Why Aren't Big Companies Doing Flintstones?

The "Flintstones approach" offers a compelling alternative to the traditional models used by major consulting firms like Accenture, but several entrenched factors prevent these large consultancies from embracing such methodologies.

Firstly, economies of scale play a pivotal role. Big consulting firms are structured to handle large-scale projects because their high overheads make it more efficient to secure one $10 million job than ten $1 million jobs. Their logistical machinery is optimised for large engagements, where the significant initial investment in resources and coordination can be spread over a larger financial return. This scale of operation creates a synchronised relationship with similarly large clients, both operating with slow-moving, well-established processes.

In such an environment, shifting to a methodology that supports smaller, more agile projects is impractical. To bid on and execute multiple smaller projects, the big firms would incur higher costs proportionate to the potential profits, making it economically unfeasible. Moreover, large clients themselves tend to bundle initiatives into larger chunks due to the perceived high overheads of initiating each project, perpetuating a cycle where smaller, more agile projects are overlooked.

Change management is another significant hurdle. Large consulting firms and their clients, like massive oil tankers, are resistant to directional changes. Transitioning to a new approach means altering long-standing cultural and operational norms. For instance, as a consultant, I witnessed firsthand the challenges of implementing new processes within a 1,000-person organisation. Now, imagine the complexity of shifting core practices within a firm like Accenture, which has over 700,000 employees. Changing deeply ingrained beliefs and practices across such a vast workforce is a monumental task.

Another economic driver is the "bums on seats" culture prevalent in large consulting firms. This term refers to the emphasis on having large teams present at client sites for extended periods, aligning with the financial interests of the firms. My experience at one of the "Big 4" firms illustrates this. Despite achieving high profit per capita by delivering projects more efficiently, I faced resistance because it contradicted the cultural norm of maintaining large, long-term teams at client locations. This focus on team size over project efficiency highlights the economic and cultural challenges of adopting a more agile, Flintstones-like approach.

Additionally, the product-centric nature of large consulting firms further complicates the adoption of user-centric methodologies. These firms often integrate vendor products into their project delivery, which can distract from a pure focus on business outcomes and user needs. The economic motivations for maintaining vendor relationships and selling associated services often take precedence over exploring more innovative, client-centric approaches.

Ultimately, while the Flintstones approach holds significant potential for delivering smaller, faster projects that can make a meaningful impact, it remains at odds with the established culture and economics of large consulting organisations. The movement may continue to gain traction on the fringes and among smaller, more agile firms, but widespread adoption by the industry juggernauts appears unlikely.

Andrew Walker
Technology consulting for charities
https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-walker-the-impatient-futurist/

Did someone forward this email to you? Want your own subscription? Head over here and sign yourself right up!

Back issues available here.