I was fascinated to learn from Damian Wild that the Big Four are seeking to sneak back into the consulting market and that it is causing a minor stir. I’m in two minds about this.
On the one hand we should not forget that the seeds of Arthur Andersen’s demise were sown in the acrimonious break away of the consulting business. Greed got in the way of sound judgment. We might also be minded that the Big Four have hardly been noteworthy in the ethics stakes this last few years. At first glance, this move looks like another attempt to jump onto the consulting gravy train.
On the other hand, clients need IT advice that is independent of its execution. That’s because bias will dictate the course of events so any steps you can take to eliminate bias are to the good. In IT consulting, independence has all but disappeared. In the early 1990s, consultants undertook due diligence and selection analysis. It was necessary because features and functions were evolving and decisions needed to be made on whether technology actually worked. That all came to an end around 1998-9 when comparisons between products became moot.
As Brian Sommer recently said:
…who cares if a general ledger package has 5 methods of allocating balances and a competing package only has four. If both support the method you need, what’s the incremental value of functionality you don’t need or want (or want to incur the long-term cost of maintaining)?
It was that kind of understanding that led consultants like Accenture to set up shops dedicated to implementing vendor specific package. The thinking went: ‘Why compete against ourselves, let someone else sort out the selection problem and we’ll implement what the customer ends up deciding.’ It also had the effect of distancing consultants from any mis-step in the selection process. A neat trick. Not that it always saved them.
Around 2000 for instance, Accenture was unceremoniously booted off a C&W Siebel implementation for making schoolboy implementation errors. It’s mistake wasn’t in execution but effectively saying: ‘Not us guv, we’re doing as we’re told’ even though they knew the project was doomed.
There is a place for the independent person to provide solid assistance in the selection and project support processes. In that I’m four square behind Vinnie Mirchandani when he asserts that companies cannot hope to innovate while prices for utility services remain unsustainably high and effectively sucking oxygen from IT budgets.
The difference between the markets of 1997 and today is that decision makers have far more information available to them. The principles of value matter more now than they have in the past. That’s why buyers should be asking themselves: Do I really need a suite solution or will QuickBooks Manufacturing and a whiteboard be right? Unfortunately, very few of the consultants I see would consider that a valid comparison. And let’s not even mention the i(nnovation) word.
Integrity It’s a differentiator in a world where greed seems to matter more to the consulting organisations than client best interests. Evidence for which (if tongue in cheek) is freely available at Getting Drunk in First Class. Therefore while I have my doubts about the motives of the Big Four, it’s good to see them shaking the tree.
Technorati Tags: Accenture – Big 4 – Big Four – QuickBooks – consulting
Comments on this entry are closed.