| Chris 的个人资料Professional 2.0日志列表 |  工具  帮助 |
|
|
What's wrong with Professional Services? - The Client ViewThe way Professional Services are provided to clients has changed little in many years.
Initial proposal meetings take time and after days of proposal preparation and follow up, the process rarely gives a client a proper idea of an individual or their firm's capabilities.
After the selection decision, there is often a lengthy discussion about fees, objectives, scope, assumptions, staffing, etc which is embodied in complex contractual arrangements after days if not weeks of effort by all.
Overall, these proposal and sign-up activities are so costly for all parties that smaller pieces of advisory work are just un-economic to perform although they may be exactly what would give the client most value!
The price the client pays for services is also often many % points higher than the value of the individual(s) in the open marketplace - today's supply side business models unfortunately often result in bloated overheads, management layers and excess bureaucracy.
For example, if you assume around 60% utilisation in an 8 hour day and 2 hours travel time then the value-added % of the traditional model is 48% in effort terms =(.6 x 8)/(8+2). If you then overlay an estimate of overheads and partner take at around 40% of fees, then the real value-added % of the professional time a client receives may be as low as 28% = 48% x (1 - 0.4).
The low figure above reflects the broken time and other non-value added costs in today's PS Firms. As well as these tangible elements, clients also have to bear a number of hidden costs:
There must be a better way! Adopting the concepts embedded in Professional 2.0, individuals and firms providing Professional Services could provide a much wider range of on-demand advisory services, easily and with far higher levels of value for fees charged. This Long Tail effect would open up many new areas of Professional Services. This would bring major benefits to clients in terms of innovation, value, cost and access to specialist skills. |
|
|
