As a part of my work, I have had the opportunity to evaluate the
completed projects of a variety of external consultancies. The principal
purposes of this evaluation were to identify the value of, 1) realized
benefits, 2) untapped opportunities, and 3) overpromised benefits.
And there were a lot of overpromised benefits. Although I learned many things in the course of this project, I would like to discuss two points in relation to these overpromised benefits:
1) Consultant emphasizes immediate monetary benefits to sell the project, while the project actually results in strategic or long-term gains.
Some projects were hampered by a lack of concrete objectives or steps to attain the stated objective of monetary benefits. For example, one of the projects evaluated considerably overestimated projected benefits. I found the following quote by the consultant project manager describing the purpose of the project:
“Project Imperative: Design the organization structure and the cross-functional collaboration process that will be core to building a self-sustaining high-performance management team.”
Now, a sentence like the above could be fine if in the five minutes following that statement, the consultant describes what that exactly means and how it will apply in a concrete way to the organization. However, the quote was one sentence among many describing in elaborate consultant jargon what exactly the project would entail, while also describing how incredible the monetary benefits of the project would be in the near-term. From a theoretical perspective, the stated objective made perfect sense, but most clients would tune it out unless the consultant expanded upon the objective to create realistic goals and expectations. Unsurprisingly, the client and consultant had different concepts of “success” in the project. The client was disappointed by the lack of monetary benefits, while the consultant believed the client had achieved its long-term strategic goals.
I do not intend to be overly judgmental of a single line. However, that line was a symptom of the general problem – overpromising near-term visible profits when actually presenting a long-term strategy.
2) Quick wins were presented and promised without a reality check.
Frequently “quick wins” were included in the final presentation of a project. Providing quick wins is a simple method for a consultant to demonstrate value and provide a more concrete signal of the team’s abilities. Quick wins also offer the client improvement in its near-term profitability and the recovery of the consultant’s billing cost, thereby providing an added incentive for repeat business. However, quick win recommendations were frequently infeasible in the short-term, absurd, or of questionable strategic value.
- Short-term Infeasibility – Many quick wins required expensive and/or lengthy system implementations in order to achieve the value of the recommendation. By definition, quick wins must be quick. Many clients assume that implementation and benefits will occur in less than one year.
- Absurd – Some quick wins would not have passed the “smell test” for an employee at almost any level in the organization. Bundling seemingly unrelated products and offering ancillary services with which the client has no experience belong in this category. The consultancies did not appear to have received feedback concerning these quick wins from lower level employees or individuals within senior management before presenting to senior management. “Way outside the box” thinking has its place, but it generally should not fall in the category of a quick win.
- Questionable strategic value – The most common type of recommendation with questionable strategic value that fell into this category, which was true for a variety of consulting groups, was charging customers for services or products that were currently being offered for “free.” While there are many reasons to bundle or unbundle a product, the tradeoffs involved in this decision were ignored or discounted. It was common to assume that the number of transactions would not be negatively impacted, that no competitive reaction would occur, and that all incremental charges would be bottom-line profit.
Bottom line
Selling the client on wishful near-term results of a long-term strategic shift and including unrealizable quick wins demonstrate a lack of care on the part of the consultancy and consequently damage the results of the overall project and the client relationship.
And there were a lot of overpromised benefits. Although I learned many things in the course of this project, I would like to discuss two points in relation to these overpromised benefits:
1) Consultant emphasizes immediate monetary benefits to sell the project, while the project actually results in strategic or long-term gains.
Some projects were hampered by a lack of concrete objectives or steps to attain the stated objective of monetary benefits. For example, one of the projects evaluated considerably overestimated projected benefits. I found the following quote by the consultant project manager describing the purpose of the project:
“Project Imperative: Design the organization structure and the cross-functional collaboration process that will be core to building a self-sustaining high-performance management team.”
Now, a sentence like the above could be fine if in the five minutes following that statement, the consultant describes what that exactly means and how it will apply in a concrete way to the organization. However, the quote was one sentence among many describing in elaborate consultant jargon what exactly the project would entail, while also describing how incredible the monetary benefits of the project would be in the near-term. From a theoretical perspective, the stated objective made perfect sense, but most clients would tune it out unless the consultant expanded upon the objective to create realistic goals and expectations. Unsurprisingly, the client and consultant had different concepts of “success” in the project. The client was disappointed by the lack of monetary benefits, while the consultant believed the client had achieved its long-term strategic goals.
I do not intend to be overly judgmental of a single line. However, that line was a symptom of the general problem – overpromising near-term visible profits when actually presenting a long-term strategy.
2) Quick wins were presented and promised without a reality check.
Frequently “quick wins” were included in the final presentation of a project. Providing quick wins is a simple method for a consultant to demonstrate value and provide a more concrete signal of the team’s abilities. Quick wins also offer the client improvement in its near-term profitability and the recovery of the consultant’s billing cost, thereby providing an added incentive for repeat business. However, quick win recommendations were frequently infeasible in the short-term, absurd, or of questionable strategic value.
- Short-term Infeasibility – Many quick wins required expensive and/or lengthy system implementations in order to achieve the value of the recommendation. By definition, quick wins must be quick. Many clients assume that implementation and benefits will occur in less than one year.
- Absurd – Some quick wins would not have passed the “smell test” for an employee at almost any level in the organization. Bundling seemingly unrelated products and offering ancillary services with which the client has no experience belong in this category. The consultancies did not appear to have received feedback concerning these quick wins from lower level employees or individuals within senior management before presenting to senior management. “Way outside the box” thinking has its place, but it generally should not fall in the category of a quick win.
- Questionable strategic value – The most common type of recommendation with questionable strategic value that fell into this category, which was true for a variety of consulting groups, was charging customers for services or products that were currently being offered for “free.” While there are many reasons to bundle or unbundle a product, the tradeoffs involved in this decision were ignored or discounted. It was common to assume that the number of transactions would not be negatively impacted, that no competitive reaction would occur, and that all incremental charges would be bottom-line profit.
Bottom line
Selling the client on wishful near-term results of a long-term strategic shift and including unrealizable quick wins demonstrate a lack of care on the part of the consultancy and consequently damage the results of the overall project and the client relationship.
