Question

Apollo Tech Solutions Case Study Part Two

The deadline for submitting proposals was 8 April 2012 and Arnott was looking forward to receiving three submissions from the consulting firms. He cleared his diary and arranged the meetings for the following two weeks. Ferguson & Co and EuroComms Solutions came back immediately with dates to present their initial proposals to him; however, ITL seemed very reluctant to agree to time. Finally, Arnott was contacted by the Senior Partner in their Strategy Division with some unwelcome news. ITL had decided not to bid for the project. Even though Arnott had negotiated what to him seemed like a large budget, ITL were not prepared just to do the first stage. They would only be interested in the project if it included implementation, and thus a budget of about three to four times larger. Although disappointed, Arnott understood their decision and appreciated their honesty. So he was left with two to choose from.

Arnott wanted the two consultancies to have credibility in the ICT sector, including detailed market knowledge and evidence of effective strategy development programmes, which were critically evidence based. First up was EuroComms Solutions that brought an impressive list of former and current clients in the ICT sector around Europe across a broad range of functional areas. They continually emphasised that their market knowledge was second to none but said very little about the impact that their projects had had on their client businesses. This made Arnott a bit suspicious about their ability to deliver the competitive advantage sought from this project.

Ferguson & Co, on the other hand, were well prepared. They offered key insights into the ICT market and the use of their dedicated ‘Knowledge Centre’ to provide quick and detailed market analysis. They also clearly demonstrated how they had helped companies define and implement new strategies. Arnott was impressed with them, particularly when they appeared to offer a ‘success fee’ in the form of a payment based on profit growth. They also came in on budget for the project, which was to last six to eight weeks based on a core team of six from their side and an internal team of four from Apollo. There was just one slight niggle in the back of Arnott’s mind. Ferguson & Co had presented this as the first stage in a process with the clear implication that they would continue on with the implementation. He also later learnt that their apparent appealing offer of a ‘success fee’ was dependent on Ferguson & Co doing the whole project. Like ITL, they said this would be in the order of three to four times the original estimate.

The deciding factor in favour of Ferguson & Co was the lead Partner, Carl Klingner, who was very experienced and assured Arnott that he would personally lead the consultant team. Thus satisfied, Arnott gave his recommendation to the Apollo Tech Solutions Board and after some deliberation, Ferguson & Co was engaged to start the project on the 1 July, with the aim of presenting the strategy the first week of September. The timing was not ideal given this was the summer holiday period but the consultants felt confident that they could complete the project on time. In order to hit the ground running, Arnott asked Klingner for a detailed work plan so he could ensure that the key managers and directors within Apollo were available.

The plan for ‘Project Moon’ was as follows:

Week 0 (Set-up)

• Establish ‘Project Office’ to be based at Apollo’s headquarters in Solihull, ensuring equipment available.

• Appoint members of the project team from Apollo – one full-time and three part-time – and Arnott to brief them.

• Collate all relevant internal data that the team would need.

• Initial meeting with team from Ferguson & Co – project leader (Klingner), a senior manager on site (Samantha Allen), a consultant and three analysts so that they could ‘hit the ground running’ the following week.

• Arnott’s PA to set up interviews.

Weeks 1-3

• One-day workshop with all new members of Project Moon team to decide on priorities and work out a detailed plan of action.

• Internal and external market research analysis.

• Interviews with senior managers at Apollo Advance as well as ATS main board.

• Confirm attendees for the workshops.

185

Weeks 4-5

• Workshop 1 – ‘Where are we now?’ An agreement of the current status.

• Workshop 2 – ‘Where do we want to be?’ A discussion of the options presented by the Project Moon team and decision on those to pursue.

Weeks 6-7

• Presentation to review strategic options available to core team of Project Moon plus Arnott, Irvine and McPherson, and select those which offer the highest potential.

• Workshop 3 – ‘Building a new strategy for Apollo Advance in terms of products, skills and capabilities’.

• Workshop 4 – ‘Identifying implementation requirements’.

Week 8

• Present to the Board of Apollo Tech Solutions.

• Present to the senior managers of Apollo Advance.

Arnott was determined that he should keep an eye on proceedings even though he had a two-week holiday booked in mid-July. So the appointment of the team members from within Apollo was critical. His obvious candidate for the full-time role was the senior manager in his department who was responsible for the AA division. He was eminently suitable being another former management consultant, but Arnott worried that he did not fully understand the business and so felt he would be better suited to one of the part-time roles. There was also another factor. The CFO (McPherson) had been openly critical of this project, concerned about its ‘value for money’. So Arnott decided to appoint one of McPherson’s Finance Managers, Jill Davy, who was a commercial accountant. Davy readily accepted seeing it as a potential career-enhancing move.

On 1 July, the Project Moon team assembled in their temporary ‘office’ and the consultants from Ferguson & Co outlined their plans to their Apollo counterparts and Sam Arnott. Carl Klingner explained that they would be using Ferguson & Co’s key tool ‘The Strategic Flight Deck’ to work through the process. There were five key inputs:

1. What are our products and services that we deliver to our customers?

2. Who are our competitors by product range and service and how do we rate against them?

3. What are the largest opportunities for us to pursue in the marketplace now and in the future?

4. Who are our customers and how do they rate us?

5. What are our main implementation challenges in terms of processes and people?

There would be both a top-down and a bottom-up approach. The former would be gained through one-to-one interviews with between 8 and 12 of the senior managers and conducted by Samantha Allen, the lead consultant. These would be complemented with the weekly workshops involving between 6 and 8

second-tier managers, Arnott and Davy, run by Allen. All the background work (‘bottom-up’ side) was to be carried out by the consultant and analysts from Ferguson & Co and aided by the part-time members from the Apollo side.

All the team members were excited to get started, none more so than the analysts, two of whom had only just joined Ferguson & Co after completing their degrees. All felt positive that this project was going to be a success, including Sam Arnott.

Questions

1. If you were ITL, would you have refused the business and why?

2. How would you have structured the team for ‘Project Moon’?

3. What do you think might be the potential pitfalls in the plan?

Answer 1

As an ITL, the business prospects from Fergusson and Co sounded articulate and demonstrated track record of successful implementation and project delivery with guaranteed success fee and hence would be definitely accepted.

The project Moon has seen multiple delays in forming anf norming stages and hence needs to be revised based on Tuckman Model of Change Management as below:

1. As new manager one must implement Tuckman Model in leading teams using following ways:

2. Forming where groups are formed and aggregated based on experience and expertise
3. Storming where resistance to change and conflicts are minimised and teams are normalised amd aligned to goals
4. Norming where individuals and groups efforts are recognised and awarded commensurately
5. PerForming where groups decisions making is encouraged with minimal intervention
6. Adjourning is dissemination where evaluation and feedback and acknowledgement is given and teams are disintegrated after tasks gets accomplished.

The biggest pitfall in the project was micromanagement and divisional Hierarchical structure which causes delays and stickiness into project implementation and hence needs to be revamped.