As an experienced MC, I feel that the public perception of our industry has never been lower.It's never been easy to describe exactly what we do to lay folk but with the focus on the amount of MC involvement in the public sector I feel personally that I have to be almost apologetic in explaining my job.Are we now on a par with estate agents in terms of reputation? Or are we merely suffering due to the bitterness of those who received at best a 2:2?

Surely the strapline is that 'we fix problems organisations are unable to fix themselves'. A bit jingoistic, but probably at the right level to counter some of the ongoing criticism - and if organisations keep on employing us, aren't we just part of a normal mixed economy?Personally I don't think it is just the 2.2 syndrome we have to deal with; people get fixated on day rates (ironically, most often when they are on permanent, public sector salaries and index linked pensions!), and accepting that they can't do the work themselves - especially with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight. Thoughts?

Partly there is the classic problem of running a successful engagement, to embed results you've encouraged the client to imagine it's all their own work, so they've paid a lot of money to be told something they know anyway. The fact that they didn't know what they knew at the time escapes the review process.In the UK at least the bad press about millions spent on the public sector doesn't help, but there's no circulation benefit in headlining what is improving and the media conflate the politicians cow-towing to the headlines and consequent simplistic performance measures with ''consultant spend''. There's really no way to combat that unless some organisation with media credibility turns round and promotes it. That happens but it targets those who already understand anyway, not the Express, Mail and Stun readers.One of the snags is that the profession is perceived as close to President Tony and the consequences of his fall from grace impact on us.

Hi all,Interesting question, anon. I've just completed a research study related to this subject. One of my conclusions is that consultants (in general) are perceived to value different things to what the clients need. This impacts negatively on the overall perception of 'consultants' by 'clients'.So yes, in short, consultants in general are being viewed in a dim light, though there are many consulting individuals who are held in high esteem by their clients, and for good reason.Reasons?: there are more and more consultants being churned out, not all of whom deserve the moniker, and the consultants' services are becoming more and more 'same-y'. Some consulting services are becoming commodities, which can no longer sustain the high fees. Supply and demand - "Why should I pay a lot of cash for what I can get from many firms?"Implications?: Fees are going to take pressure. Implementation/doer consultants will be replaced and contractors or outsourcers will perform those functions. Consulting will move back to the highly specialised 'expert advisor' role that it is founded on. Maybe.What do you think?

I think some of what industry student says makes sense, but not convinced that's the whole story. If you look at the consulting literature / press, you'll seldom see a balanced perspective. It's usually strongly pro- or strongly anti-consulting (depending on the author and their own agenda).There is also an element of sensationalism there. Unlikely to read something in the press that isn't juicy or stimulating - got to get the reader to sit up and take notice - so perspectives are bound to be influenced by this as well.

The other aspecct is the product lifecycle of consulting services, it's inevitably a trend driver as new products become commoditised taking some firms with them or forcing firms to come up with new cunning plans.I'm not sure what level industry student did the study for, but fee pressures for commoditised services has been going on for years, the firms which manage to incubate ''new'' was of providing the client with additional value are the ones which stay in the high revenue area, M3B, where others are broadening their product offering to accomodate lower revenue service elements whilst retaining a higher revenue service line. The Detica discussion elsewhere on the board is quite a good example; start life as a Management Consultancy and become deeply techie over time to the extent that classic MC services weren't part of the offering, then having to buy an MC firm to add that capacity to their portfolio. At the same time we have the classic SI firms trying hard to move up the revenue earning stack by adding MC over and above their pre-sales, EDS et al.I would agree that the MC element isn't well differentiated in the industry, with lots of firms offering MC services which aren't, MottMac??I'm not convinced that we'll see a significant discontinuous change in the industry, more like a continuation of the incremental change as firms move around in terms of their service offerings and relationship with competitors.

Organisations have problems which need solving.Solving these problems generally benefits them.Consultants solve problems at fees which are less than the benefit.Everybody is happy.

Random Acts of Language makes a good point. The overall perception of MC's (with notable exceptions) is in danger of being badly damaged with firms like Mott Macdonald claiming to be a "world class" management consultancy despite being an engineering firm. To use Mott Mac as an example, I know for a fact that they have a very dubious recruiting process - taking on relatively recent graduates with poor degrees and little relevant experience. Additionally, in many cases, they do not even conduct interviews - choosing to hire someone browsing at a consultancy fair because they look nice!Eventually this will inevitably come back to haunt both the individual company in question and the industry as a whole. With regard to "consultants solve problems at fees which are less than the benefit" - that doesn't seem to be the case at the Home Office!

anon:"Or are we merely suffering due to the bitterness of those who received at best a 2:2?"Precisely the reason why the public perception of you is so poor.

Why would public perception suffer as a result of the bitterness of Mott Macdonald employees?