Blog post due 11/22

If my understanding is correct, then I have participated in triangle-like arrangements at least four times due to the consulting organizations that I have had the opportunity to participate in throughout my college career. Being that I have written about these organizations for almost every post, I am sure that I have somewhat exhausted them but I will still try to apply my personal experiences as related to this specific post. The four triangle arrangements I have experienced have been the 4 consulting projects that I have been able to participate in over the past 3 semesters including the current one. Each of these projects is it’s own triangle arrangement because there is a team (which changes with every project) that is the agent of the consulting firm/organization as well as the client for the project. Throughout the semesters I have been allowed the opportunity to work with start-up companies as well as organizations that are more established, and the triangle set up has remained throughout all of them. There have been organizations in the technology industry, the healthcare industry, education, as well as marketing. Each organization did very different things, and most of the time had very different projects scopes meaning there had been differing goals for each based on their individual problems and concerns. 
Due to the length of the projects (semester-long) and frequency of providing deliverables with recommendations to clients (weekly), there is usually at least one occurrence where there is some type of disagreement between the principals on what defines a good performance from the agent. In my own experience, each individual situation has obviously been different but in a broad sense there can be similarities that are drawn. One thing to keep in mind is that most of the projects I have participated in have been provided as free services as well as the organization being run by other students, so disagreements may not lead to any genuinely large consequences like large amounts of capital being lost or employees losing jobs or anything of that sort. Usually if the principals do not see eye to eye on what indicates good performance by the agent, it is usually surrounding the differences in expectations of the agent coming from the organization as well as the client. Usually, as long as the team is keeping the client happy, following along the agreed upon project scope and timeline well then the organization defines that as a good performance (I can get much more granular than this, but this is a good enough idea for the post). This stays consistent across all projects, so if the expectations of the client differ from this that is where disagreements between principals arise. When client expectations begin to oppose those of the organization, it is usually when the client decides the want the team do something out of scope or change the scope of the project. Most of the time this includes and unrealistic change in workload for students and the client begins to forget this. 
In order to resolve this tension, the team is usually flexible to the changing needs of the client as long as it is within reason. If the client is not beginning to ask too much of the team then it is okay, the organization is usually okay with this as well as long as the changes to the project are reasonable and makes sense. If the client refuses to be reasonable, then as long as the organization understands this the team does not fail in their eyes. The agent (the team) would fail by not siding with the organization, mostly because the organization tends to be on the side of the students working within it. If the team had only pleased the client that may have been a failure because we would end up being overworked and out of breadth of the original project. 

Comments

  1. Professor ArvanNovember 25, 2019 at 2:26 PM

    It would be helpful to ask an overarching question that you may know the answer for. Why would clients seek out your organization for consultation rather than go with a well known consulting firm? At the beginning of this post you said that some clients are startups. So their reason for using you might be different from the reason more established firms would use you. Then you might look at what factors caused tension in a particular relationship and if the same sort of problems cropped up or if each of these were too idiosyncratic for any analysis of this sort.

    Let me speculate to illustrate. The startups probably don't have a lot of cash on hand, so they are looking for freebies wherever they can find them. After the project is underway, they may then want to broaden the scope of the project, to get even more of a freebie. That would reflect some opportunism on their part. The management of your project would say stick with the original specifications because its unfair ask the student consultants to put in more time to deliver the project. That might be the underlying tension with startups.

    It might be quite different for established firms as clients, especially those that do use paid consulting from time to time. They may be more interested in getting the deliverable in a timely manner. If progress is slow on the project, that may get them worked up.

    I don't know that these are the drivers but they seem reasonable to me as guesses as to what is going on under the hood. You contented yourself in your posts with simply observing that each project had some tense moments. Alas, the economics of the situation is not in that observation, but rather in the cause for the tension. If it truly was idiosyncratic in each situation, there is not much to learn from the experience. Alternatively, if what I suggest above has some merit, you might consider the under the hood issues more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Arnold Harberger Econ 490December 2, 2019 at 8:32 PM

      Clients would seek out our organization would seek our organizations for different reasons, I believe you are right about start-up organizations. The may just have been looking for a freebie like you said, and that's why sometimes clients would desire to act opportunistically.

      For established firms, it seems like a lot of times they look towards the organization for smaller projects that don't require as much capital (since a student consulting organization is many levels cheaper than an actual firm) or it is a company that is actually interested in hiring students from the organization in the future. They may ask for more just out of desire to see how the team handles the situation. Whether it be adapting to the situation or standing their ground. They may also realize that the project requires more later into the project, and instead of taking responsibility themselves they simply try to put it onto the consultants.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Image
I have experienced participating in a successful team within an organization on campus when I had been part of a consulting team. I will try to give background information, however I may be limited in how specific I can be out of respect for the non-disclosure agreement I had signed for the project. The basis of the project was that the client had been a college in a large university and they wanted help on creating strategy in order to generate revenue for the college outside of tuition due to a low amount of revenue coming in from the usual expected sources. They also wanted to figure out strategy on how to heighten the quality as well as quantity of their application pool, since awareness of the college had been relatively low. I believe the effectiveness of the team had come from both how the hierarchy had been set up as well as how well members adhered to those roles.  In terms of the team structure there had been about 8 people in total. When discussing the hierarchy in te...
Read more
Yes I believe there are themes from the different posts throughout the semester that tie in together with each other. Aside from the introductory blog post, it seems that the ideas from blog posts are very different however they also build upon each other and intertwine. The themes of the blog posts had been transaction costs, opportunism, successful team structures, and transfer pricing. Within the transaction costs post I had discussed the transaction costs of relationships within work and why they had mattered. The next post discussing opportunism had been a different concept, however I had still been able to write about relationships within work.  In terms of successful team structures, the hierarchy of teams and delegation of work had been discussed but that was also a post that mainly surrounded relationships within an organization. When discussing transfer pricing, I had mostly discussed how “Illinibucks” could be used to affect course registration. This had not discussed t...
Read more
As I was going through the articles, I had tried using private browsing mode but was still not allowed to access the last article that was titled “The Power Of Altruism”. I will try to include how the readings I was able to access may relate to my example. Inside my example of team production with gift exchange, I will base it off of a successful team structure I have participated in. Inside the successful team structure I had participated in, the biggest contributing factor had been the fact that all members had motivation to achieve a common goal together.  In this example of team production, as I had already said having a common goal is the key differentiating factor. However, I believe the hierarchy as well as the motives within the hierarchy were also important. To reiterate for the context of this post, in one of my previous posts I discussed the hierarchy of a successful team that I had participated in. In this team there had been a senior manager, project manager, senior c...
Read more