Kennedy Consulting Research & Advisory (now part of ALM Intelligence) recently came out with two separate “quadrant”-based rankings of procurement consulting firms. We believe that from a pragmatic selection standpoint, such approach to reports, even if they were carried out with the utmost diligence (something we would expect of Kennedy), result in the distillation of complex research to a graphic that has far more marketing value than pragmatic value in tenders and evaluations for consultancy services. Such practitioners who want to do more than “check the box” on provider due diligence (in the way that too many technology buyers unfortunately use similar “magic” quadrants) need to go deeper in how they choose such solutions. For example, are you just looking for certain outcomes, or do you want some “option value” and capabilities that can be retained and used in the future? Also, such quadrants tend to imply that you’re going to pick just one provider and also one mode of service delivery. In this Spend Matters PRO research brief, we outline key reasons why an external (i.e., not internally developed) quadrant-based approach to evaluating procurement consultancies may be great for providers for firm bragging rights, recruiting and banter, but only goes so far in real-world consultancy selection for buying organizations.
Selecting Management Consultants For Procurement — Don’t Rely on ‘Quadrants’ Alone [PRO]
For full access to this PRO content: