Contribution and Limitations of this Thesis 1 Contribution to Knowledge

The main contribution of this work is to Service Operations Management, and the field of Behavioural Operations. This research builds directly on the work of Flanagan et al. (2005) and Staughton and Johnston (2005) explicitly recognising the complex nature of design and delivery of a pure service in the B2B context of Management Consultancy. The consulting intervention typically takes place over an extended period of time on the client site. Customers are a source and a receiver of competence and know-how, and a

165

component of their perception of the service depends on the social interaction that takes place during and outside the working environment.

The work shows that service design needs to incorporate behaviour for high-

customisation face-to-face services which continuously require innovation. Creating context-specific solutions to client problems in a structured way shows how innovation can be systematically incorporated into business development processes for consulting firms. In this way the work addresses the shortcomings of Service Blueprinting as regards the design of management consulting services because it provides for a deeper

understanding of how customers evaluate the service process and its design. This progresses the work of Hill et al. (2009) and Anand et al. (2009). The former explained how supplier’s sentiments needed to mirror those of the buying organisation’s members collectively, even though these are formed by subjective and idiosyncratic perceptions of obligations due. The research findings suggest that consultants do not need to mirror the buying organisation member sentiments but should understand them well enough to be able to interpret them and provide alternative viewpoints that nevertheless create reference-points and recognition for the buyers. The latter asserted that a continuous improvement infrastructure provides the organisational context for dynamic capabilities initiatives.

Most previous studies in Dynamic Capabilities examined bio-technology, software and other relatively new, agile industries leading to concerns that looking at seemingly successful firms will inevitably confirm sustainable competitive advantage through the operationalising of new routines. This research study integrates the study of an established industry with the study of creating and refreshing valuable, rare, difficult to imitate and imperfectly substitutable resources in changing environments to deliver greater customer satisfaction. The development of a Customisation Blueprint addresses the issue central to the study of Dynamic Capabilities because the outcome is designed to augment the resource base through the focus on structured adaptation and application to new, generally one-off, situations. It also highlights how a systematic approach to

knowledge-generation modifies and extends internal resources to renew capabilities, thus contributing to the field of Dynamic Capabilities.

A contribution is also made to the field of Organisational Behaviour. Providing a practical framework for the application of process to behavioural indicators provides a new slant to this field, and helps open up the way for combined research within this area. A structured approach to unearthing and satisfying behavioural aspects should help reduce some of the uncertainty in a competitive situation by providing buyers with strong evidence of a

166

personalised, context-relevant service design. Additionally, this research project shows that in contrast to Mohe and Seidl’s (2011) and Czarniawska’s (2013) work, in some situations it could be more productive for a consultancy firm to develop a communication system and working approach which demonstrates the ability to be co-operative. As well as helping reduce uncertainty, this indirectly builds trust, and simultaneously provides knowledge of customers and an ability to satisfy them. Behaviour which involves and reassures clients begins the development of interim knowledge-sharing routines. Whilst Mohe and Seidl (2011) and Czarniawska (2013) describe this as an independent

communication system, in this situation it becomes more an alignment of communication and behavioural cues.

This research is the first to attempt to study relational, intangible factors using a process- focused Operations Management approach and to apply the principles to interpersonal behaviour rather to business processes. The Customisation Blueprint that emerged from this research attempts to embed an operational response to market requirements,

allowing performance improvement in line with market changes whilst emphasising the interaction between people, systems and processes. Establishing connections between past actions, their results and future intentions and subjecting them to critical scrutiny with the intention of modifying according to immediate need corresponds operationally to Argyris’s (1982) concept of double-loop learning. This helps clients receive better service from their chosen consultants.

8.5.2 Practical Implications for the consulting industry

Customisation is expensive. Commoditisation helps consulting firms increase productivity. From a client perspective, making a product repeatable and efficient devalues the consulting offering because replicability and standardisation reduces customisation and flexibility. Respondents strongly felt customisation and flexibility were necessary attributes for consultants and consulting firms. Adopting the Customisation Blueprint approach combines the apparently contradictory requirements by consulting firm and client organisation.

Preparing proposals using the Customisation Blueprint provides consulting firms with the opportunity for ‘creative cognition’, something allegedly stunted by commoditisation and the erosion of ‘bricolage’ opportunities. Azadegan et al. (2008) and Glushko and

Nomorosa (2013) suggest this creates something radically new to an organisation through the participation of many whilst simultaneously providing independent, external validation. In this instance, external validation for consultants comes from outside the ‘bid team’ as the proposal is created, and from the buyer recognising the tailoring, creativity and

167

adaptation. For consulting firms therefore, adopting the Customisation Blueprint helps develop repeatable patterned organisational behaviour using a common frame of reference. Operating routines are modified by reconfiguring knowledge and people into new, situation-specific bundles, increasing process knowledge and extending capabilities. Bundling people, systems and organisation in pursuit of customisation improves internal effectiveness and external responsiveness. Operationalising listening creates greater understanding about customers’ requirements results in increased client satisfaction. In combination, this provides new leverage into the market.

Customer retention occurs purely on the strength of the most recent encounter with the firm. Perceived high service differentiation enables firms to maintain their own brand of competitive advantage. However, clients see differentiation through the individual consultants they come into contact with. They see differentiation coming from how well their needs have been interpreted and developed towards a solution they like. The Customisation Blueprint is designed to help consultants optimise the meeting of client needs through the management of end-to-end processes. Maddern et al. (2007) and Eisingerich and Bell (2008) for instance state this plays a crucial role in service differentiation. The implication for consulting firms is that they need to continually underline their ability to consistently apply knowledge contextually rather than by rote. The Customisation Blueprint that emerged from this research recognises that a firms’ key asset is consultants’ knowledge and expertise and that this can be manipulated from within the boundary of a single firm thanks to a consulting firm’s network of other organisations which provide inspiration from different social systems. The strength of unique, rare and valuable resources being used systematically reinforces inimitability and therefore goes some way to creating a USP for that firm – something respondents

strongly stated as necessary. Adopting the Customisation Blueprint enables this to happen.

Despite all participating companies expressing a default position of not buying consultancy, this research has established that purchasing is neither ad hoc nor intermittent. It is a permanent feature of organisational practice with an established infrastructure. A long-term view is taken through the framework structure and the shorter- term tends to be incorporated in the annual budgeting cycle. This should provide

reassurance for consulting firms, reducing uncertainty around pipeline and projected capacity management.

However, the research also identified that relationships were viewed differently by clients. Clients see a relationship as dependent on the empathy, chemistry and sense of

168

partnership created in previous encounters. They expect it to be mutually supporting rather than assignment-focused only, and enjoy when it moves from transactional to pleasurable. Clients carefully consider the individuals they like to work with, who they ‘match-off’ with, and who they invite to dinner. They see the people first and foremost although they value the brand name that sits behind that. Matching the style and background of the consultant is important to clients, and the Customisation Blueprint addresses this point through the guidance in the right hand column.

In conclusion, clients like to see two key things from their consultants. They want to be able to go to consultants and explain their issue and ask for suggestions of possible solutions. They do not like being sold to. They know when they need help and when they simply want a conversation, as part of the support a relationship should provide. They also wish to experience an approach and receive a solution tailored to their style and their needs.

The systematic approach to exploring buyer’s needs from a technical and functional perspective advocated by the Customisation Blueprint furthers the ability of management consultants to unearth clients’ psychological expectations which are intimated and not overtly made known, such as their preferred approach to problem-solving. Used well the Customisation Blueprint should highlight the tailoring of content and people. This can provide a USP, something respondents stated they wished consulting firms had. 8.5.3 Critical Evaluation of the Research Methodology

Methodologically this work adopts an interpretivist approach, concerned with the direct experiences of buyers and users of management consultancy. It provides a

comprehensive insight into what clients experience and how they judge consultants and their services. It goes beyond the formal process steps and explores emotional, intangible influences to decision-making and the selection of consultants in order to more fully

address the research question. As such, a qualitative approach was the most suitable to adopt, given that the research was not seeking to unearth absolute truths. Rather, it sought to critically explore the consulting phenomenon through the eyes of clients, subjecting social arrangements between client and consultant organisations to rational inspection whilst accepting that there is no such thing as objective knowledge, only shared knowledge.

8.5.4 Limitations of the Research

Whilst the research design tried to ensure this study was as comprehensive as possible, nevertheless a number of limitations do exist. Firstly, despite the inclusion of non-UK

169

domiciled organisations, there appears to be a level of homogeneity in respondent’s comments. This may be due to the fact that all bar 2 of the 16 participating companies are regulated industries (FS2 and IHEA). Perhaps the inclusion of a non-regulated sector might have revealed a slightly different picture.

Secondly, the definitions and explanations of the behavioural aspects important to consultancy buyers such as ‘gut feel’, ‘self-starting’, ‘proactive’ and ‘pragmatic’ could be open to different interpretations to the ones provided. This might lead to a slightly

different contextualisation of the findings and impact the implications. It was also difficult to ascertain with any certainty whether individuals agreed because they work for the same company. This may be due to the fact that recruitment processes lead them to hire like- minded people or because employees imbue the company culture.

When asked what they would improve in their interactions with consultants most respondents turned inwards, reflecting on their own processes and decision-making criteria. Improvement was seen as being driven by them. This was not explored in any way, and might have influenced the findings had it been.