| | By Mick James
What constitutes
“best practice” in
consultancy? To some the
question might seem too
trivial to mention, but
by an odd coincidence
both the representative
bodies in consultancy,
the Institute of
Business Consulting and
the Management
Consultancies
Association, have been
circulating codes or
statements of best
practice for discussion.
Both bodies have, of
course, subscribed to
entirely impeccable
codes of conduct for
years but the goal here
is to focus more
explicitly on shaping
the expectations of the
buyer of consultancy.
It’s fair to say that
if something does go
wrong with a consultancy
project, it’s usually at
the buying stage. We’re
a long way from the days
where clients were seen
as fearful, doe-like
creatures, in constant
need of the articles on
“choosing and using a
management consultant”,
which hacks like me used
to churn out on a
regular basis. Client
firms are now so stuffed
with people with
“prior”, either as users
or consultants
themselves, that the
process has lost a lot
of its mystery and
therefore its fear.
But things have by no
means become that much
simpler. Many people,
myself occasionally
included, have bemoaned
the rise of procurement
and its intrusion into
the consultant-client
relationship.
At its worst, this
can lead to a somewhat
overstated fear of
engagement. Procurement
says, before you talk to
these consultants, tell
us what they are going
to do. The client
responds, “That’s what
we wanted to talk to
them about.”
Procurement’s point of
view can be summed up as
“you can’t just go | |
|
| | around buying stuff”,
combined with an
entirely reasonable
suspicion that
relationships between
consultants and clients
can become a bit too
cosy and entrenched.
So, can statements of
principle help with
this? Neither
organisation’s code
could fail to reassure.
MCA members will “put
their client’s interests
first”, while the IBC’s
document says members
will “act in the best
interests of the
client”. MCA firms will
employ people “with the
right skills and
experience to help their
client”, while IBC
consultants will “apply
the right grade or level
of resource to the
project”.
The IBC’s draft
statement, which comes
from its Consultancy
Purchasing Steering
Group, focuses a lot
more on the detail of
the buying relationship
than the MCA’s but both
share a similar goal –
to reassure buyers of
consultancy that if they
stick with consultants
who have committed to
the relevant standards,
then all should be well.
Now, obviously, both
the MCA and the IBC are
keen that clients should
only wish to use firms
and individuals who had
shown their commitment
to consultancy by
joining the relevant
body. And I think that’s
a perfectly relevant
question that clients
should put to
consultants. Both bodies
are far more inclusive
about membership than
they used to be, the
fees are not merely
reasonable but (in my
view) far too low so why
– if you’re serious
about this game –
haven’t you joined?
So I can imagine a
scenario whereby
membership of either the
MCA or the IBC became a
precondition for getting
to bid for work. But I | |
|
| | would be very wary of it
becoming a
prequalification –
subtle difference – and
used as a way of
short-circuiting the
procurement process.
I refer to my earlier
point, that when things
go wrong it’s at the
buying stage – and that
very often means not
that the consultant got
it wrong but that you
got the wrong consultant
and all the memberships
and qualifications in
the world aren’t going
to put that right.
This isn’t a case of
Svengali-like
consultants mesmerising
clients. Often it’s the
client that wants to
stick with their
“favourite” consultant
and get them to do
everything for them,
much in the way that an
aristocrat of old would
think nothing of getting
his lawyer to order in
the claret.
Procurement clearly
sees its role as to
intervene in and
challenge buying
decisions, but if
procurement processes
introduce opacity into
the definition of the
project then that can
create the very problem
it’s trying to avoid.
Finally, we still suffer
from a culture of macho
management where buying
consultancy is more
often seen as an
admission of weakness
rather than a skill to
be celebrated.
I urge all readers of
this column to make
their next stop the IBC
and MCA websites and to
get involved in these
debates. Both
organisations are
actively reaching out to
clients, but they depend
on the active
participation of their
industry to give weight
to their voices. So have
a look around, imbibe
the wisdom on offer –
and try clicking the
“join here” button. | |
| |
Previous Page 
