Fragmented Implementations

From time to time prospects will entertain the notion of a fragmented deployment (Two firms working on the same project). This can appear appealing because of the perceived cost savings. Aside from not being common practice and ultimately costly, having two distinctly separate consulting firms with the same skill sets working on the same project can present several risks and challenges:

• Lack of Coordination: Without effective communication and coordination, the two firms might duplicate efforts, leading to inefficiencies and wasted resources. They might inadvertently work on the same tasks or produce conflicting recommendations.
• Competitive Atmosphere: The presence of two firms with similar skill sets can create a competitive atmosphere rather than a collaborative one. This could lead to an unhealthy competition for recognition or control over different aspects of the project, hindering cooperation.
• Inconsistent Recommendations: Different consulting firms might have slightly different approaches, methodologies, or perspectives, even if their skill sets are similar. This could result in inconsistent recommendations or strategies, causing confusion for the project team.
• Communication Challenges: Coordinating between two separate firms can lead to communication challenges. Misunderstandings, delays, and misaligned expectations might occur due to differences in communication styles, channels, and priorities.
• Increased Costs: Running two consulting firms simultaneously will likely increase project costs. Each firm will need its own resources, infrastructure, and management, potentially leading to a higher overall project budget.
• Confidentiality and Security: Sharing sensitive project information with multiple firms increases the risk of data breaches or leaks, especially if both firms aren't equally committed to maintaining data confidentiality.
• Complex Project Management: Managing a project with multiple consulting firms requires a more complex project management structure. Ensuring that both firms are aligned, progressing as planned, and meeting deadlines can be challenging.
• Blurred Accountability: When issues arise, it might be unclear which firm is responsible for addressing them, leading to finger-pointing and delays in issue resolution.
• Differing Work Cultures: Consulting firms often have their own unique work cultures and approaches. Integrating two different work cultures can lead to clashes, misunderstandings, and difficulties in finding common ground.
• Resource Overload: If the project requires a specific set of skills or resources that are limited, having two firms working on it might strain the availability of those resources, potentially impacting project quality.
• Project Identity and Vision: When multiple firms are involved (i.e. Fragmented Deployment), the project's identity and overarching vision might become diluted or muddled, leading to a lack of clarity about the project's goals and direction.

Clear communication, well-defined roles and responsibilities, effective project management, and a collaborative mindset are essential. Without them the project is placed at risk and fragmented deployments contribute to that risk. That said, In some cases there are instances where developers from competing firms may need to be engaged in a clients platform simultaneously. This is typically in situations where there are multiple integrations that require distinct skill sets to achieve the clients goals. In the event dual firms are engaged there should be a clear process laid out as to how to mitigate the points referenced above. Idealist refers to this as “Dual developer protocols” and they are essential for an effective rollout with multiple firms. However, Idealist Consulting does not endorse dual developers in a “net new” project and discourages the practice whenever possible. If you are considering a deployment with multiple firms feel free to reach out and discuss the use case and we will be happy to evaluate the best practice for your deployment.