, reconstruct and try to make the best of what you have while wasting lots of time and lots of resources (that clearly are not available).
You can also strip things down and try to redo them. Same expenditure of time and resource.
Many times these scenarios improve faster with acquisitions.
This is change that makes things just a little better.
It might be the kind that goes around looking for dotted I’s and crossed t’s.
A version more fun would be taking things that are working at about 90% and finding something that is acceptable to those participating that amps up that percentage.
The worst form of this is the kind you find with schools now as a result of “No Child Left Behind”. We have schools in our area that score in the 90’s for testing and are on “Program Improvement”. They are being monitored because they just can’t seem to go from an “A” to an “A+”. Sometimes change, or at least monitoring to produce change, is ridiculous.
This is adding on change.
So acquisitions (sometimes called mergers- they are ALWAYS acquisitions, sometimes they can be mergers) fit perfectly.
Remodeling Management, just like the kind you might use for your own house, should have LOTS of pre-planning, lots of ideas fed into the pot. It should focus clearly on function. Then form. Then the two together.
Once form and function begin to flesh out process needs to be considered. Process will reveal resource needs (competency in the case of organizational change).
The remodeling analogy is my favorite for illustrating End State Change Management. It is easy for any of us to imagine our dream house. It is an easy exercise to have someone explain and describe that house (what it looks like, how it would be used and what it feels like to live in and use it). It is not too hard to then look back from that spot with that person and talk through the journey to get there. The list for process and task then starts to play out (with that future perspective).
Remodeling Management for me is the best kind of change. It looks at history, it looks at function and it looks at possibility. Seems we should all be doing that each day during a little daydream…
This is the scariest pretend term of them all.
I can’t think of too many times in organizations where going back creates a positive and profitable future. (We have a recent little US election that illustrates resistance to this).
There might be one form that works though. Returning to core competency.
When organization drift off into diversity or the next best fad they can go adrift. There is sometimes a painful process of stripping away all that added frivolity and returning to what you did well at in the first place. This change means reduction of force. This change is painful. It will even be painful for those left who go back to the old ways. Even the most tried and true status quo-er will feel a little emptiness (rather than the safety they thought they would get).
This list takes a look at the past, at rearranging and at adding to the mix with some new Change Management terms.
This might look familiar.
I am going to make up a change and give you a little insight into a senior consultants thought process, steps and Gotcha’s. (By gotcha I mean calling you out leaders, stakeholders, people who let stifling structure and status quo happen- you will recognize these things… and blame them on someone else).
A company that does logistics the hardware, software and support to make some big confusing process work it could be a health care, transportation, shipping, banking, supply chain or even CRM sees a status quo that can be improved.
That company reaches out to clients and potential clients in their industry to float the idea of a solution that addresses both the need for the industry to change and people support for technology implementation. Maybe through a conference, maybe through a survey, maybe by word of mouth. Clients respond. I have seen this actually happen in entrenched process oriented, “old-fashioned” environments.
The transformational change initiative this creates is not within an organization, but an industry.
A company happens to have the technology, the industry experience, the reputation and the connections to be able to take this on. It is most certainly a business opportunity as much as an interesting twist for CM.
(This is a scenario where the person who leads will actually CREATE revenue while practicing change management).
The company, let’s call them Horizon, will finance a lead role (could be an employee or high level consultant on a long-term contract), support the addition of 5 or 6 team members and build the solution within their organization.
This is the beginning of the whole change process now that we have the idea.
Get this part right. This person needs to be a senior change management practitioner who has been involved with process, people, sales, executive relationship building and (my add) MULTIPLE clients and scenarios. A LOT of people are going to have to be comfortable with this for a LOT of different reasons (yes it works in the other direction too).
The “not right” from similar versions I have seen is to look for someone who has, “built a consulting organization”.
This example is ripe for the creation of a solution that works and, therefore, SELLS.
Do not make the mistake, if you have something like this, of thinking about the revenue and the sale before you have the product/service. (Plan your strategy if you want, but don’t hire that person as the first). Make the person in the cart wait for the horse to get up front (if you needed an analogy).
Give this person almost compete autonomy (with lots of fiscal and emotional support).
Let them go out to the clients and ask lots of questions.
Use those answers to craft a solution that addresses the client, the industry, the processes, possibly the invisible pain of past customization, and the change approach. It will be easy for this lead to involve lots of people, lay the path for participation and be their own closer before they even get to the sale. (Interesting this is looking a little like a change process applied to the selling timeline never thought of that).
Use the CM/program tactic of picking an “easy” quick win client to craft a business case from.
Build a team internally, but loop in external resources, as in employees of the client. This is a change initiative (as opposed to the big transformational piece) for this client company, they are now stakeholders.
You will need to go through the process of end state description, pre work before the project tasks get started etc. You will also need leadership and mentoring from this individual. The approach and the input from the lead is for big change, smaller change and change leadership.
(Back up to the type of person organizations fall into picking for these roles good luck finding someone with that skill set who has not worked externally no big 3 doesn’t count and someone who has been internal will spend all their time building the smaller part of this change).
(It surprises me that headhunters and some leaders put so much emphasis on “the ability to build a team”. Really? Have competencies in organizations slipped SO much that team building is the most important skill in this example? That to me, at least, seems the easiest requirement to solve. Certainly a senior change management person has had a lifetime of team building…or are we a little more worried about performance management, the HR department, good hires, the stifling structure of the organization…?).
The solution rules.
Without that none of this really works (you might get a quick input of revenue, but that will be juxtaposed with lack of sustainability and problems that follow poorly pursued change management).
(But that is just my perspective).
The short and sweet is:
Groups of stakeholders clients, industry, Horizon itself, leaders who may be intransigent (or not), sales people and the employees of the client. Understand, map out, apply all their perspectives to the solution.
Some additions of mine
This example is an incredible opportunity to shine a light on the industry, Horizon and the client (not necessarily in that order). Thought leadership should accompany both the planning and the implementation. This is a business case just waiting to be explained, advertised and disseminated. (Why is it clients don’t integrate this into contracting with external consultants?).
This example has the potential to be even bigger than it looks on the surface. Odds are, the final choice for the lead will make the whole thing safe, revenue producing at some level and smaller than it actually looks.