What's in a name?

Quite a lot, apparently.

Consultants have been grumbling about the word “consultant” since the dotcom boom-to-bust, when clients started to associate them with the type of champagne strategy which was all bubble and no substance. Consultants, alongside trendy technology companies, were held to blame for the millions squandered on unworkable e-business projects. Anxious to distance themselves from this debacle, the survivors of the 2001 crash emphasised their implementation credentials. “We don’t just write reports,” was the common refrain. But the situation was muddied further by the return of three of the Big Four accounting firms to the consulting market (Deloitte never left). In order to avoid overlaps with the consulting practices they had previously divested, they tended to use the term “advisory”, even when they meant helping clients implement.

All of which results in a compelling argument for finding a term to replace the confused and discredited “consulting”. There was a rumour a year or so ago that McKinsey were going to rebadge their consultants “knowledge purveyors”: entirely spurious, I’m sure, but a sign of the times nonetheless. The fact that it hasn’t happened already doesn’t indicate a lack of willingness, but the fact that no obvious or acceptable replacement has been identified.

Let’s look at the possible contenders:

• Implementers: Far too clunky and smacks of Mafiosi enforcement. You can’t quite see the market line “Our implementers work in partnership with our clients” working, can you?
• Experts: Ticks the simplicity box and would appeal to clients who are looking for specialist skills but would probably leave those who want help getting things done cold. It might work well for niche firms, but not for big ones which staff projects with more junior people.
• Knowledge outsourcers: Picks up nicely on the blurred distinction between consulting and outsourcing (you could argue that strategy consulting, for example, is the outsourcing of an organisation’s strategic planning function), but will smack of commoditisation to the consulting industry.
• Delivery partners: This is my bet for consulting de nos jour, nicely combining as it does the two key aspirations of consulting firms at the moment. “We deliver,” they say, “so we can’t be classed as discretionary spend, but we’re not outsourcers, determined to screw every last penny from our work, but partners.”

Entertaining though this is, none of it answers the all-important question of whether a change in name is enough. Consultants may be deluding themselves into thinking that it’s the badge people distrust: it may, of course, be consulting itself.

17th July 2010