[Sigia-l] love thy client (was Re: [Sigia-l] "Study: ContentManagement Tools Fail")

[Nuno Lopes]

Hi Eric,

Eric wrote:

>A good consultant knows that they are often called in not because they
have
>skills/knowledge the client doesn't, but instead as an "external
>reference", a tie-breaker for the politics in the organisation.

I understand where this comes from. There all kinds of consultants, each
having different levels of expertise and roles in a project (technical,
business process modeling, change management consultancy etc) for all
kinds of problem and organizations. Sometimes all these skills
congregate on the same person sometimes it does not. Within this scope a
company that relies on a consultant to be a tie breaker is asking for
trouble IMO, and the consultant is in a position where his role is far
stretched from its primary role. Why? Because the consultant is in a
position with too much power in the organizations decision chain, and is
nothing but an external entity that will not have to bear the problems
if something goes wrong. At most a company should let a consultant to
function as a mediator, and as far as organization politics go he should
be just that, a mediator. Within this, the consultant needs to be
trusted in a positive manner by all parties otherwise he will not be a
good one (this is plain common sense). This is one of the reasons why
communication skills are so important in a consultant job. A mediator
does not undo tie-brakes by simply "saying this is what I think ...", it
empowers resolution with information so that the client can make the
decision backed with facts steamed on problem analysis and other
collateral information. Yes, he can and should state an opinion when
asked for, but is just that an opinion that can be referenced.

But the mediator as to be careful so he must not let himself be
instrumental to any sort of unilateral collision. 

Eric wrote:

Often the >technical
>details are immaterial, it is the politicking which needs consultative
>mediation.

Agreed, when problems are raise due to Political impasse then
technicalities are irrelevant. 

Eric wrote:
>As well as honesty and hard work, trust relies on sensitivity and
>understanding.

But the core must be always honesty and resist speculation. Otherwise
the correct problem perception will be at stake by all parties.

Eric wrote:
>While there are lots of people I can "trust" to behave in
>certain ways (due to their forthrightness), that's not really trust,
that >is predictability.

Yes, but I used the word trust in a positive way.

Eric wrote:
>I can trust a thief to rob me blind. I won't trust my wallet
>to a thief.

You just don't trust a thief in a positive way (he is a bad thing from
the start). In Portuguese the word "trust" is used as a positive thing,
it seams that in English the concept my have all sorts of "cambiants". 

Anyway I agree with your intent, with trust comes predictability in the
sense that the consultant does that he says he does, and vice versa. But
this goes both sides, in the sense that the consultant needs to trust
the client always (and he should in as much as possible), and this can
only be effective if the client does what he wants to do and has the
commitment of a champion to enforce it.

As said by someone else on this list, it is a partnership where each
role is explicit in theory and in practice. But as someone has said in
theory, theory and practice is the same thing, in practice, not always.

Best regards,

Nuno Lopes