When does it make sense to hire a vendor neutral consulting company or system integrator?  And what is really meant by the phrase "vendor neutral"?  

One definition is that a vendor neutral service provider avoids commissions or fees for the sale of products in a given industry space.  Why would a service provider adopt a vendor neutral approach, when commissions of up to 25-30% of the product price are available to them for the simple acts of advocacy and deal closing? 

Alternatively, why would a company hire a service provider who has tangible incentives for selecting a certain product?  Theresa Regli discussed this in her blog last month and I've been thinking about it off and on since then.  http://www.cmswatch.com/Blog/1786-Picking-Vendors?source=twitter 

I'm interested in exploring all the possible pot holes a client can face with their partner-commissioned consultant/integrator:

1. A business case that is skewed to create more urgency toward certain requirements than is necessary.
2. A selection process with weightings that could lean in a certain direction.
3. Too quick of a draw on the concept of requirements and problems to solve, such that the solution is the focus before the problem is fully understood.
4. A limited understanding of what else is available that might address certain requirements effectively.
5. A product-centric approach, rather than a process-centric approach, when study after study indicates that more ECM projects fail for inadequate attention to processes and change management than for any other reason.

The fact is that vendor neutrality is not the easy path.  Here are some of the challenges:

1. Cold hard cash.  Vendor neutral partners are leaving a lot of it on the table.  But when trust and integrity in selection are keys to the client relationship, this can be a worthwhile strategy (if only for the value of being able to look in the mirror every morning and be OK with yourself).
2. Software providers tend to be unhappy when their product is not selected, and they can interpret those results as disloyalty or something worse.  (Case in point:  One global product firm refused in 2009 to respond to an industry survey on product capabilities for presentation at the ARMA International conference because the firm facilitating the survey did not advocate for their product in a previous client selection process.  A short-sighted strategy, for certain, since the other products received attention in the discussion and theirs didn't due to the lack of information.)
3. People are relationship oriented, and some company cultures simply "click" better together than others.  Said differently, people tend to work with people they enjoy, and this can indirectly influence selection decisions. 

The bottom line requirement for clients and their need to select consultants is trust.  Clients need to know that their service provider is authentically looking out for their best interest.  Sometimes that can be achieved quite well while also earning product commissions.  Sometimes, not so much. 

It is up to the client to choose wisely, and it is up to the consultant to provide expert, authentic assistance throughout the project lifecycle.