| | By Mick James
People often ask me
what I see as the
emerging trends in
consultancy, and often
react with
disappointment when I
tell them consultancy
seems to be going
through a bit of a "no
trend" trend. The chance
of a repeat of something
like the BPR fad seems
about as likely as a
repeat of Beatlemania.
But there do seem to be
some emerging concerns,
and one of them seems to
be about size. People
worry about how big
their firm should be,
and what will happen to
their culture if it
grows beyond a certain
size. No-one seems to be
worrying that their
consultancy firm is too
big. But maybe they
should be.
I've been to enough
conferences recently,
both in this industry
and beyond, to know that
globalisation is a big
issue for a lot of big
companies. They worry
that while they've
successfully rolled out
the branding and the
global ad campaigns,
behind the logo the
reality is different:
we're not really a
global firm; we're a
networked professional
service franchise, or a
patchwork of
acquisitions. They
bemoan their lack of
common processes, their
inability to share
knowledge and contacts,
the lack of a common | |
|
| | view of the business.
And they're willing to
spend a lot of time and
money to put it right.
I can't tell you the
names of any of these
organisations, but it
doesn't matter. I
suspect that I could
have been on the other
side of town listening
to the deliberations of
their deadliest rivals
and heard much the same
thing. The funny thing
is that while they're
all in the same boat,
they all seem to have
swallowed each other's
hype – they all think
they're going to get
their bottoms kicked by
a truly globalised
rival.
One could suggest
that the easiest thing
would be to quietly
forget the whole thing
and tiptoe, but the
tricky problem is that
they've also told their
clients how global they
all are. It's not as if
this hasn't happened
before. In consultancy,
the big firms spent the
whole of the 1990s
bragging about their
international reach,
while furiously trying
to create some sort of
reality to underpin it.
It wasn't until the
post-Enron divestments
that the real complexity
of firms' structures
became apparent, as
people tried, with
greater and lesser
success, to bundle their
consultancy arms into
some kind of a globally
saleable entity.
| |
|
| |
This was all a legacy
of the "big is
beautiful" craze of the
'90s, when every firm
was vying to grow or
merge their way to the
top of the league
tables. But did clients
care? International
consulting capability is
one of those things that
when you need it, you
really need it. But the
clients – on the rare
occasions anyone asked
them – tended to rate
"international presence"
very low on their list
of priorities, and
always below things like
"detailed knowledge of
our
company/sector/market."
Those multinational
contracts often seemed
to cause more pain than
profit, raising deep
anxieties about account
ownership and
revenue-sharing. The
final irony is, of
course, that when those
elusive multi-country
contracts are finally
won, your client turns
out to be suffering the
same internal problems
as everybody else and
the change programme
runs onto the rocks.
People are pouring
resources into the Holy
Grail of international
co-operation, but
perhaps they're backing
the wrong horse. It's
surely better not to be
an international brand
when you can't live up
to the promise. When,
for example, your most
valued client jets off
from, say, Malaysia to | |
|
| | Germany, and instead of
being welcomed on the
tarmac by the local
partnership he can't
even get them to return
his calls.
Even more ironic is
the fact that while big
organisations struggle
with internal issues,
co-operation in the real
world is getting easier
and easier. I used to
live in a pub where the
quickest route to the
toilets was to go out
one door and back in the
other, and it's getting
like that with
organisations. It's not
unusual for Facebook and
the other web
communities set up for
nothing by employees to
be better utilised than
the company's own
horrendously expensive
intranet. Firms which
eschew expansion in
favour of joining
international networks,
seem to have no
difficulty in
co-operating and
co-ordinating their
efforts. I wonder if
this isn't because of,
rather than despite, the
external nature of their
relationships, and the
transparency and
explicitness it fosters.
It's also much easier to
get rid of a partner
who's diluting your
brand than to sort out a
dysfunctional country
partnership.
Of course, if a
consultancy isn't
delivering any actual
value from its
international presence – | |
|
| | and I suggest that even
where the capability is
there, very often it
isn't called for –
what's left? We're back
to the vexed question of
brand, and whether
clients value it or not.
One thing we do know
about clients is that
they are pretty rubbish
at questions of value,
but pretty hot on cost,
and will therefore
increasingly question
brand premiums. Why pay
to watch someone
struggle with
globalisation when you
can tap into a network
or even put together
your own consortium?
It's entirely possible
that clients may begin
to perceive diseconomies
of scale when it comes
to dealing with larger
firms.
We all know that
growth is critical to
consultancies. But
that's very much an
internal issue centred
on developing staff.
What would become of the
industry if clients
refused to bankroll
growth?
| |
|
Previous Page 