Like you, we have gone both ways with challenges on both fronts. Our consulting ranks don’t see these roles as full time positions. We
currently use a blend of rotation positions and dedication of bench staff. The rotation staff are given very specific objectives over a given period
of time, and then go back into the field. This has worked the best for us.

The challenge of using our bench strength, as you would expect, is the inability to focus on a solution. As always, chargeability rules, so any client activity, business development effort, or obvious engagement, takes precedence. The good news is we take what we can get as the resource pool is available.

The other thing we try hard to do is push the engagement teams to provide collateral as part of their delivery efforts. The best templates,
utilities, dashboards, and best practices come from delivery teams. We continue to strive to leverage that and encourage ‘contributions’.

Hope this helps.

Joe G.

Using bench strength in this area is an excellent use of the time, however, be sure there is a core team (1 or 2) people that have overall responsibility for the initiative - you can build a Project Management Office (PMO) with one PMI certified individual running the effort and leveraging whoever is next on the bench to help create, tidy or research previously delivered project collateral to produced templates and structure.  Once it is established, then the PMO can move on to risk assesments and quality audits to ensure the methodology is being followed and risks are minimized.
Debbie S.

In my experience (with large 5000+ consulting groups, down to small groups with 10-100 consultants/PS people), the model I’ve seen has been the same:  the bulk of the staff are client-facing, and there’s a handful of people who take the lead internally in driving methodology development, developing new services offerings w/ marketing &/or engineering, etc. 

There’s usually a manager(s) for this methodology/development work, and it’s usually an ongoing job/role for 2-4 years minimum—that manager is the one that committed to specific goals to the firm leadership.  So that person(s) is on the hook for making this stuff happen, ensuring consistency in approach and quality of sample deliverables, etc.

If it’s a big company with lots of PS going on, there may be multiple internal methodology/development teams. 

Underneath that manager(s), there are usually various positions for the team.  Some of those positions are usually permanent roles (like the manager’s role)—“permanent” meaning the usual 2-4 years, ie typical job.

And some of those positions are usually rotational roles:  selected PS staff come off the front line with clients, and go internal for 3-6 months, working on these internal deliverables.  The risk of any internal group (PMO, methodology group etc) is that they get too detached from market/client realities, so rotating some of the staff through that group, helps mitigate that risk.

( You want to make sure your internal group really is producing things that the client-facing people find truly useful—and that the internal team is successfully cleaning and leveraging work products that are generated by the client teams.  So the internal group has to stay in sync with the client-facing people.)

That said—developing new service offerings, or developing a new methodology etc—these are significant skill sets in their own right—and not all PS people have them.  It’s one thing to implement and support a client by using a methodology and tools provided to you.  It’s a different thing to create a new product/service and new methodology and new tools. 

Having a team with nothing *but* rotational people is at risk, because all the staff are rotating in and out, with no one responsible for delivering on the longer-term.  So a group with all-rotating staff is at risk for being a merry-go-round without a consistent direction or plan. 

Also the firm has to be thoughtful about who rotates onto this internal methology/development team(s), and who is assigned as the ongoing manager / team leader.  Those roles should not be used as “parking spots” for lower-skill people, or people who failed with clients, or people that the company doesn’t know what else to do with them.  Those are important roles in their own right. 

- Mary W

Kip,

There is a definite benefit to having field resources rotate into a centralized team for a determined period of time. If you were to determine what value, contribution and benefit they would provide your initiatives, you can place those resources in the appropriate role within the initiative, i.e.

Based on your listing of things below, which to me goes beyond Process and Methodology, i.e. Service Offer Definition, Project Repositories, etc.. , you need to determine if and where field level expert resources will really benefit your initiative, i.e.  by working on things such as Project Repositories, Tools and Utilities, etc..

This is only based on the below information, there could be additional detail about each of them that would provoke a different response..

I would think those expert resources, who are also paid much higher than some operational roles in the central group, would definitely serve your initiatives well in:

Defining the structure and framework of a methodology and supporting processes,

Defining, and even developing the Service Offers

Providing requirements to the Tools and Utilities, and maybe even PM�ing some of them

And even the Solutions Build Out

So, yes, it is a very good model, that should also be built into the overall associate development process, that a field resource rotates into a centralized function. As well, centralized functions should rotate out, so they understand what the field folks are dealing with. Though this is more challenging due to experience and expertise. The rotation program can even be positioned as a progression or promotion plan.

And as Debbie noted, you will still need some core team members that get in under the covers of the initiative and do the heavy lifting.

Just be sure to first outline, if you have not already, what value and benefit, as well contribution, you want to achieve from these resources rotating in. Does the value outweigh the effort.

But it is very beneficial to do, as it:

- Provides expert requirements to the initiatives

- Brings with it the lessons learned, best practices, and benchmarks or case studies from those that are using and working with the initiatives (solutions, tools, offerings, etc) that are being developed centrally.

- Great operations experience for the resources, that they can take back with them following their time spent centrally

One last piece of advice; get field or mgnt support of this rotation proposal sooner than later. As you can imagine, their managers will be resistant to give up resources easily “ regardless of corporate mandate. A plan needs to be in place up front that replaces the resource, so the field Mgnr does not think they are losing resources”... If not, then it is a great idea, but you will not get it acted on.

I led a process/methodology and tool organization, and made various attempts at this very concept.

Good Luck

Bernadette B.