You get what you pay for -- a lesson when hiring a consultant
08:13, 9 February 2008
.. Posted in Volunteerism and Volunteer Management.. Link
Martin Cowling, CEO of People First - Total Solutions, a leader regarding volunteer management, based in Australia and is a person I LOVE to see lead workshops, had this as the intro to his recent newsletter, and I am reprinting it here, with permission:
Last year, I was invited to a meeting in a regional city where we were invited to read a report. We were told that we were not to take it with us, copy it or repeat what was in it. I was bemused. I was not at a briefing of a spy service.Can I get an amen? Amen!
The document was a piece of research commissioned by a nonprofit agency regarding significant community issues. The report was so badly prepared, the sponsoring agency was not releasing it. Reading it, I could see why. There was some useful data, along with fundamental reserach flaws including inappropriate questions "borrowed" from another research project. The language used showed that the consultants did not understand the issues or the community.
As we filed out, I felt dismayed. Here was a potential solution to a community's needs lost and valuable community money squandered. In their desire to get the most for their money, the commissioning agency had chosen the cheapest quote with disastrous results.
Sadly, this is not the only time I have seen this. In a desire to be economical, the community sector sometimes wastes money. One CEO lamented to me last year that the training she had been providing her staff was woeful. I asked why she continued to use the trainers she so clearly knew were not delivering the goods. She said, "because they're cheap".
In trying to squeeze the most from valuable community dollars, I would caution that we need to be wise. Many years ago, one of my staff identified that because an agency had banned the use of couriers, staff drove across town to pick up parcels. The cost to the agency was two hours of staff time plus petrol and wear and tear, all to save six dollars and 25 cents. Hardly economical!
