Here I want to discuss one very specific aspect of consultancy as it applies in the ICT world, but probably applying to other environments also. In doing so, the dreaded term "fitness for purpose" enters the picture, but in a possible positive role.
In any professional services job in the world of IT, the problem presents itself, in the client-supplier relationship, of defining exactly the scope of supply. When a functional product forms the deliverable result, this should not be too much of a problem provided that a good specification is available and the contractual conditions relating to change control are adequately covered. (In as far as problems can arise here too, these are not the subject of this paper!) In the case of a consultancy job, the 'supply' - that is, the expected result - is usually by definition soft, certainly where a study or problem-definition is involved. Typically, the consultant has been hired to look into what 'the problem' is and this is by its very nature open-ended. How can one predict the outcome?
In a culture where precise specifications are the norm, the temptation will be to try to define the 'product' precisely. Perhaps the product is then defined as a final report, possibly with one or more interim reports, and the structure of the final report will probably be specified, at least provisionally. But defining the structure of the report means defining which topics will be addressed, in what detail and hence how much effort will be required. What happens when the report structure forms the basis of the contractual agreement? Nine times out of ten it will change substantially as soon as the consultant gets some insight as to what the job is really all about! And it's all very well saying that Change Control procedures are there to take care of that. In this situation, we are not talking about small percentages; the document structure formed the whole basis of the contract and now it's all changed! If nothing else, Change Control procedures in this situation will present an absurdly large overhead. If the communication channels for discussing changes are difficult, it will also put the consultant in a difficult position, possibly putting him in a straitjacket.
What's the solution? Ideally, the consultancy job should be split into two contractual phases. The normal pre-sales discussions are unlikely to go deep enough to define the task precisely. Analysis of what needs to be done is really part of the job. If the client is easy about this and is happy that the outcome and costs can cover a broad range of possibilities, then no problem. Otherwise, if possible agree a first phase for orientation and further definition, then a second phase subject to client approval. Some might call the first phase a "paid proposal", but I think that would normally be a misleading view. The 'orientation' phase will, after all, involve the same consultant as proposed for the 'main' job and for a period of usually at least two weeks. And the work will require a much more extensive and intimate contact with the client organisation than is possible with the usual pre-sales proposal activity. The consultant himself then ends up proposing how to approach the study further and what sort of result can be expected. Of course, there may still be changes after that, but, based on a common understanding resulting from the first phase, such changes should be easier to absorb.
I have often had the impression at the end of such a job that the purpose has been achieved even if the approach or report structure has ended up being quite different from that first envisaged. And it makes clear that the purpose was the important thing, not the details of how we met that purpose. It has therefore struck me that it is not necessarily out of bounds to discuss up-front what that purpose is! Furthermore, a contract based on an understanding of that purpose rather than on a probably futile and superfluous attempt at anticipating the result might offer some perspective and flexibility. In other words, a contract based on 'fitness for purpose'! Perhaps it's worth some consideration.