HOZ has a three phase engagement cycle - telephone solicitation, fee-based two-day on-site analysis, and the fee-based solution engagement, each employing a different commissioned individual.
The HOZ telephone solicitor called the prospect several times until AB finally agreed to buy a two-day study that HOZ "discounted" for them. While AB wasn't convinced this was worthwhile, he felt pressured and wanted to stop the calls.
The HOZ Telephone Solicitor is generally quite persistent, calling until the prospect succumbs to the two-day study. It's similar to a boiler room operation. There have been complaints from others about daily harassing calls and tying up phone lines.
The Telephone Solicitor told AB there would be someone on-site in the next two days to begin the analysis. Although AB contended that he did not have the time to host a consultant, the Telephone Solicitor assured him that the consultant would not disturb AB.
While HOZ claims this is good customer service, they do not consider the prospect's availability. In fact, they will send someone within that timeframe even if no one is available at the client site. They are most concerned about getting someone on site before the prospect changes his mind.
When AB agreed, HOZ had a Business Consultant at their site in two days.
The Business Consultant examined the AB's books over a two-day period, but never really talked to the owner. HOZ "discovered" that AB's sales were sagging. AB's owner told him it was a seasonal business and this was the slower season. The Business Consultant told him HOZ could solve that problem even though the owner didn't agree that the problem was real.
The Business Consultant will find a problem HOZ can solve.
The Business Consultant told the owner that a Personnel Manual would solve the problem and a Solution Consultant could be on site in one or two days to develop it. AB's owner again objected to the finding that sales were sagging and questioned how a Personnel manual could address that problem anyway.
I do not understand how a Personnel Manual could help sagging sales. Do you?
The Business Consultant told the owner he will see how it can improve his business when it's complete.
While HOZ doesn't lose money on the study, they "consider" it a loss-leader to sell the engagement.
A Solution Consultant arrived at the body shop the following Monday. He introduced himself to the owner and asked what was the proposed solution. The owner responded in a perturbed fashion that the Solution Consultant didn't know what he was doing there. The Solution Consultant called into the HOZ office to determine what the Business Consultant had recommended. The owner overheard the Solution Consultant telling the HOZ contact that he had no experience writing a Personnel Manual. The Solution Consultant returned to the owner to tell him he would be writing the Personnel Manual and that AB would be charged $300 per hour for 160 hours. When the owner objected, the Solution Consultant responded that if the owner complained to HOZ, he would lose his job. The Solution Consultant then asked for a place to work and was given the only available space, a desk in the body shop's crowded office.
After typing away for two days on his laptop, the Solutions Consultant
complained it was too noisy and dusty and that he would be working in
his hotel room and could be reached there if needed.
Over the next several days, the owner of AB called the Solutions
Consultant several times to see the draft of what had been completed of
the Personnel Manual. Each time, the Solution Consultant responded
it was too rough a draft to show and that the owner could see it when it
was done. During this time, the Solutions Consultant never
consulted with anyone in the company, let alone the owner, to discuss
any content to include in the manual.
What was the Solution Consultant doing? How would he develop the manual without input from the owner? How could it reflect the owner's values without his input? Was the Solutions Consultant planning on delivering a boilerplate Personnel Manual from the home office?
Late Friday morning of the second week, the owner saw the light of day.
He called the hotel to
tell the Solutions Consultant not to return the following week. But
the Solutions Consultant already had checked out, putting in less than
the 40 hour week for which AB would be invoiced.
Since AB's owner didn't have the Solutions Consultant home telephone
number, he contacted HOZ with hopes that they would contact him and
tell him not to show up on Monday. They told him they could not contact him over the
weekend, and anyway, the plane ticket was purchased
and nonrefundable.
Needless to say, the Solutions Consultant arrived Monday morning at
the hotel and contacted the owner. The owner told him to
discontinue work and to head home, but first he wanted whatever was
completed on the Personnel Manual. The Solutions Consultant said
that since it was not complete, he was "not authorized to release
it to the client."
The owner called HOZ headquarters to apprise them of the
situation. He also indicated that since he did not receive any
deliverable, he would not pay for any time.
But the owner received an invoice within a week - for the full
160 hours and two weeks of expenses.
He disputed the bill, especially the 160 hours since the Solutions Consultant
worked less than 80 hours. But HOZ told the owner that was what
he committed to. Of course, there was an argument. Both
sides threatened lawsuits.
After much haggling, both sides agreed to 80 hours plus two weeks
expenses - a high price for a missing deliverable that would
not
have solved a nonexistent problem.
Don't let this happen to you!