By Fiona Czerniawska.

Consulting projects don’t emerge out of nothing.  Unlike the universe, there’s not a vast expanse of emptiness in clients’ minds into which pops—miraculously—the idea for a new project.  No: clients’ minds are teeming with life. But much of what’s swimming around is at an early stage of evolution, singled-celled organisms if you like.  So what takes an amoeba and turns it into a fully-fledged consulting project, and what role can marketing play in that process?

There are really three evolutionary stages we need to think about.

The first is all about the survival of the fittest: some of those single-celled ideas will turn out to have legs. What separates the winners from the losers is the extent to which clients can find corroborating evidence to support the idea that other people are thinking about their fledgling notion, too.  They don’t want to waste time on an issue or opportunity that’s going nowhere, and the only way to find out whether it’s going somewhere is to look around, talk to people, and see if others agree with them that it’s worth pursuing.  In the second stage, the client now knows they should do something, they’re just not sure what to do and whether they have the skills to do it.  Cue more research and more conversations with colleagues, but in a much more focused, in-depth way.  This is where an idea morphs into a concrete project, one that you can do, or decide you need help to do.  Which takes us to the third and final stage in which some work becomes consulting projects consultants can pitch to win.

We know from research that around 50% of amoeba never make it out of the primordial sludge, and a further 45% become pieces of work clients can do themselves.  Just 5% of the possible work actually becomes consulting projects.

So where would you place your bets as an organisation? Well, you’d probably spread it fairly evenly across all three stages.  You’d want to increase the number of ideas that make it out of stage 1, and the number of projects that clients realise need specialist skills to execute in stage 2; you’d then also want to maximise your firm’s chance of winning the pitches in stage 3.  In the past most marketing expenditure was focused on stage 3—wining work in a competitive situation—largely because it’s hard to know who’s thinking about what in stage 1, and clients generally don’t want to talk to consulting firms in stage 2 (they want to sort themselves out internally before they go to the market, if they need to).  Over the last decade, the increasingly sophisticated response to both of those problems has been thought leadership.  That works because it can be broadcast, picked up by the people who need it in stage 1, and because, at its best, it can help clients conceptualise the issue and clarify the expertise consultants can bring.

But perhaps future success will depend less on excelling at each stage, and more on moving the boundaries between them.  Clients may be reluctant to engage directly with consultants during stage 2, but the firm that can shift point at which they move into stage 3 or ensure that it’s already having a conversation with the client at the moment they do so will have a huge advantage.  The key to this is that it takes marketing away from what has essentially been a remote stance, sending out information in the hope it has an impact, waiting for complex projects to emerge from simple starting points, etc., to one of active intervention: less marketeers, more geneticists.

 

 

Blog categories: 

Comments

Yes, the C-level people are teeming with idea bacteria or viruses. BUT what direction should these people really be looking? We all know that a business is a system of INTERdependent functions and process. And yet companies behave as though the functions are independent of each other. Most C-levels will deny what I just wrote, but the evidence is crystal clear. Targets and KPIs the various functions operate against are often in conflict - cost reduction in production vs. more throughput by sales. Profit centres vying for the same resources; projects vying for the same resources. Year-end inventory targets vs. sales and many, many more. If a business is a system, then shouldn't the C-level team manage their business as a system? Now that would be an idea that should have legs! The problem with it is that it has some key requirements: 1. They need to know where the limiting factor of their business is located. 2. They need to decide how the business will get the most from its limiting factor. 3. They need to decide how the rest of the organisation must subordinate to the decision in point 2. etc. The 3rd point requires the necessary information for every manager in the organisation so that he or she can actually subordinate correctly. From experience there is huge potential if a business can pull the trick off. In a smaller system that contained the limiting factor we were able to increase Throughput by 1/3 within a few weeks. (Throughput is the rate at which the system makes money) Sadly, most consulting projects are a waste because they do not address that apparently elusive limiting factor. Is the limiting factor really so elusive, or are we so used to division of labour - the departments and processes in our businesses - that we cannot look at the business as a whole, define our limiting factor and then decide what project should be launched? Rudi PS. I am not saying anything new, just that almost no bigger business operates in this way.

Add new comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. The validation is not case sensitive.
1 + 3 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.