Consulting Alliances Working Group: An introduction
27 February 2014 – Michael Adamson
The working group that we have organized for the upcoming annual meeting in Monterey explores both the extent to which consulting historians have formed joint ventures to bid for and execute projects and the retention of independent consultants on the part of consulting firms (historical and otherwise) on a project-by-project basis. The group will interrogate the challenges consultants face in forming alliances for particular projects, such as logistics and budgets, assessing opportunities that may exist, and brainstorming ways of taking advantage of identified opportunities going forward.
Taking our cue from management gurus Peter Drucker and Tom Peters, we hypothesize that consulting historians, particularly those working as sole proprietors or within small firms, may be missing opportunities to work within a “film production” model, whereby historians with skills particular to the project come together for that project, and then reassemble for other “productions.”
With the contributions of our participants, we hope to ascertain why consulting historians might form alliances less often than they may be able to do. The topics we have asked our participants to interrogate include:
- the obstacles that individual historians face generally in terms of allying with one another;
- the extent to which distance is a barrier. As the expenses associated with working “out-of-town” might “bust” client budgets or make bids uncompetitive, how might consultants overcome this barrier?
- the extent to which historians working as small proprietors default to seeking out jobs only of such size as can be handled by one person, and the extent to which participants have tried and failed to land larger engagements. Proposing that opportunities for alliances await in larger jobs, the workshop will explore how consultants might form alliances to bid on projects large enough to support two or more historians;
- the obstacles that consulting historians face as sole proprietors in bidding for work. Often, grants or bids are accepted only from LLCs, LLPs, or other legal entities. How might historians create legal joint ventures particular to a project to overcome this requirement?
- what the NCPH might do to promote alliances among consulting historians.
We also seek to gain insight into the “buy or lease” decision-making criteria of the small- to medium-sized public history firm. Do such firms hire as many people as they think they may need in the medium-to-long-term (as large firms typically do) and then try to find work commensurate with staff? Or do they hire a minimum of staff and look to bring on a consultant or two to fill out a project team if a project comes along that exceeds their staffing capacity? In answering these questions, the working group may assist the independent historian in developing fruitful alliances with other professionals and firms.
With this brief overview, we introduce our participants:
- Alicia Barber, PhD, Independent Historian and Consultant
- Nancy K. Berlage, Assistant Professor of History, Texas State University, San Marcos
- Susan W. Knowles, Huhta Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Center for Historic Preservation, Middle Tennessee State University
- Lynn Kronzek, Lynn C. Kronzek & Associates
- William Willingham, Consulting Historian
- Morgen Young, Consulting Historian, Alder LLC
We are posting their case statements (which can be viewed by clicking on their names) to provoke pre-conference comment among the group and from readers of the blog. We hope to see you in Monterey!
~Michael R. Adamson is a Senior Consultant with FTI Consulting and works out of the San Francisco office. Heather Miller is a Senior Historian with Historical Research Associates in their Seattle office.
I’m sorry that I won’t be able to attend the Monterey conference, as I would really enjoy taking part in this working group. As an independent consultant since 2009, I do most of my work in collaboration with other individuals and as a subconsultant to other, larger firms. This is the only way that I have been able to keep my business going, but it also is quite enjoyable as it keeps me in touch with a range of colleagues. I will look forward to hearing reports of the working group.
Bruce,
We will miss having you there. Your skills as an accomplished HABS/HARE photo-documentarian are valuable assets for any project that can afford to hire you. Thank you for weighing in, which I think underscores the point that we can all benefit by pulling together a coordinated professional network, which may enable us to pull down some of the more well-funded projects.
Please elaborate on any concerns, ideas you would like to introduce into the conversation in Monterey.
Thanks! Susan
My eponymous consulting firm is unusual for one of its size: it boasts two distinct “divisions.” The larger, by far, “works with nonprofit and government organizations to develop innovative public programs and secure the funding necessary for their implementation, sustainability, and growth.” The smaller offers historical resources consultation, interpretation, and management. We do not actively promote our program development/institutional giving services; these days, clients primarily come by word-of-mouth. (The understated approach also leaves enough of my time and energy for history projects).
Over the past 18 months or so, I have experimented with fusing these two areas of interest, in other words, targeting my development services at history-related organizations. The obvious benefit would be that I could contribute to their growth, while broadening my substantive interests. What I’ve found—although it’s hardly empirical—is that history-related organizations may allocate even fewer resources to the broad category of “marketing” than do other types of nonprofit (social service, for example) and government agencies!
It also occurred to me that I was making the same mistake. While my development practice was doing well, the history division has room for growth. Regarding professional alliances:
1) Have any of you engaged, on a limited basis, marketing or communications professionals to help you initially develop materials or maintain a (social and other) media presence. What have you found to be the most important factor(s) in selecting such individuals/firms: their artistic talent, knowledge of resources/media outlets, and/or astute assessment of your organization and ability to present it in a productive way?
2) Any paid contract-related subscriptions that you’ve found to be helpful to historians (in all fields from publishing to museum work to CRM and environmental projects)?
3) Have any of you tried to secure a GSA Schedule—exclusively for historical consultation? (Archeological firms certainly do it, but it is quite a time-consuming process).
Continuing in an expansion mode, I recently submitted a six-figure proposal to the Port of Los Angeles. It was 100 percent history, no archaeology, etc., just the presentation—and dissemination—of images and narrative. I also engaged as an ally a national printing-publishing company.
You can imagine my surprise when the Port’s CEO personally called to thank me for my thoughtful proposal. However, the firm that secured the contract did so because they engaged a historian from overseas (this ethnic group’s homeland) to share perspective on the hyphenated population here. After wondering at the size of the contract and thinking that I may have short-changed myself, I came to appreciate their approach. Particularly with rapid change, we sometimes confuse technology and methodology.
4) Have any of you engaged someone from a different professional field (not necessarily in the usual NEPA continuum) or country to enhance your work?