In a recent installment to my blog series about USAID Development Contractors I introduced the argument that every contracting organization has a unique signature and that differentiation among development contractors tends to be revealed through a company’s strengths rather than its weaknesses. In this entry I've started to advance that argument by reflecting on my own experiences working for different companies in the development contracting industry.
As my regular readers know, in between I took a quick break to introduce the concept of PEE (short for Project Enabling Environment). I did that because I thought it would be helpful to socialize the key ideas behind PEE before diving into the details of my experiences with different companies. Since our industry's workforce is largely made up of migratory consultants like myself I think its important for USAID and its contractors to occassionally try to look at things from our vantage point. In my own experience I have seen a strong correlation between a company’s PEE and the likelihood that its project teams will be able to achieve a real, sustained impact in the field. And, from my perspective, each development contractor’s unique signature also tends to be shaped by some specific characteristic(s) of its PEE.
I got a little stuck trying to decide how to best dive into the next part, i.e. trying to figure out the the best way to share reflections on my experiences with the different development contractors. Where should I start? Should I go in chronological order? Should I go from most favorite to least favorite? What’s OK to say? What’s not OK?
Well, ultimately I decided that the best way to approach it was to just go back to "The USAID 50” that I first introduced in Every Organization Is Different and flip a coin. Heads and I'd go through the list from top to bottom. Tails and I’d go from bottom to top. So I reached into my bag and found a 2 Rand coin. I tossed it onto the table and it landed Kudu side up.
Never been to South Africa? It means I’m starting from the top.
Chemonics International
USAID 50 Ranking: #1
Avg. Annual Obligation: $562 Million
When I first started working in development nearly 20 years ago we had a joke inside our practice at Price Waterhouse for whenever we lost someone to Chemonics. We mused that a defection to Chemonics was just another person surrendering to the dark side of the force. Not everyone was cut out to be a Jedi, right?
My first journey to the dark side started about five years ago when I went to work as a consultant for FIRMS, a USAID-funded private sector development project in Pakistan run by Chemonics. When I showed up for my first day of work on that project I was secretly expecting that I’d finally meet Darth Vader, his twin brother/sister, or maybe even the Emperor himself! That never happened. In fact, after working with the Chemonics team in Pakistan off and on over the last five years I have developed a completely different perspective of the organization.
As the numbers clearly show Chemonics absolutely dominates this industry. Its USAID contracting businesses is nearly twice as big as it largest competitor, DAI. (I consider DAI to be the nearest competitor to Chemonics because they are both multi-disciplined USAID contractors.) Regardless, any comparison of the leading USAID contractors inevitably leads to the following question. Why is Chemonics so dominant?
I think the answer depends a lot on who you ask. The Chemonics haters out there - and there are a lot of them - tend to claim that Chemonics is an awesome sales organization. And that’s it (i.e. all they care about is winning.) The haters like to portray Chemonics as a well-oiled proposal machine that has been fine-tuned over the years to quickly and simply figure out four things … and four things only. (1) Who is influencing procurement decisions? (2) What do those decision makers want to hear in terms of a technical approach? (3) Who do those decision makers want to see leading the project team? And (4) How do we put it all together in a pretty, clearly written, and easy for USAID to score, proposal.
The haters may be right about the sales side of the company. Frankly I don’t know because I’ve never worked with Chemonics on a proposal, but I do have to confess that it does sound like a winning formula from a sales perspective. Where I do have experience with Chemonics is what happens after the company wins and what I’ve discovered is that there's an important thing about Chemonics that the haters usually fail to mention (or that they just don’t know about.)
What is it? Very simple. Chemonics has the best PEE in the business.
If you are an implementor, especially on a large and/or complicated project, working for Chemonics is awesome. Chemonics surrounds its projects with a dream team of operational specialists from its home office that I can tell really take pride in being knowledgeable, crafty/resourceful, and helpful. Almost all of the Chemonics folks that I’ve worked with have been genuinely interested and engaged in their work. Its cool to see, and I think its an impressive reflection on the company’s senior management.
Want an example?
OK. Lets say you find one day that you need to urgently procure a million rainbow trout eggs that will generate really high yields of fingerlings. Only there’s a catch. The fish that hatch from those eggs can’t be able to reproduce among themselves to make sure that they don’t threaten the indigenous species of the area. Good luck, right?
Well, if you happened to be working for Chemonics at the time - like I was - you’d be delighted (and sort of shocked) to find out that Chemonics already has all the required documents (i.e. approval requests, background information, purchase order language, etc…) that you need to push through such a complicated procurement. They even have notes/records on which global vendors are qualified to supply such eggs - and which aren’t - so you can move the whole thing forward efficiently and effectively. And, if you encounter problems along the way (which is inevitable) there is always someone inside the organization that’s ready and willing to step in and engage with the team, the counterparts and the client … basically wherever you want help.
Want another example?
OK. Lets say you need to quickly get economic activity restarted in a remote, turbulent part of the country that has just emerged from armed conflict with insurgents. The immediate task at hand is figuring out how to put $10 million worth of small grants into the hands of local, private businesses in order to reconstruct facilities, replenish working capital, and restart operations.
If that kind of request ever comes your way - like it did mine - I can tell you that you really want Chemonics backing you up. I was floored by how quickly and effectively Chemonics was able to respond to the situation. Less than two weeks after we received the request from USAID to do the grants Chemonics had mobilized a “grants under contract” guru (and I mean guru!) from the home office to sit with me at my desk in Pakistan helping to think through the process, build out the operational infrastructure necessary to make the disbursements happen, and put together the training materials etc... that were required to socialize everything with our internal staff; engage contractually with our local partners; and make sure the whole system complied with the terms of the contract and all of USAID's various rules and regulations.
Want another example?
I’m happy to share more, but not right now. Hit me on email at drew.schneider.mpp@gmail.com if you’d like to know more.
Right now I want to get to the point. If you are a USAID Mission with a big, complicated, high profile and/or time sensitive problem to solve / program to launch, your safest bet right now is to call Chemonics. There’s no other organization out there right now that can get big, complex things done as well, and as consistently, as Chemonics. Period.
Chemonics’ effectiveness on the implementation side of the business is not an accident. Based on my experience it is clear that Chemonics actually cares a lot about management systems and how those systems impact quality. Setting up an environment that enables their projects, and the consultants working on those projects, to do their jobs effectively is a key part of the overall Chemonics strategy.
Don’t believe me? Do you know that Chemonics actually has ISO 9001 certified management systems. Is that news to you? If it is don’t worry, you are in good company as our industry’s appreciation of the importance of, and potential for, effective management systems is still emerging. And, as that appreciation grows I am convinced that more and more people in the industry are going to start to see the connection between Chemonics’ PEE and the kind of things that its projects are able to accomplish in the field.
Now, before I close this one out I think its important to remember that the basis of my overall argument for this blog series is that every company has a unique signature, and that an organization’s signature is generally revealed through strengths rather than their weaknesses. That’s why the focus of this discussion is on strengths. I'm sure Chemonics has plenty of organizational challenges to overcome ... every company fumbles the ball from time to time. There are plenty of things that I think Chemonics can and should be doing to strengthen its industry leading PEE, but this isn’t the right time or place for that kind of reflection or discussion.
For now I’ll leave it like this. The next time you hear someone suggest that Chemonics is nothing more than a well-oiled proposal machine ask that person if they’ve got any first hand experience with Chemonics' PEE? If they don’t, then do them a solid and let them in on what really makes the industry’s leading signature so unique and so formidable … every company deserves to know the truth about why they lose so many bids to Chemonics.
Oh ... and you can also reassure them that Darth Vader is nowhere to be found.
- DS
Next Up … Unique Signatures Across the Industry (Part 2)
No comments:
Post a Comment