Reasons for Selecting a Particular Consulting
Firm
Both clients and consultants agree that the ability to
deliver is the most important reason why clients chose a particular consulting
firm (see Table 1.2). Clients
do not want consultants who fall into the conventional trap of writing a report,
then walking away from its unfeasible recommendations. They want consultants who
are committed, who can roll up their sleeves and make things happen, and who are
accountable. Consultants, too - as the case studies in this book demonstrate -
are keen to slough off their hit-and-run image.
Table 1.2: Factors leading clients to select a
particular consulting firm, ranked by importance
|
Rank |
Attribute |
|
1 |
Ability to deliver |
|
2 |
Experienced consulting team |
|
3 |
Specialist expertise |
|
4 |
Originality of approach |
|
5 |
Experience of client sector/market |
|
6 |
Reputation |
|
7 |
Existing relationship with individual |
|
8 |
Technological resources |
|
9 |
Recommendation from client networks |
|
10 |
Existing relationship with firm |
|
11 |
Price competitiveness |
|
12 |
Size of firm/team |
|
13 |
Geographical representation |
Given the focus on delivery, it is not surprising that the next
most important factors in choosing a consulting firm are specialist knowledge
(the consultants know what to do) and an experienced consulting team (they have
done it before). Perhaps more surprising is the importance of originality.
Surprising in the sense that innovation does not often sit comfortably with
experience and track record. The former implies doing something differently; the
latter, doing something the same way. But research has repeatedly suggested that
this combination of the new and the tried-and-tested is exactly what clients
want. They want, in effect, to have their cake and eat it.
For consulting firms, this poses a real challenge, as the people,
process and systems that encourage innovation are not necessarily those that
guarantee results. Another challenge is the relatively low level of importance
accorded to some of the traditional tools of competition - geographical
coverage, a firm's reputation, word-of-mouth referrals, existing relationships,
even price. These factors are important, but, when it comes to choosing
consultants, nowhere near as important as being able to deliver.
Of course, no two consulting projects are alike. To what extent is
it possible to draw conclusions across an industry where the work undertaken
varies from strategy to systems integration? Segmenting the MCA Awards Survey
data reveals differences, not just between types of consulting projects, but
between the attitudes of clients and consultants.
Firms involved in strategy consulting tend to think that clients
rely more on traditional selection criteria - a firm's reputation, word-of-mouth
referral and original thinking - than they do when purchasing other types of
consulting (see Figure 1.1).
In practice, strategy clients' attitudes are close to the overall average (see
Figure 1.2).
In HR consulting, clients' and consultants' views of selection
criteria are closer, although consultants appear to underestimate the importance
attached by clients to a firm's knowledge of a particular sector. HR clients are
also less likely than other kinds of client to rely on existing relationships
and word-of-mouth referral. The factors involved in selecting IT-related
consultants differ from those used elsewhere: both clients and consultants agree
that technology resources, geographical coverage and size of firm are all more
important.
Given the growth of offshore outsourcing, it is perhaps
surprising that geographical coverage is less important to outsourcing-related
consulting. In fact, this probably reflects the fact that the MCA Awards focus
on consulting around outsourcing deals - sourcing strategy, supplier selection,
negotiation, change management - all of which activities are likely to happen
close to the client's site, rather than overseas. Word-of-mouth recommendation
is more important for outsourcing-related consulting - and is certainly more
important than consultants seem to realize. By contrast, change management
clients agree with consultants that existing relationships are particularly
important for this type of work.