As I sit here to start my day I am thinking, as usual, about how to help make my customers successful. I run the Professional Services team for Kinaxis. This can be a difficult chore as there are competing priorities in projects: typically time, money and quality. I read many articles on consulting to try and continually improve the services my team delivers.
One article in particular caught my eye and got me thinking today. It was a guest post on Sourcing Innovation by Robert Rudzki of Greybeard Advisors, entitled “Consultants: Use Them Intelligently”. One of the takeaways from the article is that companies must think about why they are hiring consultants and how to use them most effectively.
The article speaks in general terms about companies hiring consultants. He states his “key learnings can be boiled down to the following chart.”
|
What Typically Happens |
Leading Edge Practice |
|
Top-down directive that the procurement department will work with a specific consulting firm |
Procurement leader takes the initiative and sends an RFI to a broad range of potential service providers (large and small firms; consulting vs. advisory firms); short list invited to respond to an RFP |
|
Selection criteria unknown, beyond assumed personal relationships at the executive level |
Selection criteria established as part of the RFP process, and are consistent with the needs/desires of the procurement organization and the company |
|
Consulting firm uses “A” team to manage the executive relationship, but sends the “B” team of inexperienced junior consultants to learn on the job and “do the project” |
Firm is selected only after ironclad assurances that the “A” team of experienced advisors will be assigned; resumes of advisors are provided; and the client is encouraged to interview each advisor. |
|
Consulting agreement is rigid and aggressive, requiring a hard commitment to a large number of full-time consultants for a defined timeframe (often 6 to 12 months, or more). |
Agreement is flexible, reflecting the client’s workplace realities, needs and timing |
|
Consulting firm disrupts everyone’s “regular job” in bid to ensure that its project is everyone’s priority and is a success |
Firm works with the reality of client’s workplace and schedule, and is careful not to be a disruptive force |
|
After consulting firm leaves, reported “savings” start to evaporate or can’t be found |
Firm has embedded processes and capabilities into the client organization, which now can create more successes on its own |
Greybeard Advisor LLC, All Rights Reserved
In summary, he states “One of the fundamental choices you need to consider is whether you want to employ a ‘consultant’ or an ‘advisor’. The distinction is not just semantics, it is core to what you are trying to achieve.”
Because I work for the Professional Services arm of a software company I think my chart would be slightly different.
|
What Typically Happens |
Leading Edge Practice |
|
Pressure on cost drives procurement behavior – customer may force (or try to force) a fixed fee arrangement immediately putting two companies in contentious arrangement where teams do not collaborate effectively on solution. |
Understand that implementing a SCM solution is unique to each customer and customer will want to have flexibility in how they implement their solution to meet company needs and not be forced into a box based on price. |
|
Success criteria not fully defined – Many times customer has not adequately defined criteria of success for the project. Some believe that because the software is implemented the project will be successful and that is not the case. |
Clearly defined success criteria documented in the ‘Statement of Work’ so both teams are working toward the same goal. |
|
Customer typically fights over Project Management costs – doesn’t want to pay for any as they will assign their own PM. |
Each team should have their own Project Manager assigned. Consulting company does not know the customer’s environment and people, and Customer does not know how to implement software. These do not typically need to be full time roles. |
|
Customer focuses on how many full time equivalents will be on the project to ensure they are getting their money’s worth, rather than focus on activities to be performed. |
Agreement outlines core activities to be performed and the amount of time required to perform those activities, reducing cost for customer. |
|
Customer cannot dedicate people to the team, but yet they want the project completed ASAP. |
Customer should work with consulting firm to realistically assess who they can have available to work on the project and how much time they have available. This could elongate the project, but lack of appropriate resources will not ensure success. |
I find that many customers do treat consultants implementing software as “consultants” rather than “advisors” because they are focused on the task of getting the software implemented rather than the end solution.
I think we as software vendors need to ensure we are doing our job by educating the customers that they are implementing a total solution and not just software. And I also agree with the author’s final point: “To use a familiar analogy: Do you want someone to hand your team a fish dinner, or do you want your team to learn how to be successful fisherman themselves while they catch their first few fish?”
TrackBack
• Digg This
• Add to del.icio.us
Tags: Supply chain management software
Posted in Best practices
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Great post, so real world.
Boy do I agree with this article. As a supply chain practitioner and senior supply manager and consultant as well for many years, I have a real disdain for the term “Consultant”, especially if, as you suggest, the solution or process change proposed is being driven by some corporate CEO team 5,000 miles away who has never been to your operation nor does he know or care where your operation stands in managing it’s own improvement projects. This is not exclusively a solution seller issue but as well an issue within the customers organization with head strong CEO teams who have no clue what’s going on in their own organizations and don’t really care. The real issue here is that there are a lot of head strong CEOs who don’t know what their doing and solution/process sellers have learned to pray on this deficiency in the corporate approach to managing change. If not done properly a forced solution/process change or implementation can take an organization backward as opposed to forward in real end performance and disrupt the supply chain and customer loyalty for years into the future.
What does everyone think of the importance of using online simulation games for learning and developing your own supply chain and logistics?
Such as this one:
http://www.thefreshconnection.co.uk