[srndsnd]

As far as I can tell, for the same reason that all consulting firms exist: so key decision makers have a scapegoat.

When someone needs to justify a decision or identify a strategy, they can pass the work off to a consulting firm. In doing so, they get the best of both worlds. If they take the advice of the consulting firm, and all goes well, they're praised for bringing in the extra help. If they don't take the advice of the consulting firm, and all goes well, then they stuck to their guns and can take all the credit. If they take the advice of the consulting firm, and things go sour, then it was just "bad advice", they can pick another consultant and wipe their hands clean. And in the many instances where they don't take the advice, and things still go sour, it was the consultants fault for not providing the advice needed.

What they actually say is far less important than their position as a stakeholder in the decision making process. In fact, as another commenter has already pointed out, the insight that a consulting firm will always provide is that you need more consultants. Few people truly love working with consultants, the advice is often dished out by overworked 20-somethings with little to no domain expertise, and yet, here we are.

Source: I work for a similar firm targeting a specific niche, and many of my best friends are in similar roles, including at Accenture, Deloitte, PwC, and EY.

[haolez]

I'm currently the CTO of a "normal" company (i.e. not a startup) and I confess that, sometimes, I have the incentives for delegating responsibility for the outcome of non-strategic projects to third-parties, since my attention span is limited and I want to focus on strategic projects.

I guess that this behavior can become very toxic for the company if the executive starts delegating responsibility for strategic projects as well.

[majormajor]

The "scapegoat" theory is the cynical take, but I don't see people often propose how to fix the situation.

If we take as granted that Accenture and similar do low-quality work as judged by tech experts yet have a large business with a mostly-positive general-public reputation... how is some poor middle manager or non-technical executive in a company that finds themselves needing a technology solution supposed to pick a good vendor? Go with someone big an well-known? Nope, that's shit, apparently. Go with someone small and unknown? That seems even worse - how are they going to be qualified to judge the bidders?

[CRConrad]

> Go with someone small and unknown? That seems even worse - how are they going to be qualified to judge the bidders?

No, I don't think someone small is necessarily worse -- on the contrary, I think someone small(ish) and local (which makes them less unknown) may well be better. You choose them the same way anyone chooses any vendor or contractor: Ask your friends. Like, if you own a somewhat older car, so you're not willing to pay the "Manufacturer's Seal of Approval" surcharge for having it serviced -- then you'd ask around aming friends and acquaintances about which garages they'd recommend or warn you to stay away from, wouldn't you? And in a sibling comment, someone talks about choosing a plumber. You'd ask other homeowners, wouldn't you?

Your middle manager or non-technical executive presumably doesn't live in a sealed jar. They know other middle managers and non-technical executives, personally and/or professionally. So they use their network, ask colleagues about their experiences with local small-to-midsize providers of such services. Why "small(ish)" or "small-to-midsize", you ask? Because then you're a) negotiating on more of an even footing than you'd be with a "Big 6" firm that has the expertise to put together Power Point decks to bamboozle you, and the resources to bury you in court after the project becomes a clusterfuck. And why am I harping on "local"? Because then their reputation is also local, so you can find out about them via your network. And then you will also contribute your part to it; they won't want you to become that guy who warns his colleagues off from them.

[lostcolony]

'a mostly-positive general-public reputation'

Citation needed. Ideally pointing out -informed- general public reputation; after all, we had a person elected president due in large part to perceptions from the every man of his business acumen despite running -casinos- into the ground.

[ff43f]

If you step out of the tech bubble, you will see that these mega consulting firms are considered prestigious places to work especially in India and other developing world.

[lostcolony]

Prestigious to work for != company does good work.

[majormajor]

I don't think informed reputation is relevant when we're talking about procurement from enterprises or government outside of more "technology native" companies.

If you're hiring a company to do something you don't know how to do, you might not even know where to find informed opinions.

If I was going to hire a plumber I'm sure there are some places that all the good plumbers know are scam artists, but I have no idea who the good plumbers are.

[awildshitposter]

AAA is an example company like that.

[flukus]

> If they take the advice of the consulting firm, and things go sour, then it was just "bad advice", they can pick another consultant and wipe their hands clean.

More commonly they just ignore the problems and pretend it's successful, since anyone involved in making the decisions to use the consultancy is at least 3 level of abstraction away from anyone that has to actually use the product. The staff will do half the work in excel or the old system as a workaround and by the time anyone up the chain of command discovers what a clusterfuck things truly are the people running the project have moved on and been promoted anyway.

[l332mn]

I'm pretty sure consulting firms exist primarily because they provide labor liquidity.

> Few people truly love working with consultants

This is kind of a prejudiced view, as consultants are often there long-term, and no different than other workers in practice. The only difference is who's got the formal responsibility for their contract.

[ep103]

There are extremely good consultants. And there are extremely good offshore teams.

These people do not come cheaper than onshore or inhouse hires.

That's the easy way to know whether or not dealing with the new consultants / offshore team is going to go well, or be an awful long term experience.

[intended]

It’s not fully without risk though - When a consultation fails, the person who pushed it is also tarred, and in proportion to the scale of the disruption and cost.

[haolez]

Complementing my answer to the parent, in my case, most of these pushes for consulting and hype stuff comes from other executives or stakeholders. I simply decide not to veto some initiatives, since they are not strategic.

[lostcolony]

Lord yes. Decision by committee and corporate guidelines. "X is a strategic partner" = can't be fired for 'partnering with them'. Even if it becomes a "why didn't anyone raise the alarm?!" it becomes "because everyone agreed to use them".