Hiring IT Consultants: Examples of Poor Use or Poor Performance

Having run a team for 12 years across commercial and government engagements, there is a short list of don’t dos, both from the employing organisation and the client when engaging consultants. 

If you’re considering employing a contractor – avoid these things: 

• Hiding the real reason for hiring consultants or using consultants to justify a pre-chosen tool, solution, decision or vendor (“We bought or want X — please validate it”). 

• Engaging for “X” then changing the scope to do something else without allowing for change in the process. You’re dealing with people who need to think things through and need to make business decisions themselves. This never ends well. 

• Paying principal or senior rates for staff tasks (“extra hands”), especially with no timeline set. 

• Outlining requirements then micromanaging tasks. You are after a result, the method is the IT Consultant’s job. 

• Hoping using consultants will improve poor staff performance. 

• Overlooking governance. You must have some governance such as an internal sponsor or product owner. The bigger the problem the more senior internal support needs to be. Create effective governance. If this doesn’t exist the consultant will attempt to fill the vacuum, and it becomes difficult to make progress as there is no commitment to change.  

UK Report identifies weak governance impact on digital transformation 

A UK study by KPMG/Forrester reported that only 17% of public sector leaders considered their digital transformation “completely successful” with weak governance identified as a major contributing factor. - KPMG/Forrester (UK): Digital transformation in the public sector – the challenges (PDF)

• Ignoring knowledge transfer — losing capability the moment the consultants leave. 

• Squeezing rates unreasonably. You want to keep costs down — but don’t forget consultants have a business to run and value costs money. Better, tie consulting cost to outcomes. 

Don’t accept these behaviours from any consulting firm: 

• Producing large presentation slide decks with no realistic, sequenced recommendations that move towards your goal. 

• Lack of transparency over hours, progress, or issues. 

• Ongoing discovery or pilots that don’t seem to end.  

• Pushing scope increases unrelated to agreed outcomes. 

• Senior people selling, juniors staff doing all the work. 

• Constantly shifting end dates (time is money).  

• Reusing a one-size-fits-all framework that ignores your organisation’s size or environment. 

• Undisclosed vendor incentives or conflicts of interest. These issues are well documented in procurement guidance (refer pull-out). The same principles apply when engaging consultants. 

NZ Government Advice on Managing Conflicts of Interest & Procurement 

The Office of the Auditor-General notes that poorly managed procurement conflicts can undermine fairness and impartiality, damage market confidence, and expose agencies to legal, commercial, or reputational risk — including when it’s the perception of bias. - OAG NZ: Managing conflicts of interest in procurement

OR 

NZ Government procurement guidance notes that all agency staff, contractors, consultants and volunteers have a duty to put the public interest first, and that conflicts of interest must be identified and transparently managed (actual, potential, or perceived). - NZ Government Procurement: Managing conflicts of interest and confidentiality 

I started this four-part series after reading a Stuff article on a consultant charging $500+/hour, and reflecting on the (likely) wayward governance around costs.  

My real message is this: the faster your organisation’s initiatives can be achieved the better. When help or expertise is needed, IT Consultants that are well engaged and managed will deliver meaningful business outcomes and their costs will be long forgotten as the benefits are recognised.