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.
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.
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
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.
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.