Deloitte 6z271m
This document was ed by and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this report form. Report 2z6p3t
Overview 5o1f4z
& View Deloitte as PDF for free.
More details 6z3438
- Words: 2,610
- Pages: 6
Deloitte & Touche Consulting Group The major problem in the Deloitte & Touche Consulting Group case was the lack of that Maria Chen had during the first few weeks of the engagement at SKS Manufacturing. The cause of the problem with the engagement at SKS Manufacturing was multi-pronged. Maria Chen could have very easily become the sole scapegoat for blame. However, upon analyzing the underlying causes, Maria lacked 100% from the two most senior of the engagement team. First, David Hendry, Partner had just accepted additional responsibilities of bringing in new business. This meant that he would have competing demands with a less proactive focus and attention to SKS Manufacturing as a client during the initial engagement. Secondly, Annette Wattley-Davis, Senior Manager, assigned to the SKS Manufacturing engagement was working on another concurrent project in Dallas. She was in Texas for 2-3 days per week overseeing a project with another client with limited oversight to the SKS engagement during a lucrative period (first six weeks) of the engagement. Thirdly, Maria Chen was a fairly new consultant and inexperienced to lead a vague and difficult situation on her own. Her lack of experience coupled with the lack of from David Hendry and Annette WattleyDavis was detrimental and derailing. She was assigned specifically to lead and address the production scheduling processes and synchronize production operations with purchasing while working along side Ben Rohan. He was tasked to lead the material and procurement processes and raw material levels. Maria and Ben were assigned to work in conjunction with each other. Maria had her own challenges given the scope of her assignment with the production line and her working relationship with Stan Janovich. In addition, a lack of prioritization, she focused mainly on a complex worksheet to impress Wattley-Davis instead of spending valuable time on the manufacturing floor. The expectation at SKS Manufacturing was to decrease inventory in a short time span of 12 weeks. To remedy the situation at SKS Manufacturing the best solution was to have an intact engagement team of four or five. Ideally, a team with a partner and senior manager onboard who are focused with 100% of their time dedicated to the project. David Hendry should remain the partner assigned to this project. Since his new responsibility is to bring in new business. He shall maintain his relationship with SKS by maintaining lines of communication open and ongoing with progress updates. Secondly, a dedicated senior manager without competing demands will be needed to provide the necessary guidance and leadership to the rest of the team. This is imperative to make it a successful engagement and provide promising results to SKS Manufacturing. In particular when Deloitte & Touche’s goal is to gain additional business in future consulting projects.
Thirdly, a cohesive integrated team where the consultant and client are actively engaged in transferring knowledge and creating a learning engagement. The consultants make objective recommendations and the client learns new ways to efficiently and effectively improve processes and procedures for the long haul.
Deloitte Case First, Maria should acknowledge the foreman’s abundant floor experience because foreman has spent most of his working hours on the production line. Maintain ongoing communication with clients will help the consulting team better understanding the environment and the situation. Second, Maria should educate the client that even though she does not have the relevant experience in automotive manufacturing, her team does have a senior consultant, who had prior experience in the field and had been on three different engagements. Moreover, Maria should mention their team would use the larger resource from Deloitte to serve the client and provide the best suitable solution for SKS. Finally, Maria should point-out that her team’s goal is to help the foreman and SKS to achieve their goals. By aligning their goals, the Foreman will recognize he is also part of the consulting team and solidify their trust. Here is a script I come up for Maria Chen. “I recognize the fact that I do not have the hands-on experience like you do on the shop floor, and I will take any information and advice you give us into our project consideration. In addition, my team does have professionals with relevant experiences in the manufacturing industry and more resources from Deloitte Consulting Group ready to the project. With our training and experiences, my team will have a big picture analysis and provide you and the rest of SKS a “re-engineered” production process that will allow your job to be better accomplished and reduce inventory cost at the same time. Man Consulting Even though Maria Chen is seemingly the focal point of the case, she in fact just serves as a proxy to the bigger issues that were present during the engagement. The Deloitte team was made up of five . Two senior leads of the group, David Hendry, and Annette Wattley-Davis, had extensive experience both with the Consulting Company and the automotive industry. Given the complexity of the project, and especially the urge for delivering concrete quantifiable results within relatively short 12 week engagement, it seemed as a sound strategic decision to enforce the consulting team with these high-profile experienced employees. The other three , Ben Rohan, Maria Chen and Ramesh Patel, were the most critical part of the engagement. Of this group only one, Rohan, was a senior consultant with extensive prior experience in procurement and manufacturing. He also had been on three different engagements while with Deloitte. On the other hand, Maria and Ramesh did not have enough relevant experience, especially in client-facing situations.
The three team were supposed to do all the actual legwork in interacting with the client on daily basis, collecting and analyzing data, finding, presenting, and helping with the implementation of the solution to the client’s inventory problems. It is obvious that their outstanding academic credentials and technical skills were a great asset for the team, and given the right guidance from the senior managers they were capable of tackling the problem at hand. However, this did not happen. David Hendry was only nominally involved with the project and provided a very high-level oversight for the engagement. Due to his other very demanding responsibilities as a partner at Deloitte he was not physically present at the engagement, except for the milestone meetings with the client. Annette Wattley-Davis was the one to lead the team on the ground. Unfortunately, she was not able to solely focus on the project and managing the team because of her finishing another project across the country, which left her with only two-three days a week available on the SKS engagement. Her double focus effectively prevented her from being closely involved in monitoring the project progress and the work performed by the team. Given the constraints on the team leaders mentioned here, the leads for the engagement were not able to provide guidance, constructive evaluation, and timely to the group . From these observations it appears that the engagement team’s efforts were seriously undermined by two major factors: • Leadership vacuum • Communication breakdown To avoid this type of situation in the future, it is highly advisable that the senior manager who is selected for the project, would be able to be more directly involved in the engagement. If this were the case in this engagement, then the manager could have kept track of the team efforts and direction. Overall, the leaders of the engagement reduced their participation to reactive mode instead of embracing on the leadership role. To be fair, Maria made a few mistakes of her own: • Failed to initially establish rapport with the SKS stakeholders and include the client’s team in the process • Did not maintain ongoing communication with the client’s team, Deloitte peers and managers • Focused on technical analysis without getting first-hand information from the people and actual processes • Got caught up into developing a spreadsheet model based on inaccurate premises instead of focusing on the final objective of the engagement • Did not work closely with Rohan’s team even though their pieces of the project were very closely connected
Because of these mistakes three weeks of Maria’s time were virtually lost, as she spent all that time on the model that was eventually thrown out. Had she had more guidance from the manager, she could have gotten corrected earlier on and would have had a chance to redirect her efforts. Also an involved manager could have gone over the presentation with the team before the meeting at a three weeks mark, to validate the team’s findings and at least to remove the most embarrassing parts that did not make sense. Under the circumstances the Deloitte team should try to do damage control at the steering committee meeting: • Managers of the consulting team should take responsibility for the engagement progress being slower than originally anticipated • Acknowledge that original hypothesis (model presented by Maria) was flawed and focus more on the progress made by the team, including Maria, in the last three weeks • Emphasize the progress made and results obtained from the Rohan’s team • Present clear objectives and milestones in the remaining six weeks of the engagement, as well as the means of reaching them • The lessons for Deloitte from this engagement: • Pay more attention to the group make up • Realistically evaluate the ongoing commitments of the team , especially the teams leaders • Emphasize with their senior level employees (partners and mangers) the need for giving timely constructive and guidance to their team .
Deloitte & Touche Consulting Group Case Analysis APRIL 12, 2011 The presented case of Deloitte and Touche Consulting Group engagement with SKS Manufacturing is offering invaluable lessons in team and project management. It briefly touches upon all major facets of the consulting company involvement with client projects, such as: • Engagement planning • Team selection • Roles and responsibilities of team • Background and qualifications of key people • Client participation
• Gathering and analyzing data • Making recommendations
Most importantly, however, the case is emphasizing the need for the proper balance between the core competencies that consulting companies bring to the table in their engagement with the clients. Namely, the balance between the technical knowledge and skills vs. internal communication and interaction with the client. It will be demonstrated in this analysis that there were a number of critical flaws in planning and conducting the engagement in the first half of the project. These mistakes could potentially lead to extremely unfavorable outcomes for the engagement team, and the Consulting Company at large. Even though Maria Chen is seemingly the focal point of the case, she in fact just serves as a proxy to the bigger issues that were present during the engagement. The Deloitte team was made up of five . Two senior leads of the group, David Hendry, and Annette Wattley-Davis, had extensive experience both with the Consulting Company and the automotive industry. Given the complexity of the project, and especially the urge for delivering concrete quantifiable results within relatively short 12 week engagement, it seemed as a sound strategic decision to enforce the consulting team with these high-profile experienced employees. The other three , Ben Rohan, Maria Chen and Ramesh Patel, were the most critical part of the engagement. Of this group only one, Rohan, was a senior consultant with extensive prior experience in procurement and manufacturing. He also had been on three different engagements while with Deloitte. On the other hand, Maria and Ramesh did not have enough relevant experience, especially in client-facing situations. The three team were supposed to do all the actual legwork in interacting with the client on daily basis, collecting and analyzing data, finding, presenting, and helping with the implementation of the solution to the client’s inventory problems. It is obvious that their outstanding academic credentials and technical skills were a great asset for the team, and given the right guidance from the senior managers they were capable of tackling the problem at hand. However, this did not happen. David Hendry was only nominally involved with the project and provided a very high-level oversight for the engagement. Due to his other very demanding responsibilities as a partner at Deloitte he was not physically present at the engagement, except for the milestone meetings with the client. Annette Wattley-Davis was the one to lead the team on the ground. Unfortunately, she was not able to solely focus on the project and managing the team because of her finishing another project across the country, which left her with only two-three days a week available on the SKS engagement. Her double focus effectively prevented her from being closely involved in monitoring the project progress and the work performed by the team. Given the constraints on the team leaders mentioned here, the leads for the engagement were not able to provide guidance, constructive evaluation, and timely to the group .
From these observations it appears that the engagement team’s efforts were seriously undermined by two major factors: • Leadership vacuum • Communication breakdown To avoid this type of situation in the future, it is highly advisable that the senior manager who is selected for the project, would be able to be more directly involved in the engagement. If this were the case in this engagement, then the manager could have kept track of the team efforts and direction. Overall, the leaders of the engagement reduced their participation to reactive mode instead of embracing on the leadership role. To be fair, Maria made a few mistakes of her own: • Failed to initially establish rapport with the SKS stakeholders and include the client’s team in the process • Did not maintain ongoing communication with the client’s team, Deloitte peers and managers • Focused on technical analysis without getting first-hand information from the people and actual processes • Got caught up into developing a spreadsheet model based on inaccurate premises instead of focusing on the final objective of the engagement • Did not work closely with Rohan’s team even though their pieces of the project were very closely connected Because of these mistakes three weeks of Maria’s time were virtually lost, as she spent all that time on the model that was eventually thrown out. Had she had more guidance from the manager, she could have gotten corrected earlier on and would have had a chance to redirect her efforts. Also an involved manager could have gone over the presentation with the team before the meeting at a three weeks mark, to validate the team’s findings and at least to remove the most embarrassing parts that did not make sense. Under the circumstances the Deloitte team should try to do damage control at the steering committee meeting: • Managers of the consulting team should take responsibility for the engagement progress being slower than originally anticipated • Acknowledge that original hypothesis (model presented by Maria) was flawed and focus more on the progress made by the team, including Maria, in the last three weeks • Emphasize the progress made and results obtained from the Rohan’s team • Present clear objectives and milestones in the remaining six weeks of the engagement, as well as the means of reaching them • The lessons for Deloitte from this engagement: • Pay more attention to the group make up • Realistically evaluate the ongoing commitments of the team , especially the teams leaders • Emphasize with their senior level employees (partners and mangers) the need for giving timely constructive and guidance to their team . - See more at: http://parttimembadegree.com/business-school-cases/deloitte-touche-consulting-groupcase-analysis/#sthash.yeqnJJdc.dpuf
Thirdly, a cohesive integrated team where the consultant and client are actively engaged in transferring knowledge and creating a learning engagement. The consultants make objective recommendations and the client learns new ways to efficiently and effectively improve processes and procedures for the long haul.
Deloitte Case First, Maria should acknowledge the foreman’s abundant floor experience because foreman has spent most of his working hours on the production line. Maintain ongoing communication with clients will help the consulting team better understanding the environment and the situation. Second, Maria should educate the client that even though she does not have the relevant experience in automotive manufacturing, her team does have a senior consultant, who had prior experience in the field and had been on three different engagements. Moreover, Maria should mention their team would use the larger resource from Deloitte to serve the client and provide the best suitable solution for SKS. Finally, Maria should point-out that her team’s goal is to help the foreman and SKS to achieve their goals. By aligning their goals, the Foreman will recognize he is also part of the consulting team and solidify their trust. Here is a script I come up for Maria Chen. “I recognize the fact that I do not have the hands-on experience like you do on the shop floor, and I will take any information and advice you give us into our project consideration. In addition, my team does have professionals with relevant experiences in the manufacturing industry and more resources from Deloitte Consulting Group ready to the project. With our training and experiences, my team will have a big picture analysis and provide you and the rest of SKS a “re-engineered” production process that will allow your job to be better accomplished and reduce inventory cost at the same time. Man Consulting Even though Maria Chen is seemingly the focal point of the case, she in fact just serves as a proxy to the bigger issues that were present during the engagement. The Deloitte team was made up of five . Two senior leads of the group, David Hendry, and Annette Wattley-Davis, had extensive experience both with the Consulting Company and the automotive industry. Given the complexity of the project, and especially the urge for delivering concrete quantifiable results within relatively short 12 week engagement, it seemed as a sound strategic decision to enforce the consulting team with these high-profile experienced employees. The other three , Ben Rohan, Maria Chen and Ramesh Patel, were the most critical part of the engagement. Of this group only one, Rohan, was a senior consultant with extensive prior experience in procurement and manufacturing. He also had been on three different engagements while with Deloitte. On the other hand, Maria and Ramesh did not have enough relevant experience, especially in client-facing situations.
The three team were supposed to do all the actual legwork in interacting with the client on daily basis, collecting and analyzing data, finding, presenting, and helping with the implementation of the solution to the client’s inventory problems. It is obvious that their outstanding academic credentials and technical skills were a great asset for the team, and given the right guidance from the senior managers they were capable of tackling the problem at hand. However, this did not happen. David Hendry was only nominally involved with the project and provided a very high-level oversight for the engagement. Due to his other very demanding responsibilities as a partner at Deloitte he was not physically present at the engagement, except for the milestone meetings with the client. Annette Wattley-Davis was the one to lead the team on the ground. Unfortunately, she was not able to solely focus on the project and managing the team because of her finishing another project across the country, which left her with only two-three days a week available on the SKS engagement. Her double focus effectively prevented her from being closely involved in monitoring the project progress and the work performed by the team. Given the constraints on the team leaders mentioned here, the leads for the engagement were not able to provide guidance, constructive evaluation, and timely to the group . From these observations it appears that the engagement team’s efforts were seriously undermined by two major factors: • Leadership vacuum • Communication breakdown To avoid this type of situation in the future, it is highly advisable that the senior manager who is selected for the project, would be able to be more directly involved in the engagement. If this were the case in this engagement, then the manager could have kept track of the team efforts and direction. Overall, the leaders of the engagement reduced their participation to reactive mode instead of embracing on the leadership role. To be fair, Maria made a few mistakes of her own: • Failed to initially establish rapport with the SKS stakeholders and include the client’s team in the process • Did not maintain ongoing communication with the client’s team, Deloitte peers and managers • Focused on technical analysis without getting first-hand information from the people and actual processes • Got caught up into developing a spreadsheet model based on inaccurate premises instead of focusing on the final objective of the engagement • Did not work closely with Rohan’s team even though their pieces of the project were very closely connected
Because of these mistakes three weeks of Maria’s time were virtually lost, as she spent all that time on the model that was eventually thrown out. Had she had more guidance from the manager, she could have gotten corrected earlier on and would have had a chance to redirect her efforts. Also an involved manager could have gone over the presentation with the team before the meeting at a three weeks mark, to validate the team’s findings and at least to remove the most embarrassing parts that did not make sense. Under the circumstances the Deloitte team should try to do damage control at the steering committee meeting: • Managers of the consulting team should take responsibility for the engagement progress being slower than originally anticipated • Acknowledge that original hypothesis (model presented by Maria) was flawed and focus more on the progress made by the team, including Maria, in the last three weeks • Emphasize the progress made and results obtained from the Rohan’s team • Present clear objectives and milestones in the remaining six weeks of the engagement, as well as the means of reaching them • The lessons for Deloitte from this engagement: • Pay more attention to the group make up • Realistically evaluate the ongoing commitments of the team , especially the teams leaders • Emphasize with their senior level employees (partners and mangers) the need for giving timely constructive and guidance to their team .
Deloitte & Touche Consulting Group Case Analysis APRIL 12, 2011 The presented case of Deloitte and Touche Consulting Group engagement with SKS Manufacturing is offering invaluable lessons in team and project management. It briefly touches upon all major facets of the consulting company involvement with client projects, such as: • Engagement planning • Team selection • Roles and responsibilities of team • Background and qualifications of key people • Client participation
• Gathering and analyzing data • Making recommendations
Most importantly, however, the case is emphasizing the need for the proper balance between the core competencies that consulting companies bring to the table in their engagement with the clients. Namely, the balance between the technical knowledge and skills vs. internal communication and interaction with the client. It will be demonstrated in this analysis that there were a number of critical flaws in planning and conducting the engagement in the first half of the project. These mistakes could potentially lead to extremely unfavorable outcomes for the engagement team, and the Consulting Company at large. Even though Maria Chen is seemingly the focal point of the case, she in fact just serves as a proxy to the bigger issues that were present during the engagement. The Deloitte team was made up of five . Two senior leads of the group, David Hendry, and Annette Wattley-Davis, had extensive experience both with the Consulting Company and the automotive industry. Given the complexity of the project, and especially the urge for delivering concrete quantifiable results within relatively short 12 week engagement, it seemed as a sound strategic decision to enforce the consulting team with these high-profile experienced employees. The other three , Ben Rohan, Maria Chen and Ramesh Patel, were the most critical part of the engagement. Of this group only one, Rohan, was a senior consultant with extensive prior experience in procurement and manufacturing. He also had been on three different engagements while with Deloitte. On the other hand, Maria and Ramesh did not have enough relevant experience, especially in client-facing situations. The three team were supposed to do all the actual legwork in interacting with the client on daily basis, collecting and analyzing data, finding, presenting, and helping with the implementation of the solution to the client’s inventory problems. It is obvious that their outstanding academic credentials and technical skills were a great asset for the team, and given the right guidance from the senior managers they were capable of tackling the problem at hand. However, this did not happen. David Hendry was only nominally involved with the project and provided a very high-level oversight for the engagement. Due to his other very demanding responsibilities as a partner at Deloitte he was not physically present at the engagement, except for the milestone meetings with the client. Annette Wattley-Davis was the one to lead the team on the ground. Unfortunately, she was not able to solely focus on the project and managing the team because of her finishing another project across the country, which left her with only two-three days a week available on the SKS engagement. Her double focus effectively prevented her from being closely involved in monitoring the project progress and the work performed by the team. Given the constraints on the team leaders mentioned here, the leads for the engagement were not able to provide guidance, constructive evaluation, and timely to the group .
From these observations it appears that the engagement team’s efforts were seriously undermined by two major factors: • Leadership vacuum • Communication breakdown To avoid this type of situation in the future, it is highly advisable that the senior manager who is selected for the project, would be able to be more directly involved in the engagement. If this were the case in this engagement, then the manager could have kept track of the team efforts and direction. Overall, the leaders of the engagement reduced their participation to reactive mode instead of embracing on the leadership role. To be fair, Maria made a few mistakes of her own: • Failed to initially establish rapport with the SKS stakeholders and include the client’s team in the process • Did not maintain ongoing communication with the client’s team, Deloitte peers and managers • Focused on technical analysis without getting first-hand information from the people and actual processes • Got caught up into developing a spreadsheet model based on inaccurate premises instead of focusing on the final objective of the engagement • Did not work closely with Rohan’s team even though their pieces of the project were very closely connected Because of these mistakes three weeks of Maria’s time were virtually lost, as she spent all that time on the model that was eventually thrown out. Had she had more guidance from the manager, she could have gotten corrected earlier on and would have had a chance to redirect her efforts. Also an involved manager could have gone over the presentation with the team before the meeting at a three weeks mark, to validate the team’s findings and at least to remove the most embarrassing parts that did not make sense. Under the circumstances the Deloitte team should try to do damage control at the steering committee meeting: • Managers of the consulting team should take responsibility for the engagement progress being slower than originally anticipated • Acknowledge that original hypothesis (model presented by Maria) was flawed and focus more on the progress made by the team, including Maria, in the last three weeks • Emphasize the progress made and results obtained from the Rohan’s team • Present clear objectives and milestones in the remaining six weeks of the engagement, as well as the means of reaching them • The lessons for Deloitte from this engagement: • Pay more attention to the group make up • Realistically evaluate the ongoing commitments of the team , especially the teams leaders • Emphasize with their senior level employees (partners and mangers) the need for giving timely constructive and guidance to their team . - See more at: http://parttimembadegree.com/business-school-cases/deloitte-touche-consulting-groupcase-analysis/#sthash.yeqnJJdc.dpuf
Related Documents c2h70
Deloitte 6z271m
October 2019 64
Deloitte Template 4w50
August 2021 0
Deloitte Swot 6x2510
December 2019 49
Deloitte Templates 4c3r31
April 2022 0
Deloitte-uk-deloitte-atr-2016.pdf 3d5e2h
December 2019 57