According to Michael Treacy, consultants have earned a bad reputation for
failing to create value with clients in the following ways (as quoted in Consulting
Magazine of November/December 2003):
The cost/value proposition is bad, because the client is paying 3 to 7x what
the consultants are paid (presumably titled toward the lower end) and getting
“formulaic” results that are pedestrian and do not show unique insight into the
industry or the functional domains. (This is particularly referring to the Big
Five leveraged practices where a team of lower-level consultants are left on the
client’s premises to do work according to a mapped-out process approach.)
There is not enough true mastery-level expertise going into the problem-
solving because senior partners, who may possess this level of mastery, are only
spending a small fraction of their time on these leveraged assignments. Often,
too, they cost too much on an hourly basis to afford their more extensive
participation.
The firms, particularly the Big Five, had not delivered the promised
benefits/results, particularly in the case of large systems integration projects.
The client views these as expensive (very expensive exercises) that have had no
fundamental ROI for the firms. Worse, these firms have had to dismantle and/or
constantly repair the damage left behind by consultants who have installed
packaged solutions that are over-engineered and don’t really equate to what the
firm needs to do its business effectively and cost-efficiently.
There is no true collaboration with the clients. Consultants have solutions
that are pre-packaged and largely shoved down the clients’ throats, and they are
often at odds with what the client really needs or in a competitive position with
the clients. Consultants need to engage the clients on an empathetic basis,
become part of the team, and stay in the trenches until the product is delivered
on a team basis.
Because clients are skeptical of the consultants’ value proposition, they
tend to want a new approach that has the consultant putting his skin in the
game, with a commitment to a time line for delivery of milestone tasks and
benefits. In fact, clients are moving toward asking consultants to guarantee
results within timelines of 60, 90, 120, 180 days and so on.
failing to create value with clients in the following ways (as quoted in Consulting
Magazine of November/December 2003):
The cost/value proposition is bad, because the client is paying 3 to 7x what
the consultants are paid (presumably titled toward the lower end) and getting
“formulaic” results that are pedestrian and do not show unique insight into the
industry or the functional domains. (This is particularly referring to the Big
Five leveraged practices where a team of lower-level consultants are left on the
client’s premises to do work according to a mapped-out process approach.)
There is not enough true mastery-level expertise going into the problem-
solving because senior partners, who may possess this level of mastery, are only
spending a small fraction of their time on these leveraged assignments. Often,
too, they cost too much on an hourly basis to afford their more extensive
participation.
The firms, particularly the Big Five, had not delivered the promised
benefits/results, particularly in the case of large systems integration projects.
The client views these as expensive (very expensive exercises) that have had no
fundamental ROI for the firms. Worse, these firms have had to dismantle and/or
constantly repair the damage left behind by consultants who have installed
packaged solutions that are over-engineered and don’t really equate to what the
firm needs to do its business effectively and cost-efficiently.
There is no true collaboration with the clients. Consultants have solutions
that are pre-packaged and largely shoved down the clients’ throats, and they are
often at odds with what the client really needs or in a competitive position with
the clients. Consultants need to engage the clients on an empathetic basis,
become part of the team, and stay in the trenches until the product is delivered
on a team basis.
Because clients are skeptical of the consultants’ value proposition, they
tend to want a new approach that has the consultant putting his skin in the
game, with a commitment to a time line for delivery of milestone tasks and
benefits. In fact, clients are moving toward asking consultants to guarantee
results within timelines of 60, 90, 120, 180 days and so on.
"We Cure Insomnia"...Solving
the problems that keep
executives up at night
the problems that keep
executives up at night
The way to create a differentiated
consulting practice for Cousins
Group is to essentially reverse the
equation outlined here and deliver a
commitment-type practice with
specified benefits delivered at
determined times by gurus in the
relevant industry, domain and
technology areas.
consulting practice for Cousins
Group is to essentially reverse the
equation outlined here and deliver a
commitment-type practice with
specified benefits delivered at
determined times by gurus in the
relevant industry, domain and
technology areas.
Contact us:
310 766 4092
Jay@cousinsgroupllc.com
310 766 4092
Jay@cousinsgroupllc.com
Value Added Proposition
 |  |  |  |  |
