Outside Perspectives

Many firms hire consultants who have experience in their industry. The premise is if a consultant has experience in my industry then they should understand our issues. True or Fasle?

The answer is both true and false. True, a consultant who is familiar with your business understands the "constraints" your business and the customer faces from an industry perspective. False. Those who are outside a "system" are most likely to see obvious "systemic fixes". Being to close to a "system" may in fact be a detriment to improvement. Sometimes being to close to a problem is in fact part of the problem.

Being to close to a "system" can create internalized beliefs about the systems capabilities and how it should work. Rather than using innovative thinking some consultants have "canned answers" as to what has worked for others. Every company has its unique "systemic" attributes. Issues like culture, size, demographics, market dynamics, human resources etc. All create a combined definition of "systemic attributes". Very few companies have the same "systemic attributes".

An outsiders who is grounded in the principals of "systemic thinking, understanding variation, the dynamics of psychology, and how technology adds value" to a "system" can be more effective than one with experience with a specific industry issues.

An example: Much has been written about "benchmarking against the best" While learning what the best is doing is a sound proclamation for learning, copying what the "best in class" do may not be a sound principle of improvement. Given that every "system" has its own unique attributes copying what others do may in fact increase cost and complexity.

Case in point: In the early 80's every major vehicle manufacturer adopted what Japan had instituted as "Quality Management". Deming even was called to all the major U.S. automobile manufacturers to teach what he had taught Japan. His first proclamation what "Management owes the system thus management must lead the systemic changes using profound knowledge". Now 20 years later has the leaders of American automobile manufacturers made the necessary changes? Market, economic factors and consumer satisfaction results led us to a simply conclusion. No they have not!

Consider Ford, GM, Chrysler and their current condition. Each tried to institute "quality". Each made some progress but simply not enough. All internalized "Quality" and each made it a department rather than a duty of leadership. In other words, their thinking was flawed.

So how can a qualified consultant add the greatest value to your organization?

First, they can provide an alternative view of what your company does and how well it does it without being invested in existing beliefs. Outside thinking can be the greatest value a consultant can provide.

Second, a good consultant will tell the CEO or Chairman the facts without fearing of repercussion. A good consultant will not base his feedback on opinion or politics rather he/she will be armed with data to prove an assessment which supports the very changes that need to be made, like it or not.

Third, a good consultant will make a commitment to help the organization through a change process by insuring internalize of the thinking behind the methods and processes that substantiate needed changes. Thus enabling the organization to sustain change by itself.

Fourth, a good consultant should always provide more value than clients expect. Value both in less cost than expected and in sound advice and recommendations that enable an organization to reach beyond its objectives without the consultant.

Finding a consultant can be easy but following these guidelines can help you determine if you've found the right one.