Organizations must have the ability to reap lessons learned from all their consulting projects – both successful and unsuccessful – in order to increase the value derived from using consultants. But consulting projects that do not meet expectations are seldom acknowledged and are often simply abandoned, which means that companies make the same mistakes will just be repeated over and over again.
Based on the “Qualifications” listed in any consulting firm’s proposal, one would believe that the business world is full of successful projects. But is this simply an illusion?
The managers that hire consultants, and the consultants themselves, have a vested interest in hyping up the success of their projects–glossing over any underachievement relative to original expectations. It is obvious that consultants involved in under performing projects would prefer them to be quietly swept under the rug by the client. But that the client would be prepared to do this is confounding although, at the same time, somewhat understandable. The careers of all those involved in the project–the executive team that approves the budget for the project, the executive who sponsors the project, the selection team that hires the consultant, the project manager responsible for the project, and the company employees assigned to it–are all dependent on being associated with successful projects. Therefore they have an interest in declaring every project a success. So under performing consulting projects are rarely acknowledged and subjected to the scrutiny they should be.
As well, companies seldom assess the business results of a completed project compared to the original business case that was approved. If they did, more often than not, they would find that even for supposedly successful projects, the benefits realized are far less than those planned while the costs have exceeded the budget.
What about those projects that are clearly outright failures? Typically, all participants hasten to distance themselves from the problem project at the first sign of failure to avoid being implicated or being held responsible for the outcome. When the dust settles, perhaps a scapegoat is made of an unsuspecting manager. However, the consulting firm usually works out an arrangement to discretely withdraw–because, once again, individuals from both parties have personal incentives to avoid highlighting failure—and then the matter is closed.
However, within the public sector, scandalous stories of high expenditures on consultants with little value delivered are regularly reported. Is it simply that the public sector is less capable of selecting or managing consultants? Or is it that there is greater transparency into governments’ use of consultants? See The Economist’s discussion of the UK government’s use of consultants or the CBC News report on the Ontario eHealth scandal. If similar audits were conducted in private sector companies, would they yield similar findings? We suspect so.
Organizations do themselves a disservice by hastening to quietly close the chapter on projects that have failed (whether an outright failure or not) to deliver promised benefits. Without a proper understanding of what has gone wrong and what could be done better when using consultants on projects, organizations will keep making the same mistakes over and over again.
The most effective way to properly assess the organization’s performance when it comes to managing consultants is to have a central function to oversee the selection and use of consultants. Although some companies rely on an internal audit function to monitor projects they usually focus their attention to completeness of ‘paperwork’ and compliance with procedures rather than whether delivered results meet original expectations. This is not the same as a consultant review board which should be tasked with reviewing each and every consultant engagement, before, during and after, and to systematically analyze reasons for successful and unsuccessful (or under performing) consulting engagements so that the lessons can be applied across the organization for subsequent consulting engagements. In the case of unsuccessful or under performing consulting engagements, without embarking on a witch-hunt, the consultant review board should identify the collective weaknesses or breakdowns that prevented the appropriate selection and effective management of consultants. Their involvement from the selection phase to the end of each project will facilitate the application of lessons from previous projects and the avoidance of mistakes that result in dissatisfaction with the consultants as well as under realization of needed business outcomes.
In this current economic client, where risk-management and value for money are demanded by all stakeholders, organizations need to get better at selecting and managing consultants. They will only do so if they are prepared to acknowledge under performance or even failures so that they can learn from their mistakes. By doing so, managers will be able to extract more value from consultants.
__________________________________
Gordon Perchthold and Jenny Sutton are co-authors of Extract Value From Consultants: How to Hire, Control, and Fire Them. This book, based on decades of experience working with clients and consulting firms, details a step-by-step approach for organizations to make appropriate choices about the consultants they hire, and to manage them more effectively over the course of the project. The book turns the tables on consultants, revealing inside secrets and demystifying the increasingly complex world of global consulting.
