|
February 1997 Volume 24 Number 1 Seven Helpful Hints for OR/MS Consultants How to sell your technical expertise and get clients to acknowledge and appreciate the results By Harlan P. CrowderChaos, complexity and uncertainty. As we approach the new millennium, big public and private organizations are often the victim of chaos, complexity and uncertainty. Local and national governments and businesses from startups to Fortune 100s often appear to function as if the inmates have taken over the asylum. Without doubt, this is a continuing trend: global trade pacts, government deregulation, legislative gridlock, corporate restructuring, contentious and quarreling special interests -- all increase the entropy of social and economic systems in organizations large and small.What this means for operations research/management sciences professionals is that there is a sharp increase in the demand for our help in understanding and taming chaos, complexity and uncertainty. This booming use of OR/MS methods can be traced to several factors: an increased focus on applications by the OR/MS community, dirt-cheap computers, and a dawning awareness by the people in charge of organizations that some sticky analytic management problems just can't be solved in spreadsheets. The bottom line is this: If you like to solve real problems using OR/MS methods and you desire to make a living doing what you like, then you are in luck. Chaos, complexity and uncertainty are your ticket to the fun house from now to 2000 and beyond. My intention here is to give some personal insights and suggestions on the practice of professional OR/MS consulting. Professional consultants are interested in solving their client's business problems, not merely designing and building simulation and optimization models. Thus a lot of my discussion deals with client and consulting engagement management. I draw on the experiences of our successful OR/MS consulting practice in the IBM Consulting Group, presenting a potpourri of helpful hints that, unfortunately, our group often had to learn the hard way. The usual disclaimer: What follows is my personal opinion and is not the policy, official or otherwise, of the IBM Consulting Group. Helpful Hint 1:
We performed a series of engagements for a manufacturer of agricultural chemical products. The first time I visited the client, I was told that they had too much inventory remaining at the end of each year and they wanted to hire me to build an inventory model. After some discussions with several levels of management and operational people, we found that: 1) they indeed had too much inventory at year's end, and 2) the root cause wasn't directly with inventory policy, but rather lack of any idea about how to forecast annual demand for products. We discovered that the two most important factors for understanding how their product should be produced and positioned over the year were individual customer histories and the weather. Yet this company rarely talked directly to their customers and -- I'm not making this up -- their only use of the weather was to "blame the weather when things go wrong!" We ended up with a series of engagements to build a forecasting model that considered customer and weather history. Solving the forecasting problem solved the inventory problem. Listen carefully when your clients describe their business problems, but make sure your OR/MS solution solves the right problem. Helpful Hint 2:
Don't be lulled into thinking that this consulting engagement will be different. The model doesn't require that much data, everybody agrees on the data sources, the systems people swear that everything you need is easily available, and the client has promised her best people to help you extract and format the data just the way you want it. If you believe this scenario and write your consulting contract accordingly, you will lose money. If you believe it too many times, you will be out of business. (More later about writing contracts.) Helpful Hint 3:
Planning and scheduling are really two extremes of a spectrum of applications. This spectrum is measured in the kinds of characteristics of models mentioned above: time horizon, data aggregation, business segment, interested party, etc. Most OR/MS models will lie somewhere on this spectrum, depending on the application. Again, no great news for OR/MS professionals. The problem arises when you work with clients who do not have an appreciation of the concepts of scheduling and planning or the ideas behind building and using mathematical models. In Helpful Hint 1, I talked about defining the client's problem. If appropriate, part of that definition is making a determination: are we doing planning or scheduling? If it turns out that the application under consideration requires a planning model, we want everybody to know that. And in particular, we want people to know that it will not answer operational scheduling types of questions. Conversely, if the application requires a scheduling model, everyone has to know that under no circumstances will the model answer questions of a strategic planning nature. In concert with the client, I usually write a design document for a proposed model to support a particular application. Included in this document will be a section on the kinds of insights and answers that can be expected from the model, and also a list of the kinds of questions the model will not answer. In effect, we determine and agree where the application is pegged on the planning/scheduling spectrum. Then, six weeks or six months later, when I'm conducting a review session for a strategic production/distribution model and the foreman from the production line asks how this model will help him schedule his line next week, I'm ready. I've got documentary evidence that this guy is in the wrong meeting. Helpful Hint 4:
Many consulting projects are the victim of "scope-creep," which, as the name implies, is the unintended expansion of the scope of the project. Scope-creep delays the project, costs more money, and usually reflects badly on the consultant. OR/MS consulting engagements are especially vulnerable to scope-creep because designing and building mathematical models of real-world systems usually generates lots of new questions and areas for more investigation. There is constant temptation to explore some new track briefly in the hope that it will yield some killer insight, thus delighting the client and making the consultant look really good. In most cases, the diversion of effort to an out-of-scope activity will delay the project, cost the client more money -- seldom resulting in delight -- and hurt the consultant's reputation. Should all the neat and cool questions that arise in the course of an OR/MS consulting project be ignored? Certainly not. They should be well documented and used as the basis for securing what every good consultant wants and plans for: The Follow-On Engagement. If new questions and areas of investigation are really important, they should form the basis for the scope of subsequent projects with the client. Just don't let them block the exit door out of the current engagement. Helpful Hint 5:
By all accounts, the beach stormers have a lot more fun than the occupation forces, but both groups are vital if an OR/MS application is to successfully solve a business problem. For consultants, this usually means that you can do most of the beach storming and can train client practitioners to perform the more routine follow-on and day-to-day activities. If you skimp on the application maintenance education and training, you run the risk of getting a distress call later, just when you are in the middle of storming a really cool beach. Helpful Hint 6:
We have found another approach to be very successful: We open our methodology up to our clients and encourage them to learn as much as they can about how we design and build OR/MS models, collect data, and generate and interpret results. If possible, we encourage clients to let us help them acquire OR/MS skills and establish business modeling groups within the enterprise to maintain and extend the analytic applications that we develop for them. This approach works for several reasons:
Helpful Hint 7:
The usual procedure is to determine what needs to be done and define the scope of the engagement (see Hint 4), determine how much of your time will be required to accomplish the engagement scope, multiply your time requirement by your consulting rate, and give the client your estimate of how much you will charge in consulting fees. In essence, you are delivering a product -- your brain power applied to the problem at hand -- and this is the price of the product. Usually, if you have scoped the project correctly, there will be little if any grumbling about price. If the client wants to haggle on price, then he or she needs to understand that they are, in effect, changing the scope of the project; if you pay less, you get less. A quick word on fixed-price contracts versus time-and-materials contracts: Don't offer clients fixed-price contracts unless you really know what you are doing. If you tell somebody that you will design and implement a model and produce results for a fixed price, then when things go wrong you eat the cost. On the other hand, if you give the client an estimate of how much the project will cost based on your time involvement, you have two advantages: 1) when (not if) things go wrong -- the I/S people don't have the data for your model like they promised they would -- then the client eats the cost for the extra effort required by you, and 2) if you happen to finish the project in less time than estimated, with less resulting cost to the client, then you get to be a hero; your reputation is enhanced and you are in a good position for follow-on business with the client. And finally, promise whatever you will to your client, but always deliver more than you promise. Pick up one of those out-of-scope items that we talked about in Hint 4, or make a report in color rather than black and white, or show the marketing department how they can use the manufacturing model to be more effective, etc. In the end, clients don't want models or reports or GUIs; they want value for their money, just like you and me. In every consulting engagement, slip in a little unexpected value. Conclusion Professional OR/MS consulting requires two broad sets of skills: the ability to look at the chaos, complexity and uncertainty of a real-world processes and see a mathematical model, and the skill to sell your technical expertise and get people to acknowledge and appreciate the results of your labor. I've given some helpful hints here on the latter aspect. When we started our OR/MS consulting practice at IBM five years ago, my colleagues and I had a good command of the technical aspects required to be successful in the market. What we didn't have -- and didn't know that we didn't have -- was a good awareness and appreciation of the process of being an effective consultant. The ideas I've outlined here are little nuggets I gathered as I trudged up that learning curve. I hope an aspiring OR/MS consultant finds them helpful. This article appeared in Vol. 17, No.2 of the INFORMS Computer Science Technical Section (CSTS) Newsletter. Reprinted with permission. Harlan P. Crowder is a senior consultant with the IBM Consulting Group. He uses OR/MS techniques to analyze complex business problems. Dr. Crowder has received the Lanchester Prize from ORSA for work on solving large-scale integer programming problems. He lives in Silicon Valley, Calif. His e-mail address is crowder@almaden.ibm.com Reader Service Form E-mail to the Editorial Department of OR/MS Today: orms@lionhrtpub.com OR/MS Today copyright © 1997, 1998 by the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences. All rights reserved. Lionheart Publishing, Inc. 2555 Cumberland Parkway, Suite 299, Atlanta, GA 30339 USA Phone: 770-431-0867 | Fax: 770-432-6969 E-mail: lpi@lionhrtpub.com Web Site © Copyright 1997, 1998 by Lionheart Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Web Design by Premier Web Designs, e-mail lionwebmaster@preweb.com |