4 ms·

On the consulting side of the audit firms that you're talking about, I think people misunderstand why companies hire big consultancies. It is not for performan

by ethbr0 4y ago

On the consulting side of the audit firms that you're talking about, I think people misunderstand why companies hire big consultancies. It is not for performance. It's for minimizing risk. And not "risk that the project will fail to hit its schedule." Rather "risk that the company is unable to deliver the thing we're asking for at all." When I've seen big consultancies fail, it almost always goes like this: (1) big idea sold with A-team, (2) contract won and lowest-cost B-team substituted in, (3) B-team screws up execution, and customer usually figures out on or right before target delivery date, (4) if smart, customer tears consultancy a new asshole, from people with VP et al. titles, (5) if interested in further business then consultancy profusely apologies and puts an A-team back on the project, (6) A-team delivers, albeit after schedule. The difference between ey et al. vs smaller shops is (4). Smaller shops don't have extra senior bodies laying around to retask. So a more accurate description of a VP hiring ey is probably "I know they're going to screw it up, but I know if I bitch enough they'll eventually get it done right."

23B1 4y ago
Nailed it. My only beef is that when you’re going line-by-line on the deliverables, arguing over the “definition of done” that you’re actually crushing whatever good will and budget remains for the innovation a company actually needs. And when I say innovation I don’t mean gravity boots, I just mean a progressive use of robust tech, easily understood processes, and a general aversion to complexity - so you don’t have to do it all over again in five years. OTOH executive retention is tanking, so maybe it’s fine you one-and-done it, and move on to your next job before the truth is out - YOLO! (Barf).
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > arguing over the “definition of done” This brings back my PTSD. "I have never seen so many fine men wasted so badly"
- ethbr0 4y ago
  I've always thought that if it gets to the point where a consultant and company are arguing over line items and it didn't go so badly as to preclude future work, then just meet in the middle, call it a poorly run project, and try and do better next time. There's no good outcome from a knock-down, drag-out fight for either party when it goes that badly. And yeah... I've observed my fair share of "So, we all agree we're going to call this a success? Great!" + director / VP takes a new job before it explodes.
  - 23B1 4y ago
    The good P&L owners make it right and eat the marginal loss because they know long term relationships are more important than a single contract. That is generally how I ran my line – but I have had a very small number of extremely toxic/litigious clients and so I'll go the distance with them, line-by-line, make sure we've got 'done' in writing. It sucks but some people are just jerks.
grumple 4y ago
The risk of non-delivery exists for these large firms too - see Hertz vs Accenture, for example. Or Indiana vs IBM. In my company, to hire a company like IBM or Accenture we have to propose a plan, which has to be approved by many layers of bureaucracy. This plan includes a budget. A real risk is that the consultant underdelivers, or we need more budget. Then we have the sunk cost problem, and we have a bureaucratic one as well to increase the budget. And the consultant already costs more than hiring on our own and doing it in house.
eru 4y ago
> And not "risk that the project will fail to hit its schedule." Rather "risk that the company is unable to deliver the thing we're asking for at all." The other big risk is: 'Will _I_ get in trouble, if the project fails?'
- truetraveller 4y ago
  This is the primary factor, by far, to my knowledge. No one got fired for buying IBM.
truetraveller 4y ago
Actually I disagree strongly. It's primary because blame shifting. You know, "no on got fired for buying IBM". Also, to confirm a C-execs "vision". He can always say "<big firm> agrees with this too".
- wil421 4y ago
  > Also, to confirm a C-execs "vision". He can always say "<big firm> agrees with this too". This is the crux of it. GP described the process but not the reasoning. Consultancy come in to help management push a vision. One or two VPs may not be able to get their vision but if one of the big 4 supports them it will likely be easier to get buy in.

by ethbr0 4y ago

23B1 4y ago

Nailed it. My only beef is that when you’re going line-by-line on the deliverables, arguing over the “definition of done” that you’re actually crushing whatever good will and budget remains for the innovation a company actually needs. And when I say innovation I don’t mean gravity boots, I just mean a progressive use of robust tech, easily understood processes, and a general aversion to complexity - so you don’t have to do it all over again in five years. OTOH executive retention is tanking, so maybe it’s fine you one-and-done it, and move on to your next job before the truth is out - YOLO! (Barf).

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> arguing over the “definition of done” This brings back my PTSD. "I have never seen so many fine men wasted so badly"
ethbr0 4y ago
I've always thought that if it gets to the point where a consultant and company are arguing over line items and it didn't go so badly as to preclude future work, then just meet in the middle, call it a poorly run project, and try and do better next time. There's no good outcome from a knock-down, drag-out fight for either party when it goes that badly. And yeah... I've observed my fair share of "So, we all agree we're going to call this a success? Great!" + director / VP takes a new job before it explodes.
- 23B1 4y ago
  The good P&L owners make it right and eat the marginal loss because they know long term relationships are more important than a single contract. That is generally how I ran my line – but I have had a very small number of extremely toxic/litigious clients and so I'll go the distance with them, line-by-line, make sure we've got 'done' in writing. It sucks but some people are just jerks.

grumple 4y ago

The risk of non-delivery exists for these large firms too - see Hertz vs Accenture, for example. Or Indiana vs IBM. In my company, to hire a company like IBM or Accenture we have to propose a plan, which has to be approved by many layers of bureaucracy. This plan includes a budget. A real risk is that the consultant underdelivers, or we need more budget. Then we have the sunk cost problem, and we have a bureaucratic one as well to increase the budget. And the consultant already costs more than hiring on our own and doing it in house.

eru 4y ago

> And not "risk that the project will fail to hit its schedule." Rather "risk that the company is unable to deliver the thing we're asking for at all." The other big risk is: 'Will _I_ get in trouble, if the project fails?'

truetraveller 4y ago
This is the primary factor, by far, to my knowledge. No one got fired for buying IBM.

truetraveller 4y ago

Actually I disagree strongly. It's primary because blame shifting. You know, "no on got fired for buying IBM". Also, to confirm a C-execs "vision". He can always say "<big firm> agrees with this too".

wil421 4y ago
> Also, to confirm a C-execs "vision". He can always say "<big firm> agrees with this too". This is the crux of it. GP described the process but not the reasoning. Consultancy come in to help management push a vision. One or two VPs may not be able to get their vision but if one of the big 4 supports them it will likely be easier to get buy in.