This article’s author, a Campion Willcocks’ Associate since early 2006, spent 10 years with one of the world’s biggest Consultancy firms. Here, he explains some of the differences between Consultant and interim.

I gained huge experience at the Consultancy, working on both IT and ‘general’ change projects for FTSE-100 type organisations, and I’m now independent. So what are the big differences between the two approaches? Is one really better than the other?

The right people for the job
I absolutely believe there’s a role for Consultants: used properly, they can be a valuable resource. But simply shipping in an army of them to solve a challenge is pouring money down the drain. One of the problems is that projects often haven’t been clearly thought through, so Consultants aren’t deployed in the right ways. And many client managers aren’t experienced in dealing with Consultants. They don’t know at what point and for what activities it makes sense to bring Consultants in, and how to manage them to get the best results. This is one reason why negative perceptions around Consultants have developed, not least in the public sector where high profile projects involving big firms, notably in IT, have run into serious problems.

In a recent assignment, in financial services, I acted as the ‘bridge’ between the client and two big Consultancies involved in a massive integration project. I represented the client, who saw me as a trusted confidante. But I also understand the Consultancy culture and can see – from both sides - how people can be best deployed. This knowledge, together with my independent status, is a massive strength. The point is, you need to use Consultancies appropriately to ensure you get real value for money - and some Consultants will cost you £3,000 per day. By contrast, the cost of an interim is less than half that and their value to the business, delivered through their skills, outlook, independence and flexibility, should be apparent from the outset.

Conflict of interest?
There will always be a perceived conflict of interest. The axiom is that Consultants actually have two jobs: the first is for the client, the second is for the firm. This can lead to concerns the Consultant has an agenda outside the project itself.

Being an independent cuts through that: your priority is solely to the client and the job at hand. When I say “I’m an independent” people’s faces and manner visibly change. Clients open up, share confidences, and you can get much closer to them in a shorter time. In meetings I’m not constrained in what I can say, to raise issues a Consultant might be uncomfortable raising. Being in that position is fantastic. You’re not carrying the baggage that, as a Consultant, you can’t avoid. You’re adding value.

Another reason behind negative perceptions is Consultancies may try to sell-in additional services. But this isn’t surprising, especially if a client hasn’t properly thought out what it needs to achieve and how it’s going to get there. The best-qualified person to judge whether those services are required is someone with an objective view who has the client’s best interests at heart: someone who’s truly independent and, ideally, an ex-Consultant. And independents not only provide a more objective (though consistently client-focused) viewpoint, they also have the added flexibility to help ensure things happen.

Flexibility and agility
In my experience, it’s often very difficult to engage a single Consultant: they tend to travel in packs. The ‘big firm’ business model isn’t set up for hiring individuals. But there’s a clear need for people in targeted roles, with specific skills sets, for defined time periods. With an independent you get the right resource for as long as you need it. You have far greater flexibility. And if you’re leading a focused in-house team of interims as I often do, there’s nothing to stop you calling-in subject-specific expertise from a Consultancy if that’s what’s required. In this way, the client starts seeing consistent value for money.

Consultants can also be quite rigid in their approach: they won't deviate from the original mandate without lots of discussion, and only undertake ‘extras’ under change control. As we all know, projects develop as priorities shift and new issues emerge. To be blunt, contractors do what we’re told. Independents can be deployed wherever they can add the most value. This agility, to address change fast, is very important. Interims may have to assume line-manager responsibilities that include the client’s own staff and third parties, and mentor staff to develop the in-house capability to support the activity when the interim assignment ends. Often, organisations need an external catalyst to get the project done at all. However, Consultancies find it counter-cultural to help a client develop its own in-house capabilities.

My interim colleagues and I become part of the client’s management team in all respects: how we’re accepted, how we behave, in the outcomes we’re working to deliver. But we’re also independent, have no hidden agenda, and bring added flexibility – as well as costing significantly less. Even though we’re brought in as an extra resource, to add skills and experience the client doesn’t have, the reality is that we’re working inside the client team rather than working with it. You can’t distinguish between the client’s team and us. Unfortunately, you can’t always say the same for Consultants.

For more information please email