1.
Introduction
Consultancies provide good examples of organisations whose core aim is to
manage, trade and sell knowledge – but do all consultancies do so in similar
ways?
In the last five years there has been convergence in the UK consultancy market
between the offerings of management consultancies and technology consultancies
(Block, 2000). The management consultancies formed from the Big 5 accountancy
practices (PriceWaterhouseCoopers, KPMG, Arthur Andersen, Ernst and Young, and
Deloitte and Touche), had, in the past, concentrated on medium to long-term
projects, turning high level strategic visioning into achievable operational
goals (typically two to five years for benefits realisation). They saw that
systems integration could fit into their offering, and the lower profit per unit
of work was more than offset by the volume of work undertaken.
Marshall McLuhan (1969) stated ‘the medium is the message’; for electronic and
mobile commerce, businesses turned to the medium experts (technologists) rather
than the message experts (marketeers and management consultants) for advice.
With technology underpinning modern businesses, the systems integrators were
asked for more long-term strategic advice, as clients recognised benefits
realisation did not just come with the delivery of a system. The larger, more
successful of the integrators, such as ICL, Logica, and Xansa (formerly FI
Group), developed this offering and bought strategy-orientated technology
consultancies (DMR, DDV, and Druid respectively), not least to counter the
threat posed by the encroachment of the Big 5. The resulting homogenisation was
accepted even by the management consultancy trade press, when, in 1998
technology firms were included for the first time in its annual survey figures
(Abbott, 1998).
This paper is based on a study (Kirk, 2001) that started with an idea that,
despite this convergence, there remained differences in approach between the two
groups. General technology literature presupposes objective goals for major
technology projects (Hoque, 2000) within predefined power frameworks, whereas
general consultancy literature suggests a more subjective approach, with goals
and success being negotiated concepts between consultant and client (Sadler,
1998). Initial interviews with both types of consultant and their clients had
also suggested a difference between the two, perhaps in the type of work, or
initial information gathering for that work.
2.
Methodology
Grounded Theory (Glaser and Strauss, 1967) was adopted in this study, as a means
to derive a framework from a qualitative study and from the analysis of data
that was generated from a series of interviews.
Grounded Theory comprises explicit coding procedures, but also allows for theory
development. It is to be used jointly with theoretical sampling, as a basis for
collecting new data. Preliminary interviews provided some initial data for this
study. Analysis of this data enabled the construction of an interview guide,
which was used to generate the main data set that was then analysed.
There are four stages in Grounded Theory, and although they are listed here in a
linear fashion, in practice, the process tends to be iterative (and on
occasional iterations, non-sequential):
·
the
Constant Comparative Method of qualitative analysis: compare incidents, and
apply them to categories (the open coding categories resulting from this stage
are listed in Appendix 1);
·
integrating categories and their properties (the axial coding categories that
emerged in the study are listed in Appendix 2 and discussed in more detail in
the next section);
·
delimiting the theory;
·
writing
the theory.
Using semi-structured interview guides based around categories or themes derived
from the preliminary work (through open and axial coding, Strauss and Corbin,
1990), a group of management and technology consultants, as well as some of
their clients, industry analysts and recruiters, were interviewed, to show
differences or similarities between the two groups.
This study used a multiple-role sampling strategy (see figure 1). This was a
refined revisit to the former study strategy, again to enable data
triangulation. The x-axis considered actors as either internal or external to
the consulting process (again, these were clients and consultants), whereas the
y-axis considered actors according to complexity of their perspective.
Consultants involved with either one or other type of consultancy and external
actors with a homogenous market overview (such as industry analysts and
recruiters), were seen as having a single perspective. Actors with detailed
experience of both types of consultancy, be that internal or external, were seen
as having a dual perspective.
Figure 1: Sampling strategy
for interviewee selection
The broad categories of data presented in Appendix 2 remained the same
throughout the study, although their properties were refined extensively.
Finally, the findings for each type of consultancy were synthesized into two
different narratives (Czarniawska, 1998), representing the perspectives of
management consultants and of technology consultants.
A
narrative is more suitable for describing events in broader contexts (Czarniawska,
1998), as opposed to other presentation methods, such as a conditional path,
which is useful for looking at events in specific situations (Strauss and
Corbin, 1990). Given the range of contexts possible in consultancy situations,
the narrative approach has been chosen for this study. The conceptualisation of
the categories and their relationships to a narrative, or story line, provides
the researcher with a foundation to construct a full descriptive narrative, or
story, about the central phenomenon. This story may contain scenarios, made up
of causal conditions (events that lead to the occurrence of a phenomenon),
phenomena and consequences. The phenomena will have a context, a specific set
of properties/conditions along a dimensional range. In the scenario there will
also be action/ interaction strategies to manage or respond to a phenomenon.
3.
Analysis of results: a framework for the process of
consultancy
3.1
The main categories and their inter-relationships
The process of consultancy in both technology consultancies and management
consultancies was characterised by the following categories drawn from the
analysis:
·
boundaries, related to the definition of the type
of problem addressed by the consultancies, type of solutions, boundaries for
success and measures of success;
·
actors, related to the definition of the nature of
the participants and of their roles and to the delimitation of competencies in
the consultancy process;
·
process, related to the determination of the
nature of the consultancy process (whether it is prescriptive or emergent, for
example), of the ownership of the problem and to the sources of knowledge about
the process;
·
information, related to the type of information
that is used throughout the process, its sources, the degree of complexity, and
its elicitation methods.
The broad categories of data that emerged have remained the same throughout the
study, although their properties were refined extensively. Appendix 2 describes
in detail the properties and dimensions of each category and discusses them
against previous work on the nature of consultancy.
Figure 2 aims at explaining, not only the relationship of the categories, but
also how these categories are involved in the generic process of consultation,
whether by a technology or a management consultant. Figure 2 has been drawn in
a sequential fashion, starting with ‘Consultant’ and using arrows to move from
one actor or object to another, via an action. In practice the procedure is
iterative, but a sequential notation is used here to establish strong
relationships.
Figure 1. Relating the
categories to consultation procedure and to each other
The process hinges on the consultant-client relationship and the questioning of
the latter by the former to retrieve information. This questioning, or
process is heavily dependent on the competency of the consultant
and espoused paradigm for consultancy, to the extent that it shapes the
identity of the client that is used as a source, the elicitation method,
and the type of information requested and its source. However,
prior to this interaction, it must be remembered that both parties are
individuals within their respective organisations, and those organisations can
influence the procedure. For the consultant, the organisation may provide a
process source (or the consultant may be the source); for the client,
the organisation dictates the role of that individual, and may also
dictate the level of complexity of the information provided. The client
then provides the requested type of information or information to the consultant
from the required source. It is this information that allows the consultant to
build a picture of the problem, and its definition is dependent on
the initial information provided by the client. This process is repeated by the
consultant if there is a lack of definition regarding the problem. Such probing
can also define the context of the problem, if the consultant so chooses
or if the processes used by the consultancy organisation require it. This
process of building a picture of the problem also entails negotiating the
ownership of the problem, which can lie towards the client or the
consultant, or between the two. Once there is a defined problem, the consultant
can then suggest ways to move towards a solution. This solution may require some
supplementary change by the client before it is attainable. Irrespective
of the supplementary change, there will be a need for approval and action by the
client before a solution can be achieved. The level of client intervention is
dependent on the ownership of the problem, but some action by both
client and consultant enables work towards a solution. Depending on the
definition, this solution may be considered a success. This definition
of success will be part of the original problem definition.
Despite the fact that both types of consultancy could be characterised through a
generic framework based upon the four categories that were identified and the
presence of some similarities, the results of the study showed that there were
also considerable differences in the way they operate.
Both groups concentrated on building a picture, using uncodified, qualitative
interview data from numerous sources. Although both groups recognise the
subjective nature of reality, the technology consultants tended to be focussed
on achieving a single objective view of the problem situation, whereas the
management consultants appeared to focus on negotiating potential views of the
problem and especially the process that was to be undertaken. If we consider
the subjective/objective ontological axis as a sliding scale, the management
consultants appeared to foster a more ‘pluralist’ view of the consultancy
problems and processes than the technology consultants.
By using the interview data, in the form of the statements, to link the
categories, we can build the following narratives to represent the perspectives
of both groups of consultants.
3.2
Constructing a narrative for the management consultant
“We start with the original drivers, which are broad, ‘get closer to the
customer’, and pin it down to some performance metrics.”. This ‘definition’
statement was common for both groups, but management consultants were keen that
“You have to understand their [the client’s] appetite for change” with client
actors playing an important part in this process, since “Details of who sponsors
the project is absolutely critical.” The emphasis is on “due diligence, and risk
assessment.” This softer information had to be considered within the
organisational context, in that they would “assess the board, assess the
sponsors, who are in favour, who are against, can we win them round?” “Undertake
a stakeholder analysis to see if we can sideline any people who threaten the
project.” Here the process is explicitly named: “There are generic processes; we
first assess the readiness for change at board level, we then form focus groups
to disseminate what the new way of working will mean, we then assess the
organisation’s readiness for change at other levels”. “This shows either the
homogeneity, or stratification, of belief throughout the organisation.” From
this description of the process, it appears a structured approach, but it is
interesting that none of the steps are about gathering information relating to
CRM (which was the aim of the project these last statements relate to), rather,
the focus is on generic information about change, and the client referred to is
a powerful client rather than an information client. “We use qualitative
analysis for testing the higher levels in the organisation, and quantitative for
the final [lower level] change audit”. Again there is explicit naming of
activities and approaches and constant use of the personal plural, ‘we’. This
is part of a process “These are briefing documents [for the rest of the
project], with the way they work, project history, how they fit in with respect
to their industry.”
The core categories can be seen as the process type and process source,
since the narrative depicts the management consultants using vocabulary from the
codified process source, to explain the management of a prescriptive process.
3.3
Constructing a narrative for the technology consultant
“Clients usually lack either skills or time.” “You have to get the client to
understand what they are trying to do”, “they would have a technical person and
I would take a technical person, and we discuss it that way.” This suggests an
approach to consulting that is biased towards the ‘technical expert’ role. The
way to gathering information is to “create briefing materials, so the client
understands the context, and topic checklist to cover,” “the most productive way
is to question them about the nature of the problem.” This shows the emphasis on
information, as compared with the concentration on role and power by the
management consultants. “Consultancy is about politics and people management,”
and “you need executive levels of support,” suggest an awareness of power
boundaries; “The senior exec that sponsors the project decides who is involved
full stop”, but also that these power boundaries remain unchallenged. Gathering
softer information is done “By devious means,” “it’s about knowing what’s going
on” (focus on using a simple vocabulary to describe situations), “it’s a
semi-formal process”, “flexibility is the key, formal methodologies are too
rigid”. The following is more about the interpretation of concrete signs that
are indicative of a poor political situation; “Are they quibbling over 1K on a
bill? Is there a definite strategic vision to the project? That’s when you know
[the project is likely to fail].” The whole information gathering process
revolves around interacting with clients, and the roles are understood “economic
buyers, recommenders [sic], etc.”, but “the most difficult thing is getting
access to the right people.” The concentration on a single, objective worldview
is reflected by the statement, “It is about trying to understand the true
situation behind the appearance.” This worldview is closely tied to the
technology consultants’ own immediate experience, which he or she regards as
complex and in some ways indefinable. This leads to a distrust of seemingly
more simplistic information gathering methods, “Quantitative data analysis is
too broad brush for the sort of work we do”, “questionnaires tell you nothing.”
The core categories here are problem definition and process type:
all aspects of the narrative are focused around the definition and then emergent
management process of the problem situation.
4.
Converging market, different offerings
As demonstrated by the two narratives that represent the perspectives of both
groups of consultants, despite the presence of some similarities in the general
process of consultancy that is undertaken by both groups, there were also
considerable differences in the way they operate. These similarities and
differences are discussed in terms of:
·
the
context of the problem and risk assessment;
·
negotiation through the client system: change, power and transfer of knowledge;
·
the use
of language and vocabulary in the consultancy process, leading to the
development of different professional discourses and different approaches to the
facilitation of organisational learning.
The following sections discuss these points in more detail.
4.1
Problem context and risk assessment
Whilst both groups undertake projects at a ‘blue sky’ stage, helping the client
to define the project and the metrics for success of that project, the
management consultancies have formalised and codified their risk assessment
processes with respect to individuals, power and politics. This analysis helps
to define the project, its context and its boundaries (Checkland and Scholes,
1999). The technology consultants also undertake stakeholder analysis, but the
process seems to remain internal to the consultant and appears, therefore, to be
circumscribed to specific areas of intervention of each consultant and to remain
within the knowledge repertoire of each individual consultant. It does not
appear to be documented and explicitly codified, which raises questions on how
learning around these issues after the event occurs.
Both groups appear to undertake what Schein (1985) refers to as ‘process
consulting’. Neither group is solely brought in as an expert resource (French
and Bell, 1984), although the technology consultants put themselves closer to
this role than the management consultants.
The technology consultants bring pre-understanding (Argyris, 1990) to situations
that is based on their past professional background, but perhaps because of this
tend to do less scouting (Kolb, Rubin and McIntyre, 1979) or risk assessment.
They tend not to focus in considering their own position in the situation, and
view the problem as isolated, lacking the extra level of reflection that
Checkland and Scholes (1990) deem necessary to define context.
The management consultants attempt to define the context for the problem, and
seek to define boundaries for the project, separate from the organisational
boundaries, and use the influence of powerful actors within the client to aid
them in this process. This risk assessment in its broadest sense, constantly
considering people, power and their alignment, continues throughout the course
of the project.
Context is hugely important, since it is an explicit negotiation of power, in
both senses of the word. The technology consultants, by their lesser emphasis on
context definition, appear to foster a tacit acceptance of client power
structures.
Another important distinction lies in how contradictory information is managed.
The technology consultants were less willing to consider contradictory
information and present it to their client, whereas the management consultants
were more comfortable in their attitude towards it. This can be interpreted in
two ways.
Firstly, the Burrell and Morgan (1979) paradigms can be considered as sliding
scales rather than four distinct groups, with the technology consultants,
although accepting of the pluralist nature of social reality, still having a
greater affinity with the functional paradigm in their modes of organisational
intervention, more so at least than the management consultants. This could have
roots in the historical background of the two types of consultancy, with the
focus of technology consultancy lying in the delivery of precise solutions,
often in the shape of a computer based system.
Secondly, we can consider the nature of the client-consultant relationship.
Harris (1973) refers to child-child, parent-child and parent-parent transactions
in social situations. An acceptance of contradiction and complexity in a
relationship (here between consultant and client), suggests that the
relationship between client-consultant, as well as their perceptions of the
problem situation, may be perceived as evolving and negotiated throughout the
process, whereas a view of the process of consultancy as the provision of a
solution to a problem, as traditionally inherent to technology consultancies,
may lead to (apparently) simpler relationships that are based on demand and
satisfaction. The management consultants, with their emphasis on power and
negotiation, their focus on creating an organisational discourse, and the
resultant shared responsibility, have a dialogue that may allow them to explain
and handle the contradictions more easily.
4.2
Negotiating through the client system: change, power and transfer
of knowledge
Both groups tied their definition of success to client definition, but also to
the amount of client involvement in definition, again suggesting both groups
are, at some point, involved in process consultation (Schein, 1985). This view
is reinforced by the belief of both groups that they are involved in work where
managing change is the most important element of the work.
The two groups had different competencies, with the management consultant
placing emphasis on organisational knowledge, and the technology consultants
erring towards utilising specialist knowledge rather than passing it on.
According to the model proposed by Schein (1985), this is a significant
differentiator, since by his criteria, the management consultants remain in the
‘process consultation’ mould, but the technology consultants practise is
indicative of the ‘doctor-patient’ or ‘technical expert’ role.
An interesting dimension in discussing this issues lies in the career background
of the consultants that were interviewed. Client and recruiter interviews
suggested that the technology consultants tended to come from a background of
specialised professional practitioner experience, often started in industry,
rather than the ‘career consultant’ that typified staff from the Big 5. The
continuing survival of the technology consultant was due to some inherent skill
built on their professional experience, meaning that the organisation alone was
not enough to make the employee a technology consultant.
The different career background of the two types of consultant could suggest
that the basis for power, in each case, is built in a different way – the
technology consultant relying on expert knowledge and the management consultant
on organisational intervention and negotiation skills.
Results from this study confirmed the technology/professional and
management/career consultant split, with one notable exception, Interviewee A,
who had been recruited to a Big 5 practice from a technology consultancy.
Recruitment for the Big 5 has previously taken place essentially from other Big
5 practices, or from other organisations at a very junior or very senior level
(Interviewee L, recruitment consultant). The appointment of an intermediate
level consultant from a technology firm (such as Interviewee A), with no client
following, would have been very unlikely a few years ago (Interviewee L,
recruitment consultant), suggesting at least a recognition of convergence and a
tacit acceptance that other types of consultants, can fit with management
consultant processes and language.
Further differences emerge when considering the Lippit and Lippit (1984) client
system. The technology consultants concentrated heavily on the target (those
that are the focus of process) and benefit (those who will benefit from the
efforts of others) clients, whilst the management consultants focused their
efforts on leverage (those who can make or break the process) clients, almost to
the exclusion of other parties. This is an important difference, since by
courting powerful individuals in the client organisation the management
consultants are more able to affect change. The concentration on benefit and
target clients by the technology consultants amounts to an avoidance of leverage
clients, which in itself is tacit acceptance of the client organisation power
structures. Again, this puts the management consultants in the change pole and
the technology consultants in the order pole in the Hirscheim and Klein (1989)
model of organisational intervention (based on Burrell and Morgan, 1979).
The management consultants were far more prescriptive in their processes than
the technology consultants. For the technology consultants, this emergent
approach (where the process is driven by mental checklists or the memory of a
similar project), along with the pre-understanding in defining the problem
provided by their original professional background, suggested that the
individual consultant is the main owner of the process. For the management
consultants, the process is more driven by their organisation, in the form of
process literature and models that are deployed.
If we refer to the i-space model by Boisot (1998) the technology consultant
approach (especially in the areas of risk assessment and client negotiation)
appears to be working closer to the non-codified, undiffused, and concrete
information (i.e., specific to particular situations) axis. The management
consultant approach is codified, diffused throughout the organisation, and
abstract (in the sense of being led by processes that are generally applicable
across different projects).
These different processes of intervention in the organisation and of negotiation
within the client system lead to the creation of different organisational
locales, as arenas (Strauss et al., 1981) for the consultancy process.
The management consultancy approach, whose focus is on process, tends to aim at
developing an organisation wide arena, where the collation and distribution of
client project information is centrally controlled and there is an attempt to
generate an organisationally accepted view of what the project is and where it
is going, through the creation of different focus groups (smaller localised
arenas) across the organisation that are dependent of the control of the centre.
The technology consultancy, whose focus is on the problem definition, tends to
focus, once the problem is defined, on specialist areas that address the
different components of the problem and form specific arenas where knowledge
seems to be contained and there appears to be a more limited integration of
information and process and cross-fertilization of knowledge across the various
arenas.
The way these arenas are formed and function is further reinforced by the role
of language and the development of interpretative repertoires, as discussed in
the following section.
4.3
Language, discourse and organisational learning
The above sections raise issues of knowledge management within the two different
modes of intervention that seem to characterise the two types of consultancy.
Language and discourse seem to have an important role in the process of
knowledge transfer and approaches to organisational learning.
The codification (Boisot, 1998) of the risk assessment process by the management
consultants encourages the development of explicit naming and labelling, so that
the group has a sophisticated shared vocabulary with which to discuss and
dissect client situations (ex: “we first assess the readiness for change at
board level, we then form focus groups to disseminate what the new way of
working will mean, we then assess the organisation’s readiness for change at
other levels.” ”This shows either the homogeneity, or stratification, of
belief throughout the organisation”(Interviewee C, management consultant).
This vocabulary is incorporated in a discourse, composed of multiple
constructions, each describing individual dimensions of a situation.
The common organisational vocabulary lets management consultants describe
their tasks in a way that allows definition, understanding, and abstraction,
which makes possible their explanation to an individual who has not experienced
that situation. This discourse could be therefore seen as serving to aid
socialisation (Chomsky, 1986) and learning within their organisations and
amongst client organisations, and hence support knowledge management practices
in the consultancy process (Nonaka and Konno, 1998).
The discourse of the technology consultants was based upon single phrases that
were used to cover very complex situations (ex: “it’s about knowing what’s
going on”, Interviewee F, management consultant), reflecting the tacitness
of the understanding of this situation by the individual consultant. This
discourse did not appear to be immediately geared towards supporting group
sharing or learning both within the consulting organisation and between the
consultancy and its clients. Most of the stakeholder analysis and risk
assessment that was also carried out by the technology consultant appeared to
remain bounded to the specific areas of intervention of each individual
consultant and remained largely tacit. This may relate to the traditional career
background of the technologist as a subject expert focused on specific areas of
intervention, hence possibly more individually or small team oriented. However,
whether this completely undermines organisational learning can be questionable.
What seems clearer is that there are different organisational practices amongst
the two groups in relationship to knowledge sharing and organisational learning
and that the development of professional discourses plays an important role in
that.
Another view on this issue relates to how power relations can be reproduced in
different ways through discourses (Foucault, 1971, 1972; Hackley, 2000). The
focus on the development of a shared discourse (Strauss et al., 1981) and a
shared interpretative repertoire (Hackley, 2000) may be a vehicle for
reproducing ways to control events and situations, of establishing ‘the right
way to do things’. This theme is explored by Hackley (2000: 246) in the
context of another type of knowledge intensive organisation, the advertising
agency: “Assimilate the right discourses in the right way (such as the
‘corporate way’ or the ‘strategic imperative’) and a credible professional
identity could be constructed through momentary authoritative expressions of
them”.
We propose that an important way to manage the knowledge base within
consultancy organisations, involves developing
organisational vocabularies and professional discourses
(Strauss et al. 1981) supported by interpretative repertoires (Hackley,
2000) that are shared within the consultancy and with the client organisations.
The representatives of each type of consultancy in this study seem to have
different practices in developing and, most of all, in situating their
discourses in the undertaking of the process of consultancy.
Whereas the management consultants that took part in this study referred to the
explicit development of these discourses as an integral part of the consultancy
process, aiming at the use of a common language as a vehicle for generating
common understandings of the process with the client system, the technology
consultants seemed to focus on problem definition and problem boundaries and to
foster a more tacitly oriented view of the process and of the client system that
is represented through a simpler vocabulary.
5.
Conclusion
This study had a focus on finding out whether there are process differences
between the professional practices of management consultants and technology
consultants in a converging market.
Analysis has shown that despite similarities that could be represented in a
generic model for consultancy, there were also significant differences between
the two groups of consultants. Whilst both undertake similar work (undefined
‘blue sky’ projects) and use similar techniques to ensure success (sharing
ownership with the client with varying degrees), the management consultants have
formalised and codified their risk assessment processes with respect to
individuals, power negotiation and politics. This analysis, and subsequent
power mapping, gives the management consultants greater confidence when trying
to leverage the client into accepting change. Their approach is oriented towards
defining the process of consultancy itself and negotiating its acceptance, by
courting powerful stakeholders (leverage clients) that may influence the results
of the project, constantly considering people, power, and their alignment.
The technology consultants also undertake stakeholder analysis, but the process
is an internal one by the consultant. This localises the analysis to specific
areas of the consulting organisation and the resulting knowledge appears largely
not formally documented. Their approach is oriented towards defining the problem
to be addressed and its boundaries. The existence of key stakeholders is
acknowledged, but there is no attempt to influence their power basis. Instead,
they appear to concentrate on target and benefit clients whose role is focused
on information provision.
These different processes of intervention in the organisation and of negotiation
within the client system lead to the creation of different organisational
locales, as arenas (Strauss et al., 1981) for the consultancy process.
Language, through the development of professional discourses, appears to play an
important role in the management of the knowledge base regarding projects and in
the enabling of organisational learning within consultancy organisations. The
management consultants and technology consultants have different practices
regarding the development of these discourses and in situating them in the
process of consultancy.
The situation of these discourses in ‘the play between powers’ (Alvesson
and Skoldberg, 2000, p.229), within the consultancy process, leads to different
patterns of negotiation through the client system. These different processes of
negotiation relate in turn to different understandings of the nature of the
consultancy process and of the rules that guide it and, ultimately, to the
creation of different organisational locales, as arenas (Strauss et al., 1981)
for the consultancy process.
These different locales or arenas can coexist in the same organisation and in
the same consultancy project, without necessarily undermining each other or
clashing with each other, as exemplified by the coexistence of different types
of consultancies and consultants within large projects, where the various
professional groups claim expertise in different areas of concern.
References
Abbott, P, (1998), Annual League Tables: Management Consultancy, VNU
Publications, pp12 – 22
Alvesson and Skoldberg (2000). Reflexive methodology. London: Sage.
Argyris, (1990), Overcoming organisational defences, Allen and Bacon
Block, P, (2000), Flawless Consulting, Jossey Bass
Boisot M, (1998), Knowledge Assets: securing competitive advantage in the
information economy, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Burrell, G, and Morgan, C, (1979), Sociological paradigms and organisational
analysis, Gower
Checkland, P, and Scholes, J, (1999), Soft Systems Methodology in Action,
London: Wiley
Chomsky, N, (1986), Knowledge of Language: Its nature, origin and use,
Greenwood Press
Czarniawska, B, (1998) A narrative approach to organisational studies,
London: Sage
Foucault, M (1971), “Orders of Discourse” Social Science Information, 10,
p. 7-30.
Foucault, M. (1972), The Archaeology of Knowledge, London: Tavistock.
French, W, and Bell, C, (1984), Organization Development: behavioural science
intervention for organization improvement, Prentice Hall
Glaser B, Strauss A, (1967), The discovery of Grounded Theory, London:
Weidenfield and Nicolson
Hackley, C. (2000). Silent running: tacit, discursive and psychological aspects
of management in a Top UK Advertising Agency, British Journal of Management,
11, p. 239-254.
Harris, T. (1973). I’m OK – You’re OK, London: Pan.
Hirscheim, R and Klein, H, (1989), Four paradigms of information systems
development, Communications of the ACM 32 (10), p1199 – 1216
Hoque, F (2000), e-Enterprise, Business models, architecture, and components:
Breakthroughs in application development, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Kirk, J, (2001). Management and technology consultancies: do differences
remain between the two offerings in a converging market? Dissertation
submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the MSc. in IT and
Management (in association with Oracle). Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University.
Kolb, D, Rubin, I, and McIntyre, J, (1979), Organisational psychology: an
experiential approach, Prentice Hall
Kuhn, T, (1961), The structure of scientific revolution, University of
Chicago Press
Lippit G, and Lippit, R, (1984), The consulting process in action,
University Associates
McLuhan, M, (1969), Counterblast, Rapp and Whiting
Nonaka I, & Konno N, (1998),
"The Concept of 'Ba': Building a Foundation for Knowledge Creation",
California
Management Review,
40, 3, 40-54, 1998
Sadler, P, (1998), Management Consultancy: A handbook for best practice,
Kogan Page
Schein, E, (1985), Process Consultation I, Addison Wesley
Strauss A et al.
(1981), Psychiatric
ideologies and institutions. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.
Strauss A and Corbin (1990), The Basics of Qualitative Research, Grounded
Theory Procedures and Techniques, Sage Publications.
APPENDIX 1
Open coding categories
Independence (clarity of thought), dimensions:
High independence,
high value, high creativity, to low independence, low value, low creativity
Independence (difficulty to work with), dimensions:
High independence,
high degree of cultural change/low culture fit, to low independence, high degree
of cultural fit/low degree of culture change
Cultural fit /integration, dimensions:
High to Low
Type of problem, dimensions:
Define, or undefined
Type of behaviour approaching that problem, dimensions:
Proscriptive model, to
emergent model
Awareness of process, dimensions:
Awareness of use of
proscriptive model, or no awareness
Explicit stating/coding of process, dimensions:
Stated/coded, to unstated/uncoded
Type of solution/extent of solution, dimensions:
Tightly defined
solution, to lack of definition, high potential degree of change
Ownership of problem, dimensions:
Consultant, to client
Process, dimensions:
Technical expert,
consultant ownership, to organisational learning, dual ownership
Extent of change/uncertainty, dimensions:
Tightly defined
solution, to lack of definition, high potential degree of change
Boundaries for success, dimensions:
Tightly defined
solution, to lack of definition, high potential degree of change
Measures of success, dimensions:
Tightly defined solution: solution with minimal cultural upheaval/change, to
lack of definition: solution, with the process of discovery and reason for a
solution
APPENDIX 2
Axial categories
Category: Boundaries
Subcategories:
Problem. Dimensions: defined or
undefined
Are projects (pre)defined mainly by the client, prior to the
consultants starting, or by the consultants on entry, or as part of the entry
process? This category is similar to the boundary negotiation for different
types of consultancy proposed by Schein (1985), where a problem can be defined
(as occurs in the ‘purchase of expertise’ model of consultancy) and undefined
(as occurs in the ‘process consultation’ model). These are two (extremes) of
the three models suggested by Schein, the third, ‘doctor-patient’, lying
somewhere between the first two.
Defined, sample statement: “Sometimes [the client] doesn’t
get you involved until the work is commissioned” (interviewee G, technology
consultant)
Undefined, sample statement: “Start with the original
drivers, which are broad (eg ‘get closer to the customers’), then transform that
into some SMART deliverables,” (interviewee C, management consultant)
Context.
Dimensions: attempt to define or do not attempt to define
Does the consultant attempt to define the context of the
problem, and the political or sociological settings for it, or does he/she
tacitly accept the client context? Hirscheim and Klein (1989) suggest the
radical humanist and critical theorist roles for those consultants who do not
tacitly accept the client boundaries, and the interpretative and functionalist
for those consultants who do. This category also had some relation to the work
of Checkland and Scholes (1990), with their emphasis on project context and
boundary. As discussed previously, Kolb, Rubin and McIntyre (1979) suggest all
consultancies have certain elements, ‘scouting’ being one of these. Did both
types of consultancy undertake the same amount of ‘scouting’ to define a
situation?
Attempt to define, sample statement: “Have to understand
their appetite for change and set that against their level of ambition.”
(Interviewee C, management consultant)
Don’t attempt to define, sample statement: “At [technology
consultancy] they are keener to get on and do the deal, they are more sales led.
At [management consultancy] they are hot on making sure the deal is well crafted”
(interviewee A, technology turned management consultant)
Success.
Dimensions: systems-oriented or change-oriented
This category aims to
emphasise whether the measures of success are based around the technology (a
system has been delivered, it works, this is the saving), or based around the
original need that led to the solution. Questions were directed at interviewees
in an area of consultancy (Customer Relationship Management (CRM) and eCRM) that
could lead to technological solutions, but need not necessarily do so.
How did the consultant recognise how the goals were defined? Change-oriented
consultancy suggests more complexity, and subjectivity. The most subjective
stance is that what is successful is what is successful for the client. The
most objective is systems implementation orientated. Was there a link between a
lack of client definition, and systems implementation for the technology
consultants? The category is an extension of the ‘task’ and ‘responsibility’
areas for the types of consultancy proposed by Schein (1985).
Systems-oriented
sample statement: “What are you there for? Is it a new product for existing
technology? A new product with new technology, a new product because of new
technology, or is there technology in place that is suitable?” (Interviewee
G, technology consultant)
Change-oriented sample
statement: “any consultancy work is mostly about change management, and the
issues surrounding this area. Whatever you are doing you have to keep this in
mind” (interviewee E, management consultant)
Supplementary
change for project delivery. Dimensions: included in project remit, or
excluded from project remit.
This is linked to success, and the definition of the
project. Is the change necessary for delivery and benefits realisation,
intrinsic to the project for both groups of consultants? This category is an
amalgamation of themes, again from Hirscheim and Klein (1989), with the category
extremes taken from their desire for radical change/ desire for order and
regulation axis, but it also draws on the work of Schein (1985), and his models
of consultancy. Schein suggests task boundaries as specific or resolution and
learning-orientated. A correlation between resolution/learning orientation, and
radical change, and also between project specific work, and order and regulation
was identified during the interviews. Both consultant groups are engaged in
work that could lead to ISD projects; does either group define the task
solely according to the system task?
Included in project remit, sample statement: “The change
isn’t always recognised right at the start, whatever happens, you have to
identify the organisational change requirements, and decide who is going to deal
with what” (interviewee F, technology consultant)
Excluded from project remit, sample statement: “if you
need change, you need a change management team in the client as well”
(interviewee A, management consultant)
Category: Actors
Subcategories
Consultant competency.
Dimensions: knowledge orientated or transfer of knowledge orientated
Does the subject response indicate they are holders of
specialist knowledge, or geared towards organisational learning? This is a
straightforward comparison to Schein’s models of consulting (1985).
Knowledge orientated, sample statement: “With any SI, it
is straightforward technical expertise/expert resource” (interviewee A,
technology turned management consultant)
Transfer of knowledge orientated, sample statement: “Also
look at other significant change projects in that business, see where the
project is or has been hurting, how it has been happening, and key people who
have already learnt lessons from working in that area, bring them on or learn
from them” (interviewee A, technology turned management consultant)
Client
identity. Dimensions, target client, or leverage client
The aim was to see if interviewees made a distinction
between the different types of client, and to see if either had a bias towards
which they gained information from. These correspond to work by Lippit and
Lippet (1984), and the different actors in a client system. The author felt the
two most relevant roles are target client and leverage client, since a bias
towards dealing with the target client is more politically naïve than
concentration on the leverage client.
Target client, sample statement: “You expect a single
sponsor or owner, and if not there is a problem” (interviewee F, technology
consultant)
Leverage client, sample statement: “Need to understand the
roles, economic buyers, recommenders, stakeholder analysis, different roles”
(interviewee F, technology consultant)
Client role.
Dimensions: informative or powerful
When the consultant talked of clients, how did they describe
them? Did they distinguish between the two roles, and whom did they try to deal
with? This is different from the client identity, since both client roles can
be found in each identity. This category also considers the work by Lippit and
Lippit (1984), but in the context of work by Burrell and Morgan, in that to
affect radical change, there must be the involvement of powerful actors, as
opposed to informative actors who would merely aid work within existing
boundaries.
Informative, sample statement: “Need to find trusted
sources, not higher up individuals, and then try and validate or verify that
data” (interviewee B, management consultant)
Powerful, sample statement: “Then see if we are able to
sideline opposition, or if we can’t, we get that person involved, try and
present the business case to them, essentially give them special attention to
win them round” (interviewee C, management consultant)
Category: Process
Was either group more prescriptive, and if so, how so, and in
what area of information gathering? Did this seem to make a difference? This
category is taken, indirectly, from the work of Boisot (1998), and is connected
to the codified/uncodified information subcategory. If the
knowledge about process lies with the organisation, does this necessarily make
the process more presciptive? If the process is ‘owned’ by the consultant, does
it appear more emergent?
Prescriptive, sample statement: “There is a generic
process in which we look at what needs to be achieved and what tasks are
required to achieve that, inputs and outputs, where the output could be creating
a mindset in a client group” (interviewee C, management consultant)
Emergent, sample statement: “There are too many things
that depend on the culture of the organisation for it ever to be prescriptive”
(interviewee G, technology consultant)
Ownership. Dimensions:
consultant-owned or client-shared
Was there a bias towards more consultant owned projects for
the technologists? This category is taken from work by Schein (1985).
Consultant-owned, sample statement: “The difficult thing
is getting to speak to the right people for the right amount of time”
(interviewee G, technology consultant)
Client-shared, sample statement: “All successful projects
tend to be joint efforts between the consultant and client. You need to work
together on these things” (interviewee F, technology consultant)
Process source. Dimensions:
codified or uncodified
What guides the process method? Is it written down, or is it
internalised? This category is taken from the work of Boisot (1998). Where does
the knowledge about process lie, who is the owner? Is it codified, and ‘owned’
by the organisation, or is it uncodified, and ‘owned’ by the consultant.
Codified, sample statement: “For predefined sets of work
you tend to use frameworks, balanced scorecard and the like, with clients too,
run through models with them, so they can see the value” (interviewee A,
technology turned management consultant)
Uncodified, sample statement: “It is a semi formal
process, yes it is formal but it is internalised, so that it becomes natural
without checking boxes, but yes, it must be done” (interviewee B, management
consultant)
Category: Information
Subcategory
Source. Dimensions: codified or
uncodified
What type of
information is gathered, and where is it gathered from? This category is
similar to the subcategory of process source, again based on the work of
Boisot (1998), but this time applied to the knowledge of the client
organisation. Is there a concentration on one or other type of information?
Where does the knowledge about client organisation lie, and who is the owner?
Is it codified, and ‘owned’ by the client organisation, or is it uncodified, and
‘owned’ by the client employees.
Codified, sample
statement: “[When you start], any work done by any other consultancy is
helpful, even if apparently unrelated” (interviewee C, management
consultant)
Uncodified, sample
statement: “you don’t necessarily know what you need or whether another
person already has it, [until you speak to them]. Each project depends on the
issues associated with it. The atmosphere of your data gathering is very
different for a [sic] [each]project, which may cause downsizing by 50%”
(interviewee G, technology consultant)
Complexity. Dimensions:
complementary or contradictory
How do the different
groups treat contradictory information? How do they cope with it? Do they treat
it differently? The ability to cope with contradictory information is indicative
of complex and mature approach. The two extremes relate the consultant-client
relationship to the transactional analysis parent-child or parent-parent
relationships, the former, simplistic, with black and white definition, the
latter, complex, with room for grey areas. There is also the influence of the
Burrell and Morgan (1979) objective/ subjective axis, with the concentration on
complementary information suggesting a simplistic approach favouring a single
‘organisational’ viewpoint. The contradictory information suggests a more
pluralistic method, taking account of the different actors that make up the
client.
Contradictory, sample
statement: “it will show a lack of homogeneity of belief through the
organisation, perhaps some stratification” (interviewee C, management
consultant)
Complementary, sample
statement: “Look at both sources, which is the most reliable? Have to present
both sides to the sponsor, but you don't want that, its better to have a single
argument” (interviewee G, technology consultant)
Elicitation method. Dimensions: qualitative or
quantitative
|
