The Systematic 1h Client Assessment
I talk a lot. With clients. With prospective clients. Companies don’t hire consultants ’cause they are fun. (The lack of humor some companies have is shocking, but that is another article.) They hire consultants because they need a way forward. The clients are, to some degree, stuck, this is where the external expert for hire comes in.
The expert, on the other side, needs to find out what it is all about. What the client’s goal is, what the client needs. We need to build a hypothesis fast about “what’s the matter?”. This must happen in the first meeting, in the first hour. Because if the expert is not the right one for the challenge at hand, or the right one for the company, or the other way round, it’s a waste of time for everyone involved. And time as an inelastic, limited, “can not create more of it no matter what” resource is the most precious, ever.
So whenever I talk with clients for the first time, I need to find out if I am the right one and what’s up with the client. Are we a client-consultant-fit? So I apply this systematic framework. You can usually do this in 1h of talking to the right person or persons within the company.
Goals
What is their goal? What do they want to achieve? Is it one goal, or is it multiple goals? Is it a hard defined goal, and how hard is it to measure? Or is it a soft goal that is not quantifiable measurable? Why is the goal the goal? Maybe there are underlying real goals, and the communicated goal is just a proxy (or even a decoy goal?). If there are multiple goals, are the aligned, mutually exclusive, or even contradicting? In the end, I need to have a good understanding of where they want to be.
Actors
Actors are each and everyone who might contribute to the goal who has a will or an agenda of its own. Who can do things on their own. Money is not an actor, neither are tools, software, infrastructure. The company itself is an actor, as are the departments, groups, teams within the company. And the individual contributors/employees within these departments, groups, teams, …
Third-party contributors like agencies, freelancers, or partners are actors. Users are actors. Marketplaces and platforms like Google, Facebook, Yelp, .. are actors. State regulations are -slow- actors, too.
I make a distinction between soulless (agendaless) resources who don’t do anything when not used, and actors who always do things no matter what, and not always what you need or expect. Ressources are easy. Actors are tricky.
Status Quo
Where are they currently? They are talking with me, so they want to go somewhere, so they should probably know where they are currently. Best show me hard (and hopefully reliable) data. If no data is available, then an honest company self-assessment will help. If this does not exist either, I go for anecdotal examples of how things are going in the company.
Ressources
Money, Tools, Infrastructure, Raw Materials, Time. Everything that does not have an agenda or will of its own.
Processes
Which actors do what how with the resources? Or straightforward: Who does what? It can be very high level in this 1h assessment.
“Readymade” client solutions and other stuff
Clients quite often already have a solution in mind, and the consultant is just part of the solution. This is a common misconception on the client’s side: You don’t hire an external expert to do what you want. You hire them to do what you need (to reach a jointly defined goal)! Still, the client’s “readymade solutions” are valuable input, show how they think and how their personal or company inner logic works.
Also, listen to the “other stuff,” if it does not take away too much time from the other aspects. This “other stuff” is probably something that the client sees as valuable and might give hints about underlying challenges.
Systematic Assessment
If a goal is missing or there are numerous — maybe even contradicting — goals, it’s a management issue.
Too many goals show a lack of focus. No goal shows a lack of direction. Contradicting goals are a sign of company internal management competition.
If actors are missing, it’s a set up issue. Maybe underlying hiring or money allocation issues.
Missing can mean two things in this context. Either the role does not exist at all, or it is inoperative. The role exists, but it does not work. (I.e., “Marketing does sales, too.” But nobody told marketing about it.).
All projects and initiatives that fail, fail because of setup issues. If you point the finger long enough, you can always point to someone. (Finger pointing is pretty inefficient by the way.).
Actors must be in place, and they must know what is expected of them. And they must have the resources to do it. Without the right setup, you will fail, no matter what you do.
If the status quo is missing it’s a knowledge issue. Maybe with an underlying measurement or data issue.
You must know where you are if you want to reach where you are going. It is not possible to reach a goal without a known starting point.
If the ressources are missing, it’s an allocation issue.
Most of the time, money is not an issue. It exists. Money exists within the company and is used somewhere. Time exists. Money and time can be used by actors to get all other resources. So these must be allocated to the right actors: money, tools, infrastructure, raw materials, time.
If ressources exist and are allocated correctly, but do not get used, it’s a knowledge or motivation issue.
Either actors don’t know how to use these resources, or don’t want to use the resources. Knowledge can be easily fixed (but might need time), motivation is trickier.
If processes are missing, it’s a process issue.
If “who does what” is not defined, it needs to be defined. Sounds easy, can be complex. Different actors using different resources in a coordinated and integrated way to achieve a shared goal.
If a status quo is known, a goal exists and actors, resources and processes are in place, but nothing happens, it’s a company politics issue.
Either the company needs to play the expert-card to overcome a known “failure to make a decision” most likely due to risk-averseness within the business. That’s easy. The consultant just needs to show up. Or it’s a company alignment issue. These take some time but are very rewarding as you see significant progress as soon as the pieces within the organization fall into the right places.
If 2 of the things are missing or inoperational, it’s a challenge because things are the way because they got this way.
Let’s say the status quo and processes are missing. Or actors and goals. Or goals and resources. Now it’s time for some company history digging. Things are always the way because they got this way. And they got this way because of decisions which were right at the time. There is the need to fix the underlying logic that has lead to this situation before you can progress further. If you don’t uncover those and just fix part of it, the system will bounce back to an unfunctional state in no time.
If 3 or more of these things are missing or inoperational it’s a mess.
Upside, there is no need to do company archeology. Just cut through the Gordian knot the company is held hostage by. Make sure they can move/execute in any direction again. The resulting friction is part of the process. Downside: Things will get worse before they get better, lots of internal friction will occur, people jumping ship. But the company will be better off in any case as they will finally be able to do something again.
A model.
This is the way I think. About companies, about clients, about my line of work. It’s a model. Things are not always this clear cut. And anyway, all models are wrong, as all models are a simplification. But some of them are useful. This model is damn useful for me to determine if the client and I are a good fit or not. It can be applied fast and is the first step for good, beneficial, effective work together.
About the Author
Franz Enzenhofer changes the internet since 1998. Over his career he worked with startups, market leaders, startups then market leaders, market leaders that reinvented themselves as startups, state-owned companies, freelancers, concert halls, cities, political parties, betting companies, NGOs, economic chambers, TV stations, family-owned small businesses, Fintechs, old school banks, national and international newspapers and news agencies, media houses, media conglomerates, sport teams and more. He worked with organizations in the US, UK, D.A.CH, Ireland, India, Thailand, Peru, Colombia, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, Croatia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Gibraltar, Sweden, Cyprus and more. He cares about scaleable, systematic growth.
fe /at/ f19n dot com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/franzenzenhofer
https://www.fullstackoptimization.com/b/understanding-seo
