When asked what they used consultants for, the focus groups confirmed what many IMC members already knew. The main reasons being: the need for change within an organisation; the need to resolve an internal business issue; and the need to apply additional resources or specialist skills to a project. Some participants agreed that it was easier and more effective to bring in consultants on a short-term basis than to employ additional staff. Consultants, they said, brought added commitment to a project; the advantage of an external view and the particular skills of facilitation, business planning and change management.
All participants agreed that senior-level support was vital for the success of a project. As Stuart Pole, director at Business Development Associates and observer of one group, explained:
“A consultancy project may lead to significant changes within a company which need board-level approval. It is therefore highly beneficial to have publicised board-level support and authorisation for the project right from its inception.”
Conversely, any project initiated from the top requires the support of the staff that would be working on it. Participants felt that bringing in a consultant was a positive move and should be promoted as such within the organisation.
The criteria of choice: compatibility and credibility
Finding a consultant presented a problem for most of the attendees.
Various methods had been developed from using Yellow Pages to networking at cocktail parties or cold-calling. Nearly all participants had gone to the lengths of tendering; public-sector managers had little choice if the project was above a certain size. This tendering process was seen as a good way of motivating prospective consultants and a useful way of involving client management in the project design. It also allowed clients to make a better assessment of the time and costs involved in their project.
However, participants were wary of presentations made by sales teams or senior partners and stressed the importance of meeting the consultants who would actually be doing the work.
As most IMC members know, personal compatibility and credibility were the two most important criteria on which a consultant was chosen. For this reason, personal recommendation was considered to be a convenient and effective method of selection. Credibility of the consultant was also an important basis for gaining support for the project in-house.
The right balance
Choosing the right consultant was, essentially, the single most important element affecting the success of a project. It overrode initial considerations of price and meant that many clients would live with their problem for longer rather than appoint the wrong person. The need for trust and good rapport underlies the nature of the consultancy process.
Most clients were conscious of their lack of training or experience in the management of consultants. It was inappropriate for the client to treat a consultant like a member of staff or, conversely, for the consultant to dictate to the client. Crucial to success, therefore, is getting the balance right. Many of the best projects resulted where there was a learning process on both sides.
Tim Connolly CMC, director of Partners for Change and facilitator of one focus group, argued that one of the most important issues to come out of these discussions was the consultant’s need to learn from the client.
“Clients have a large stake in the consultancy process; they have learnt a great deal about working with consultants and can provide a sophisticated view of how the consultancy process should evolve,” he said.
It is equally important for staff not to feel threatened by a consultant.
Staff resistance can be overcome by effective communication. This, as Jan Childs, director of Management Development Partnership and facilitator of one focus group, suggests, should be a two-way process, ” in any work situation, people need to feel that their views are respected and valued”.
It is important, therefore, for the culture of the organisation to be understood by the consultant and for them to be prepared to treat their project as a collaboration.
Good and bad experiences
All participants felt that involving the consultant in the design of the project led to a more focused work schedule and a better understanding of the extent of the project. Involving the client from early on and all the way through the implementation stage was cited as good practice.
Tighter and more immovable deadlines tended to produce better project results. One participant from the public sector had found that the only way to make sure a project was delivered on schedule was to employ consultants rather than use in-house resources. Some clients pointed out that consultants who spent longer on the project not only cost more in fees but also ran the risk of “going native” – losing their independent, external view.
Clients definitely felt there was an established and expanding market for the small practitioner although they were more difficult to find.
The large practices are well-known but not always suited to every type of project; in some cases they failed to provide the individual, bespoke service required by the client.
What clients want
It is apparent that clients want a larger stake in the whole process and that the IMC, as a professional body, could be the meeting point for both sides. Clients want more advice on managing projects and negotiating fees as well as practical help in finding a consultant.
Objective validation of consultants is also a vital service; keeping a record of consultants with client endorsement and maintaining a visible and stringent accreditation and disciplinary process were two suggestions which the IMC fully supports.
Feedback about the focus groups themselves has been very encouraging.
The participants expended considerable time and effort in attending the groups. Each had a considerable input to make and it was a useful opportunity for like-minded senior-level managers to exchange advice and ideas.
The IMC is extremely grateful to all the participants for their interest in, and support of, this project.
A report on the findings is available from Sam Evans at the IMC at a cost of u20.