PSYCH 678 Week 5 Writing a Consulting Proposal Example

A Proposal to Implement Guided Ratings and Quarterly Check-Ins: Scope, Fees, Return on Investment and Evaluation

[Student Name]

University of Phoenix

PSYCH/678: Consulting and Business Skills

Week 5 Assignment

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The engineering firm, its people, the fees and all figures are composites written for a model paper; research and costing methods come from the sources listed.

Below is the proposal as sent, followed by notes on the choices behind it.

Executive Summary

Our diagnosis found that forced distribution, annual-only feedback and a single rating serving several purposes were driving dissatisfaction and the loss of senior engineers. You chose to end the distribution rule, introduce guided ratings with manager training and add quarterly goal check-ins. This proposal covers a six-month implementation in three phases at a fee of $26,000. We expect improved retention of top performers and higher trust in ratings, and we will measure both against this year's baseline. Preventing one senior departure, estimated at $150,000, would repay the cost several times over. We request approval to begin on the first of next month.

Objectives

Within twelve months of launch: reduce voluntary turnover among engineers holding the two highest ratings from 18 percent to 10 percent or less; raise agreement that "my rating reflects my contribution" from 29 percent to at least 55 percent; and raise the share of engineers reporting feedback at least quarterly from 36 percent to at least 75 percent, while keeping the share of top ratings below 30 percent.

Approach

Rousseau (2006) argued that managers too often rely on habit, imitation and personal experience rather than on the best available evidence, and that evidence-based management means translating research-based principles into organizational practice. Briner et al. (2009) clarified the idea, describing decisions made through careful, explicit use of four sources: the best available research, evidence from the local context, the professional judgment of practitioners and the values and concerns of the people affected. They stressed that evidence-based management does not mean following research alone.

Our approach uses all four sources. Research supports rater training and goal check-ins. Local data from the diagnosis set the baselines. Managers will help write role standards, drawing on their judgment of what good work looks like. Engineers will review the check-in template before launch.

The proposal treats managers as authors of the new standards rather than as recipients of a new system.

Work Plan

Phase one, months one and two: announce the end of forced distribution, with a message from the managing partner; facilitate four workshops in which managers draft rating standards with examples for each role level; design the check-in template and pilot it with two teams. Deliverables: role standards for six job families, check-in template and guide, announcement and frequently asked questions.

Phase two, months three and four: deliver two half-day rater training sessions for all eleven managers, using the new standards and practice rating cases; train managers to run check-ins; launch first quarterly check-ins firm-wide. Deliverables: training materials, attendance records, check-in completion report.

Phase three, months five and six: observe and coach six managers in live check-ins; run a short pulse survey; prepare the partners' guide for reviewing rating distributions; deliver a midpoint report. Deliverables: coaching summaries, pulse results, partner review guide, report.

Roles

We will design and facilitate all workshops and training and conduct coaching and evaluation. Lauren will serve as sponsor and liaison, the HR manager will coordinate scheduling and own materials after the engagement and each manager commits about twenty-four hours over six months.

Fees

Phase one, $9,000; phase two, $10,000; phase three, $7,000; total $26,000, billed at the end of each phase. The fee reflects about 130 consulting hours. Travel within the Phoenix area is included.

Business Case

Cascio and Boudreau (2011) set out methods for estimating the financial effects of human resource programs, including costing turnover by separation costs, replacement costs such as recruiting and hiring and the cost of training and lost productivity while a replacement learns the job. Using their approach and the firm's figures, a senior project manager departure costs about $150,000: a recruiting fee near $32,000, four months of vacancy with about $70,000 in lost billable work and roughly $48,000 in reduced productivity during the first year. Total program cost, including managers' time valued at their billing rate, is about $64,000. Preventing one such departure in the first year roughly repays the program; preventing two returns more than four dollars for every three spent. These estimates assume nothing about gains from better feedback, which we will not claim until measured.

Why Three Phases

The work is split into phases for two reasons. First, each phase produces something the firm can use even if the engagement stopped there: standards and a template after phase one, trained managers after phase two. Second, phases give the partners natural points to review progress and decide whether to continue, which matters when one partner remains uneasy about dropping the quota. The order also matters. Standards must exist before training, because rater training works by teaching managers to apply shared standards, and check-ins should begin only after managers have practiced them.

Communication Plan

Engineers will hear about the change three times: in the managing partner's announcement, which explains what is changing and why, in a short meeting with their own manager and in the first check-in itself. Managers will receive talking points and answers to likely questions, such as whether bonuses will change and what happens to last year's ratings. Last year's calibrated ratings will stand for pay purposes, but managers may note in personnel files where they disagreed, a step several managers asked for during interviews.

Risks

Rating inflation, managed through standards and partner review; check-ins becoming a formality, managed through coaching and completion tracking; and manager resistance, managed by involving managers in writing standards.

Evaluation

Baselines come from the diagnostic survey and records. We will repeat the survey at six and twelve months, track turnover by rating category and review the rating distribution after the first cycle, reporting results to both partners.

If Results Fall Short

The midpoint report will compare early indicators with targets. If check-in completion is below sixty percent after the first quarter, we will meet with managers who have not completed them to understand why and adjust the template or schedule. If the pulse survey shows no improvement in trust, we will hold short listening sessions with engineers before the annual cycle. The proposal does not promise that turnover will fall within six months; departures are influenced by the job market as well as by internal practice, and the twelve-month review is the fair test.

Terms

Either party may end the engagement at the end of any phase. Data confidentiality follows the original agreement.

Notes on Writing It

I cut the research sections to two short paragraphs and placed the business case before the risks, because partners read for cost and return first. I valued manager time at billing rates, which raised the cost, because leaving it out would have overstated the return and weakened trust.

Conclusion

A proposal written for business readers, with measurable objectives, a phased plan, specific fees and a conservative return estimate, gives the partners what they need to approve the work and later to judge whether it succeeded.

References

Briner, R. B., Denyer, D., & Rousseau, D. M. (2009). Evidence-based management: Concept cleanup time? Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(4), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2009.45590138

Cascio, W. F., & Boudreau, J. W. (2011). Investing in people: Financial impact of human resource initiatives (2nd ed.). FT Press.

Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as "evidence-based management"? Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 256-269. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.20208679