The Engagement That Outgrew Its Proposal
A certified management consultant signed a fixed-fee proposal for a 6-week operations review at a 240-person distribution company. Fee: $48,000, deliverables: process map, waste analysis, and a prioritized improvement list. In week 3, the CEO asks the consultant to also 'fix the warehouse scheduling problem' and to sit in weekly leadership meetings as an ongoing advisor. The consultant estimates the added scope at 5-7 additional weeks. The original contract has no change-control clause and no defined scope-exclusion list. The client's finance director has already approved the original $48,000 and expects no variance. The consultant's own capacity is committed to another client starting in 4 weeks.
1. What should the consultant do about the expanded request, and what is the professional reasoning?
Read the worked answer
The consultant should not silently absorb the new scope, and should not simply refuse. The professional move is to treat this as a scope-change moment and make it explicit and documented.
Reasoning:
- The added work is materially different in nature (implementation and ongoing advisory, not a review) and in size (5-7 weeks on top of 3 remaining). Accepting it verbally would create an undefined engagement with no basis for measuring success or billing.
- The absence of a change-control clause is a defect in the original proposal that the consultant owns. The remedy is to introduce one now, in writing, not to use its absence as leverage.
- Capacity is a real constraint: committing to work that cannot be delivered well is an independence-and-competence problem, not just a scheduling one.
Actions: (1) Acknowledge the request and confirm the underlying business need. (2) Present a written scope-change note separating the original deliverables (unchanged, on schedule) from the new request, with options: a separate engagement for the scheduling work and advisory retainer, or a renegotiated single engagement. (3) State the capacity limit honestly and propose a start date that fits. (4) Get written client sign-off before doing any added work.
The judgement being tested is that 'yes' to a client is not the same as service to a client.
2. The CEO says: 'Just fold it in, we'll sort out the paperwork later.' How should the consultant respond?
Read the worked answer
Decline to start the added work without written authorization, while keeping the relationship constructive.
Reasoning:
- 'Paperwork later' means the consultant performs unrecoverable work under undefined terms. If the engagement later sours, there is no agreed basis for the fee, the deliverables, or the boundary of responsibility.
- It also exposes the client: the finance director has approved a specific figure and would be surprised by an unbudgeted variance the CEO authorized verbally.
- Professional standards require clarity of roles, deliverables, and fees before work proceeds. This protects both parties.
A workable response: 'I'll start the original deliverables on schedule this week. For the scheduling work I'll send a one-page scope note today so you and finance can approve it - I can begin the day it's signed.' This keeps momentum, respects the CEO's urgency, and does not concede the principle. If the CEO insists on immediate verbal go-ahead, the consultant may document the conversation in a confirming email and still require sign-off before billing or committing resources.