Skip navigation
Human capital consulting when you need it.
Currently Being Moderated
5

The Importance of Integrity

Posted by jason.averbook on Nov 10, 2009 3:38:18 AM

01.gif

One of the most important things that apply in all aspects of life and business is the quality of integrity.  While I continue to learn each day the importance of integrity and how to both teach and share the importance of integrity, nothing can be more rewarding than when a customer defends your integrity.

 

One of the most important and oftentimes overlooked aspects of our space is the quality of integrity when working with a consulting organization.  There are many consulting organizations in the HR and talent management technology space that deploy a “pay to play” model; meaning if the consultancy helps get a vendor selected, the consultancy will either get a referral fee and/or the implementation business tied to that project.  This is one of the major reasons that so many enterprises end up choosing the wrong software solution based on their true needs.

 

Today, a Knowledge Infusion client took the time to write a note to a vendor in the HR technology space stating the fact that the Knowledge Infusion approach is one that has been completely fair to all vendors, completely transparent to all vendors, and the reason that this particular organization chose Knowledge Infusion to work with.

 

There is nothing more rewarding as a CEO of an organization than to see a customer defend your practices and stick up for the qualities and beliefs that drive your business each day.  To all of our customers and prospective customers, thank you for seeing the value in our approach.  To all vendors that support our approach, thank you and to those that have not seen the value yet, I sincerely hope that you realize we will always do what is in the best interest for the client and marketplace each and every time we work with you.

 

A few things that can happen to your organization if you are not guided during a software selection by a vendor that has no “interest” in your specific technology deployment include:

 

  • A lesser degree of negotiation power as what you would normally save by negotiation has been paid to a consultancy as a “referral” fee
  • An implementation cost could be higher than what you would pay normally based on the markups added by the software vendor and the consultancy
  • An overall “tainted” evaluation process that leads often times to a software selection that is truly not the “best fit” for your enterprise

 

I am very proud that Knowledge Infusion has always stood behind its ethics and approach to helping organizations choose the right technology for their organization.  While on any given day, there are vendors that are mad and frustrated by our process, at the end of the game – to know we have done the right thing each and every time and helped change the industry to one that truly leverages HR technology to drive business results and position organizations to be agile enough to support business change each day.

 

Another infusion of knowledge…

1,720 Views Tags: vendor_evaluation, knowledge_infusion, integrity


Add a comment Leave a comment on this blog post.
Nov 10, 2009 2:23 PM bkutik bkutik    says:

Jason:

 

Congratulations on a client defending KI's objectivity. The problem of vendor selection consultants' bias has been with us forever, strongest in my memory were suspicions in the 90's that Andersen Consulting (now Accenture) only recommended big vendors whose packages it implemented.

 

It's so easy for a vendor sales rep to blame the consultant for losing a sale. You are always portrayed as being in the pocket of whichever vendor won the last selection. But consistency and fairness -- dare I echo your word "integrity"? -- will win out in the end.

 

Keep on, keeping on.

Nov 10, 2009 5:09 PM jason.averbook jason.averbook    says in response to bkutik:

Thanks for your reply Bill.  I understand the problem, but want to be part of changing it.

 

The most important part to me is that a lot of clients dont understand that it is happening.

Nov 10, 2009 5:22 PM bkutik bkutik    says in response to jason.averbook:

Well, I'm surprised clients are so ignorant of it. That situation is the reverse of the HR Technology Conference, where many vendors are so used to "pay for play" that they insist on getting to speak if they agree to exhibit. We patiently explain that though the Conference Board and others may run their meetings that way, we don't. We separate Church and State: Vendors don't have to exhibit to present; and exhibiting offers no guarantee of presenting.

 

Unfortunately from a vendor's point of view, "pay for play" is a good deal -- a guarantee of ROI -- both in conferences and consulting. The difference is, as always, you want to change the world, and I'm happy to have my small part of it be different and better. Good luck to you.

Nov 12, 2009 2:40 PM michael.peterman michael.peterman    says:

I think the message here is that the vendors are overlooking the fact that consulting companies such as KI are working on behalf of both parties.  Their unbiased approach puts the right company with the right vendor.  They should be grateful that a consulting firm is working with the client to set their expectations, define their requirements, help redesign business processes to work with the available technology, etc.  If a client makes a bad decision, the vendor loses just as much as the client does.

 

It's the vendors that understand this that will get my business, not the vendor who will do anything to force their product on me without having any idea whether or not they can meet my requirements.   KI's approach is the only approach that can achieve win-win-win.

 

My advice to vendors...start getting to know KI, build the relationship, and play by the rules, because the more they know your product and company, the better they can match you with the right client.

 

Thanks Jason & Co....

 

Michael Peterman

Four Seasons Hotels, LTD

Nov 12, 2009 7:54 PM JHyland JHyland    says:

Speaking as a vendor, I think this is truly the *only* approach that should be taken. Then again, it doesn't matter the industry, we all know what sales representatives are like: whether it's a good fit or not, they just want to meet their quota so their manager isn't breathing down their back. So it doesn't surprise me that sales representatives love to have a consultant scapegoat handy for when things don't play out the way they'd like.

 

In any case, on the vendor side, it comes back to knowing what clients benefit most from your product. Everyone in the HR space likes to think their platform or software can handle any organization's needs, but is that truly the case? From my experience, I definitely have worked with clients who really understood my product and could take full advantage of everything I can offer with it. In other cases, it was an un-ending struggle to explain to the client that our solution did not work exactly like some other product it was clear they wished they had purchased.

 

I can only echo Michael and say that vendors do need to have these kind of strategic partnerships. Vendors can benefit from third-party expertise, and can begin to focus on the client base that can get the most value from their products.