| | By Mick James
There's nothing
journalists like more
than a 'furious war of
words', to the extent
that we often go to some
lengths to kick them
off. But I have to say I
was mildly depressed by
what could be shaping to
be a spat between the
Institute of Business
Consultants (formerly
the Institute of
Management Consultancy)
and the Management
Consultancies
Association. For anyone
who remembers the – how
shall I put it –
froideur that existed
between the two bodies
in the 1990s this is a
faintly depressing
prospect. Back then the
issue was really about
which body could be
considered the ‘Voice of
the Industry’, the MCA
as a trade body of the
major firms, the IMC as
a professional
association of
individual consultants.
Given that were it ever
to speak, all the Voice
could really say would
be "My name is Legion.
For we are many," I
always found the issue
faintly absurd.
Now, a potentially
more serious issue has
raised its head. Bean
counters' bible
Accountancy Age suggests
that a minor turf war
might be about to break
out over the issue of
professional standards.
On paper it's a
non-issue, at least from
a historical | |
| |
| | the ‘same’ profession,
the IMC and the MCA
began to be seen as
coming from different
constituencies, with
limited overlap.
However, between them
they pretty much covered
the whole gamut of
consultancy, from the
big ticket guys to the
sole practitioner. (The
exception being the
strategy firms, who
maintain their splendid
isolation and treat
everyone else's use of
the word ‘consultant’ as
an amusing courtesy
title, like ‘turf
accountant’.)
In an era when
consultancy was on the
defensive, this worked
quite well, with the two
organisations making a
good fist of
establishing consultancy
as both a valuable (MCA)
and respectable (IMC)
thing.
So what's the issue?
We can sum it up with
the three Rs – reach,
recognition and
regulation. Neither body
has, nor I suggest will,
come within a country
mile of covering the
entire profession. The
MCA can't extend its
membership indefinitely
– it's already
experiencing what you
might call ‘Eurovision
Song Contest’ tensions
from the polarisation in
consultancy between a
small number of very
large firms, a large
number of small ones and
still very little
in-between. The IBC has | |
|
| | to balance the needs of
the employed and the
self-employed, and also
a small number of
corporate members, the
‘registered practices’.
But it has failed to
achieve significant
penetration of MCA
employees, and the
question of what, if
anything, to do about
those is probably what
lies behind the current
mini-controversy.
Of course, all these
issues would be solved
if there was some
genuine regulation in
the industry, backed by
the EU or some other
regulatory body. But
that's not going to
happen: consultancy is a
quicksilver profession –
fluid and reflective. It
needs to be able to
assume whatever form its
clients need, and
clients aren't going to
be dictated to as to
where they get their
advice. It's simply not
the case that you can't
get good consultancy
outside the MCA and IBC,
and never has been.
Which leads to the
problem of recognition.
Neither body has
established itself in
clients' minds as a
‘must-have’ and I
suspect there are many
people out there who
have been using IMC and
MCA consultants for
years without being
aware of it.
Sophisticated users of
consultancy like banks
have their own rosters
of ‘go-to’ consultants | |
|
| | and they'll come back to
them again and again
whatever their current
employer or professional
affiliation. Consultancy
‘refuseniks’ on the
other hand, will never
acknowledge the value of
consultants whatever
letters these stick
after their name.
And so what? If
companies believe they
can survive in this
increasingly competitive
world without access to
top-class advice then
good luck to them. It's
time for consultancy and
its representatives to
shake off the apologetic
stance – people are
queuing up for good
consultancy and should
be grateful when they
get it.
So where does this
leave the MCA and the
IBC? Perhaps they should
stop worrying so much
about the three Rs.
Consultancy doesn't need
apologists anymore, and
clients are no longer
naïve innocents under
constant threat from the
‘cowboy consultant’. The
way forward for both
organisations is surely
to concentrate on
providing a stunning
service to their members
(which in my view will
involve taking
considerably more money
off them than it has
dared to do in the past)
and letting the world
beat a path to their
door.
| |
|
| | perspective. In other
industries and, indeed,
in consultancy itself in
other countries, the
trade and professional
organisations are one
and the same. There's
something to be said for
this, in terms both of
resources and presenting
a unified front, but
there are also other
issues – not least
because it's sometimes
hard to represent both
individuals and their
employers.
So back in the 1960s
the IMC was hived off to
be the membership body,
leaving the MCA as the
trade association. But
things were different
then: the MCA was made
up of what we might call
the ‘indigenous’ UK
consulting industry, and
as sponsors of the IMC
they warmly encouraged
their staff to take up
membership and seek
professional
qualifications.
When the consultancy
industry was overrun,
first by accountants and
then by the IT firms,
the IMC suffered, not
least because the new
wave of consultants were
already members of their
own professional bodies.
As a result, although
technically representing | |
|
Previous Page 