163

Ottawa paid nearly $670,000 for KPMG’s advice on cutting consultant costs (www.theglobeandmail.com)

submitted 10 months ago by tree@lemmy.zip to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The federal government hired KPMG consultants at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars for advice on how to save money on consultants, documents show.

New spending details tabled in Parliament show the department of Natural Resources, led by minister Jonathan Wilkinson, approved $669,650 for KPMG, a global professional services company, to provide managing consulting advice.

The department said this work involved developing “recommendations that could be considered as options to ensure that Canadians’ tax dollars are being used efficiently and being invested in the priorities that matter most to them.”

link: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-federal-government-kpmg-consulting/

top 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Carighan@lemmy.world 54 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

As crazy as it sounds I can sort-of see the point I suppose.

If you're trying to cut 15 billion, then paying 0,00045% of that to figure out how to do it doesn't really feel like such a big waste, even if in absolute numbers it's still a huge amount.

That being said, fuck HPCs!

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago

I mean, for 75k, I'll send them a great way to save on consultancy costs.

"don't ask consultants stupid questions." (oops. I guess i'm out my75k, huh?)

[-] Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

The sticking point for me is that a consultant should be the last person to ask for advice how to reduce consultant use

[-] syrooks@infosec.pub 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It Is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it

[-] jballs@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

As a consultant, I can say this is pretty standard practice. Normal employees typically have way too many day to day responsibilities to take on extra short-term projects. Most businesses have a ton of projects with consultants from a variety of consulting companies. Bringing in consultants for a few weeks to organize info about all the different projects and then present it to stakeholders who actually make the decisions happens all the time.

Edit: What is dumb is to pay consultants to get you an answer that you wanted rather than being objective. I was at a large company once with a new CEO. The CEO was commuting halfway across the country since he didn't live in the same state as the company headquarters. They brought on consultants for a few weeks to analyze the best location for the company headquarters to be located, and surprise surprise, they recommended the city that the CEO lived in. So they fired most of their workforce and moved the company to the CEO's city. Like, dude, did you have to spend half a million dollars for that? Actually, in hindsight the shareholders probably wouldn't have allowed it without first spending all that money for an "objective" recommendation.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 28 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

What's frustrating is that, just like most places, they won't listen to recommendations unless they pay for them, so you've got employees with experience telling them "XYZ needs improvements" and they'll pay a consultant to ask the employees what needs improvements and the consultants then makes a report that will be shelved and never used.

Welcome to any business ever.

[-] sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

They are paying for the ability to scapegoat anything that goes wrong.

[-] porkins@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

True. This happens a lot at my company. The consultants just ask us what we think and that becomes the report.

[-] Uncle_Bagel@midwest.social 3 points 10 months ago

Started a new job this month and went to my first union meeting last night. A huge part of the arguing the union does with the company is trying to get equipment fixed or upgraded, but the company always puts it off and never does anything. It made me realize that employees actually care about the well being of a company way more than management does everywhere i have ever worked.

[-] porkins@sh.itjust.works -4 points 10 months ago

Unions can be good as long as there are ground rules to protect the interests of both the company and the employees. Unions can become just as corrupt as companies can. They are just another form of association. In the same way companies are not allowed to monopolize and collude, unions also need to be kept in check, so that they don’t destroy the capitalist system.

this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023

163 points (99.4% liked)

Not The Onion

11846 readers

457 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world