Success Factors of Management Consulting

Rev Manag Sci (2016) 10:1–34
DOI 10.1007/s11846-014-0137-5
ORIGINAL PAPER
Success factors of management consulting
Matias Bronnenmayer • Bernd W. Wirtz •
Vincent Göttel
Received: 16 December 2013 / Accepted: 4 September 2014 / Published online: 23 September 2014
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014
Abstract Management consulting as a service has become part of almost every

medium to big company’s daily business. Despite management consulting’s high
practical relevance the scientific discussion of this discipline is relatively young and
needs to advance. Notably, there is little empirical research that focuses on the con-
ceptualization and operationalization of management consulting’s success factors from a
client perspective. Therefore, in this article we theoretically conceptualize and subse-
quently operationalize critical success factors of management consulting. Also, we
examine those factors’ particular impact on management consulting success. Based on a
survey of 255 companies and structural equation modeling, we show that six out of seven
theoretically derived success factors have a significant positive effect on management
consulting success. In particular, Consultant Expertise, Intensity of Collaboration and
Common Vision have a strong impact on the performance of management consulting.
Keywords Management consulting Success factors Client perspective Client

satisfaction Structural equation modeling
Mathematics Subject Classification 62H15 (Statistics, Multivariate

Analysis, Hypothesis testing)
M. Bronnenmayer
BMW AG, Petuelring 130, 80788 Munich, Germany
e-mail: mbronnenmayer@gmail.com
B. W. Wirtz (&)
Chair for Information and Communication Management, German University of Administrative
Sciences Speyer, Freiherr-vom-Stein-Str. 2, 67346 Speyer, Germany
e-mail: ls-wirtz@uni-speyer.de
V. Göttel
German Research Institute for Public Administration Speyer, Freiherr-vom-Stein-Str. 2,
67346 Speyer, Germany
e-mail: goettel@foev-speyer.de
123
2 M. Bronnenmayer et al.
1 Introduction
The development of the modern management consulting industry has been

characterized by rapid growth. Especially the significant evolution of the consulting
industry in the 1980 and 1990s has been phenomenal. Even though today times with
two-digit growth rates are over, management consulting has become a fundamental
element of business. Particularly for medium and big companies, management
consulting as a service is nowadays part of their daily routine (Kubr 2005; Kipping
and Clark 2012). Thus, we can state that management consulting is of notable
practical relevance and—although affected by the stock market bubble and the
financial crisis—a resilient and still successful business area (Research 2013; Feaco
2013).
Despite this relevance as well as the size of the management consulting industry,
the attention to the subject in academic research is surprisingly low. Concerning the
relevant literature there are many articles and books on the practice of management
consulting. Yet, many of these works are practical field reports written by (ex)-
consultants or ‘unveiling literature’ with no or little scientific validity. Thus, there is
no ‘‘correspondingly large wealth of empirical data on the practice of management
consulting’’ (Appelbaum 2004, p. 183). Concerning this matter, many authors
confirm the lack of empirical foundation and note the significant gaps in the
fundamental work on management consulting (e.g. Gagnon 1984; Alvesson and
Johansson 2002; Appelbaum 2004).
Although the scientific publications’ number and diversity have increased in
recent years, there are still many research areas of management consulting which
are not covered or still in an early stage. Most scientific papers focus on the
consulting process, different functions of consulting (e.g. Tilles 1961; Sturdy 1997;
McLarty and Robinson 1998; Werr and Styhre 2002; Simon et al. 2010), the
consulting market itself, the different roles within management consulting as well as
the involved relationships (e.g. McKinney Kellogg 1984; Sewchurran and Barron
2008).
However, there is limited study regarding the considerably relevant subject of
management consulting’s success factors. The existing literature on that topic is
mostly of qualitative narrative nature. Also, the few available quantitative studies
include only a fractional point of view and/or methodical weaknesses (e.g. Gable
1996; Liberatore and Luo 2010). For instance, the focus of some studies lies
exclusively on IT consulting projects and/or they lack a clear definition of success,
engagement success or project performance (e.g. Gable 1996; Luo and Liberatore
2009). Yet, one notable work about the success factors of consulting projects is that
of Appelbaum (2004). With the use of a regression model he examines ‘‘projects
involving external management consultants at a North American telecommunica-
tions firm, from the employees’ point of view, to measure the extent to which the
aforementioned ‘‘critical success factors’’ were perceived as being evident’’
(Appelbaum 2004, p. 184). Nevertheless, one main weakness of that study is the
missing theoretical framework.
Altogether, there is no study which treats the entire range of relevant success
factors of management consulting in a highly systematic scientific manner.
123
Success factors of management consulting 3
Accordingly, as also several further authors acknowledge, we need more relevant

research in this area (e.g. Jang et al. 1997; Simon and Kumar 2001; Glückler and
Armbrüster 2003; Marr 2005; Schweizer et al. 2009).
Regarding the practical relevance of management consulting’s success factors,
we must initially state that most projects include the resolving of complex and
usually economic problems at the top management level (e.g. Greiner and Metzger
1983). These may be economic problems of any kind, e.g. regarding culture,
organization, strategies, processes, procedures and methods of the client company.
Also, they can relate to planning, management and control. Yet, since most
management consulting projects are of strategic importance, frequently the main
focus is to achieve the company’s competitiveness. Also, regarding the high daily
rates of a professional consultant, a management consulting project often implies a
high capital expenditure of several hundred thousand euros. Accordingly, if the top
management decides to engage a consulting company to solve the type of problems
described above, it is of high interest for them to know which factors will cause the
consulting project to be successful. If this knowledge is given, it is possible for both
consultants and client to arrange the project conditions in a way which can
contribute to the engagement’s success.
However, for this study, we take the client’s perspective as our point of
departure. Thus, when approaching the research area of management consulting
success in our case, it stands to reason to also integrate the construct of client
satisfaction into the investigation. This is the case since there is a notable tradition
of examining the construct in the performance or success related services literature,
both in the business-to-consumer context (e.g. Crosby et al. 1990; Butcher et al.
2001; Bei and Chiao 2006; Bodet 2008) as well as regarding business professional
and even management consulting services (e.g. Dawes et al. 1992; Patterson et al.
1997). More importantly, in these different contexts, researchers consistently
confirm the relevance of the construct.
Therefore, as one of the first studies in the field, our main objective is to provide
differentiated insights into management consulting’s success factors, the dimensions
of management consulting success and especially their impact on the overall client
satisfaction with the commissioned management consulting service. Given that the
hitherto existing literature does not include a comparably sufficient study, such an
observation includes a unique look at client satisfaction determinants in the
particular consultancy setting and thus primarily contributes to the understanding of
client satisfaction in the management consulting literature. Yet, it also enhances the
overall perception of the client satisfaction construct in the related services literature
in general. Lastly, also clients of management consultants in practice can apply the
resulting findings, namely when operating future management consulting projects as
well as controlling and monitoring their success.
Overall, the according research questions for this article include which specific
factors are relevant for the success of management consulting, which dimensions
comprise management consulting success as well as how these dimensions
determine the satisfaction of the client with the management consulting service.
To fulfill the mentioned objective as well as answer the posed research questions,
the contributions of this article are twofold. First, based on principal-agent theory
123
and the resource-based view, we conceptualize a multidimensional framework

consisting of management consulting’s success factors and the concept of
management consulting success. Secondly, we assert the impact of the different
dimensions of management consulting success on the overall client satisfaction. In
this regard, we theoretically derive ten hypotheses as well as empirically test them
by using structural equation modeling. We base our empirical analysis on a survey
of 255 client companies which show recent experience with management
consulting. A detailed discussion and conclusion part, reflecting on our findings,
limitations and avenues for future research, finalizes the paper.
2 Research framework
Considering that currently there is no predominant theoretical approach for the

scientific investigation of management consulting as well as acknowledging the
complexity of the research problem and the examined variables’ interdependencies,
we adopt a multidisciplinary view for this study. Based on the current state of
research and not least due to their frequent usage in the literature, we regard two
theoretical approaches as potentially adequate, the principal-agent theory and the
resource-based view. Accordingly, the conceptual framework for this study draws
on those two theoretical approaches to derive relevant success factors of
management consulting.
2.1 The principal-agent theory
The focus of the principal-agent theory is on supplier-customer relationships

characterized by asymmetric information (Ross 1973; Jensen and Meckling 1976).
In this regard, the basis is ,,a contract under which one or more persons (the
principal(s)) engage another person (the agent) to perform some service on their
behalf which involves delegating some decision making authority to the agent
‘‘(Jensen and Meckling 1976, p. 308). The underlying contents of the principal-
agent theory include the existing information asymmetries between principal and
agent (hidden characteristics, hidden action, hidden intention), the resulting
problems (adverse selection, moral hazard, hold up), recommendations for solving
these problems (interest and incentive alignment, signaling/screening, self-selection,
monitoring) and the arising agency costs, consisting of bonding costs, monitoring
costs and residual loss (for further explanation see e.g. Ross 1973; Jensen and
Meckling 1976).
The principal-agent theory is applicable to many contract or exchange
relationships in practice and is an empirically valid perspective (Eisenhardt
1989). Classical applications include the employer-employee relationship, the
doctor-patient relationship, the landlord-tenant relationship, the insurer-insured or
the lender-borrower relationship. Thus, since management consulting projects also
include a comparable case of two contracting entities, the relationship between
client and consultant can likewise be categorized as a classic principal-agent
relationship (Clark 1993; Luo and Liberatore 2009; Saam 2012). In this case, the
123
client stands for the principal, whereas the consultant represents the agent. Referring
to this, the principal as a service consumer usually has little information about the
agent. Thus, the agent can exploit the resulting discretionary leeway for
opportunistic reasons.
Yet, to counteract such developments the principal can for example establish
particular incentive systems and a comprehensive project monitoring. Referring to
the offer of attractive incentives in the case of management consulting, the client
can in this way at least influence the consultants to engage in activities which are in
the client’s interest. One classic example for aligning the interests of principal and
agent through incentives is to make the agents’ compensation dependent on
outcomes of their performance (Tosi et al. 1997). Since such an approach for
developing contracts also makes sense in the context of management consulting,
clients of management consultants largely apply it in practice.
However, not only the agent is able to display opportunistic behavior. Since each
party strives for its personal benefit maximization, both pursue their own interests,
which do not necessarily need to be compatible. Especially in the service area,
where the consumer is an external factor integrated in the delivery of the service,
there are bidirectional principal-agent relationships.
2.2 The resource-based view
As second part of our multidisciplinary approach, we use the resource-based view

for the research framework of this study. The concept of resource here is relatively
broad. The resource-based view defines it as everything that is directly or indirectly
available and accessible for a company (Wernerfelt 1984; Amit and Schoemaker
1993; Sanchez et al. 1996). Further, one can split resources into tangible, intangible,
financial and organizational capabilities that enable a firm to effectively and
efficiently deliver a product of value to the market (Wernerfelt 1984; Barney 1991,
1998).
Within the framework of the resource-based view, we can understand companies
as bundles of resources (Penrose 1959). Each company has an idiosyncratic resource
endowment which, in the context of the resource-based view, one considers the
source of the company’s success or failure (Wernefelt 1984, 1995; Peteraf 1993). In
more detail, the intention of the resource-based approach is to answer the question
of why one company, compared to another competing company in the same sector,
can achieve lasting pensions without the competitor equalizing these benefits.
The resource-based view transferred to the consultancy context initially implies
that the scope of view is no longer the level of the company or a strategic business
unit (DeSarbo et al. 2006), but the level of the management consulting project. Such
a project bundles a particular set of strategically important resources. Here,
especially human and financial resources play an important role, which both the
client and the management consulting firm have to provide. In this regard, missing
capacity is one of the main reasons for the use of an consulting service (e.g. Greiner
and Metzger 1983; Kubr 2005). Due to limited resources (mostly time and/or
qualifications) the client engages an external or internal consultancy service which
increasingly represents a largely institutionalized commodity. However, it must be
123
considered that, although the consultancy service is a public good which every
company can purchase, there are significant differences in the success of
management consulting projects. Since a consulting project differs in terms of its
facilities and resources—following the logic of the resource-based view—it can turn
out as a successful or less successful engagement. More clearly, the varying success
of management consulting projects results from their different resource equipment.
Thus, the resource-based view focusing on the endowment of consulting projects
can help explain the mentioned differences regarding their success, thus comple-
menting the rather interpersonal, relational approach inherent in the principal-agent
theory.
3 Conceptual model
Building on the illustrated research framework, we present the derivation of the

study’s conceptual model and the related hypotheses in this chapter. First, the model
contains different success factors of management consulting. Secondly, we
conceptualize management consulting success in the model as having three
dimensions. Also, we consider the effect of those success dimensions on the overall
client satisfaction in the model. Yet, before deducting the specific success factors
based on the principal-agent theory and the resource-based view, we separately
determine certain antecedent variables regarding those theoretical approaches in the
following. This may help to clarify the connection between the developed research
framework and the derived hypotheses. To further support this endeavor in the
remaining chapter, we also explicitly suggest the respective antecedent variables’
relevance in the illustrations of each success factor. Figure 1 summarizes the
gradual development of our conceptual model, inclusive of antecedent variables.
3.1 Antecedent variables of the principal-agent theory
Within the principal-agent theory the relationship between both parties is generally
characterized by information asymmetry. Both principal and agent can exploit the
resulting discretionary leeway in terms of opportunistic behavior. As this
circumstance also frequently represents one of the major problems in the
relationship between client and consultant—that is between principal and agent—
it stands to reason that resolving this issue is relevant for the related management
consulting success, especially from a client perspective. Therefore, when drawing
on the principal-agent theory, it makes sense to deduct the related success factors for
our research model based on the resolution of the mentioned information asymmetry
and the related conflicts of interest.
To this effect, we regard the consulting process from a chronological viewpoint,
i.e. we consider at which point in time in this process which types of information
asymmetry may occur. Accordingly, when analyzing these different types and
subsequently developing counteractive measures for minimizing related agency
costs, the differentiation between pre-contractual and post-contractual phase plays a
significant role. In more detail, the pre-contractual phase stands for the time period
123
Fig. 1 Gradual development of the conceptual model
in which client and consultant have not yet signed any service level agreement,
whereas in the post-contractual phase the respective information asymmetry occurs
after signing the contract. Since several further authors likewise regard this
differentiation as essential when referring to the principal-agent theory (e.g. Ross
1973; Bergen et al. 1992; Jensen and Meckling 1976), we choose it as antecedent
variable for deriving the related success factors in the following. In this way, on the
one hand we are able to identify success factors that are explicitly connected to the
goal of reducing pre-contractually existing information asymmetry and aligning
interests between client and consultant, e.g. through incentive systems (Tosi et al.
1997). On the other hand, we find success factors which focus on minimizing
predominant post-contractual information asymmetry and thus implementing the
management consulting project. Yet, there exists also one factor which may play a
role in both the pre- and post-contractual phases (see Fig. 1).
3.2 Antecedent variables of the resource-based view
As already indicated by the name, a detailed analysis of a company’s resources is at

the heart of the resource-based view. Transferred to the management consulting
context, the resources focus shifts from the company level to the consulting project
level. While the resource-based view generally differentiates between tangible,
intangible, financial and organizational resources (Wernerfelt 1984; Barney 1991,
1998), it is not constructive to use all of them in terms of antecedent variables for
deducting success factors in the management consulting context. Rather, it stands to
reason to confine ourselves to focusing on only those types of resources which are
the most relevant for management consulting success.
123
In this regard, first of all the knowledge-intensive service character of

management consulting indicates the significance of intangible and more exactly
human resources for the success of consulting projects (Anand et al. 2007).
Secondly, due to the high daily rates of professional management consultants and
the common total expenses for a project of several hundred thousand euros,
financial resources likewise play a major role. Yet, we largely disregard tangible or
organizational resources for deriving relevant success factors in the specific
management consulting context, which we justify as follows. While the client for
example should of course consider the provision of premises for the consultants,
such issues do not represent the main challenge within consulting projects. For this
reason, the antecedent variables regarding the resource-based view, which we
choose for deriving the related success factors in this study, include intangible and
financial resources.
3.3 Conceptualization of success factors of management consulting
3.3.1 Common vision
From the viewpoint of the principal-agent theory there exist many information
asymmetries and conflicts of interest between principal and agent. This circum-
stance can result in problems like adverse selection, moral hazard and hold up (Ross
1973; Jensen and Meckling 1976). Referring to the aforementioned consideration of
relevant antecedent variables, especially in the pre-contractual stage of a consulting
project the risk of adverse selection is given (Clark 1993). Usually, the quality
properties of the performance as well as the underlying intentions of the respective
consulting firm are unknown (hidden characteristics). This makes it difficult for the
client to assess the quality of a common consulting project and the adequacy of the
respective consulting firm ex ante. Furthermore, the heterogeneous and hardly
transparent market for management consulting services additionally complicates
this situation. To reduce the risk of adverse selection especially from the client’s
point of view, one widely accepted instrument in the management consulting
literature is the development of a common vision between client and consultant
(Ford 1974; O’Driscoll and Eubanks 1993; McLachlin 1999).
In this study the construct Common Vision represents the extent to which the
specific project objectives, deliverables and outcomes desired by client and
consultants match each other. Here, especially to further that the consultants realize
the outcomes which the client favors, it is advisable to align the interests of principal
and agent through incentive systems in advance. In more detail, in the formulation
of a common vision before signing a contract, the client can e.g. determine that the
consultants’ compensation is made dependent on outcomes of their performance
(Tosi et al. 1997). In this way, the client can at least partly exert more influence and
control over the consultants, so as to engage them only in activities which are in the
interest of the client.
Further, as a main part of every consulting engagement, client and consultants
have to define the particular project objectives in a common discourse. The defined
objectives should thereby be of precise and measurable nature since otherwise it is
123
difficult to reach common sense. Furthermore, the clear communication of the

project objectives towards all relevant stakeholders is an important point for
achieving a suitable common vision between client and consulting firm. All in all, a
pre-contractually well-defined common vision reduces agency costs and contributes
to a successful management consulting engagement. Thus, based on the previous
reflections, we can formulate the following first hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1 (H1) The better the common vision between client and consultant
is, the higher the management consulting success will be.
3.3.2 Intensity of collaboration
In line with our consideration of antecedent variables, a further important success

factor of management consulting against the background of the principal-agent
theory, which especially contributes to reducing post-contractual information
asymmetry and conflicts of interest, is Intensity of Collaboration. As a service,
management consulting includes individual processes within which the consultants
must integrate the client as an external factor. Consultants frequently need the input
of the client to obtain a satisfying and administrable solution for the relevant project
issues. Without such client support, a consulting project can hardly be successful.
To analyze the current situation of the client company, for example, the
consultants need information from different employees. Thus, especially after
signing the contract, i.e. when actually starting to tackle the client’s existing
problems and trying to reach the formerly defined objectives, collaboration is of
immense importance in order to reduce the existing information asymmetries and
dispel conflicts of interest. In this regard, as the principal-agent theory postulates, it
is generally impossible for the principal to guarantee without any arising costs that
the agent will always make decisions which are in the best interest of the principal
(Jensen and Meckling 1976). These agency costs can e.g. include monitoring costs
for the principal, i.e. costs which emerge from consistently tracking the agent’s
activities during the time period of the particular engagement.
Yet, a high intensity of collaboration between client and consultant, e.g. in terms
of a frank communication and exchange of interests between both parties, can help
to minimize such agency costs and contribute in that way to the success of
management consulting projects. Referring to this, there are several further studies
in the literature of management consulting confirming that effect (e.g. Jang et al.
1997; Schaffer 2002; Appelbaum and Steed (2005); Nitithamyong and Tan 2007).
Accordingly, our second hypothesis reads as follows:
Hypothesis 2 (H2) The higher the intensity of collaboration between client and
consultant is, the higher the management consulting success will be.
3.3.3 Trust
As it can also generally contribute to the reduction of agency problems and the
involved uncertainty typical for principal-agent-relationships (Verlander 2012), it
seems plausible that Trust between client and consultants may be another critical
123
success factor of management consulting, especially during the pre-contractual or

project initiation phase. The initial creation of trust between client and consulting
firm may convince the client to waive special screening activities, such as
investigations regarding the consultants’ skills, competences or expertise (Bergen
et al. 1992). To facilitate such a situation from the beginning, a consulting firm can
perform signaling activities in the form of confidence-building measures by, for
example, becoming a member in a recognized consultant association. Also, the
client can pre-contractually negotiate the terms of a performance-oriented
compensation for the consultants to have more certainty and thus trust in the
consultants’ delivery of the desired outcomes (Tosi et al. 1997).
Yet, also in the post-contractual phase of a consulting project—thus covering
both relevant antecedent variables—a trustful relationship between client and
consultant can be of high significance. This is again not least due to the fact that
consultants generally have a high leeway in doing their job. For example, it is hard
for the client to evaluate if the consultants actually deal with the respective concerns
of the client or if they are engaged otherwise. Here, the before negotiated terms of
performance- or outcome-oriented compensation can also post-contractually give
the client a more certain or confident feeling about the consultants’ activities.
Furthermore, a relationship built on trust can pass on between different clients in
terms of recommendations, which signifies why trust may be of high relevance in
the context of signaling (Spremann 1985). Thus, an agent (consulting company)
generally has no interest in compromising an existing relationship with a client, as
this may adversely affect the trust building process. In more detail, an agent
(consultant) who behaves strictly opportunistic would cause a negative trust
building effect and a loss of confidence.
In the end, trust-building measures on the agent’s part in this case, like the
provision of additional information about the consulting firm and the specific
consultants, helps reduce existing information asymmetries. Therefore, we assume
the construct of Trust to have a positive effect on management consulting success.
In this regard, there are already several studies in the literature of management
consulting focusing on that topic (e.g. Glückler and Armbrüster 2003; Solomonson
2011, 2012). Following up on these as well as the above considerations, we
hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 3 (H3) The greater the trust between client and consultant is, the
higher the management consulting success will be.
3.3.4 Project management
The last success factor derived from the principal-agent theory is Project
Management. In terms of the defined antecedent variables, it is common to
establish an extensive project management after conclusion of a contract for
management consulting, i.e. in the post-contractual phase. This is again due to the
fact that the efforts of the contractual partners involved in the related principal-agent
relationship are often not assessable in a direct and conclusive way without any
arising agency costs (Ross 1973; Jensen and Meckling 1976). The aim of the project
123
management approach here is to antagonize the risk of moral hazard and to

minimize the prevailing information asymmetries through well-planned and
consistent project coordination and monitoring, e.g. through holding meetings of
the project team on a regular basis. Such an approach can help to keep the agency
costs down and thus contribute to a successful management consulting project. In
the literature, so far, several authors have likewise found project management to be
a widely accepted success factor of management consulting (e.g. Nidumolu 1996;
Jang et al. 1997; Kubr 2005; Nitithamyong and Tan 2007; Liberatore and Luo
2010).
In general, project management means the planning, controlling and monitoring
of projects and ‘‘is the application of knowledge, skills and techniques to execute
projects effectively and efficiently. It’s a strategic competency for organizations,
enabling them to tie project results to business goals—and thus, better compete in
their markets’’ (PMI 2013). Content, scope and processes of project management
are part of many studies within their own journals (e.g. Project Management
Journal). Also, there are some established associations dedicated to the topic (e.g.
the Project Management Institute (PMI) or the International Project Management
Association (IPMA). For this study the focus of project management lies especially
on responsibilities, skills and processes in the context of management consulting.
Overall, regarding project management within this context, we hypothesize the
following:
Hypothesis 4 (H4) The better the project management is, the higher the
management consulting success will be.
3.3.5 Consultant expertise
Following the determination of antecedent variables in the context of the resource-

based view, a management consulting project differs primarily in terms of its
financial and intangible resources and thus can turn out as a successful or less
successful engagement. Previous research on the success factors of management
consulting (e.g. Gallessich 1982; Williams and Woodward 1994; Jang et al. 1997;
Appelbaum and Steed (2005); Greenwood et al. 2005; Richter and Schmidt 2006;
Nitithamyong and Tan 2007) as well as interviews with managers in client and
consulting companies suggest consultants’ expertise as one of the most important
intangible resources that can positively influence the performance of a management
consulting project. The strong service character of the people-dependent business of
management consulting further substantiates the relevance of this intangible
resource and the fact that from a client perspective one of the main reasons to hire a
consulting company is to provide capacity.
Depending on the particular issues of the consulting project, it is crucial to
achieve a good fit between the capabilities needed to reach the defined project
objectives and the expertise of the engaged consultants (Covin and Fisher 1991).
Besides the evidently relevant skills of a consultant, namely excellent specialist
knowledge, extensive industry know-how and project experience, the construct
Consultant Expertise in this study also summarizes aspects like keen perception and
123
the ability to bring consensus. In addition, another point which is important for
many clients is that consultants provide the impetus for new ideas and consider
issues from different perspectives, which is also included in the factor Consulting
Expertise (Rynning 1992). Altogether, the consultants’ expertise seems to be
constructive for the success of a management consulting project. Therefore, we
predict the following fifth hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5 (H5) The better the consultant expertise is, the higher the
3.3.6 Provided resources
Besides consultant expertise another critical success factor, which previous research
and expert interviews suggest, includes the resources which the client can provide
for the management consulting project (Turner 1999). In dependence on the
previously determined antecedent variables, especially the client’s human (intan-
gible) and financial resources are important for the resource framework of a
consulting project (Verlander 2012). Yet, human and financial resources do not only
include the amount of the specific resources, but also the availability, especially the
time frame that the client company can go without the client team members which
support the management consulting project.
Overall, depending on the content and size of the particular resource framework,
the corresponding management consulting project can be of more or less success. In
the context of this study, we summarize the resource framework which the client
provides for the project within the construct Provided Resources. This leads us to
the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 6 (H6) The better the provided resources are, the higher the
3.3.7 Top management support
Further referring to the aforementioned differentiation of antecedent variables, the

last important intangible resource is a sincere Top Management Support, which
previous research on the success factors of management consulting (e.g. Vanlommel
and de Brabander 1975; Slevin and Pinto 1986; Covin and Fisher 1991; Jang et al.
1997; Wu et al. 2004; Appelbaum and Steed 2005; Nitithamyong and Tan 2007) as
well as interviews with managers in client and consulting companies suggest. Many
management consulting projects are connected to massive organizational changes.
Accordingly, in line with strategic restructuring projects, many employees find
themselves either decapitated or consigned with new functions. Regarding the fact
that employee resistance is a natural part of almost every change effort in an
organization (e.g. Morris and Raben 1995), management’s commitment to the
consulting effort is highly desirable to overcome existing resistance behavior and
thus contribute to management consulting success.
In this study the construct Top Management Support expresses the signaling
efforts of the client’s top management regarding its commitment to the consulting
123
project in the organization. Furthermore, it implies to what extent the top

management trusts, promotes and motivates the members of the particular
management consulting project. Accordingly, we can formulate the last hypothesis
regarding the success factors of management consulting:
Hypothesis 7 (H7) The higher the top management support is, the higher the
3.4 Conceptualization of management consulting success
Based on the corresponding literature as well as expert interviews, we conceptualize

management consulting success as a multidimensional construct. In more detail, in
this study management consulting success comprises three dimensions, namely
Compliance with Budget and Schedule, Degree of Target Achievement and Degree
of Acceptance.
Admittedly, regarding the explanation of management consulting success there
are many heterogeneous perspectives, depending on the cognitive goal and the
object of the corresponding study (Schweizer et al. 2009). Nevertheless, the specific
dimensions Compliance with Budget and Schedule and Degree of Target
Achievement we consider fundamental for a successful management project from
the client’s perspective, not least due to their frequent use in similar studies (Pinto
and Prescott 1990; Gable 1996; Jang et al. 1997; Richter and Schmidt 2006; Luo
and Liberatore 2009; Liberatore and Luo 2010).
Furthermore, another dimension which authors in the relevant literature (e.g.
Pinto and Prescott 1990; Gable 1996) as well as experts within the conducted
interviews frequently mention is Degree of Acceptance. It represents to what extent
the client accepts the recommendations of the consultants. In more detail, it stands
for the client’s usage of the solution which the consultants develop and thus
represents a prime dimension of management consulting success (Ein-Dor and
Segev 1982).
3.5 Effects on client satisfaction
A further important facet regarding the conceptualization of success in general is

satisfaction. More specifically, customer or client satisfaction is a recognized
research subject in the broader services literature but also in performance or success
related studies about business professional and especially management consulting
services. For example, Crosby et al. (1990) regard satisfaction as one important
indicator of relationship quality between salesperson and customer in the whole life
insurance industry. While several further studies in this regard examine the
relationships between service encounter or customer satisfaction and customer
loyalty in the context of business-to-consumer services (e.g. Butcher et al. 2001; Bei
and Chiao 2006; Bodet 2008), both Dawes et al. (1992) and Patterson et al. (1997)
specifically deal with client satisfaction in management consulting services. In more
detail, while Dawes et al. (1992) focus on the selection of a particular management
consulting firm based on the recommendation of other satisfied clients as one
123
important criterion, Patterson et al. (1997) particularly investigate what determines

clients’ satisfaction with the commissioned management consulting firms and how
this satisfaction impacts repeat purchase intentions regarding the particular
management consulting service.
Accordingly, as many further authors use satisfaction in related studies (e.g.
Pinto and Prescott 1990; Gable 1996; Patterson and Spreng 1997; Simon and Kumar
2001; McLachlin 2000), also specifically for the conceptualization of management
consulting success, the construct seems to play an important role. Yet, contrary to
the currently existing studies about management consulting success, we do not
conceptualize the construct Satisfaction as a fourth dimension parallel to the other
three dimensions (Compliance with Budget and Schedule, Degree of Target
Achievement and Degree of Acceptance). Instead, we see the overall client
satisfaction concerning a management consulting project as a subsequent result of
the three-dimensional construct of management consulting success, with every
dimension having a strong impact on the satisfaction construct. The conducted
expert interviews support these effective relationships as one main finding. To
consider this fact, we propose the hypotheses H8 to H10. Overall, we show the
underlying research model in Fig. 2.
Hypothesis 8 (H8) The better the compliance with budget and schedule, the
higher is the satisfaction of the clients with the consulting service.
Hypothesis 9 (H9) The better the degree of target achievement, the higher is the
satisfaction of the clients with the consulting service.
Hypothesis 10 (H10) The better the degree of acceptance, the higher is the
satisfaction of the clients with the consulting service.
4 Data and methods
As the necessary information has not been compiled so far in the form of secondary
statistical data, we conduct an online survey among German companies with
experience of management consulting. For testing the stated hypotheses, we obtain
an overall return of 255 utilizable questionnaires. To pay attention to validity and
reliability as well as address common method and key informant bias already while
developing the survey instrument (Podsakoff and Organ 1986; Kumar et al. 1993;
Lindell and Whitney 2001; Podsakoff et al. 2003; Malhotra et al. 2006), we develop
the survey instrument through a multistep process. In addition to an intensive
literature research regarding existing item batteries, this process involves 12
exploratory expert interviews, a pretest and an item-sorting pretest (Anderson and
Gerbing 1991) with 22 scientists and practitioners (DeVellis 2011). Nevertheless,
we also illustrate the specific further procedures for dealing with the mentioned
biases in more detail in the following sections of the chapter.
123
Common
Vision
Intensityof
H1 Compliance
Collaboration
with budget
and Schedule
H2
H8
Trust
H3
Degree of
Project H4 Consulting H8
Target Satisfaction
Management Success
Achievement
H5
Consultant H6 H10
Expertise
H7
Degree of
Provided Acceptance
Resources
Top
Management
Support
Fig. 2 Research model
4.1 Data collection and sample
The population for studying the success factors of management consulting from a
client perspective would be the totality of all those companies that regularly work
together with management consultancies and thus have extensive related experi-
ence. In this regard, for our study we face the problem that comprehensive
corresponding statistics which list such firms do simply not exist for the German
area. Thus, we are compelled to look for an alternative solution.
One widespread approach in this context is the restriction to one or more industry
sectors. However, in the present study, this approach is not effective since virtually
every industry nowadays uses consultancies. However, the service management
consulting especially belongs to the daily business of large companies. For this
reason, we can use the size of a company as a first key criterion for approaching a
suitable population. Referring to this, we apply a combination of two criteria to
determine the size of the firm: the revenues and the number of employees. Here, we
set the threshold value for revenues to 250 million euros and for number of
employees to 250. Through this identification process, we initially try our best to
ensure the firms’ prior management consulting experience by restricting the
selection to large firms since those especially make great demands on the service
management consulting in their daily business.
Based on these criteria, from the Hoppenstedt database of German firms
(Hoppenstedt 2012) we extract 3,398 usable datasets which form the initial basis for
the survey. Yet, with regard to the German Federal Statistical Office’s classification
of economic activities WZ 2008 (Statistisches Bundesamt 2012), we explicitly
exclude those industries which would distort the investigation results. This includes
particularly section 70 (activities of head offices; management consultancy).
123
Furthermore, we exclude area 69 (legal and accounting activities) as the major

accounting firms usually also offer consulting services nowadays. Finally, we also
exclude those companies that identify their main work area in providing consulting
in the field of information technology (industry code 62020). With this restriction,
the utilizable database decreases to 2,759 available datasets.
Following up on this, while approaching the main survey, it turns out that 154
firms are not accessible via the stated email-address. Also, for those firms, it is not
possible to identify alternative email-addresses due to closure of business, change of
name or merger with other firms. Taking into account those cases, 2,605 relevant
firms are contactable via email. In those emails we further include the request to
forward the survey to suitable key informants of the firm with relevant management
consulting experience, such as CEO’s, division managers etc., to guarantee
identifying the right target population as well as possible.
Further, we give the respondents the possibility to indicate such prior consulting
experience in an additional, more general part of the questionnaire’s beginning since
the further completion of the survey makes no sense in case of no experience. In this
regard, in an ideal process all of the contacted firms would state their prior
management consulting experience in response as well as complete and return the
questionnaire.
Yet, 312 firms indicate that they have not gained any experience with the work of
management consultants so far and thus would not have the relevant experience for
participating in our study. Consequently, this feedback leads to the total of 2,293
firms for data collection which referring to the overall return of 255 utilizable
questionnaires results in a response rate of 11.12 % (255/2,293). We can then
definitely classify these returns as being based on prior management consulting
experience since, as already mentioned above, we survey the latter and the general
completion of the questionnaire makes no sense otherwise.
To test this sample’s representativeness, we include essential structural
characteristics of the regarded firms in the survey. By means of these characteristics,
we assess the related data concerning their accordance to the population. For this
purpose, we ask all respondents to indicate in which industry their firm operates as
well as their company size according to number of employees. Regarding the
affiliation to a certain industry, 40.39 % of the sample operate in manufacturing,
34.51 % in the financial services industry, 10.59 % in electricity, gas and water
supply, 9.02 % in the TIMES industry and 1.18 % in the public sector. Further
4.31 % operate in miscellaneous industries like retailing or tourism. In this regard,
the v2 homogeneity test results in a value of 8.773. Compared to the 95 %-quantile
of a v2 distribution with df = 5 (11.07) (Hair et al. 2010), we can thus not state a
statistically significant difference between the sample and the population.
Concerning the company size, 20.39 % of the respondents indicate that their firm
employs 250–499 persons, 18.04 % occupy 500–999, whereas 30.98 % lie between
1,000 and 4,999 employees. Further 30.59 % indicate more than 5,000 employees.
Here, the v2 homogeneity test results in a value of 6.360. Again, compared to the
95 %-quantile of a v2 distribution with df = 3 (7.81) (Hair et al. 2010), this shows
no statistically significant difference between the population and the sample, which
suggests the latter’s representativeness (Dickson and Maclachlan 1996).
123
4.2 Key informants
First of all, to avoid misunderstandings as to what the key informants should refer
when filling in the survey, we suggest to relate to a specific past consulting project
with a particular consulting firm. Following up on the formerly described selection
process, we present now several characteristics of the particular key informants to
prove our sample’s representativeness and quality.
When initially regarding their position within the firm, more than 73 % of the
respondents hold leading positions, thereof 68.57 % executive staff and 4.49 %
CEOs. 19.59 % consist of common employees, whereas 7.35 % like experts or
employees from the administrative department occupy miscellaneous positions.
Thus, we cannot detect a bias due to the position of the participants (Groves 2004).
Further, we test the respondents’ past experience with management consulting to
ensure their applicability for participation in the survey. This test is based on the
number of years which the respondents already have worked with consulting firms
as well as the number of consulting projects they have participated in during the past
5 years.
Referring to this, we can state an overall high suitability of the identified
participants as follows. While only 5.71 % of the informants have less than 3 years
of experience with management consultants, 11.84 % have 3–5 years. The majority
(82.45 %) states cooperation with consulting firms for at least 5 years, whereas
36.73 % even report 11 years and more. Further, while 13.88 % indicate their
involvement in only 2 or less consulting projects within the past 5 years, more than
86 % of the respondents state participation in at least three consulting projects. Of
these 86 % again, 22 % even state their experiences with 10 or more projects.
Besides, we can confirm the so far good impression concerning the key
informants’ characteristics when regarding their self-assessment of experience with
management consulting. Initially, no respondent claims to have no experience with
business consulting. Only 5.72 % of the respondents state to have slightly (0.82 %)
or rather little (4.90 %) experience with consultancy. The large majority of 94.29 %
declares their experience with management consultancy to medium (15.92 %),
much more (27.76 %), much (31.84 %) or very much (18.78 %). We obtain similar
values for the respondents’ self-assessment of their suitability for the survey.
Regarding the question how well the subjects are able to answer the questions in
total, the majority of 93.88 % indicates their ability to answer the questions medium
(13.47 %), fairly good (33.47 %), good (30.20 %) or very good (16.73 %). The
remaining 6.12 % are only able to answer the questions rather poorly (4.90 %) or
poorly (1.22 %). No respondent states that he or she could answer the questions
merely very badly. Thus, we can state an overall good answering competence of the
participants.
4.3 Common method variance
For the study at hand and the involved key informant approach we also
acknowledge possibly occurring problems of common method variance and thus
take several steps to antagonize them. The risk of a common method bias especially
123
exists if researchers measure two or more constructs as well as the corresponding

correlations by making use of the same key informant and the same method.
Referring to this, common method variance arises precisely because the key
informants’ answers concerning the observed constructs are distorted in the same
way. Such effects frequently occur due to acquiescence, consistency motives or
social desirability and lead to the risk of confirming the particular correlations
because of the systematic distortion instead of the actual causal relationships
(Podsakoff and Organ 1986; Podsakoff et al. 2003). In our specific case the common
method variance could occur since we take e.g. the information on our dependent
variable Management Consulting Success from the same informant as the
information on the success factors.
However, to this effect, we conduct Harman’s one factor test through which we
can analyze all indicators of the investigation by means of an exploratory factor
analysis with varimax rotation. In case one factor would explain 50 % or more of
the variance of all indicators, we would have to assume a common method bias or
variance (Podsakoff and Organ 1986; McFarlin and Sweeney 1992). For our study,
the conducted exploratory factor analysis extracts 72 factors in total, of which 12
show an eigenvalue of above 1. Since the factor explaining the highest variance of
those 12 factors only explains 16 %, the results do not point to the presence of a
common method bias in our case.
In addition to Harman’s one factor test, a second step to control for a possible
common method bias is the determination of the Guttman-split-half-reliability. With
the help of this ratio we observe the reliability of an investigation as a synthesized
variable with 2 parts. In doing so, we compare both halves of the investigation’s
results. Since authors in the relevant literature determine a lower limit of 0.6 for
proving the respective reliability (Crocker and Algina 2008), a value of 0.897 for
this study lies well above the demanded threshold, thus also arguing against a
common method bias. Yet, the most effective way to analyze the presence of a
common method bias in addition to avoiding a key informant bias is triangulation
(Van Bruggen et al. 2002; Podsakoff et al. 2003; Homburg et al. 2012). Thus, the
next section illustrates the triangulation approach for this study.
4.4 Triangulation
Another essential component for checking the study’s database, particularly with
regard to key informant bias and common method variance, is the triangulation that
we realize for this study (Homburg et al. 2012). In this regard, we incorporate
secondary informants of the client organization into the observation. For this
purpose, we ask the primary respondents at the end of the survey if they would be
willing to forward a shortened questionnaire to colleagues who have worked on the
same consulting project which they refer to. The recipients responding to this
question with ‘‘Yes’’ receive an individualized survey link to a shortened
questionnaire and specific comments on how to proceed. Through this procedure
we ensure that the different surveys are clearly assignable to each other, so that a
triangulation is feasible (Van Bruggen et al. 2002). In this manner we generate 29
secondary informants in total, after repeated reminder emails.
123
Regarding the consistency between the different datasets from the primary and
the secondary informants as well as the corresponding check for key informant bias
or common method variance, we use the intra-class correlation ICC 1, ICC 2 and the
bivariate correlation. As limit for the ICC 1, a value of greater than 0.1 and for the
ICC 2 a value of 0.6 or higher is desirable, although some authors start here with a
stricter value of 0.7 as the threshold (Bliese 1998; Klein and Kozlowski 2000).
Within the bivariate correlation, we correlate responses of the first and second key
informants in order to identify the highest possible correlation coefficient and
significant correlation (Podsakoff and Organ 1986; Podsakoff et al. 2003). One can
use the following classification in terms of thresholds:
• values from 0 to 0.3 indicate a low correlation,

• values of 0.3–0.5 indicate a moderate correlation and
• values of 0.5–1 represent a high correlation (Cohen 1988).
The results for the bivariate correlation show that the values are consistently
significant (1 or 5 % level) up to a value of 0.5. Only three out of 29 cases show no
significant bivariate correlation. A similar picture emerges for the ICC 2. The values
are far above the limit of 0.6, so that we can maintain even the most stringent limit
of 0.7. Only for the same three cases as in the bivariate correlation, we cannot reach
the threshold of 0.6. An even better picture emerges for the ICC 1. Here, in only one
case we cannot reach the threshold of 0.1.
4.5 Variables and measures
In the final section of this chapter, based on the already existing item batteries in the
literature, we present the variables’ operationalization for this study. Initially, we
derive the scale items which we use to measure the construct Common Vision from
Jang et al. (1997), Appelbaum and Steed (2005) as well as Liberatore and Luo
(2010). Referring to these sources, the focus lies on the client’s coordination of
clearly specified and measurable project objectives with the consultants.
Concerning Intensity of Collaboration again we base the operationalization on
the scales from Jang et al. (1997) as well as Appelbaum and Steed (2005) but also
include Nitithamyong and Tan (2007). Here, the used items summarize aspects like
the regular exchange of project related information, knowledge and task sharing.
Further, we base the measurement of Trust on the scale items from Larzelere and
Huston (1980), Gefen (2002), Liberatore and Luo (2010) as well as Solomonson
(2011). In this regard, we summarize aspects regarding an honest and fair
relationship between client and consultant as well as the client’s faith in the
accuracy and truth of the consultants’ actions and statements.
The focus of the construct Project Management for this study lies especially on
related responsibilities, skills and processes in the context of management
consulting. Accordingly, we derive the scale items which we use to measure the
construct Project Management from Nidumolu (1995, 1996), Nitithamyong and Tan
(2007) as well as Liberatore and Luo (2010).
123
Besides specialist knowledge, industry know-how and project experience, the

construct Consultant Expertise for this study also summarizes aspects like keen
perception and the ability to bring consensus. Another point which is important for
many clients is that consultants provide the impetus for new ideas and consider
issues from different perspectives (Rynning 1992). In line with these aspects, we
base the operationalization of the construct Consultant Expertise on the scale items
from Jang et al. (1997), Appelbaum and Steed (2005) as well as Nitithamyong and
Tan (2007).
The construct Provided Resources again represents considerations regarding the
resources which the client provides for the consulting project. These considerations
concern the appropriate amount but also the temporarily sufficient availability of the
provided financial or human resources. We base the according operationalization on
Pinto and Prescott (1990), Hoegl et al. (2004) as well as Jha and Iyer (2006).
The measurement items for the last success factor Top Management Support
cover the client management’s communication regarding the consulting project
within the client company in terms of commitment and encouragement. The
according scales we draw on are from Vanlommel and de Brabander (1975), Slevin
and Pinto (1986) as well as Appelbaum and Steed (2005).
When subsequently regarding the measurement of the respective success
dimensions, we operationalize Compliance with Budget and Schedule as well as
Degree of Target Achievement based on Pinto and Prescott (1990), Gable (1996),
Jang et al. (1997), Richter and Schmidt (2006), Luo and Liberatore (2009) as well as
Liberatore and Luo (2010). Altogether, their measurement involves the actual
project duration, adherence to deadlines, budget and expectations as well as the final
achievement of targets. Concerning Degree of Acceptance we base the measure-
ment on our expert interviews and the previous studies of Pinto and Prescott (1990)
as well as Gable (1996). Overall, its measurement includes the efforts which the
consultants have taken to ensure the acceptance of all concerned people, e.g.
through communicating the use of the management consulting project or providing
special contact persons for any upcoming question.
The final construct of the causal chain in our model, Satisfaction, represents the
extent to which the actual course as well as the results of the management
consulting project accord to the client’s requests and notion. In more detail, the
operationalization covers the client’s satisfaction with the skills and price-
performance ratio of the consultancy as well as the overall satisfaction with the
commissioned consulting service and firm. Thereby, the construct’s measurement
draws on Gable (1996), Patterson and Spreng (1997), Tang et al. (2003) as well as
Liberatore and Luo (2010). Besides, we include results of the expert interviews, the
pre-tests and the item-sorting tests.
5 Results
We compute the statistics by means of the software packages SPSS 20.0 and EQS 6.1,
using the maximum-likelihood method (MLM) for the estimation of parameters.
Further, we analyze the research model in three stages: assessment of the individual
123
factors’ reliability and validity, assessment of the total model’s reliability and validity,
as well as assessment of the effects on management consulting success.
To evaluate the measurement model, we analyze the seven success factors and
the three dimensions of consulting success. At first, we calculate Cronbach’s Alpha,
item-to-total correlation, variance explained (exploratory), item reliability (confir-
matory), composite reliability and average variance extracted. We base the
according threshold values on different criteria suggested by Bagozzi and Yi
(1988), Phillips (1981) as well as Anderson and Gerbing (1982). In accordance with
Anderson and Gerbing’s suggestion for purifying the measurement model, we have
to exclude some items (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). The remaining items show
strong reliability and validity (for details see Appendix). Further, we calculate the
global fit values normalized Chi square value, degrees of freedom, GFI, AGFI, TLI,
CFI and the RMSEA (Churchill 1979; Baumgartner and Homburg 1996; Hu and
Bentler 1999; Hair et al. 2010; Kline 2011). Those examinations show consistently
good results.
To further evaluate the measurement model, we perform supplementary tests.
First, we conduct an exploratory factor analysis with the remaining 27 items of the
seven success factors and, thereafter, with the eleven items of the three dimensions
of consulting success. Both analyses identify the proposed structures. The results of
a first-order confirmatory factor analysis additionally prove that the data reflects
both the assumed dimensionality and the assignment of the items to the various
factors (Bagozzi and Yi 1988). Subsequently, we employ the criterion by Fornell
and Larcker (1981) to assess discriminant and convergent validity. This observation
compares the average variances extracted with the respective squared correlations of
the constructs (Fornell and Larcker 1981). The results show that none of the squared
correlations exceed the recorded average variances. Therefore, as also apparent
from Tables 1 and 2 in which we highlight the average variances extracted in bold,
all constructs fulfill the criterion.
Finally, we perform a second-order confirmatory factors analysis on the construct
of consulting success to analyze if the identified dimensions are, indeed,
constituents of this construct. In this regard, we conceptualize consulting success
as a second-order construct with three first-order dimensions. According to the
factor loadings, all dimensions prove to load significantly on the second-order
factor. Furthermore, based on the appropriate values of global criteria we can
confirm a good fit of the model (see Fig. 3).
Also, we conduct a simultaneous analysis of the performance impact of the seven
success factors to consider potential interaction effects between single factors. This
procedure rests on the assumption that one should regard all factors in an overall
context. We analyze the impact of the success factors on consulting success through
employing structural equation modeling. In this model, the factor loading of the
individual factor represents the importance of each success factor concerning
consulting success. The higher the factor loading, the more important is the impact
of this factor on performance. Figure 4 illustrates the second-order structural
equation model for the impact of the particular factors on consulting success as well
as the corresponding fit statistics. Additionally, the model shows the effect of the
three success dimensions on the client’s satisfaction with consulting.
123
Table 1 Fornell/Larcker criterion for the success factors

Success factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Common vision 0.633

Intensity of collaboration 0.233 0.588
Trust 0.162 0.234 0.698
Project management 0.248 0.383 0.129 0.594
Consultant expertise 0.181 0.457 0.185 0.317 0.612
Provided resources 0.051 0.086 0.068 0.102 0.062 0.620
Top management support 0.136 0.311 0.061 0.288 0.195 0.277 0.728
Table 2 Fornell/Larcker criterion for the success dimensions

Success dimensions 1 2 3
Compliance with budget and schedule 0.855

Degree of target achievement 0.328 0.789
Degree of acceptance 0.193 0.530 0.694
8.4
Compliance
0,93*
with budget and 8.5
schedule
8.6
9.1
9.3
Consulting 0,98* Degree of target
success achievement 9.4
9.5
10.3
Degree of 10.4
acceptance 10.5
10.6
X2 = 94,485 X2/df = 2,305 GFI = 0,914 TLI = 0,966 Significances :

df = 41 CFI = 0,974 AGFI = 0,862 RMSEA = 0,072 1α≤0,10; 5 α≤0,05; * α≤0,01
Fig. 3 Second-order confirmatory factor analysis of the three-dimensional model for consulting success
The values of local and global fit measures suggest a good overall fit of the
model. The model shows that there are six significant success factors of consulting
and that consulting success is a three-dimensional construct. Consultant Expertise
has the highest effect (0.58) on consulting success, followed by Intensity of
123
Common
Vision
Intensity of
Compliance
Collaboration
with Budget
and Schedule
Trust
Degree of
Project 0,15 5 Consulting 0,80* 0,59*
Target Satisfaction
Management Success
Achievement
R2=0,613 R2=0,608
Consultant
Expertise
Degree of
Provided Acceptance
Resources
Top
Management
Support
X2 = 1457,749 X2/df = 1,809 GFI = 0,950 TLI = 0,896 Significances :

df = 806 CFI = 0,902 AGFI = 0,944 RMSEA = 0,056 1α≤0,10; 5 α≤0,05; ∗ α≤0,01
Fig. 4 Structural equation model
Collaboration (0.35). Moreover, Common Vision (0.34), Project Management

(0.15), Provided Resources (0.12) and Top Management Support (0.10) show
significant positive effects. Only Trust (0.04) does not prove to be significant.
Altogether, the seven success factors explain more than 61 % of the variance of the
consulting performance, which is a notable result (see Chin 1998). Moreover, there
is a positive significant effect of all three dimensions of consulting success on the
overall client satisfaction with consulting, whereby Degree of Target Achievement
has the strongest effect (0.59), followed by Degree of Acceptance (0.18) and
Compliance with Budget and Schedule (0.13). Altogether, the three success
dimensions explain more than 60 % of the variance of the overall satisfaction with
consulting, which is also a satisfactory result (see Chin 1998). Therefore, from the
set of ten hypotheses, we only have to reject H3 based on the analysis of this study.
6 Discussion and conclusion
This study investigates the success factors of management consulting, the

conceptualization of management consulting success as well as its impact on the
overall client satisfaction. Drawing upon the principal agent-theory and the resource
based-view, we initially develop a comprehensive framework of management
consulting’s success factors. These encompass the seven factors Common Vision,
Intensity of Collaboration, Trust, Project Management, Consultant Expertise,
Provided Resources and Top Management Support. Furthermore, we develop a
construct of management consulting success, consisting of the dimensions
123
Compliance with Budget and Schedule, Degree of Target Achievement and Degree
of Acceptance. Lastly, we consider the impact of those three dimensions on the
client’s satisfaction within the conceptual model.
Based on a large-scale empirical analysis, we test the success factors’
performance impact. Six out of seven success factors prove to have a significant
positive effect on management consulting success. Thereby, Consultant Expertise,
Intensity of Collaboration and Common Vision show the strongest performance
impact. While the high significance of Consultant Expertise is indeed contrary to the
results of Jang et al. (1997), our finding seems to explain itself since the main reason
why a client decides to engage consultants is the awareness of having a problem that
cannot be solved with own resources and capabilities. Accordingly, a client engages
a management consulting company which is endued with the special knowledge
needed to overcome the client’s problem. In most cases, an internal build-up of the
needed resources and capabilities would be more expensive than to purchase the
particular external support. Therefore, the consultants’ expertise or competence is of
essential importance for the client and the success of the management consulting
project. This finding also substantiates results of earlier studies taking the client’s
perspective as their point of departure (McLachlin 1999; Simon and Kumar 2001;
Hartman and Ashrafi 2002; Appelbaum 2004).
The high relevance of Intensity of Collaboration and Common Vision in our
study results from the fact that management consulting is a highly complex service
in which different parties with different interests are involved. To ensure the success
of a service which is dependent on the involved people to such an extent, it is of
high relevance for both client and consultants to align their different interests. To
this effect, a high degree of collaboration and a previously defined strong common
vision can ensure that the consultants will actually solve the relevant problems.
Based on the conducted literature review, similar assumptions have also been
confirmed through several previous investigations from a client perspective
(McLachlin 1999; Jang et al. 1997; Hartman and Ashrafi 2002; Appelbaum 2004).
Even though the remaining factors Project Management, Provided Resources and
Top Management Support seem to be of minor relevance when regarding our
results, they still show significance in their effects on management consulting
success. Again, through these findings we validate earlier related studies (e.g.
Hartman and Ashrafi 2002; Jang et al. 1997).
After all, the rejected hypothesis related to trust between client and consultant we
interpret as an expression of the parties’ difficult relationship. Frequently, members
of a client organization label consultants as arrogant ‘know-it-all’ persons. Further,
clients often confront consulting firms with prejudices regarding the consultants’
disputable intentions of working in the client’s best interest which, admittedly, at
times may be legitimate. Therefore, from our empirical finding we assume that the
actual establishment of trust between client and consultant is simply hardly doable
or accomplishable. In this regard, even though the establishment of trust between
client and consultants would be desirable for the prosperity of a common consulting
project, our empirical finding makes us consider that this would most likely be an
unrealistic factor in many cases. However, by no means we want to say that our
empirical investigation shows a general unimportance of trust in the relationship
123
between client and consultants. We do not since our finding may of course not be
generalizable to every management consulting project. Clients that have worked
constructively together with the same consultants in earlier projects may indeed
have built trust which in a new project can then lead to an even more successful
engagement. In this regard, trust is especially relevant for long term business
relationships, which is also not a focal concern of this study.
Furthermore, even though several of the formerly conducted studies regarding
management consulting success from the client perspective indicate aspects like the
consultants’ integrity (McLachlin 1999), honesty (Simon and Kumar 2001), fairness
(Patterson et al. 1997) or the relationship with the consultancy firm as relevant
(Patterson and Spreng 1997), likewise none of them explicitly confirms the
construct of trust as an essential success factor.
Besides, one should not consider the investigated success factors as individual
measures but rather as a whole. Applying them systematically, at large, would have
the greatest impact. Consequently, companies should take all significant success
factors simultaneously into account when dealing with a management consulting
company.
Based on the aforementioned findings, we can reason the following about our
initial theory development. In light of the remaining six significant success factors,
it is initially striking that the factor with the strongest performance impact in our
study, i.e. Consultant Expertise, relates to the same theoretical background as the
factors with the lowest impact, namely Provided Resources and Top Management
Support. On the one hand, this shows the resource based view’s applicability for our
context since in this way we have confirmed one strong indicator of management
consulting success and more generally the usage of management consulting firms in
our study. On the other hand, the principal-agent theory seems to be rather well-
suited for particularly dealing with a broader range of relevant, relation-oriented
success factors. In this regard, we present two similarly significant factors in relation
to the principal-agent theory, Common Vision and Intensity of Collaboration, which
show the second and third highest influence on management consulting success
within the overall model. Even though the factor Project Management is of
relatively low influence, these observations show that the principal-agent theory
covers a slightly more diverse set of highly influential success factors than the
resource-based view, i.e. at least in our study. This is also plausible when thinking
of the high relevance of information asymmetry and conflicts of interest in the
relationship between client and consultants as well as the principal-agent theory’s
adequacy for approaching a resolution of these issues in many different cases.
After all, both theoretical approaches complement each other well in our study,
especially when thinking about the fact that we have to reject only one of the
proposed hypotheses. In more detail, we think that the relation-oriented approach of
the principal-agent theory seems to reasonably supplement a rather project-oriented
view of available and needed resources in the context of management consulting’s
success factors. Yet, since the results of our study can only represent the
respondents of our survey as well as their own experiences, neither do we want to
make a universally valid statement about which theory is better or worse suited for
123
deriving success factors in the context of management consulting nor draw even
more general inferences about the theories’ meaningfulness in scientific research.
Altogether, our investigation is, in the context of management consulting’s
success factors, one of the first confirmatory research papers. Thus, it can serve as a
starting point for further conceptual as well as empirical studies. In addition, this
work provides a value proposition for both the relevant success factors of
management consulting and the conceptualization of management consulting
success from a client perspective. So far, related endeavors to conceptualize
management consulting success have mostly been of narrative character. In this
study, the success of management consulting includes a multi-dimensional construct
which also impacts the overall satisfaction of the client with management
consulting. In this regard, our approach is one of the first to consider client
satisfaction and success in management consulting services together from a client
perspective.
The corresponding findings reveal that six of the derived success factors can
positively influence management consulting success, comprising Compliance with
Budget and Schedule, Degree of Target Achievement and Degree of Acceptance
regarding the consulting project results. While Gable (1996) for instance has already
empirically confirmed similar dimensions related to consultant performance and
client acceptance, all three dimensions of management consulting success in our
study have a strong positive influence on the overall satisfaction with the
management consulting service from a client perspective.
Lastly, although we have extensively considered and conceptualized the success
factors of our model, the results are subject to certain limitations. At this point, we
would initially like to discuss the issue of endogeneity, which frequently arises in
the context of structural equation modeling. Since we include the investigation of
endogenous constructs in our study, one could generally question why we observe
the mentioned causal relationships between the constructs instead of, for example,
contrary observations. Yet, since the results of this study largely confirm our
theoretical development, which we illustrate in detail within chapters 2 and 3, our
conceptualization and the proposed causal relationships are empirically
substantiated.
However, we must acknowledge that we cannot address the endogeneity issue for
our study in a conclusive manner. This is the case since first we cannot totally
exclude an omitted variable bias (Antonakis et al. 2010). However, our model shows
R2-values of 0.613 and 0.608 (see Fig. 4), meaning that the particular predictor
variables explain about 61 % of ‘Consulting Success’ and ‘Satisfaction’ respec-
tively. These values are fully in line with the demanded thresholds in the relevant
methodical literature, in which one author e.g. evaluates R2-values of 0.19 as rather
weak, R2-values of 0.33 as moderate, but R2-values of 0.66 as substantial (Chin
1998). Further authors state in this regard: ‘‘The coefficient can vary between 0 and
1. If the regression model is properly applied and estimated, the researcher can
assume that the higher the value of R2, the greater the explanation power of the
regression equation, and therefore the better the prediction of the dependent
variable.’’ (Hair et al. 2010, p. 156)
123
While these statements show the notable explanation power of our model, we
thereby likewise acknowledge that other predictor variables, i.e. variables omitted in
our model, may explain the respective residuals of the endogenous variables. Yet,
there are also well-acknowledged references in the methodical literature which
state: ‘‘However, it is unrealistic to expect the researcher to know and be able to
measure all relevant predictors. In this way, all regression equations are probably
misspecified to some degree.’’ (Kline 2011, p. 26).
Thus, it is recommended to cautiously review theory and previous research as
‘‘the main way to avoid a serious specification error by decreasing the potential
number of left-out variables’’ (ibid.). While concerning theory we feel to have done
so, also regarding previous research we gear ourselves to the existing literature and
find numerous similar applications and confirmations of our predictor variables and
the according causal construct relationships (see e.g. subchapters 3.3–3.4).
Thus, since the related references, which we identify in the literature and mention
in those sections, support our model, they also argue to a certain degree against a
contrary conceptualization. In this way, we at least obviate the threat of simultaneity
or reverse causality mentioned by Antonakis et al. (2010) through validating our
theoretical conceptualization in the literature but still cannot totally exclude it as a
potential limitation of our model.
Also, even though we consider the respondents’ characteristics in the survey to
identify adequate key informants and ensure the sample’s representativeness, we do
not include control variables such as the respondents’ prior consulting experience in
our model, thus representing a further constraint of our study.
Besides, for this study we face the problem that comprehensive statistics which
list all those client firms that have extensive management consulting experience do
simply not exist for the German area. Thus, we are compelled to opt for an
alternative solution for identifying a population. In this regard, while we take
every effort to determine an appropriate population and extract our sample
accordingly, one could note that these are not optimal conditions for conducting a
study.
Moreover, due to a broad research approach, the derived success factors of our
model are rather general. Therefore, future research should take into account
particular individual factors and analyze them in more detail. Furthermore,
especially the client-consultant trust relationship could be an interesting topic for
future research, as this success factor shows no significant performance impact in
our study. E.g., it would be interesting to analyze in what way trust plays a role for
establishing long term relationships between client and consultants. Also,
researchers should conduct replication studies to be able to generalize the empirical
results. Finally, since for our study we only survey German companies, future
research should include surveys in other countries and test the applicability of the
success factors analyzed here.
Appendix
See Table 3.
123
28
Table 3 Reliability and validity of the single factors/dimensions

Factor/dimension Item Item-to- Cronbach‘s Item reliability Composite Average
total- alpha (confirmatory) reliability variance
123
correlation extracted
Common vision The project objectives are very measurable 0.648 0.871 0.483 0.873 0.633
Our project objectives were clearly communicated to the consultants 0.699 0.606
Overall, the project objectives are clearly specified 0.699 0.800
Overall, the project objectives include all relevant aspects 0.753 0.656
Trust We trust that even seemingly implausible explanations of our 0.728 0.872 0.529 0.874 0.698
consultants are always truthful
We trust that our consultants always keep their promises 0.920 0.849
We trust that our consultants always treat us fairly and justly 0.871 0.757
Project There are well-established standards of project management processes 0.659 0.843 0.482 0.853 0.594
management (e.g. escalation, change requests)
The people who are responsible for project management are 0.802 0.606
appropriately qualified and capable
The people who are responsible for project management have limited 0.667 0.435
decision-making authority
Overall, we operate a very good project management 0.947 0.959
Intensity of To promote the intensity of collaboration, persons/parties are notified 0.626 0.873 0.426 0.875 0.588
collaboration immediately of project-affected decisions
There is a very active collaboration for knowledge sharing between 0.689 0.540
consultant and client
Even during the initial project planning there is very close work with 0.632 0.439
the consultants
Consultant and client work consistently in mixed project teams very 0.716 0.647
closely
Overall, there is a high intensity of collaboration between consultant 0.861 0.928
and client
M. Bronnenmayer et al.
Table 3 continued
Provided resources The provided number of project members is more than adequate 0.665 0.825 0.564 0.829 0.620
Provided staff resources have more than sufficient time for the 0.731 0.756
implementation and support of the consulting project
Provided resources for the consulting project are available 0.648 0.528
Consultant expertise The consultants have excellent specialist knowledge and have 0.675 0.855 0.560 0.861 0.612
extensive industry and project experience
The consultants contribute convincing solutions 0.800 0.832
Success factors of management consulting
The consultants are quick learners 0.655 0.497

The consultants provide the impetus for new ideas/perspectives and 0.666 0.526
consider issues from different perspectives
Top management The top management signals and communicates its 100 percent 0.698 0.906 0.543 0.913 0.728
support project support to all affected managers and organization
members
The top management trusts its project members 0.740 0.601
The top management encourages and motivates the project 0.843 0.821
members
Overall, one can speak of a very strong top management support 0.885 0.911
Compliance with The project duration of the entire project meets the original estimate 0.829 0.943 0.718 0.946 0.855
budget and of the consultants
schedule The consultancy project was carried out within the prescribed time 0.894 0.871
limits, all deadlines were met
Overall, the consulting project was on schedule 0.923 0.963
29
123
30
Table 3 continued
123
Degree of target All expectations/goals set for the project have been met 0.778 0.934 0.643 0.937 0.789
achievement The degree of target achievement of the project concerning the 0.826 0.750
implementation of project results will lead to a substantial improvement
in corporate performance
The degree of target achievement concerning the consulting project was a 0.901 0.906
huge success
Overall, the defined project objectives have been met fully and 0.876 0.834
comprehensively, or even exceeded
Degree of From the project results potentially affected business members were 0.762 0.898 0.647 0.900 0.694
acceptance informed about the benefits of the project in order to promote their
acceptance
For questions and problems regarding the acceptance of results, 0.741 0.608
corresponding contact persons are also available after the official end of
the project
Overall, sufficient measures have been taken to ensure the acceptance of the 0.857 0.878
organization’s members
Overall, the project results are widely accepted by all the members of the 0.747 0.655
organization
Satisfaction I am extremely satisfied with the professional and social skills of the 0.776 0.940 0.645 0.945 0.813
consultant
Overall, I am extremely satisfied with the price-performance ratio of the 0.833 0.735
consultancy
Overall I am pleased with the decision that this consulting firm was hired 0.901 0.890
Overall, I am very satisfied with the consulting service 0.929 0.948
M. Bronnenmayer et al.
References
Alvesson M, Johansson A (2002) Professionalism and politics in management consultancy work. In:
Clark T, Fincham R (eds) Critical consulting. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 228–246
Amit R, Schoemaker PJH (1993) Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strateg Manag J 14(1):33–46
Anand N, Gardner HK, Morris T (2007) Knowledge-based innovation: emergence and embedding of new
practice areas in management consulting firms. Acad Manag J 50(2):406–428
Anderson JC, Gerbing DW (1982) Some methods for respecifying measurement models to obtain
unidimensional construct measurement. J Mark 19(4):453–460
Anderson JC, Gerbing DW (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended
two-step approach. Psychol Bull 103(3):411–423
Anderson JC, Gerbing DW (1991) Predicting the performance of measures in a confirmatory factor
analysis with a pretest assessment of their substantive validities. J Appl Psychol 76(5):732–740
Antonakis J, Bendahan S, Jacquart P, Lalive R (2010) On making causal claims: a review and
recommendations. Leadersh Q 21:1086–1120
Appelbaum SH (2004) Critical success factors in the client-consulting relationship. J Am Acad Bus 4(1/
2):183–191
Appelbaum SH, Steed AJ (2005) The critical success factors in the client-consulting relationship.
J Manag Dev 24(1):68–93
Bagozzi RP, Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. J Acad Mark Sci 16(1):74–94
Barney J (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manag 17(1):99–120
Barney JB (1998) On becoming a strategic partner: the role of human resources in gaining competitive
advantage. Hum Resour Manag 37(1):31–46
Baumgartner H, Homburg C (1996) Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and
consumer research: a review. Int J Res Mark 13(2):139–161
Bei LT, Chiao YC (2006) The determinants of customer loyalty: an analysis of intangible factors in three
service industries. Int J Commer Manag 16(3/4):162–177
Bergen M, Dutta S, Walker OC (1992) Agency relationships in marketing: a review of the implications
and applications of agency and related theories. J Mark 56(3):1–24
Bliese PD (1998) Group size, ICC values, and group-level correlations: a simulation. Organ Res Methods
1(4):355–373
Bodet G (2008) Customer satisfaction and loyalty in service: two concepts, four constructs, several
relationships. J Retail Consum Serv 15(3):156–162
Butcher K, Sparks B, O’Callaghan F (2001) Evaluative and relational influences on service loyalty. Int J
Serv Ind Manag 12(4):310–327
Chin WW (1998) The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In: Marcoulides
GA (ed) Modern methods for business research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ,
pp 295–336
Churchill GA (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J Mark Res
16(1):64–73
Clark T (1993) The market provision of management services, information asymmetries and service
quality. Br J Manag 4(4):235–251
Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates,
Hillsdale, NJ
Covin TJ, Fisher TV (1991) Consultant and client must work together. J Manag Consult 6(4):11–20
Crocker L, Algina J (2008) Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Wadsworth, Mason, OH
Crosby LA, Evans KR, Cowles D (1990) Relationship quality in services selling: an interpersonal
influence perspective. J Mark 54(3):68–81
Dawes PL, Dowling GR, Patterson PG (1992) Criteria used to select management consultants. Ind Mark
Manag 21(3):187–193
DeSarbo WS, Di Benedetto CA, Jedidi K, Song M (2006) Identifying sources of heterogeneity for
empirically deriving strategic types: a constrained finite-mixture structural-equation methodology.
Manag Sci 52(6):909–924
DeVellis R (2011) Scale development: theory and applications. Sage, Los Angeles, CA
Dickson JP, Maclachlan DL (1996) Fax surveys: return patterns and comparison with mail surveys.
J Mark Res 33(1):108–113
123
Ein-Dor P, Segev E (1982) Organisational context & MIS structure: same empirical evidence. MIS Q
6(3):55–68
Eisenhardt KM (1989) Agency theory: an assessment and review. Acad Manag Rev 14(1):57–74
Feaco (2013) Survey of the European management consultancy 2010/2011. Available at: http://www.
feaco.org/sites/default/files/Feaco%20Survey%202010-2011.pdf (accessed 18 January 2013)
Ford CH (1974) Developing a successful client-consulting relationship. Hum Resour Manag 13(2):1–11
Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluation structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1):39–50
Gable GG (1996) A multidimensional model of client success when engaging external consultants.
Manag Sci 42(8):1175–1198
Gagnon RJ (1984) An integrated strategy for increasing management consulting research. In: Academy of
Management Proceedings, August 1984, pp 148–152
Gallessich J (1982) The profession and practice of consultation. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA
Gefen D (2002) Nurturing clients’ trust to encourage engagement success during the customization of
ERP systems. Omega 30(4):287–299
Glückler J, Armbrüster T (2003) Bridging uncertainty in management consulting: the mechanisms of trust
and networked reputation. Organ Stud 24(2):269–297
Greenwood R, Li SX, Prakash R, Deephouse DL (2005) Reputation, diversification, and organizational
explanation of performance in professional service firms. Organ Sci 16(6):661–673
Greiner LE, Metzger RO (1983) Consulting to management. Englewood Cliffs, New York
Groves RM (2004) Survey errors and survey costs. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ
Hair J, Babin B, Anderson R (2010) Multivariate data analysis. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
Hartman F, Ashrafi RA (2002) Project management in the information systems and information
technologies industries. Proj Manag J 33(3):5–11
Hoegl M, Weinkauf K, Gemuenden HG (2004) Interteam coordination, project commitment, and
teamwork in multiteam R&D Projects: a longitudinal study. Organ Sci 15(1):38–55
Homburg C, Klarmann M, Reimann M, Schilke O (2012) What drives key informant accuracy? J Mark
Res 49(4):594–608
Hoppenstedt (2012) Inhalte - Hoppenstedt Firmendatenbank für Hochschulen. http://www.hoppenstedt-
hochschuldatenbank.de/inhalte.htm#4 (accessed 02 August 2012)
Hu LT, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6(1):1–55
Jang Y, Suh K, Lee J (1997) Empirical study of management consulting success in Korea. Asia Pac J
Manag 14(2):165–183
Jensen MC, Meckling WH (1976) Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership
structure. J Financ Econ 3(4):305–360
Jha KN, Iyer KC (2006) Critical determinants of project coordination. Int J Proj Manag 24(4):314–322
Kipping M, Clark T (2012) Researching management consulting. In: Kipping M, Clark T (eds) The
oxford handbook of management consulting. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–28
Klein KJ, Kozlowski SW (2000) From micro to meso: critical steps in conceputalizing and conducting
multilevel research. Organ Res Methods 3(3):211–236
Kline R (2011) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press, New York
Kubr M (2005) Management consulting: a guide to the profession. Bookwell Publications, New Delhi
Kumar N, Stern LW, Anderson JC (1993) Conducting interorganizational research using key informants.
Acad Manag J 36(6):1633–1651
Larzelere RE, Huston TL (1980) The dyadic trust scale: toward understanding interpersonal trust in close
relationships. J Marriage Fam 42(3):595–604
Liberatore M, Luo W (2010) Coordination in consultant-assisted IS projects: an agency theory
perspective. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 57(2):255–269
Lindell MK, Whitney DJ (2001) Accounting for common method variance in cross-selectional research
designs. J Appl Psychol 86(1):114–121
Luo W, Liberatore MJ (2009) Achieving it consultant objectives through client project success. Inf
Manag 46(5):259–266
Malhotra NK, Kim SS, Patil A (2006) Common method variance in IS research: a comparison of
alternative approaches and a reanalysis of past research. Manag Sci 52(12):1865–1883
Marr B (2005) Management consulting practice on intellectual capital. J Intellect Cap 6(4):473–496
McFarlin DB, Sweeney PD (1992) Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with
personal and organizational outcomes. Acad Manag J 35(3):626–637
123
McKinney Kellogg D (1984) Contrasting successful and unsuccessful OD consultation relationship.

Group Organ Stud 9:151–176
McLachlin RD (1999) Factors for consulting engagement success. Manag Decis 37(5/6):394–402
McLachlin RD (2000) Service quality in consulting: what is engagement success? Manag Serv Qual
10(4):239–247
McLarty R, Robinson T (1998) The practice of consultancy and a professional development strategy.
Leadersh Organ Dev J 19(5):256–263
Morris KF, Raben CS (1995) The fundamental of change management. In: Nadler DA, Shaw RB, Walton
AE (eds) Discontinuous change leading organizational transformation. Jossey-Bass, San Fran-
cisco, CA, pp 47–65
Nidumolu SR (1995) The effect of coordination and uncertainty on software project performance:
residual performance risk as an intervening variable. Inf Syst Res 6(3):191–219
Nidumolu SR (1996) A comparison of the structural contingency and risk-based perspectives on
coordination in software-development projects. J Manag Inf Syst 13(2):77–113
Nitithamyong P, Tan Z (2007) Determinants for effective performance of external project management
consultants in Malaysia. Eng Constr Archit Manag 14(5):463–478
O’Driscoll MP, Eubanks JL (1993) Behavioral competencies, goal setting, and OD practitioner
effectiveness. Group Org Manag 18(3):308–327
Patterson PG, Spreng RA (1997) Modelling the relationship between perceived value, satisfaction and
repurchase intentions in a business-to-business, services context: an empirical examination. Int J
Serv Ind Manag 8(5):414–434
Patterson PG, Johnson LW, Spreng RA (1997) Modeling the determinants of customer satisfaction for
business-to-business professional services. J Acad Mark Sci 25(1):4–17
Penrose E (1959) The theory of the growth of the firm. Wiley, New York
Peteraf MA (1993) The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resourcebased perspective. Strateg
Manag J 14(3):179–191
Phillips LW (1981) Assessing measurement error in key informant reports: a methodological note on
organizational analysis in marketing. J Mark Res 18(4):395–415
Pinto JK, Prescott JE (1990) Planning and tactical factors in the project implementation process. J Manag
Stud 27(3):207–327
PMI (2013) What is project management? Available at: http://www.pmi.org/en/ About-Us/About-Us-
What-is-Project-Management.aspx (accessed Retrieved 01. February 2013)
Podsakoff PM, Organ DW (1986) Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects.
J Manag 12(4):531–544
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Jeong-Yeon L, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol
88(5):879–903
Research P (2013) Consulting industry overview. Available at: http://www.plunkettresearch.com/
consulting-market-research/industry-statistics (accessed 17 January 2013)
Richter A, Schmidt SL (2006) Antecedents of the performance of management consultants. Schmalen-
bach Bus Rev 58(4):332–350
Ross SA (1973) The economic theory of agency: the principal’s problem. Am Econ Rev 63(2):134–139
Rynning M (1992) Successful consulting with small and medium-sized vs large clients: meeting the needs
of the client? Int Small Bus J 11(1):47–60
Saam NJ (2012) Economics approaches to management consulting. In: Kipping M, Clark T, (eds) The
oxford handbook of management consulting. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 207–224
Sanchez R, Heene A, Thomas H (1996) Introduction: towards the theory and practice of competence-
based competition. In: Sanchez R, Heene A, Thomas H (eds) Dynamics of competence- based
competition: theory and practice in the new strategic management. Pergamon, Oxford, pp 1–35
Schaffer RH (2002) High-impact consulting: how clients and consultants can work together to achieve
extraordinary results. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA
Schweizer L, Knyphausen-Aufsess D, Rajes M (2009) Consulting success and contingent fees as
important elements on the way to a theory of management consulting. Int J Serv Econ Manag
1(4):393–413
Sewchurran K, Barron M (2008) An investigation into successfully managing and sustaining the project
sponsor-project manager relationship using soft systems methodology. Proj Manag J 39:S56–S68
Simon A, Kumar V (2001) Client’s views on strategic capabilities which lead to management consulting
success. Manag Decis 39(5):362–372
123
Simon A, Schoeman P, Sohal AS (2010) Prioritised best practices in a ratified consulting services
maturity model for ERP consulting. J Enterp Inf Manag 23(1):100–124
Slevin DP, Pinto JK (1986) The project implementation profile: new tool for project managers. Proj
Manag J 16:57–70
Solomonson WL (2011) A mediated model of trust and its antecedents in the client-consultant
relationship. Dissertations, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
Solomonson WL (2012) Trust and the client–consultant relationship. Perform Improv Q 25(3):53–80
Spremann K (1985) The signaling of quality by reputation. In: Feichtinger G (ed) Optimal control theory
and economic analysis. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 235–252
Statistisches Bundesamt (2012) Klassifikation der Wirtschaftszweige, Ausgabe 2008 (WZ 2008)
Available at: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Methoden/Klassifikationen/GueterWirtschaftklassifikationen/
Content75/KlassifikationWZ08.html (accessed 06 August 2012)
Sturdy A (1997) The consultancy process—an insecure business. J Manag Stud 34(3):389–413
Tang SL, Lu M, Chan YL (2003) Achieving client satisfaction for engineering consulting firms. J Manag
Eng 19(4):166–172
Tilles A (1961) Understanding the consultant’s role. Harv Bus Rev 39(6):87–99
Tosi HL, Katz JP, Gomez-Mejia LR (1997) Disaggregating the agency contract: the effects of monitoring,
incentive alignment, and term in office on agent decision making. Acad Manag J 40(3):584–602
Turner JR (1999) The handbook of project-based management: improving the processes for achieving
strategic objectives. McGraw-Hill, London
Van Bruggen GH, Lilien GL, Kacker M (2002) Informants in organizational marketing research: why use
multiple informants and how to aggregate responses. J Mark Res 39(4):469–478
Vanlommel E, de Brabander B (1975) The organization of electronic data processing (EDP) activities and
computer use. J Bus 48(3):391–410
Verlander EG (2012) The practice of professional consulting. Pfeiffer, San Francisco, CA
Wernefelt B (1984) A resource-based view of the firm. Strateg Manag J 5(2):171–180
Wernefelt B (1995) The resource-based view of the firm: ten years after. Strateg Manag J 16(2):171–174
Wernerfelt B (1984) A resource-based view of the firm. Strateg Manag J 5(2):171–180
Werr A, Styhre A (2002) Management consultants—friend or foe? Int Stud Manag Organ 32(4):43–66
Williams APO, Woodward S (1994) The competitive consultant: a client-oriented approach for achieving
superior performance. Macmillan, New York
Wu WY, Chiag CY, Wu YJ, Tu HJ (2004) The influencing factors of commitment and business
integration on supply chain management. Ind Manag Data Syst 104(4):322–333
123

Success Factors of Management Consulting

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Success Factors of Management Consulting

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Success Factors of Management Consulting

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rev Manag Sci (2016) 10:1–34

Success factors of management consulting

Matias Bronnenmayer • Bernd W. Wirtz •

Abstract Management consulting as a service has become part of almost every

Keywords Management consulting Success factors Client perspective Client

Mathematics Subject Classification 62H15 (Statistics, Multivariate

The development of the modern management consulting industry has been

Accordingly, as also several further authors acknowledge, we need more relevant

and the resource-based view, we conceptualize a multidimensional framework

Considering that currently there is no predominant theoretical approach for the

2.1 The principal-agent theory

The focus of the principal-agent theory is on supplier-customer relationships

2.2 The resource-based view

As second part of our multidisciplinary approach, we use the resource-based view

Building on the illustrated research framework, we present the derivation of the

3.1 Antecedent variables of the principal-agent theory

Fig. 1 Gradual development of the conceptual model

3.2 Antecedent variables of the resource-based view

As already indicated by the name, a detailed analysis of a company’s resources is at

In this regard, first of all the knowledge-intensive service character of

3.3 Conceptualization of success factors of management consulting

3.3.1 Common vision

difficult to reach common sense. Furthermore, the clear communication of the

3.3.2 Intensity of collaboration

In line with our consideration of antecedent variables, a further important success

success factor of management consulting, especially during the pre-contractual or

3.3.4 Project management

management approach here is to antagonize the risk of moral hazard and to

3.3.5 Consultant expertise

Following the determination of antecedent variables in the context of the resource-

3.3.6 Provided resources

3.3.7 Top management support

Further referring to the aforementioned differentiation of antecedent variables, the

project in the organization. Furthermore, it implies to what extent the top

3.4 Conceptualization of management consulting success

Based on the corresponding literature as well as expert interviews, we conceptualize

3.5 Effects on client satisfaction

A further important facet regarding the conceptualization of success in general is

important criterion, Patterson et al. (1997) particularly investigate what determines

4 Data and methods

Fig. 2 Research model

4.1 Data collection and sample

Furthermore, we exclude area 69 (legal and accounting activities) as the major

4.2 Key informants

4.3 Common method variance

exists if researchers measure two or more constructs as well as the corresponding

• values from 0 to 0.3 indicate a low correlation,

4.5 Variables and measures

Besides specialist knowledge, industry know-how and project experience, the

Table 1 Fornell/Larcker criterion for the success factors

Common vision 0.633

Table 2 Fornell/Larcker criterion for the success dimensions

Compliance with budget and schedule 0.855

X2 = 94,485 X2/df = 2,305 GFI = 0,914 TLI = 0,966 Significances :

X2 = 1457,749 X2/df = 1,809 GFI = 0,950 TLI = 0,896 Significances :

Fig. 4 Structural equation model

Collaboration (0.35). Moreover, Common Vision (0.34), Project Management

6 Discussion and conclusion