If you ask us what we spend most of our time on, it's fair to say that consulting services and project conception are top priorities. It's virtually our core business, because anyone who works with us knows that we aren't uncritical implementers; we take our consulting responsibility seriously and don't hold back with feedback and constructive criticism. Sometimes this goes down incredibly well, but sometimes companies feel a little put out at first.
Critical Reflection Even During Contract Award
Many contracts aren't just awarded offhand, but through lengthy selection processes. Not infrequently, this requires detailed preparatory work on the client's side or from other project partners. With more or less clear business goals, requirements, wishes, and deadlines. The more precise the briefing, the easier it becomes for external parties to immerse themselves in the company, the target groups, and the project in general, or to even begin to understand the requirements in detail. A thorough understanding of the problem is, after all, the cornerstone of successful collaboration.
But what if weaknesses are identified in the briefing, a failed project needs to be taken over, the deadline is deemed absolutely unrealistic, or experience shows that project goals cannot be achieved within the given budget? This is when the question arises: Must one comply with the client's wishes in all cases, or does one take on the role of 'advocatus diaboli', dissecting the given specifications into their individual parts to then reassemble them in the best possible way? On the client's side, the latter approach requires a lot of critical questioning and a large dose of self-reflection to then go along with it. You don't have to be a psychologist to know that most people dislike, or are indifferent to, their own ideas being questioned too much.
Problems Never Just Disappear
We have also experienced that precise questioning sometimes only then uncovers the real problems. What seems deceptively simple then turns out to be a real dealbreaker. Of course, this is uncomfortable at first. For clients, the budget, the deadline, and also for the consultants who pointed it out. But it won't get any better if one constantly scratches the surface and procrastinates on problems. In the rarest of cases will they disappear. It's more realistic that they will appear much more strongly than assumed at a later and even more inconvenient time. Of course, even well-intentioned and constructive criticism is surprising, perhaps shakes one's professional ego a little, and must not be misused to sell unnecessary services and solutions just because one hopes for a bigger deal from it.
Companies also bring in experienced service providers for support because internal know-how or simply resources are lacking. Often both, as the core business focuses on other areas, and when implementing complex web applications or digital campaigns, experts are preferred who can help achieve project goals. As an expert, in turn, one has the responsibility to contribute one's own know-how. After all, that's what one is ultimately paid for. This certainly requires a more intensive engagement with the customer beforehand and ongoing dialogue during the support.
It only seems easier at first glance to promise exactly what is demanded, to convey affirmation and score a few sympathy points. But if you're in a pitch situation and only one of several providers critically questions the task, it can quickly backfire with the impression: 'They probably don't know what they're talking about.' Even if the converse might mean that others haven't thought enough about it. 'No problem at all, it'll be done' rolls off the tongue more easily and falsely signals a certain lack of problems.
But eventually, someone might speak frankly and clarify. In the best case, the client will then ask again why it wasn't pointed out that either resources were wasted, more efficient solutions could have been used, or the strategy doesn't even align with the objectives. And why, as an expert, this wasn't recognised beforehand. Touché and a lose-lose for both sides then.
Partner or Just an Implementer?
The problem often lies more with the contractors also having to say no. Not just to a project itself, but to ideas where it's foreseeable from the outset that they won't contribute to project success, could even cause harm, or simpler means exist to achieve the desired goal. The likelihood that clients who are extensively advised feel well looked after and want to collaborate again on future projects or recommend the service is, after all, high.
So far, so logical. Nevertheless, it's often said: 'But if the client wants it that way.' Yes, of course, if the client wants it, then it will ultimately be done that way. However, that doesn't mean that one has to bury one's head in the sand along the way and agree to everything, only to perhaps argue behind closed doors that one knew better all along. Of course, one shouldn't always object, but in the end, it's not about personal sensitivities, but about project success.
In a positive business relationship, there must be room to argue and represent one's own opinion. That's what defines a partnership that goes beyond a mere client-service provider relationship. Both clients and service providers should value this. If a project runs for several months or even years, both sides are well advised to see themselves as equal partners.
