On Jul 27, 11:01*am, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:11:45 on Sun, 27
Jul 2008, Tom Barry remarked:







*You probably wouldn't be surprised to learn how many managements are
convinced that no good ideas will ever come from the staff, so those
ideas end up being laundered through a consultant.

I have to say I (as a staff member with ideas) only realised the
usefulness of this relatively recently. *The consultant, having been
brought in to have ideas but without any idea of how the place runs, is
going to reach for anyone willing to explain things to him like a
drowning man for a lifebelt. *If you can get a couple of hours alone
with him you have a good chance of getting your ideas in front of
people with far less effort than it would normally take through
conventional bureaucracy.

This does require that you aren't expecting to be thanked or recognised
for you contribution, and that you have sufficient self control that
when management order you to drop everything and run with the exciting
new idea the consultant has proposed you don't go 'hey, that was what
I've been saying for years'.

Sadly it's a common human bias to value something that cost a lot of
money more.

Most of that's true, but I think you are being a little hard on the
"drowning man" - their job is to come into a new place and find out how
it ticks.

As for use of consultants in general, here's another way of thinking
about them: *A computer software company needs a new head office and
rather than design it themselves (and unwilling to hire as employees the
people with the skills) decide to subcontract it out to some building
design consultants. Or as they are often called, architects. These folk
interview the management and staff to get an idea of the requirements
(probably none of them are programmers so want to understand what the
special needs are).

Eventually they draw up plans in a sufficiently professional way that
they are accepted by management and the board. The management were
sceptical about some aspects (particularly some of the more
staff-friendly ones), but the architects were able to argue that these
features had worked well in other buildings they had done and figures
that showed increased productivity; the board were impressed by the
financial due diligence from people with credentials, and appreciated
someone to pass the planning approval buck to. The staff recognised many
of the things they had asked for, and wondered why specialists were
needed at all; if only the management had listened to them!

My experience is that the management want to cover their backs WHEN
something fails, by saying "but we paid the most expensive
consultants".

They could have spent an awful lot less on working with their own
staff to prevent it failing in the first place. I've seen that a few
times.