|
|
When budgeting for change initiatives it is important to separate what used to be considered one role into three- the ACTUAL change management person, a dedicated training person and a communications/administration assistant. If you do not the the CM will be spending ALL of their time on training documentation, email lists and scheduling rooms. You will have a very expensive administrative assistant.
If you hamstring your CM into training and administration:
- Little time will be spent branding the initiative for visibility and to organize information
- Forget brown bag sessions (so you lose translation of vision to work, feedback for design, the chance to assuage fears, etc.)
- You will have little visibility for CM since that person will be locked to their computer creating low level deliverables
- Important connections to leadership and decision making will be nonexistent
- You will not be able to have the CM travel on a road show early in the initiative
- Since you really will not have change management there will be a big credibility hit for the next time around
- The training might not be that good (most of us came out of that background but have chosen to build to a different level)
- The scheduling will take longer than normal
As a leader think of the change management person as the expert external consultant. Consulting is guiding, mentoring, offering advice, steering in better directions, lots of connecting and relationship building, anticipation of roadblocks and human issues etc. That takes experience and skill. Both are wasted when you think the CM role is for training and communications.
Technorati Tags: budgeting, Buyer, Change Design, change management consultant, change management strategy, External Consultant, Fees
First page of a conference hand out, right up front, before any explanation:
Stakeholder Analysis. Having a clear understanding of the many groups affected by a
change—and what exactly that impact will be. Mapping the “who and what” associated
with the proposed change so that each group’s needs and concerns can be addressed.
Booz, Allen, Hamilton Change Overview from 2011 ACMP conference
And the first sentence of the “why Booz can help you be ready for what’s next”:
“Effective change management is more than simply applying traditional project management
principles to a situation.”
By focusing on the Who and What (oops missed that Why piece) you ARE taking a project management approach. Thinking that the overlying focus on Change Management is addressing “impact” starts you off on the wrong foot. No this is not just semantics. Think impact and everything you do will look like project management (impact equals risk, project management is great at dealing with risk).
Here are some snippets pulled out of the rest of the explanation (and NO they are not out of context):
“Human Capital Management…methodically address workforce
plans affected by the change…”
“Learning and Training…which components should be taught
continually to inform the impacted groups.”
“Booz Allen Hamilton, a leading strategy and technology consulting firm, is changing the
paradigm of transformation.” (this one makes me snicker- they are very late to the paradigm change. And since they are carrying the same assumptions, where is the paradigm? P.S. Independents actually HAVE been changing the paradigm for the last 5 or 6 years we just do not have the marketing dollars to strut).
Their framework is “Lead, Anchor and Manage” and the tagline under Lead is “…and Build Buy-in”.
Impact, affect (they meant ‘effect’ workforce plans themselves don’t have emotional effects), the old boxed up as a paradigm, buy-in etc. The old words from the old approaches is being repackaged. If this was a change effort I would ask why those are important to the end state? They are not and they are detrimental (again no this is not semantics). I call that a change process failure. But I am looking at end states and solutions not what is now an awesome wad of revenue, so I like other independents and even a few small boutiques use new words, and new approaches (you know paradigm things).
They have some good stuff in there, re-purposed of course nothing new, it is just overpowered by assumptions which are guided by the wrong perspective. Just a little disclosure too: The reason I am willing to stick my neck out with this post is that in the last month I have talked to two clients who took the broom to the work of this new “paradigm”.
If change is not building and creating something new why are you even doing it? If it is building and molding something new then why are you focusing on the impact to the present? One can only hope that Booz, Allen, Hamilton’s “advanced practitioners” with their “graduate level certification in change management” (an almost automatic prerequisite for independents- interesting they would choose to call that out) can work around old assumptions with their “paradigm changing”.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, Buyer, C level, CEO, change awareness, change failure, change management, change management consultant, change management strategy, corporate strategy, engagement, Fees, Garrett Gitchell
WHAT?
This site Sourcing Change is doing a strange semantic spin.
The premise of the site, the company and the blog posts supporting it is that change management can be an “outsourced” activity. Use your own definition, but mine for that word has something to do with “miles away, spoken in a second language”.
Webster’s take:
Definition of OUTSOURCE
transitive verb
: to procure (as some goods or services needed by a business or organization) under contract with an outside supplier <decided to outsource some back-office operations>
Examples of OUTSOURCE
- The company outsources many of its jobs to less developed countries.
- The work was outsourced to a factory in China.
The definition could be any contracting or consulting, but the example is my version. I think the visceral reaction will always be that of the examples.
So framing your brand around “that word” is a very strange way to view CM. Unless, of course, you are in a big firm or come from a big firm background. That approach is often the same as throwing the problem miles away, saving money and just giving the change thing a chance to flesh itself out on its own.
Ultimately this is not helpful to the rest of us (and our clients) who see CM a little differently (semantics aside).
Change needs responsibility and accountability
Transformation, culture transition, socialization and culturization all require a guiding hand. Stakeholders need responsibility to see their effort as worthwhile. They need accountability to participate fully. Your measure, as a leader, of the accountability of a big firm or a firm that labels itself as an “outsourcer” is not the gauge your stakeholders use. That measure does not tie in well to stakeholders view of the change itself.
CM needs to be visible
CM can be a powerful leverage tool for big transformational change and small operational tweaks. With the right ingredients in the mix people actually enjoy change. If that is not the case in your organization you need to find out why. Ah, therein lies your argument against an outsourcing perspective and for a visible-with-a-chance-for-face-to-face partnership.
Visible can be with your internal resources or with external influence. Just make sure you understand the importance and effect of visibility and speak that language. Partnership signals inclusion and empowerment (and a little monitoring to boot). Outsourcing signals invisible peeling off and separating- less inclusive, the wrong kind of empowerment (and a weak one).
Separating CM from operations is a waste
While CM may operate as a separate thing (in order to elevate it and disconnect it from the usual measures see: Corporate Change Management entity) it still quickly intertwines with day to day operations. Done well with some foresight and focus CM can find lots of inefficiencies, savings and places to improve process, structure and people.
Outsourced, literally outside the walls of the company, or figuratively with the wrong perspective not operational intertwining. When it does try to weave itself in a firestorm ensues from the foreign influence.
Partner with an external influence in a close knit (visible and solid) tie to the change and operations and you will get back anything you could have saved on that outsource model. The value add is that good will is PRICELESS.
Separate and Separated is a bad combination
This “outsource” thing is separated, on purpose (stakeholders will put together all the reasons they think it went this way- none helpful for your change) and possibly a little sneaky. Bad combination.
In fairness the blog post that drew me in, which has some interesting thoughts on change and middle management. And I am wondering if there is an British English version of outsourcing that does not carry the negative?
Change benefits from external influences, but only if a partnership is formed with those responsible and accountable within the organization. Nothing about the change process works well “outsourced”. Outsourcing, when it comes to change, should only apply to specific deliverables (maybe a training module as an example) and be closely monitored within the partnership.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, Buyer, C level, CCM, CEO, Change Design, change management consultant, External Consultant, Fees, Value
A LinkedIn discussion has popped up in the Organizational Change Practitioners group about CM deliverables.
This is a hot spot for me for two reasons:
one some consultants actually push deliverables to make more money
and two organizations measure by deliverable which can be extremely inefficient- especially for CM.
So here is an inside peek (unless you happen to be a member of this group) at my post-the question was whether clients ask for deliverables at times when we as practitioners would consider the exercise unnecessary:
“My experience says it is particularly a problem (I chose that word carefully) in the middle of organizations, for anyone who has been exposed to "turnkey" CM marketing and for project focused mentalities.
1. Happens because that is the way organizations measure performance, with "tangibles". Since it is tough, and subjective, to measure non-tangibles you move up by creating a trail of deliverables that can be counted. Unfortunately there are some CM’s (three cheers to you [“you” was the poster] for not being in this category) who fall prey to this circle.
2. Carry that a little further and by offering a big ‘ol list of templates and hard copy deliverables you can "cater" to this client desire. Oh and you can make a lot of money by putting a price tag (and licensing) on each of those "tangibles". And let’s face it the majority of consultants out there get a magic tingle every time they get to show their pet model (of the 100′s of very similar models out there) to someone. Getting the client to force them to and then making more money in the exchange- well that is the cat’s meow!
3. Which plays well to that kind of client- there are, thankfully, clients who fall in your (OK obviously our) category of "deliverables when necessary"- typically seated in a spot where the accomplishment of specific tasks is not the measure- overall success is.
There is nothing wrong with a powerful deliverable.
At the beginning there will always be a picture of some sort (a change plan, a mind map, a redesigned org chart, a change 101 hand out etc.). Should the client have the budget and desire there will also be something at the end that measures and illustrates CM effect and usefulness for sustainability and repeatability. Obviously there will be communication "deliverables" (emails, newsletters, portals, wikis, web sites etc.).
And along the way there will be things on paper that help the "recognizing issues, avoiding pitfalls, re-engaging, persuading, coaching, informal communications" [the posters words]. But we create those independent of any measure or client request- they are to guide on the path to end states, not to be turned in to someone.
Ah, now how to handle this apparently impenetrable perspective (fueled in part by those practitioners that insist CM can be scientific and black and white- you know like people are…that is another long discussion). I make a point of discussing your question with clients at the relationship building stage, before a proposal and before a contract.
I let them know it will be tempting to add an addendum to the contract every time they request something written down that only satisfies their status quo and does not move us toward the end state. It costs them and, yes, profits me in what I would consider an ethical choice. They will begin to ask why. If they can answer that, yes, from my perspective (through their eyes) it will embolden them to strongly request. At that point I usually acquiesce (or get someone internal to play the game- they are well trained).
Since I know I will create my own hard copy potential "deliverables" anyway, to wrap my head around the engagement, I give them that Possible list. If they insist on some phase reporting I contract in a conversion of my stuff into theirs.
And lastly, the best clients are those who do not operate this way. They are higher in the organization where they do not have to constantly run things past executives, because they ARE the executives. They pin their success on the kind of deliverables that are highly visible, seen by all and must truly illustrate (and maybe measure) something. Creating THAT kind of deliverable helps our cause and gets clients to end states.”
A few caveats for the blog venue-
You could be a client in the middle or the organization with the right kind of power levers and a solid connection to the executive with the cash. If you are then you have the ability to operate as if you were the owner.
I too play the deliverable game when it is needed to get to the end state. Creating the deliverable scenario in the contracting process not only does not make sense I think is questionable ethically.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, change management consultant, End State, External Consultant, Fees, vision to work
Change Management in 2012 is taking on a new, broadened appeal. A good CM figures things out, makes sense of the world and inspires others to act (yes same as a leader but the measurement of success is different). It is everywhere and beginning to touch just about everything that is a project, a program, an initiative or part of the near and distant future. Change is ubiquitous.
That being the case how best to engage the intuition, energy and advantage of Change Management consultants?
- As a trusted advisor to C level (all C level leadership or just the CEO). My playful post on this- here or Change Management Trusted Advisor for another and for a C level Change Management Primer C level advisory is your most powerful option. High level, visible, supported Change has a very real chance of busting the bogus 70% failure stat.
- As a leader of a major engagement. This tends to be a giant IT initiative (not the best way to introduce CM). It can just as easily be a giant Non IT initiative (and may have an IT component- technology is also ubiquitous :-)). This option could be in conjunction with number one by using multiple consultants. It is also a version that can combine internal (number two) with external (number one) to completely leverage CM.
- To guide a project. Project being a single stream of work for a specific (usually small) objective. Change Management can be layered on to project management. This can work, is a less expensive option than the above and serves as an intro or pilot of change management as a partner and process. Multiple projects quickly become programs so this step is, theoretically scalable (there are a host of pitfalls to this approach- I am tempted to say you get what you pay for…oops just said it). I will confess this is the version that makes the most sense for a small business for introduction and to build future capacity and capability.
- The surprise option. Not as a covert effort to weasel in CM, but as a simple alternative to begin to change individual and cultural behavior. A little positive behavior change is great support for the big stuff later. This under the radar work is the least expensive option with, arguably, the best impact. It is also a way to get the best of the best external consultant if you are a flexible client (willing to share your senior consultant and his/her time).
The “turnkey” version? A change entity at the top of the organization-Corporate Change Management.
One to four is most expensive to less expensive, likely most effective to more specific, but also most complicated to less “intrusive”. Flip the order for simplest to most complicated. Establish a high level change entity if you are strategic and preparing for the future. Or just go a la carte and pick the engagement method that matches your organizations future needs and current motivation.
Change Management is a project, program, initiative, senior level, individual effect advantage for your organization now and into the future. Choose your engagement method wisely.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, CEO, change management, change management consultant, External Consultant, Fees, vision to work
As I add years on to my change management/OD/HR/Training/etc. journey I get, more and more, the question, “how do you become a change management consultant?”. And from the client side,” how did you get to where you are?” and “what is the typical path for a change management career?”.
Knowledge is power (I am thinking of the client side here, but it is true for up and coming practitioners too) so I will throw out some observations for you-
Possible visits along the career path:
Internal
I personally have had this as a requirement from clients (which I barely filled) and had clients look for the exact opposite. To have never been internal is often viewed as “untainted”. That is my word, but can be interpreted from the client words of independent, non-political, results oriented etc.
The four versions-
- A long internal stretch that ends abruptly (a laid off or terminated executive).
- Stints as an employee of a consulting firm either out of necessity or strategically to fill in gaps in expertise (client focused or a desire of the consultant to try something new). Confession- my stint as a Big 3 consultant was both. This is almost a universally valued component of a change career.
- Starting at a big consulting firm which is its own specific path. This is either valued for its regimented approach or not so for its potential lack of creative thinking (don’t flame me if you have worked in or with one of the big firms you will know what I mean- a place and spot for everything in the world).
- An actual employee internal role at a corporation. Obviously something Director or higher carries cache. My observation though it is a different career path than an external consultant. I am sure there are examples of senior executives who have gone out on their own (the best I would guess being the ones who planned the departure rather than our first bullet). What I have seen is a difficult struggle with being a consultant. The “power” is different. The decision making is through someone else. The rest of the business (marketing, sales, development, bills) comes with the package. You have to be strong, friendly, humble and fiercely determined in a completely different way than an internal executive.
Contracting
The sign is out. The person is a consultant. After the first wave of pulling from every single contact you know (and everyone your 90 year old grandparents know) there comes a lull ( lull is a nice word- fill in more painful synonyms here). In a perfect world, somehow your marketing kicks in, your referral chain works for you without prodding, the lull turns into a rest period.
The world is not perfect.
So consultants contract. They pick up work with other consultants on projects. They respond to ads from staffing firms. They try to connect just below their ability in the food chain to provide extra value. They do whatever they can to fill in revenue.
That was the client paragraph. For the consultant, especially a new or fairly new consultant, contract work can be fantastic for your resume. What you lose in compensation can be made up for with experience, another company on your resume, new contacts etc.
Both clients and consultants need to understand that contracting is rarely true consulting. It is typically a replacement employee arrangement. Clients who create these scenarios (or are sucked in by the tremendous vacuum of third parties- throw out money that is easy to get with little skill but a nice voice and you will have droves of little companies popping up- think real estate during the boom) are usually in the middle of the organization or lower and are intensely task focused. My own version of the definition of consulting includes a level of strategy. If the work is placed below the organizations strategy level then it is contracting.
There is value in contracting (both learning and delivery) and there is value in consulting. To differentiate benefits both client and rising consultant.
Fake Consulting
A vacuum forms, it gets filled instantly by the hungry and then demand diminishes. Next business move for the hungry? Differentiate. Show value. Beat out all the other hungry parties. Since the word consultant has a much better ring than “contractor”, “third party”, “middleman”, “staffing firm” call yourself a consulting firm. Make it look like you are a boutique firm that provides experienced talent. Distract the client from your actual role to stand out from your competitors.
As clients do not fall for this- it is a business development ploy to put you in their stable. Believe me they are all contacting the same people. The pipeline is not secret. It is visible, easy to connect with and, important to add, cheaper when done directly.
For up and coming consultants. It matters not what firm you use to build your resume and/or fill in revenue. Just be conscious of when you are contracting and when you are consulting. You are the resource; make sure everyone understands that. Believe me third parties will never take you out of their address book. The most unnerving of recruiters always calls me for the next role even after I have “explained” the environment they are in.
It is really tempting to put a list up of the fake firms…
Partnering
This is great for client and consultant.
For client you can actually get the teams the big firms promise. Because…well… in this environment it is the same people- and cheaper (and happier and easier to develop a relationship with). For consultant this is where boutiques can get big leverage. What client would not want to work with the partners in each specialty? What client would not want to be able to contact those people anytime they want (imagine a partnership of independent consultants on a retainer- think tank at your beck and call)?
For the consultant this leverages you into higher roles, increases visibility, shows your teamwork skills and opens up new opportunities. But consultant beware. Small firms trying to grow (rather than a group of well compensated individuals that deliver) will not want you to use your own moniker and brand. Fight this tooth and nail. Create actual partnerships of your own and let them use their own name.
Sub contracting quickly becomes a downward spiral. Despite the fact that non-competes (at least in my state) are illegal, or at least unenforceable, there are some doozies showing up. Have your first born child at the ready at all times- someone will ask. And clients understand this environment. Ever dollar extra that is added in for someone else,s overhead is a dollar less in your pocket to use later. Either eliminate the middleman or use resources with low overhead so the skim is smaller.
Direct
The pot of gold for everyone.
For the consultant or want to be consultant I do not have to list the advantages.
It is to the clients that this needs to be called out. Unless you intend to disrupt communication, relationships and your connection to business objectives why would you want any person or firm in the middle? I am looking for your answer here not the one fed to you by the middlemen. I wish for a year I could be a high level client with resource needs. If I had to compete against someone trying to use third parties I could not help but win.
The consultant version to call out is the “I own the client mentality”. Frankly that is obnoxious. And I am one of only a few who believes this. Why on earth as a client would I want to be “owned”? And carrying that one step further, “wouldn’t that lock me in to a pricing/value structure?”. If I was a client I would want to be able to make my own decisions about price, value and delivery. No one would own me. And I would not fear third parties closing down my pipeline. They hold no secrets- believe me.
Contract Employment
This one is showing up (as I predicted) in 2011. We really like things to be internal, it gives us more control, this may drag on longer than two years, we want the leverage that a high leader brings in terms of decision making… How about we create a hybrid? Like an interim C level leader.
Good and bad.
As a consultant this might just be your chance to fill in the internal piece, get a higher level engagement than you might be able to contract on you own and have a chance to actually make and be responsible for decisions (which I think is the value of the internal fill in). But you will be an employee. On the first day you will lose your external advantage unless you make a point of illustrating this is an interim role (which will kill your ability to get decisions implemented). It is a nasty double edged sword.
For the organization this might be a good thing to experiment with a high level change leader (I have seen a couple of these roles this year). A senior high level CM practitioner knows engagements move in three month increments with 2 years as a decision point. A two year high level role to create a change structure in your organization might just be a good idea. I would be very choosy about the person you pick. And do not be afraid if they look at a big picture that has as much to do with the future as the problems you face now.
The change career path is not clear, because clients expectations and perspectives vary (immensely). The change path is not clear because practitioners interests, ability and comfort level vary. The path is filled with third parties, laid off executives, some sneaky business practices, fear and time constraints (and measures). Tread lightly; tread smartly, client and consultant.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, Buyer, C level, CEO, change management, change management consultant, External Consultant, Fees, vision to work
2011 must be right around the corner and there must be some planning going on because my blog stats are showing a lock and load pattern- to the point where different unique visitors are picking the same posts to read. Isn’t Social Media cool?!
To save you a little time here is their “lock and load” list-
- Defining Change Management
- The Cost of Change Management
- Quick Wins
- C level Trusted Advisor
- CM from the past
- We do not need Change Management
- Imagine
- No Buy-in
- The Change Process
- Organic Change
My favorite (#10) made the list. Here is another to add that I like and think is important C Level Primer the first four tend to actually be viewed in order. Interesting…
My thoughts
If you are about to embark on a Change path it is smart, and perhaps comforting, to have a better understanding of what CM is, what it might cost, tips, how high up in your organization should this be, lessons from the past, what happens if you just let things go the way they will, how to start and who does this CM thing. This is a good list for that.
What I would suggest is to be careful of theories, models, psycho babble (or the real psychology behind individual change which is consistently misinterpreted and misapplied) and anyone who has a solution. Despite some serious pushes otherwise CM is an art based on science when appropriate. It tends to defy metrics, because it is, after all, about People. They are difficult to measure, those people.
Look for a balance of internal and external for your resources. Be very careful of ownership of change wrapped around power or potential individual advancement- stakeholders see right through that and ratchet down their participation accordingly.
CM is about people…and business. People get things done (and so business happens) through process and structure. Do not herd into the pen if there is a hole in the fence.
I welcome comments, push back, agreement, your examples and suggestions for other topics. If you blog you know it is hard to tell who is out there and if they find you what they think. I am all ears. Thanks for stopping by. I will try to keep spinning CM to make it worth your while to come back.
Technorati Tags: Buyer, CEO, change awareness, change management consultant, Executive, Fees, Garrett Gitchell, vision to work
Let’s switch perspective.
This is obviously going to be my own list, but I have hashed this over enough with peers to get a general sense.
- They must be the owner.
- I personally look for third horizontal and above, but maybe that goes without saying by mentioning the owner.
They must have enough money in the coffers or budgeted to make CM at least 70% effective (100% would be great, but, since CM relies so much on organizational structure and process no client has enough money).
They must be bold, daring and courageous or have the potential for at least one.
A good client expects push back and welcomes different perspectives.
A good client also knows how to make a decision by blending the previous two bullets.
An excellent client is both not afraid and not too competitive with other functions.
A client that can feed into successful change has visibility and leverage. And yes power helps too.
A good client contracts well both written and verbal for expectations and measures of success.
I have learned that a smart client takes advantage of discounts for prepays. That way they can lock in budget, good for them. That way the consultant is not at the whim of either the client or the budget and can expect to have the time needed for effect.
A good client paves the way for success for themselves and for the consultant guiding initiatives. They do that with empathy, confidence and humility- the executive competency cocktail.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, Buyer, C level, CEO, change management, change management consultant, Executive, External Consultant, Fees, Garrett Gitchell, horizontal change management, strategy, Value, vision to work
From my own experiences in 35+ different companies the clients often get what they do not want because that is what they pay for. As I usually do I have to differentiate between middle of the organization clients and first through third level clients (at least the ones who do not constantly pass priorities down the chain). C-level and SVP leaders usually want solutions so they will look for resources with our categories in mind. Mid level leaders are measured by tasks so there pattern of fitting resources into their mind set is a way to reduce the influences that slow down the accomplishment of tasks (validity of those tasks is another post).
Talent
The clients surveyed in the Cap Gemini 2004 study felt that consulting firms were not getting the best talent.
- A big firm like Cap Gemini is likely not sending their best talent (unless you are willing to pay through the gills for it). They send the newly minted MBA’s so the partners can focus on business development.
- Big firms have their own approach, “consultants” really are contractors- there is little lee way for consulting with the owner of the engagement. The client also has a predetermined viewpoint. Consulting is helping to morph that viewpoint into something more effective.
- Knowing the above, the best consultants choose to go it alone or work with small firms (which is one of the reasons big firms can’t get true good talent). But since the previous pattern is set in stone and has the leverage of the dollars clients spend for overhead even those talented fight to truly consult.
Communication
Clients do not want “telling” consultants, which is telling since that is what a lot of clients do- tell before listening. It is a two way street that must be broken by a strong pre engagement contracting discussion- even better the same as a relationship established. This area always gets me. I do not understand why consultants so quickly develop an ego that overpowers empathy and listening skills. Granted there are many situations where the client is way off, but that is equally true of the consultants.
Objectivity
If you know the client will pay to follow their predetermined path then you move as fast as possible to figure out and integrate yourself into the clients internal politics. If you are operating as a contractor and have chosen that path (rather than an independent trying to fill in revenue- a consultant in the wrong place at the wrong time) this is the situation you like- one step away from employment with a little more flexibility. Going native is a quick path to task accomplishment and visibility. Clients pay for that- I meant with cash to purchase resources but both meanings apply. If a true consultant has lost the will to overcome this organizational pattern they will go native because it feels good and because the closer to an individual we work the easier it is to feel and create accomplishment. Which is why a lot of consultants become coaches.
Reality
Clients pay for small wins. A good consultant starts to feel bad about the small-win-pat-yourself-on-the-back mentality early on. They know that the future would work better for the client if bigger picture elements get tackled. There is a realistic spot between small and big. Well designed big necessitates lots of small wins (small ,not necessarily quick- a different reality equation).
Clients need to force consultants into this discussion, find the reality on their own (tough to do and the effects of, the reason consultants exist in many situations) or bring in practitioners who have the flexibility and experience to know that the reality discussion is the foundation of the consulting practice.
Goals
Will always need contracting up front. Consultants look for sustainable solutions. While clients may wish for that they are rarely able to, or willing to, pay for it. But they usually do, pay for it. Which circles us back to the original “small task” conundrum.
There is a reality equation between client and consultant that must be agreed on at the start of an engagement. A good consultant, more interested in solution/effect than revenue growth, will make this discussion happen. Stir in a client who understands this reality formula and you can quickly get to the first win toward a bigger picture end state.
Technorati Tags: Big Picture, business objectives, Buyer, C level, CEO, change management, Executive, External Consultant, Fees, Garrett Gitchell, Value, vision to work
A study from Cap Gemini done in 2004 revealed talent, communication, objectivity, reality and goals as areas clients perceived consulting firms need to adapt.
They had to craft a study for that?
They could have asked any smart, versatile independent (this is one those 5 minute value based answers worth millions) and gotten the same answer (probably better).
Some tidbits and observations-
Clients want value; consultants want profit.
This falls in the goals category. Consulting firms want profit (to cover overhead). Independents (or very small firms) want fair compensation, the smart ones using value as the measure. The endless quest for profit with big firms has obvious effects- case in point here that the clients see the intense focus. Partners in large firms spend most of their actual time and probably close to all of their thought time on business development. Independents don’t (which tends to get them in trouble from a revenue stand point, but that is a different post).
Clients see consultants as telling rather than listening with a tendency toward preordained solutions.
Here is where practically all consulting firms and most consultants veer off from the role of consultant. Preordained solutions, predetermined models, pet theories, guru worship in many ways eliminate the ability to actually consult, before the engagement even begins. Funny thing here- for those profit hungry firms this should be a no brainer- listening takes time, we bill by the hour, cha-ching profit.
Those “pre” packages though, carry more profit since they often have licensing, material purchase and the ability to lock the client into one approach so they have to choose the same firm for the next engagement.
This area is a shame since listening is powerful, enjoyable and done well by a consultant focused on value- profitable.
Consultants too quickly align with the company’s culture.
This, to me, is the difference between external and internal. Externals choose to be flexible, have a broader perspective and be a member of multiple groups. When they go native they usually convert to employment status. Those who stay external understand the draw toward alignment, the effects that has on change (change is the conversion of current status quo to a new one- the consultant should be focusing on the new status quo) and the necessity to plan ahead. Two years seems to be a magic number. Even one year with a highly political internal culture can be a number to move on from.
Here is my post on the clients accountability in this area, http://horizontalchange.com/2010/06/the-economy-and-tribal-mentality/.
Clients want achievable; consultants want optimistic and complex.
Guilty as charged.
Big firms guilty as charged because complicated means more time which means more profit.
The problem here is that achievable usually does not buck the status quo enough to create the value the client was looking for in the first place. This category is more prevalent in the middle of the organization because rewards are based on getting things done, labeled “accomplishments”, rather than future solutions.
The compromise is, I shudder to say this, but, quick wins. There is, obviously looking closely at these client areas, a trust issue. Trust thrives on success and accomplishment (even when and sometimes especially when, the accomplishment is subjectively measured). Creating achievable tasks within a more complex engagement is valuable. And value provided by a good consultant.
Clients want value; consultants want profit.
This deserves repeating. Clients must be careful not to have price weigh too heavy on their consultant choices. If you are truly looking for value then you want to capitalize on everything the consultant has to offer while they are on your dime. Consultants who refuse to compete on price usually have lots of extra value to offer. Because they listen they will also find things not included in the original contract that provide value. If you are considering large consulting firms then price is obviously not an issue (they will always be more expensive- overhead). Just remember your original value equation.
Good consultants want solutions that are achievable (maybe incrementally). Value based consultants contract with that in mind. It, for smaller firms, is not difficult to align results with cost. That alignment is the value clients are looking for.
Technorati Tags: business objectives, engagement, External Consultant, Fees, Garrett Gitchell, Value, vision to work
|
|
