|
Did The Consultant Go Too Far
The term "consultant" encompasses everything from an
unemployed slacker who was fired from a third rate MIS
department, to brilliant advisors fluent in both the technical
and practical/business aspects of his or her field.
In the case of computer consultants, in Silicon Valley,
consultants are often programmers . . . highly skilled
technician with special knowledge of a particular language or
computer platform. They often lack any common sense or
business acumen whatsoever. All they can do is "make something
happen" according to specifications handed to them by an MIS
director or systems analyst.
At the other end of the spectrum are firms such as Anderson
Consulting, Altman Weil, Hildebrandt, etc. that are the
computer consulting equivalents of "Law Factories" . . . huge
organizations that John accurately described.
Then there are consultants such as those of us who frequent
this listserv. We are often solo practitioners, or small
consulting shops that are unique in our skill sets, interests,
and abilities.
Some of us are former lawyers who just got carried away
with their hobbies, (like me), have a penchant for picking up
technical concepts, (but are not technicians), and have a
superior understanding of the market they serve. Ross Kodner,
Wells Anderson and Jim Eidelman are some examples who
immediately come to mind.
Others are skilled technical people who found a particular
market very interesting, and decided to specialize in it. Dale
Tincher of NetSmart, Inc. and Consultwebs.com is a good
example of this. He started as a general computer consultant
and ended up as the official consultant for the North Carolina
Bar. I count among my friends a number of Timeslips Certified
Consultants, Time Matters Authorized Independent Consultants,
Amicus Partners, etc. who are top-notch INDEPENDENT legal
technology consultants, but who are not lawyers.
[There are many other consultants equally, or perhaps
even more qualified in given areas, that I haven't mentioned,
and I hope they, or some of their satisfied clients bring
their names up in this community.]
The most important thing you must watch out for is the
degree of independence of the consultant or consulting firm.
Many "consulting" firms are nothing more than vendors capable
of convincing you that their product is the only one right for
your situation. If, in fact, they happen to be right, (purely
by chance), then they may the best thing that ever happens to
you. More likely than not, however, you are NOT their client .
. . you are their CUSTOMER. They are employed by their client,
or manufacturers of certain products are their clients.
True consultants sell their time and skill, just like
lawyers. They represent you in your dealings with this insane
industry. While they may bill themselves as "independent," (as
I do), there is really no such thing as a truly "independent"
consultant. We all eventually have to make decisions as to
which products we are going to maintain in our "stable" of
recommended products. We look for products that are flexible
and versatile, so that they can meet the needs of as many
clients as possible. We may be familiar with several such
products, but generally, we settle on one or another as our
"favorite" in a given area because we think it does a superior
job in most situations where it is an appropriate
recommendation. There is always a subjective element to such
decisions.
Usually, there are a limited number of "players" in a given
area that are recommended by more consultant than others. This
MAY be an indication of the overall quality of the product,
including its functionality, the quality of the technical
support, the viability and business philosophy of the
manufacturer, and myriad other factors that you pay a
consultant to evaluate.
For example, you will find that most of the consultants
active in this community favor one of three or four case
management systems, even though there are probably more than
20 or 30 such products available. That's a pretty good hint
that those few products are "good bets," from an overall
standpoint, even though there may be other products out there
that are MUCH better technologically, and may even be a better
fit for your particular application. The consultants have
weeded them out for SOME reason, and that's why you hire a
consultant.
Having established a "stable" of recommendations, and
having settled on "favorites" in the various areas, some
consultants develop a great deal of expertise in those
favorites . . . expertise that they want to trade on in the
form of installation, configuration, and training. This
marketable expertise precludes them from being completely
"independent," because they are going to be inclined to
recommend their "favorites" with a view toward additional
fees.
There is nothing wrong with this, as long as the consultant
is "up front" about it, and makes an honest and sincere effort
to be as objective as possible. The consultant also should
inform you when you are asking for advice that is outside his
or her "comfort zone," i.e. he or she doesn't feel qualified
to render advice in a given area. Some consultants, especially
some of those just starting out, or who need the money, will
profess expertise in a given area, then as soon as they are
out the door, break into a cold sweat and spend the next
several days in a crash course to gain a modicum of knowledge
and skill. Worse yet, they may try to bluff their way through
without the effort.
You have to judge for yourself just how "objective" the
recommendations are. In the final analysis, however, it comes
down to the relationship that develops between the consultant
and the client, and the consultant's ability and willingness
to support his or her recommendations.
I decided long ago that I could not be an expert in network
operating systems. If I tried to be one, I would be spreading
myself too thin. I soon realized that in many cases, (if not
most), the needs of my client's, (mostly solo and small firm
practitioners), were such that either Microsoft or Novell or
Lantastic or some other reputable system would be more than
sufficient. After performing a needs analysis, and eliminating
obvious misfits, it comes down to "who is going to install,
configure, and support the system." NOT which system is
"best."
We're back to relationships again. If you do not trust your
consultant, or lack confidence in his or her knowledge and/or
abilities, then there is nothing to hang your hat on.
Conversely, if you DO have the trust and confidence, then you
should be able to communicate freely with the consultant
without fear of being railroaded to accept the consultant's
"agenda."
Rewind. Did the Consultant Go Too Far? If you must ask that
question, then more likely than not the answer doesn't really
make any difference. He or she may not have gone far enough,
but the prospect of a viable consultant/client relationship is
slim, given the fact that the potential client starts out by
questioning the consultant's judgement.
This is not to say that you shouldn't get "a second
opinion." Such a step is just plain good business sense. It
doesn't mean that you don't trust the consultant. It just
means that there is enough at stake, either in terms of money,
time, or effort, to warrant some sort of assurance that the
tentative decision to retain the consultant is well-founded.
I hope this gives you a better understanding of the
consultant/client relationship, so that you will be
comfortable with whoever you ultimately settle on.
|
