evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

CNP Group vs. Individual Management Consulting for Auto-Parts SMEs

Colombia · Cali · See the Colombia profile

Evidence: Randomised controlled trial Top 29% 76/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Colombia's CNP ran a randomized trial testing individual versus lower-cost group-based management consulting for 159 auto-parts SMEs; both raised management scores 8-10 points, but only the group model, costing a third as much, produced statistically significant firm growth.

8-10 percentage points vs control
Management-practice score increase (both arms)
4-7 workers
Additional workers per firm (group consulting) (3 years post-intervention)
~1/3 per firm
Cost of group consulting relative to individual
159 firms
Trial sample size
CNP Group vs. Individual Management Consulting for Auto-Parts SMEs

Details

Promoter
Centro Nacional de Productividad y Competitividad (CNP), with World Bank researchers
Period
2013-2016
Keywords
automotive supply chain, manufacturing, SME consulting, productivity

Context

Colombia's auto-parts SME sector needed better management practices, but individually delivered consulting is often too costly to fund at national scale. The Centro Nacional de Productividad y Competitividad (CNP), a Colombian non-profit productivity institute funded by the national government, worked with World Bank researchers to test lower-cost alternatives.

Objectives

The trial randomly assigned 159 auto-parts firms, in groups of 53, to intensive one-on-one consulting, to lower-cost consulting delivered to small groups of firms (modelled on agricultural-extension methods), or to a control group, to compare management and growth outcomes against cost.

Activities

CNP delivered both consulting formats to their respective treatment arms over the study period, with the group format modelled on agricultural-extension delivery methods applied to firms.

Results

Both consulting approaches raised management-practice scores by a similar 8 to 10 percentage points versus the control group, but only the group-based approach — costing roughly one-third as much per firm — led to a statistically significant increase in firm employment (about 4 to 7 additional workers per firm) over the following three years. Individual consulting's effect on firm-level growth was smaller and not statistically significant despite its much higher cost per firm and equal improvement in measured management scores.

Conclusions

The results are an important cautionary finding for programmes that assume intensive one-on-one consulting is worth its price premium: a lower-cost, group-based delivery model matched individual consulting on management-practice gains and outperformed it on statistically significant firm growth.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k) — Group-based consulting costs roughly one-third as much per firm as individual consulting, delivered through an existing national productivity institute.
Time to results
Medium (1–3 years) — Trial period covered roughly 2013-2016, with employment outcomes measured over the following three years.
Staffing & skills
Centro Nacional de Productividad y Competitividad (CNP) consultants, World Bank research team (evaluation design)

Conditions for success

  • group-based delivery modelled on agricultural-extension methods to reduce per-firm cost
  • government funding through a national productivity institute for national-scale delivery

Common failure modes

  • individual consulting's effect on firm growth was smaller and not statistically significant despite equal management-score gains and much higher cost per firm

Where it fits

Governance type
national government-funded productivity institute
Scale
trial — 159 firms, 3 arms of ~53
Income level
upper-middle-income (Colombia)

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Replication kit

Reusable artefacts from this practice — as published by their sources.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful