I've been around the
A/E and environmental business long enough to observe a gradual decline
of our consulting role. Other old-timers I talk with generally see the
same thing. Our younger colleagues may have missed the trend but
nonetheless sense something is amiss. They want to be more valued, more
respected, more trusted. We once were.
Why has our value as consultants been diminished? There are varied
reasons: Clients are more sophisticated, our business is mature, our
services are more commoditized, technology has narrowed the knowledge
advantage—to name a few. But the reason that troubles me most is our
voluntary forfeiture of much of our consulting function. We gradually
stopped offering our advice as clients increasingly stopped asking for
it.
There's an interesting parallel in the world of sales. A study of over 6,000 salespeople
concluded that there were five basic seller profiles. The largest
group, the Relationship Builders, employed the time-tested friendship
model of selling. Buyers gave these sellers their business largely
because they liked them. But the Relationship Builders were the least
successful group, comprising only 7% of the top sales performers.
The most successful group was called the Challengers. They made up
40% of the top performers. These sellers were notable in their knowledge
of the buyer's business, their distinctive viewpoints, and their
willingness to challenge and push buyers toward what they believed was
the best solution. In other words, they consulted buyers even when they
weren't asked to—and it usually paid off for both parties.
The disparity might also be expressed as the difference between
being order takers and serving as trusted advisors. All consultants
aspire to be viewed as trusted advisors; it is the gold standard of our
profession. But the reality is that many A/E professionals find
themselves increasingly just filling the order. The client tells them
what they want; the consultant dutifully does it.
Is it time to reclaim our consulting role? Perhaps it would be
helpful to consider the differences between order takers and trusted
advisors (the following is adapted from the article "From Order Taker to Influencer" by Vicki James):
- The order taker asks: What do you want? | The trusted advisor asks: What do you need?
- The order taker's inquiry: Focuses on project scope, schedule, budget. | The trusted advisor's inquiry: Focuses on how the project delivers business results.
- The order taker's response: Simply does what the client requests. | The trusted advisor's response: Willing to challenge and recommend other options.
- The order taker's advice: Tells the client what they want to hear. | The trusted advisor's advice: Tells the client what they need to know.
- The order taker's general approach: Transactional and tactical. | The trusted advisor's general approach: Strategic and relational.
Of course, the above comparisons oversimplify the distinction
between the two roles. Most professionals find themselves spending time
in both, depending on the client, the project, and other circumstances.
But I think most of us will agree that we too often settle for the order
taker role.
Where do we begin to reclaim our role as consultants? I've written
at length about this subject in various articles in this space. Here's a
quick summary:
- Let desired outcomes drive our project planning. Our
projects must achieve specific strategic business objectives to be
successful. We need to get more serious about making this a priority.
- Acknowledge the problem of project myopia. This
is the tendency, prevalent in our profession, to focus on the technical
details of project work to the neglect of seeing the bigger picture.
Projects are not an end in themselves, but a means toward the end of
serving client needs.
- Connect our work to the client's return on investment. In
most consulting and design work, our completed scope is still an
unfinished project. Someone must take what we have produced (plans,
report, etc.) and convert it to something that returns value on the
client's investment. We should take a more active role in facilitating
better collaboration and integration of the different parties' project
contributions. And we must extend our discussion about projects to the
results they are supposed to deliver.
- Recognize the importance of nontechnical project elements. We've
already touched on the strategic fulfillment our projects must
accomplish. We should also emphasize the human element. Our work serves
people, both in the finished project and the process of working with
others to make it a reality. Attention to the client experience is
gaining momentum in our industry; we would do well to give it the
importance it deserves.
- Develop our consulting skills. As the consulting
function slowly ebbs, what becomes of our abilities in this area? What
about our younger colleagues who primarily experience the role of order
taker? We need to be more intentional in building consulting skills such
as active listening, communication, strategic thinking, problem
solving, creativity, and collaboration.
Agree or disagree? Are we losing ground as consultants and
advisors? I'd love to hear what you're seeing and experiencing. Click
the comment button below and share your thoughts.
Have you ever tried to
articulate your firm's value proposition? Your value proposition is the
primary reasons clients are likely to select you over your competitors.
For most A/E firms, coming up with a compelling value proposition is
exceedingly difficult because most firms aren't that different from each
other in the eyes of clients.
I have guided leaders of several firms through exercises designed to
help them identify key elements of their value proposition. Most of
those firms have predictably struggled with it. They typically start by
listing as their top differentiators attributes (such as responsiveness,
reliability, quality, relationships) that are difficult to prove to
prospective clients.
I like the RAIN Group's description of a strong value proposition.
They suggest that an effective value proposition must have three
characteristics (likening it to a three-legged stool):
- It must resonate. A strong value proposition aligns with what clients want and need, and what they value. It's relevant.
- It must differentiate. It sets your firm apart from your competitors. It's different.
- It must substantiate. It offers proof that you can deliver the value you claim. No empty marketing slogans. It's verifiable.
Each of the three characteristics present a formidable challenge to
the typical firm. It's easy enough to relate to the client's technical
needs. But we're less clear about how we meet high-value strategic
business needs. And we often struggle to connect our work to the
associated human needs and desired outcomes. (See "Uncovering the Client's Real Needs")
Most A/E firms seem to list differentiators that are experiential and
unverifiable. In other words, existing clients might recognize that
your firm is trustworthy and flexible, and they might continue to work
with you because of a strong relationship. But how do you sell such
virtues to prospective clients? And doesn't every firm make similar—and
similarly unprovable—claims?
If you're convinced that these kinds of intangible qualities
constitute your competitive advantage, then you must determine how to tangibilize
them. This means making them, at least in part, observable and
verifiable. How do you do that? Let me suggest three primary ways:
Produce objective evidence. You're probably familiar
with the venerable test of marketable benefits, which involves
answering two questions: "So what?" and "Can you prove it?" Assuming you
can describe how a particular area of expertise or qualification is
beneficial to the client (and don't assume it's automatically evident!),
then you're faced with the second and toughest of the two questions:
Can you show me the evidence?
The fact is that there is scant evidence for most of the marketing
and sales claims we make: "We provide high-quality work," "Our designers
really listen," "We put our clients first," "Our employees are
dedicated to producing exceptional solutions." Such verbiage only drains
the value from your value proposition. For this reason, I encourage you
to try to avoid claims of distinction that you can't validate.
Instead, focus on those strengths that you can verify. For example:
"As evidence of our commitment to quality, change orders related to our
designs have averaged only 0.7% of construction costs over the last
decade, compared to an industry average of 2%." If you lack the evidence
to back up your claims, go find it if you can.
Define a delivery process. Most of the supposed
intangible strengths that A/E firms offer as differentiators are not the
product of corporate intent but of individual competency. Client
service is a ready example. Every firm claims to provide it, but very
few can show a process or system for ensuring its consistent delivery.
Combined with the fact that few firms even measure how well they serve
clients, this typically amounts to a meaningless sales claim.
I can attest to the value of being able to describe (and show) a
process for delivering the intangible strength you're trying to sell.
Years ago, I developed a client service delivery process
for my former employer, a firm that determined it wanted to be "the
service leader" in its target markets. We even could produce a picture
of how we provided leading service:
Admittedly, it's an oversimplification of what great service entails,
but it nevertheless proved to be a valuable business development asset.
My favorite example of this was a shortlist interview for a nationwide
environmental services contract with a major airline. I had tried to
convince my colleagues not to even pursue this since our firm lacked any
experience with airlines or airports. But we managed to make it to the
shortlist.
We decided to stress our service delivery process since we had heard
that the airline wasn't happy with some of their current environmental
consultants. When we showed the slide with the diagram above, the
selection committee chairman exclaimed, "Why are you the only firm
talking about this? Poor service is why we're looking at new firms. Yet
you're the only one to tell us how you're going to give us better
service!" We got the contract.
Can you take a similar approach for other intangible strengths? I
think you can. You could talk about steps you take to strengthen client
relationships. You could describe your firm's policies for ensuring
responsiveness to clients. You could outline your training program that
promotes better collaboration on projects. Et cetera.
Demonstrate it in how you develop new business. If
you've read many of my posts here, you know that I advocate a
service-centered approach to business development. To borrow Charlie
Green's terminology, this amounts to "samples selling"—demonstrating
your intangible strengths versus merely talking about them. You can
allow the prospective client to sample most aspects of project work
before buying; for example:
- Client focus—by reversing the usual focus on you the seller and centering it on the buyer instead
- Problem solving—by helping the client characterize and identify the solution you hope to help implement
- Quality—by delivering sales products (white papers, correspondence, proposals, etc.) of exceptional quality
- Reliability—by consistently delivering what you promised, even in the little things like returning phone calls promptly
- Expertise—by providing great insight and knowledge relative to the client's needs
Those intangible qualities that you believe are genuine and valued by
your clients typically mean little to prospective clients without
proof. By taking steps to tangibilize them as described above, you can
turn those empty sales claims into real points of distinction. Maybe
you'll even hear one of your new clients exclaim, "Why is everybody just
talking about this instead of showing us how they're truly different?"