Real Value Of Consultants

I believe one of the real value of consultants (perhaps the only) is a new set of eyes looking at some problem and re-examining the set of assumptions that led to the problem.

This includes asking questions that dare-not-be-asked, and questions that everyone thought somebody else had already asked (and which nobody wanted to asked 'again' for fear of sounding stupid).

Another place that I've seen consultants used effectively is simple message passing. I consulted to an organization where upper management didn't trust the lower level perform people. In fact, these employees had been recommending a particular course of action for quite a while, but upper management wasn't listening. A middle manager hired us basically to interview the perform people, and deliver a PowerPoint presentation to upper management repeating almost verbatim what we heard.

I used to HaveThisPattern: At the end of one of my early consulting engagements I found that all we really did was ask all the line managers what they thought should be done, and then tell top management that it ought to be done -- and making it look like it was our idea. I concluded that "now that I realize this, I can do it much more efficiently next time." ;->

Any company that will listen to ideas from consultants that they won't listen to from their own employees is a DilbertCompany? pretty much by definition.

Why companies will trust consultants when they won't trust their own employees is an interesting issue. Sometimes with valid reasons. Some possibilities:

Belief that the consultants possess top-level expertise in the field, whereas employees--while knowledgeable--possess only average knowledge in the field. (Consultants get paid more, after all). Indeed, many prominent experts with proven track records do wander into consulting. OTOH, many excellent self-promoters who aren't any better than their peers also become consultants.
Belief that employees are looking out for own interests, rather than the company's interest (or management's interest, which may or may not be the same as the interest of the company and/or its owners). Often true, but the same can be observed of many consulting firms--many of whom are quite good at extracting unnecessary fees from the companies foolish enough to hire them.
- Of course, many employees do look out for their own interests, which also may not align with the company's. Ask the rank and file whether they should be laid off or not; and the answer you'll get is predicatble.
The GolfCourseEffect?--the belief that consultants (or at least the management thereof) are from a more desirable social class than the grunts that work for 'em. (This also explains why some executives are more apt to trust the VP of sales of their vendors, who clearly aren't looking out for the exec's concerns, than their own staff who ought to be).
For an outside perspective.
To rubber-stamp/validate a decision already made (but which is likely to be unpopular with the rank and file).
To have someone to blame if the decision doesn't work out well.
As a form of outsourcing.
Because the company lacks the desired skill in-house.
As a way of visibly "doing something" about some (perceived) problem--a manager who "calls in the cavalry" may be seen as more pro-active than one who merely delegates to his staff.
To reduce headcount (and related financial metrics) on the belief that a) this makes a company more efficient; or b) simply because someone's performance is measured by these metrics.

I'll offer another one -- Consultants may have seen things done differently. One of the most pervasive antipatterns is NotInventedHere. Consultants can bring a breath of fresh air into a project if used sparingly.

Let us not forget the most time honored and revered value of a consultant -- Someone to blame when it all goes wrong.

[Yes, discussed in CapedConsultant.]

...or, more frequently: Someone to play the bad guy regarding layoffs. It works like this: Top managements wants to fire 10% of the staff. They hire business consultants, who will conduct a study with the pre-determined result that 15% of the staff could be reduced. Top management will then go on and fire "only" 10%, looking like heroes.

I have to say that consultants have usually seen a lot of projects at different companies. This can lead to a higher awareness of what works and what doesn't. But ItDepends on the consultant. Just my 2 cents. --PeterAxelsson

I'm tracing this line of reasoning backwards - I don't know what works and what doesn't, so I'm getting into the consultant biz to see a lot of projects at different companies, and find out. --LaurentBossavit

I don't think that's where the reasoning necessarily leads. One can start as a contract programmer and see lots of different projects and grow very naturally into the role Peter speaks, providing real value. I think the "naturally" part is what makes a genuinely helpful consultant. --JasonPettys?

Let us not overlook another significant value of consultants: to show up as a different class of cost on the balance sheet, so that the CEO can get his boat. There is some kind of accounting magic (or illusion) that's used to take what is clearly a greater cost (hiring consultants) and writing it in a different column from the obviously lower cost of hiring (or keeping) full-time staff, with the result that the totals from there columns here and those columns there gives us a BottomLine? figure that looks better in the annual report.

Never mind that we actually spent more damned money and therefore have reduced our actual overall assets by more, the "numbers" say that we were actually thrifty! Hey, give that man a bonus! -- GarryHamilton