Part One
As a consultant, the golden rule that I learnt was to
clearly understand the customer’s requirement before assuming a solution. In my
opinion use of analytical reasoning is the key to identifying the right
solution. In fact, the solution approach will form as you go about detailing
the requirements along with problems and operating landscape.
The dimension related to technology consulting includes a
tool which assumes pivotal rules and the consulting solution is designed around
it. There are two layers to this kind of consulting often defined by the design
of the tool. Firstly, there is the basic architecture of the tool, which will
demand certain pre-requisites in the form of articulation functional process
requirements as input. Consultants are required to work around the existing
system landscape, enabling the deployment of this tool, while involving the
client’s IT & user community. Secondly, this tool supports some business
objectives. The alignment of processes or requirements is first made with the
strategic goals and then the tool is leveraged as a platform which enables or
optimizes processes. This essay has been limited to the aspects of technology
related to consulting.
Some peculiarities I noticed being in the consulting domain
are:
Companies which develop and market these tools are
progressively moving towards easy deployment. More like plug and play!
Consulting companies are still required to support the
deployment of these tools as internal ITs are unable to get a grip on the plug
and play features
Sales of either kind of companies are leveraging each other
to achieve their sales targets. Some large consulting companies (deployment
champions, as I would like to call them) have a deep rooted relationship with
heavy mining. Smaller consulting companies (deployment experts) are riding with
larger product companies as deployment partners.
Consulting, going by the initial golden rule of mapping a
solution with requirements, has now become very limited in scope, both in terms
of customer’s expectations and seller’s service offerings
Then there are companies which are partly developing their
own solution while servicing products from competing companies
Leveraging best practices as a term for marketing along with
service delivery baseline has become a critical part of the offering’s within
your line-up
Based on my observation, an immediate glance would indicate
that this model of consulting & product mixture business is maturing. Ideas, which were new and susceptible 10-15
years back, have now reached a point of validation. This commoditization
reflects in the awareness around the service delivery mechanisms that customers
easily assume. One can infer that, packaging a service around the tool has a
clear cut success formula and does not require much effort or invention. This
should be a favourable setting for designing, packaging and selling a
consulting offering just like a product, right?
I have a few a concerns, though.
Let me begin with challenging the success formula of
packaging a consulting service. As I pointed out earlier, customers are aware
of what to expect from a consulting service. This methodology still has to
stand the trial of its realized benefits. I would like to make a case, about
the processes I helped in setting up, and the successful deployments. But, have
these processes benefited the customer? Is the customer sensitized to identify
the actual benefit in his business case?
Generally I like to stay within the boundaries of best
practices, which is more utilized in my defence than any gains that I can pass
on to the customer. The issue with best practices is around averaging of
tangible goals. For example, if a consumer goods company can save 12% from its
first year spend through a saving program, it is doing a good job! Even two similar
companies may not subscribe to a single set of best practices assuming both of
them are striving to achieve similar goals. It clearly goes against the basic
tenets of entrepreneurship. Enterprises exists in the market place to fill a
certain unique void. Practices certainly cannot be so generic if one goes by
this definition of enterprise.
Moving over to the companies which are offering such
consulting services, it may seem reasonable for a deployment champion to offer
such business services, as their businesses revolve around account mining which
also explains their business verticals. Offering a deployment here and there
will only add to billing and ensure that a rival is kept out of this client’s
ecosystem. They aim to sell their brand but mainly play on customer’s priority
to minimize risks.
Smaller consulting firms (deployment experts) have a much
harder bargain. Yes, a product company will need them to provide the deployment
expertise in the overall sales cycle, but they also need this partner firm to
share the risk of overall project failure. How can you find fault with a
product which is perceived to be working well for another company? Obviously,
something must have gone wrong with the deployment. Another interesting
observation is the diktat of sales organization within these smaller consulting
firms. Sales functions are opportunistic but marketing has to define this
opportunity. Marketing in such firms is limited to lead qualification or
building communication collaterals. Actually there is nothing wrong with this
approach! My concern, based on my assumption that opportunities lead to series
of disconnected business offerings, is that this scenario inhibits the process
of solution lifecycle development thereby fulfilling only short term goals at
the cost of a sustainable differentiation which takes time to cultivate.
Considering the scenario to be real, how does one champion
the packaging and selling a consulting solution that can be differentiated in
the market while customers can clearly relate to benefits?
In the part two, we will explore how a consulting firm can
approach to package a consulting solution and differentiate it in the market
place.
No comments:
Post a Comment