Consultancy Projet Feedback

A Toast to you!

Everyone passes!

Some feedback for me to extemporise around:

MARKS

• Overall mark range from 12/20 to 18/20
• Written Report mark range: 05/20 to 19/20
• Presentation: 18/20
• Case Studies mark range: 09/20 to  19/20

NB. The final mark = the average of the presentation, the written report contributions and the case studies.  [The Team Leaders had to be assesssed differently, as you will appreciate].

CRITIQUE.

• Be consistent in your role:
  • JI / the consultancy
  • COCI / our client from whom JI received the brief
  • COCI members = the end user
• Avoid: You… I… We … They… Us… Ours…  (on Pg 29 alone in 3 paragraphs there were: 10 x we + 9 x you + 4 x ours + 2x us…. it gets a bit much!
  • ‘the consultancy would therefore recommend ‘  /  ‘JI would…..’
  • ‘the adoption of the action programme would be highly recommnded as it …..’
• Visuals: there needed to be one of the Action Programme!  It was even promised … but was not delivered!  Also, visuals of Ansaff’s Growth Vector Matrix and Mintzberg’s Contingency Model might have helped….
• Step into the COCI and their Members’ ‘shoes.  When you say ‘this should be done’ … do they have the ability to acually do it?  This is pretty much all new to them, remember…
• Careful with terms like: ‘right’, ‘proper’, perfect, ‘guarantee’ ‘ensures success’… do these exist?
• Secondary and Primary Research: ironically ‘secondary’ comes FIRST (it is ‘secondary’ to you – you didn’t do it!)…. it got confused at times.
• Evidence & justification always: ‘X would have been a better option’… you can’t just leave it there!
• Not ‘actors’, but ‘key players’.
• When a context is lacking: provide it.  ‘MICAI’ does NOT speak for itself to everyone.
• Say what you mean: ‘this would produce a real collision in the C°’…. errr?
• Careful not to teach grandmother to suck eggs – you are talking to people who know how to market and to recruit …. they just don’t now how to do it in an intercultural context.  You risk insulting your end-user’s intelligence … dangerous!
• Avoid slang: ‘do this and you’ll get tons of business’: use professional terminology.
• Broadcasting or narrowcasting?  Do you want thousands of applications (most of which will be average to poor – if you broadcast) or tens of brilliant ones …  Think it through.
• Cov Lets + CVs …. or applications / database?
• Avoid abrupt endings – esp. on bullet points.  Always round off neatly / lead into what is bout to come…
• Avoid repetition: repeating things repeatedly is to be avoided!!!  Only ever, and I mean EVER… only ever use repetition for effect, OK?
• At times the standard Action Point framework ‘got lost‘… It should have been: WHAT….WHY…. HOW…. WHO…. WHEN….  WHERE….
• Some thoughts about Standardisation v Adaptation.  I think the readers deserved a calculation illustration … for example:

Standardised = potentially smaller market than fully adapted because a proportion will not accept the standard version.  Saves on adaptation costs though.

Adaptation = Potentially larger market than that willing to accept a standardised/non-adapted product…. but will these extra sales cover the adaptation costs?

Illustration (Standardised):

• • Units sold = 100,000
  • Unit Production costs = 150$ per unit
  • Unit Sale price = 250$ per unit
  • Margin = 100$ per unit.
  • Total operating profit = 100,000 x 100 = 10,000,000

Illustration (Adapted):

• • Units sold = 200,000
  • Unit Production costs = 300$ per unit
  • Unit Sale price = 450$ per unit
  • Margin = 150$ per unit.
  • Total operating profit = 200,000 x 150 = 30,000,000

So… if that were a straight choice (and based upon reliable research!), I think we’d all agree that the extra time and effort would have a big pay off and that adaptation would appear to be the preferable option…

BUT…  what if it worked out like this (Standardised option as above) and Adapted hereunder:

Illustration (Adapted):

• • Units sold = 200,000
  • Unit Production costs = 200$ per unit
  • Unit Sale price = 251.5$ per unit
  • Margin = 51.5$ per unit.
  • Total operating profit = 200,000 x 51.5$ = 10,300,000

So the adaptation does generate a little more revenue (just 3% more) than the standardised mode…. BUT… when one takes into account the cost and delays involved in:

• planning
• design
• re-tooling
• development
• prototype testing
• possible brand dilution effect

…. then is it really worth the ‘hassle‘ for 3%?  I suspect most Intercultural Marketing Managers would suggest that the 300,000$ is not ‘carrot enough’ under the circumstances and recommend to the PDG/CEO that the company should stick with the standardised version…..

T