Mission to Mars R&D Strategy Study
Restructuring a national space agency to chase the significant goal of building a manned colony on the Red planet.
This will be one of the most exciting studies in management consulting. Like all our study programs, you will be able to watch detailed videos and power points teaching you how we conducted every single focus interview, planning step, analysis and engagement management step for this assignment, and view the final reports.
We will also include the proposal, pricing and amendments to the proposal.
This is Phase 1 of the study: the corporate strategy & restructuring planning.
It is an exciting and complex strategy restructuring study to reorganize a national space agency so that it can undertake the significant R&D and logistical challenges of building a manned colony on Mars.
How does a large company manage its R&D and planning costs to hit a significant goal in the future, knowing that the technology does not yet exist to hit that goal, yet the goal and the target date are set, and funding is not unlimited?
This is the quintessential problem facing any R&D intensive organization and it is the problem we will address.
You can watch the trailer for this study below.
In the Corporate Strategy & Transformation Study (Power Sector) we had to use a detailed understanding of the engineering of power stations to advise the client. This study takes that approach even further. We need to review, evaluate and make critical decisions on advanced rocketry and propulsion, and re-entry and docking systems.
We need to decide which technologies are most promising and should be developed. This study is a great example of how management consulting merges with specialized engineering skills to develop better recommendations for clients.
Hiring
We will be hiring two types of associates, consultants and engineers, to staff this study.
The team on this study will have an opportunity to work on some of the most complex issues in strategy, organizational design, R&D analyses and, of course, engineering. The exposure to some of the most brilliant minds in physics, engineering and thermodynamics should be a major draw card.
Consultants: We have a preference for non-consultants so we may train them in our approach, values and philosophy. This does not imply that ex-consultants need not apply. We will consider all suitable applications. Given the size of the sector, we will bring in external subject matter experts to help us understand the industry.
To this end, principals from a prominent PE firm will work within the corporate strategy stream, to be led by a FC partner, and consultants we hire specifically for the corporate strategy stream may be assigned to work directly with the PE principals or on the core engagement team.
Scientists: We will be hiring engineers / scientists / PhDs to work both on the consulting and engineering analyses sides of the study. Past experience is less important than the ability to develop new solutions to old problems.
We are not looking for best practice and are not looking to import best-practice from outside the client. We want to completely rethink the problem. Therefore, when applying, prior experience is by its very nature insufficient unless you can explain how it allows you to attack the problem in a different way.
We will open recruiting to staff this study in January 2016, and applicants must have fluency in English and at least one of the following languages: German, Russian, Hindi or Mandarin. Final round applicants will undergo a security clearance check. More details on the roles will be posted closer to the time.
Fans of Star Trek: The Next Generation will get extra points for like-mindedness.
Comments & Suggestions
We already have two major strategy studies on the site (Market Entry and Corporate Strategy M&A) thereby allowing subscribers to understand the enormous attention to detail we bring to our work.
Apart from carefully searching for great minds to staff this study, we are informing you about this upcoming study early so you may think about any changes you would like to see in the presentation of future training programs. We will appreciate your comments and suggestions below.
Live long and prosper!
Not yet released. The content is exclusively available to Firmsconsulting Insiders.
SPREAD THE WORD! Like this? Please share it.
PODCASTS: Listen to our partners narrate the soon-to-be-released Corporate Strategy & Transformation Study, and other studies, on our Strategy Skills Podcast on iTunes: rate us and post comments on what more you would like to see.
COME HANG OUT WITH US: Facebook / Twitter / LinkedIn
Image from Kevin Gill under cc, cropped, added text.
FC Support
Hi Andreas,
Now you are really making me think. I certainly need more time to think about this raise it with the team and partners.
I will post more once I have given it some thought!
Michael
Andreas
Hi Michael,
I agree that there are a number of things that needs be carefully considered with such an approach. However, I believe that the key to succeeding with such an endeavor is to initially test it on a small and limited scale to foremost ensure that FC values and client confidentiality are kept intact. Naturally this also means less initial impactful feedback, but finding the right circumstances and ways to use such resources at your disposal requires some careful considerations. Confidentiality could also be easier to keep if the material is anonymized, but that requires a lot constant of administration and general headache.
Regarding the issue of vetting the easiest way to approach a project such as this is to initially “recruit” among people that FC already has established contact with, vetted, have known affiliations etc. Simply put, a small and reliable test group that you know you can trust would be a good and safe way to test and experiment until a solid way forward is found. I think that testing various different possible approaches and finding a model for collaboration in such a setting that is as optimal as possible could require a lot of trial and error and continuous tinkering. Unless someone already has an existing approach that could be adapted or used, of course, which is why I mentioned the R&D divisions of existing firms. Maybe there is something to be learned from those that could provide some initial guidance?
It could fast turn disastrous if something such as this is started too fast and too big as control is a key factor for pretty much all the reasons you mentioned. That is why I suggested starting in a specific area of expertise, with a specific problem, or study where a limited number of reliable, for the lack of a better word in the context, people are invited to test the concept within very specific bounds and goals. The outcome of what such a group produce must be measurable in quality or quantity, and so ideally all those invited are well versed in conducting analyses in the specific area. That is the reason why I specifically mentioned those with advanced degrees or those working towards them, as it is part their jobs and nature to apply rigorous thinking and analyses from an objective standpoint.
With that said, there is nothing wrong about input or insights from people with other backgrounds and experiences. The question is rather one of what one wish to achieve with any given group or area, and if FC is attempting to find converging or diverging feedback/insights/concepts etc. There is also nothing that says that you could not for example split such groups into being actively tasked to either attempt to converge or diverge to prove or disapprove findings or results and so on.
The first and foremost thing to decide would be how and if FC would or could benefit from any such approach to begin with. You might not need the capability considering the collective experience you already have, and the people you will train yourself. The idea was partially born from my personal experience is that people in academia that are personally interested and dedicated to certain areas of expertise tend to enjoy spending time solving problems in those areas, and are generally very free with sharing their knowledge and insight. If a methodology and structure to systematically challenge these individuals and groups with new and interesting problems I believe they will rise to the intellectual challenge it poses.
The organization behind it would need to be strictly bound by rules of conduct and leadership of some sort must be involved to control specific areas of expertise if a silo-approach of knowledge is considered. The leadership could have to consist of some sort of group of moderators or similar that are responsible for their field of expertise or R&D area, or simply considered generally capable leaders. This is also where matter of rigor comes in, as someone needs to know whether things are conducted correctly and so on. When things start working the way you wish it to work, then it can slowly and organically grow. There is no reason to open the flood gates without reason.
Another thing to consider is whether the identity of the people involved should be known to each other or not. Obviously someone has a need to know their identity, such as FC or perhaps the dedicated leaders, but the others does not have to. This could ensure that no one are afraid of voicing dissenting opinions and so on.
As for actual ways of doing this in efficient and productive manners the most obvious tools and places to start would be discussion forums, polls, Delphi studies or other relatively simple means of starting out. Keep it simple to begin with, and if experiments or tests turns out positive then better tools or infrastructure could be created later. I know that tailoring such tools or platforms are in itself a major commitment so that is definitely not the place to start. But testing the general idea and concept would not necessarily be very complicated or time-consuming if it the right people are available and willing to help out.
Anyhow, maybe the concept of “crowdsourcing” is somewhat too extensive to use for a project such as this. At least initially, until a viable way to do so or critical mass is reached. But my idea of having dedicated individuals or focus groups giving something back to FC and its community is still something I strongly believe in, and hope more people believe in and would support. So perhaps that path is something you could consider, and if you see any viable way of that becoming a reality.
Andreas
FC Support
Thanks VRM!
I still get happy when clients send comments. That thrill never ends.
We decided we will focus on really tough but interesting studies. That ensures we get up in the morning and want to do the work. Life is too short to have 365 regrets a year.
Michael
VRM
Michael – this is superb. On one hand while Firmsconsulting is changing lives, it is also setting some new challenges. Truly sets Firmsconsulting as a pioneer in its endeavors.
FC Support
Thanks UHanda!
FC Support
Hello Andreas,
Thanks for this great note. I must admit that I need to think about this more, so these are my initial thoughts.
1 – If we needed to vet and screen all members of the pool, would that not be exactly what consulting firms are doing now? They need to find people who think in their way and have the ability to apply our style of problem solving.
If you are proposing a broader group without the careful vetting against our style of thinking, then I am considering the following:
2 – How would we maintain client confidentiality?
3 – How would we know the pool is being rigorous enough in testing ideas and concepts?
4 – How would we manage and coordinate this?
5 – If the principle is to have divergent viewpoints, would we not want to leave out PhDs and bring in artists etc?
I think crowd-sourced ideas will work but the problem is that they can take a long time to push out the right idea (think peer review process) and they are open to enormous trial and error which we try to minimize.
I like the idea, but when I think about it, I cannot see how we could implement this in way which adds material value to a consulting team while maintaining confidentiality. I am not saying it will not happen, but I think we are some way to go on this.
Michael
Andreas
Hi!
This sounds like an incredibly exciting and interesting study! Congratulations that you have earned the privilege to conduct a study of such importance! Very much looking forward to following your progress and eventual results. As I suspect a lot of other people here are as well, and especially those of us that grew up with or enjoy all things sci-fi and related to space (Copenhagen Suborbital is a fun project/organization for example!). However, I will temper my personal excitement about the nature of the project to try keep this comment as short as possible, as I would assume you have plenty on your table besides reading dreamy anecdotes about all the reasons for why this is so exciting.
When I read this piece that introduce this new study, an idea occurred to me. Crowdsourcing/crowdfunding is all the rage these days, and you are already using crowdfunding for your studies. Reading the initial limitations of people you wish to get in touch with immediately put me outside the target group simply because of the language barrier. But no negative feelings about that, but rather the opposite! It gave me food for thought. I would like to possibly contribute to your study, give something back to Firmsconsulting as an organization, or possibly a help in your future studies in some way. But not just by supporting with money, in one way or another. But how could I do that in a way that does not necessarily simply donating or spending money on your services, I asked myself? This meant a new approach is necessary, and I believe I have thought of an innovative way for both me and others that wish to contribute.
I would like to contribute to your cause(s) by providing specialized knowledge, ideas, develop new concepts, or perhaps by using and disseminating findings from your studies through open access peer reviewed research to also give back to our society and colleagues. But not just alone. Instead, my approach is to do this through creating virtual knowledge centers, centers of excellence, practices, or something similar. These would have the specific goal of supporting you by of disseminating existing knowledge or work on creating or finding new knowledge necessary for contemporary and future issues both. My reason for wanting to contribute is simple: I have enjoyed and benefited much from reading and listening to your freely shared material, and would like to return the favor, so to speak. Also, I share your values and practice them in my own fashion in my roles as a researcher and teacher. I hope that you find my approach and proposal of interest.
My proposal is relatively simple in theory, but would require some careful consideration of how to develop and maintain it to create a lasting organizational function to provide both short and long term benefits to your organization, and by extent, the clients and FC community. What I propose is to start a crowdsourced research center or virtual R&D division for Firmsconsulting. The idea of a consulting organization (or educational organization for that matter) having its own R&D is nothing new in the world of management consulting. But beyond the general world of academia itself, I would be surprised if any known or big consulting firm have attempted to organize things as crowdsourced R&D capabilities or center(s). The slow and methodical generation of knowledge in academia is close to crowdsourcing, but it is slow and has its own set of problems.
A challenge is to find or create effective methods for collaboration and a platform in order to organize for those of us that have advanced degrees or are for example doctoral students whom are willing to spend time and/or resources we have available and at our disposal to support your activities. This could provide benefits for FC since we could be giving you our support for your studies by pooling our analytical skills, help finding previous studies, help develop and test new ideas or concepts, and so forth. In addition, such virtual R&D centers would also be able to objectively give feedback or assessments of deliverables that the consulting team develops for clients and could be a test bed or expert panel if necessary. The importance of vetting members cannot be understated, and keeping the values that Firmsconsulting stands for intact and maintaining client secrecy is paramount.
The possibilities are nearly endless in the sense that there is so much that could be done by such groups of people if the right people are willing to contribute. Building something such as this too fast or attempt to reach too far or too high from the beginning must be avoided. It would be very important to have a methodical plan to structure and develop capabilities. Would have to find or design functional structures that can scale up and down depending on current needs and demands, and start the work of vetting people that volunteer to profile them as to where and how they could be of most use.
A small scale pilot project to see if the idea works in practice would require some planning and work, but if it can be done effectively I strongly believe it could be a new great new support tool for Firmsconsulting to continue on the current path that you have chosen. Build the foundation by focusing on any existing capability vacuum and identify the most pressing needs, and continuously and methodically assessing what works and what does not much like how consultants themselves are reviewed. Developing R&D capabilities such as these with continuous improvement in mind could have a tremendous impact of how future studies are conducted and supported, and the quality of the output.
For so many years you and your colleagues have taught me things that have been invaluable in navigating my professional life. Consider this a small way for me to give something back to you. I would gladly help you in building and testing something like this, or if nothing else perhaps discuss how and under which forms such a venture could be designed to work in synergy with what your current plans are for the future are.
The details of my experiences and career are unimportant to elaborate upon here and now, but just to give you notion of who I am; a full time employee at a university in Sweden, with a nearly finished PhD degree. My main area of research and expertise is Supply Chain Management, and more specifically focused on Logistics and Transportation. My secondary area is information- and communication technology (ICT). These specific areas might not be in any immediate demand for you, but I hope my proposal and ideas might catch your attention. Should you consider my proposal to be of interest or wish to discuss it further whether openly here or in private, or if you would want to know anything more about me, I would gladly answer any questions you have.
Have a nice day/evening wherever you might be!
Andreas
UHanda
Hi Michael, This sounds very exciting, congratulations!!