Top-Consultant.com

Global Opportunities in Consulting  


Management Consultants' Blog

Over a quarter of a million management consultancy readers browse and contribute to Top-Consultant.com each month. Now you can too! This blog is intended for practising consultants, aspiring consultants and consultants' clients.

~ ~ ~ ~ Get the RSS FEED here: http://top-consultant.blogspot.com/atom.xml ~ ~ ~ ~

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Clients killing the consultant-client relationship

My recent comments challenging a scathing critique of the consulting industry have in turn generated a flood of feedback from our loyal readers. Many of you felt the original article was outrageously one-sided, whilst a few of you actually admitted that consultants’ clients can sometimes be taken for a ride.

The whole debate reminded me of a pertinent statement John Niland made at a recent Top-Consultant seminar. He said consultants should, at all costs, avoid situations where the client ends up receiving a bill based on a calculation involving day rates. His argument was essentially that the very concept of day rates puts the interests of clients and the short-term interests of the consultancy fundamentally in conflict. (As an aside, John will be speaking in London on 17th June – details here for those of you interested)

So if John’s theory is right, are purchasing departments shooting their organisations in the foot by forcing consultancies down a day-rates approach to pricing? Many consultancies would say they are…

Fixed Fee vs Day Rate billing

Given a fixed fee project a consultancy can deliver on the assignment as it sees fit and earn its profit by working smart and by creating a winning solution that turns the client into a lifetime customer. The consultancy is incentivised to achieve results quickly and cost-effectively, because it’s their margins that are eroded if they don’t.

What happens all too often in practice is that consultancies are engaged to provide a consulting team on a day-rate basis where there's additional profit to be made each day that the team remains on site. This creates an incentive for scope creep, where the boundaries of the agreed project are pushed further and further and cost overruns are passed onto the client.

In this kind of scenario, the essential challenge of completing an assignment on time and within budget is sidelined. The client 's interests are no longer aligned with those of the consultancy, pure and simple.

However where does this problem originate and are consultancies therefore really to blame? In my own experience, it is clients’ insistence on breaking proposals down into the component team members, their day rates and volume discounts that poisons the consultant-client relationship. Clients are scared of committing to a fixed budget - and therefore paying “excessively” for actual services delivered. The temptation to challenge the fee by breaking it down into its parts is just too much.

Oh for a world where consultants were paid an agreed amount for an agreed project deliverable and then left to run the project like the mini-business-venture that it is. Unfortunately the proliferation of purchasing departments and PSLs is driving the consulting industry further and further down the day-rates path – and away from this ideal. So the consultant-client relationship is increasingly poisoned and consultants take the rap, when actually we're on the receiving end of pushy purchasing departments. I kind of feel this is like the pot calling the kettle black!! Anyone out there agree with this sentiment or care to add additional thoughts?


Tony

10 Comments:

  • At 9:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    'Kettle calling the frying pan black' I don't think so. Consultants, like any other contractor, realise the benefits of 'day rate' work as opposed to 'fixed price' in terms of risk elimination. If consultancies are not being proactive in persuading clients that alternative commercial arrangements are 'win - win' for both parties then they are failing in their duty as partners in the contract. I feel that the partnership approach should be adopted as it could give a consultancy a competative edge in an aggressive market

     
  • At 3:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I agree. One rule that should not be forgotten is that partners don't rob partners of their due. It is a natural progressions as consultancy matures to avoid the common risks could lead to consultants losing out on their investment into a contract. The concept of a daily rate should merely be considered a reasonable alternative, especially for projects where order of magnitude is being used.

     
  • At 4:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I agree with Tony, especially with regard to the fact that the value of a result is in no way related to the amount of time required for it. Furthermore, day rates are an excellent way to kill ambition and motivation of high performing individuals! Good people don't work this way...

     
  • At 11:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I have often tried (and sometimes succeeded)using fixed rates with one of my largest clients. I tend to find it's larger companies that are keenest to know what day/hour rate you've used in the calculation - I think this is because their procurement people also have to prove the need for their existence and it gives them something to argue with. I absolutely hate this! Day rates are usually pretty risky for me with this mob, as they invariably will take an age getting me the information I need to do the job, and I'm losing money all the while. What I'm hoping to do one of these fine days is to get an assignment where I can charge by % of value delivered and I hope I'll never get an argument on that. Anyone else had any success with this approach?

     
  • At 6:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Is it really appropriate to approach pricing the same way the temp in the clients warehouse does?

     
  • At 11:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    What needs to occur is for clients and consultants to be open and honest with each other.

    To me the bottom line is as follows:
    1. Fixed-Price contract The consultant must build in a risk component into the fee, if they act prudently with regard to managing risk. The client must realise that, by wanting price certainty, they will pay a premium for this certainty.

    2. Daily Rate contract In this instance the client is more responsible for the scope of the contract and will therefore need to ensure that milestones are being achieved. While the consultant may feel that this model has greater upside (due to chances to extend the engagement covertly), a smart client will realise that they are carrying the risk for the project over-running time/scope. If the project is well managed, then the client will not actually pay the risk premium that he/she would in a fixed price project.

    I have tried with many of my clients to put in place the following; A project based on a daily rate and an up-front estimate of the fees based on the projected project days. I tell my client, well in advance, when we are coming close to the budget set. If the project is tracking to plan, then this is not a problem. If there are issues re time/scope, well the client is already aware of these issues (through the PM function) and can take steps to mitigate the risk.

    To me, both sides have to act like true partners and work together. Unfortunately this is almost never the case, with the classic adversarial buyer/seller situation occurring. Trust and honesty from both parties would produce, in my opinion, projects with sucessful outcomes for all parties.

     
  • At 8:55 AM, Blogger Klas K. said…

    What pricing model to use must vary depending upon the project. In my experience many project evolve over time, i.e. it is almost impossible, and not good for the client or the consultants, to set a fixed price at the beginning of a project. Charging based on the value created is probably best for both parties, but very difficult in reality. There are simply too many variables that have an impact on a projects success.

     
  • At 9:56 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I’ve found many big ticket European companies (BCSH,RDShell,Repsol, etc) who have very tricky corporate wide buying/contracting practices, in which the core function of the contracting process is dissasembling a proposal in discreet components: typically time and materials. And only in few cases they’re able (willing) to break that practice. A good example: Santander brought Procura Digital, which in turn becomes the procurement arm for Latin America. They’re responsible for buying from toilet paper to...consulting services. They made a huge effort to turn our BPO proposal into a RFP where the main index defining the quality of the proposal is…the average cost per hour and overall price (85% of the qualification!)
    Even when I follow exactly the same reasoning line that Tony uses, the combination of wrong employee’s rewarding model and corporate standard looking wrongly for savings are sometimes just too hard to beat.

     
  • At 10:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    We need to get far smarter in our approach to pricing: I would consider day rates and fixed prices to be at the initial stages in respect of value extraction.

    My approach is to discuss with the client the economic value attached to the service scope you deliver. If for example the NPV of a port operation at full capacity is £100m, then the value of an intervention that increases capacity by 1% is $1m. Assuming the client and I agree on the approach, then the cost of delivering the solution is irrelevant. A fair, value-based deal is one in which I take 40% and the cleint 60%. My fee in this case - £400,000.

     
  • At 9:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Part of the problem here is the people deciding to award the consulting contract are typically trying to work out how much the consultant is able to earn and comparing it jealously against their own earnings.

    If your contract seems to them to work out to a rate of (say) 2k per day, they quickly calculate that you're earning over 400k/yr and that doesn't sit well against what they are earning.

    What clients fail to realise is:

    1. It's about the value you add, which is hard to tell upfront, and sometimes still hard to be adamant about in post-project review.

    2. You don't bill for 220 days/year - as a consultant you spend a high proportion of time marketing and prospecting so the working year is truncated down to significantly less than 200 days/year - maybe as little at 120 days/year, if you are a sole practitioner.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home