| | By Mick James
Journalists have many
things in common with
consultants: one would
be that we pride
ourselves on our ability
to ask difficult and
interesting questions,
when often we’d be
better off asking the
dumb ones. One such
might be: “why have a
consultancy firm at
all?” Often it’s the
dumb questions like
these that lead to the
really interesting ones,
such as “how are the
underlying motives for
setting up your firm
reflected in the service
you give to clients?”
There’s a big
question for the
industry as a whole –
can a consultancy
practice in principle be
divorced from the
internal governance of
the firm, or are the two
intimately related?
Perhaps the fact that
so much of the new
growth in consultancy
flows from the
restructurings and
consolidations of the
last few years has
focused people’s minds
on this point.
Take Curzon &
Company, a small but
growing consultancy
formed from a nucleus of
ex-Gemini Consulting (a
subsidiary of the former
Cap Gemini) consultants.
“Most of us left
during the integration
of Ernst & Young with
the business consulting
part of Cap Gemini,” | |
| |
| | likelihood of senior
people leaving
mid-engagement and
destabilising projects
is so much lower.”
Another factor which
the firm believes can
distort consulting work
is debt and the need to
satisfy “idle
shareholders and their
exit options”, she says.
“We have very low
fixed overheads,” says
Morgan. “It’s better to
have something expensive
but variable – there’s
no point in having an
expensive office with
no-one in it.”
In fact, the firm has
only recently moved into
fixed premises, a small
period building in
Mayfair’s still-raffish
Shepherd Market. “Our
basic tenet was to have
no debt, but win
projects and get people,
then think about
premises,” says Morgan.
Growth can also be a
destabilising factor, so
the firm has chosen to
grow slowly but steadily
using the networking
abilities of its staff.
“We wanted quality
growth – if we’d thrown
money at it we might
have grown faster,” says
Morgan. There’s also a
limit to growth, he
says.
“We never want to be
more than 50 or 60
people – once you get to
70 you need a management
structure which you then
need to get to 300-400
people before you see a
return, and those 400 | |
|
| | are a relentless mouth
to feed – you’re under
pressure to take any
business and you start
to lose credibility.
We’d rather stay small
and stay focused.”
The firm has also set
its face against
“pyramidal” structures.
“We run our business on
four to five consultants
to one principal, that’s
very low compared to
strategy boutiques where
the ratio can be 14:1 or
IT firms where its 30 or
40:1,” says Morgan.
“With 30 or 40
consultants you don’t
have time to do anything
other than sell or
handle delivery problems
– for clients that means
you don’t get to see the
most experienced people
unless you have a major
issue.”
With just six
member/owners in the
firm decisions can be
made very rapidly. Each
member plays a specific
role – Morgan, for
example, heads up the
sales and marketing
front end, other members
concentrate on delivery
and finance, while
Hickling concentrates on
the HR side.
“To date we’ve
cherry-picked people
through our network and
have been able to
persuade them to join,”
she says. “Going forward
we’ll broaden that and
extend the gene pool to
bring in people from
different backgrounds.”
This careful growth | |
|
| | means that Curzon can
maintain its position,
which is at an
interesting overlap – or
if you prefer another
way to look at it, a gap
in the market. Although
the firm does few
competitive pitches, the
ones it has successfully
been engaged in have
involved an interesting
mixture of firms.
“We tend to come up
against the strategy and
transformation ends of
the likes of Accenture
and Capgemini or the
strategy houses who are
trying to get into
implementation,” says
Morgan.
In other words the
firm is nicely placed at
the juncture of some of
the biggest branding and
positioning headaches
for the established
consulting industry. As
the firm moves to expand
its gene pool, this will
hopefully make it very
attractive to its target
employees.
As Morgan puts it:
“We want smart people
who are excited at the
prospect of doing great
strategy work that
actually ends up on the
street – people who want
to make it happen.”
| |
|
Previous Page 
