At Bain & Company I got good at developing the 'answer first' at the start of my projects. Typically this was 1-2 pages of dense prose laying out what I thought the story was going to be at the end.
I'd have this nicely structured using the Pyramid Principle. Governing thought, 3-4 major points, and a bunch of supporting data points I needed to gather.
This is an initial hypothesis. The goal of the consulting project is then to test this hypothesis and update it into a final recommendation.
Here's an example hypothesis from a due diligence project I did:
This hypothesis approach is the secret to solving consulting problems quickly & efficiently. By thinking this through in advance you can be laser-focused on what data is necessary to support the recommendation you're making.
Done well this means more value for less work. Maximum return on effort.
But it comes with a risk.
When you write a really good answer first people can start to believe it's real. It can give a false level of confidence. In the extreme, it can lead you to make recommendations that are not as data-driven as they should be. As a Bain Partner once said to me:
It's important to remember to actually do the work.
To manage this risk you need to start from a comprehensive fact base. This is the foundational data that everyone can agree on (or debate!) before deciding what it all means.
This fact base must be well structured and objective. It's also important that it is grounded in the commercial reality of your client's business.
In my opinion, one of your jobs as a consultant is to keep your clients focused commercially. That means always considering what the ultimate impact of your changes will be on customers or end users. Too often, consulting projects get bogged down with internal politics.
One classic consulting framework is Where To Play / How To Win. This works for many different strategic decisions. One reason it works is it forces a laser focus on the market and the customer.
It turns out, it works really well as a fact base structure as well.
Here's an example I've used in the past for a consumer products client. This structure was used for the initial fact base, and also during a structured workshop discussion:
The detail obviously varies depending on the situation your client is in, but in general these questions will get you to a good overview.
There are a couple of things to bear in mind when developing your fact base:
Decision-focus. You'll be gathering a lot of information. It can be overwhelming and hard for clients to process. Set the standard that each piece of data must be helpful. Your client needs to take a decision - if the data doesn't help inform that decision, cut it.
Burden of proof. There are some data points no-one will question. Others will be controversial. Some decisions have major consequences for resource allocation or customer experience. Others are easily reversed. Get clear on the appropriate level of rigour for each of your data points.
Set up debates. Good decisions require debate. A careful consideration of different points of view. This starts from your fact base. You can use your structure and story to seed the start of these discussions. Ultimately, that will help decision-makers have more conviction in what they decide.
I'm a big believer in the hypothesis-led approach to problem-solving. But don't forget it's important to actually do the work as well.
Thanks for reading! There are several other ways you can interact with us….
Connect with Deri Hughes on LinkedIn
Connect with Colin Mann on LinkedIn
Book a 30 minute intro call with Deri Hughes
Stay informed about our free workshops and webinars - follow Honeycomb on LinkedIn or visit our website.