While I sympathise with some of your comments, your third point strikes a discordant memory for me. The idea of the consultant hopping blithely from organisational flower to organisational flower is certainly an attractive one for the consultant. Sharing knowledge and knowing what might work in a given situation are definitely reasons for having a consultant around.

However, having been on the receiving end of consultancy (not specifically KM), what my organisation was looking for more than anything was the consultant's expertise in applying their knowledge in the relevant situation. Also, to work with us in seeing their suggestions through to implementation so they couldn't just return a few months later and say something like "well we gave you the foundations and the ways to do this, but clearly something has gone wrong since". i.e. 'We gave you a great solution and you screwed it up. We are blameless, you are less than competent.'

Often, it's because the people in the organisation know the context, but lack the knowledge and the skills to apply it in that context, that they need the consultant's help.

What the intelligent customer wants is a positive but symbiotic relationship. One party working and innovating with another so that what they produce together is greater than anything they could have done on their own. That for me, is the result of a successful consultancy contract.

So not having been that involved in KM, but having been on the side of the company hiring the consultants (not my decision, but I was forced to assist), I wonder if anyone has an example of a consultancy going into an organization that has more than just minor problems and actually offering advice that made a significant difference? I know Dave has anecdotes (I took the CE training so I got a bunch of them) but these do not suggest much to me other than that bad organizations can, like a blind squirrel, sometimes find a nut.

I know this flies in the face of the entire consultancy industry as being of much use, but then again I work in defense, where most of what we do is pretty useless as well!

Also, I distinguish between organizations that bring in outside expertise for something they KNOW they are not outfitted to do, versus those that are a mess and are looking for outside people to "consult".

BTW - I also dislike the medical metaphor, since it kind of shows Patrick as either simplifying to point of silliness or being unclear as to how those in the medical field actually work (as if there is a single model for that, as well).

Clive - I think Drucker's point (and mine by implication) was not about a consultant not getting involved, and certainly not about their walking away from any responsibility. It is rather an argument against the teams of consultants (including junior staff) who move in and take over the implementation, locking themselves in for the long term and not using the organisations staff.

Your final paragraph I agree with, the penultimate one, less sure. I think more often than not people in an organisation do know the how as well as the context, but are not given the opportunity to show it.

Hi --

The medical metahphor for consulting makes me sick.

If you study medical anthropology you quickly find how warped and bizarre the Western mindset is concerning health.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_anthropology

In our demented disease correction system, like consulting, it is utilization, not health or outcome, that is the main driver.

For example, the greatest innovation in the so-called HMO revolution was the Fredirick Taylor-inspired 7-minute Dr office visit. Productivity and wealth soared! Health suffered badlly (which perpetuates the failed system -- a sickening win/win situation!)

In any event, however, it is always worthwhile to abstract activities into roles, links, exchanges and co-creation of value, otherwise known as... ta-da! value networks.

http://www.value-networks.com/

Cordailly,

-j

John - you make the comment "In any event, however, it is always worthwhile to abstract activities into roles, links, exchanges and co-creation of value, otherwise known as... ta-da! value networks."

I have just finshed reading Reengineering Health Care by McNulty and Ferlie, which is a detailed analysis of why BPR doesn't work in healthcare, and this quotation speaks to me about the reality of value networks in hospitals:

"At operational levels of hospitals, much real power remains with a loose coalition of clinicians engaged in incremental development of their own service largely on their own terms and conditions..."

I am beginning to think the push to create richer networks is illogical, based on the increasing specialization of individual services in healthcare, and the intense competition between services for resources. "Value" is defined very differently by patients, health professionals, and management - to the extent that I find the term meaningless.

Perhaps the role of the consultant is first to understand the many definitions of "value" and then to bring that forward to senior management, before they go about creating a new policy to inspire change.

Susan, it's easy to be misdirected by the flat and facile way that John seems to present value-networks as a cure-all for every organisational and social ill.

Your own observation points to the dangers of ungoverned and unprincipled networks. I myself believe that such networks have value to the extent that they are supported by infrastructure - this often doesn't feel like support, however, because infrastructure constrains natural networks, and networks often subvert infrastructure. And you get infrastructure fascists who depersonalise everything, and network fascists who resent any form of governance or structure. This is why I believe John's rhetorical flourishes not merely empty, but also dangerous, because they perpetuate that polarisation.

So I think in the real world infrastructure and networks are in a dialectical relationship, and if they recognise and acknowledge each other, they can leverage each other's strengths.

Returning to the topic of consultants, I am also surprised by Dave's sweeping reductivism. My original post was an attempt to broaden and diversify the very flat and undifferentiated sense of what a consultant is. Maister's metaphor of healthcare approaches was a vehicle to do that (I also don't really understand why Dave and Wayne reduce a helpful metaphor into a direct analogue - metaphors are not intended to be perfect matches, but productive comparisons where similarities illuminate and differences stimulate useful questions).

Dave's response - consultants are butterflies or bees is unhelpfully flattening - as Clive's observation highlights. There is far more variety in the roles that consultants play, and your last comment Susan illustrates that (consultant as facilitator of sensemaking). Both we (the consultants) and our clients would benefit from a more differentiated perspective on how to form, set, deliver on (and charge for) appropriate expectations.

At the moment in my field of knowledge management, to return to Maister's model, there are too many organisations who are only prepared to pay for a quick fix bottle of pills, tell their bosses they are acquiring sophisticated expertise to fix their problems for them in a jiffy, and are simply not prepared to accept that they need to do the work of transformation themselves.

Patrick --

I expected better from you. Your asinine remarks break the cardinal rule of medicine and KM --

"Do no harm."

You ridiculous comment about infrastructure is very harmful. Are you a Fluffy Bunny? Newsflash: Infrastructure are networks (sic), they are very important value networks.

Quite to the contrary of your ignorant comments, robust infrastructure expands and extends natural, organic networks. Governance, for example, is a role, an essential role in flourishing value networks.

The interdependence of roles in a thriving organizational ecosystem is critical, particularly infrastructure and governance. It is a foundation of value networks. It is only when this value coexistence is not recognized that problems arise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrastructure

That networks are subversive is a stunningly immature view. Your adolescent notion of polarization, and the network polemic, is more suited to your naïve KM audiences.

Patrick, all nature consists of interconnected organisms, individuals, groups and systems, aka, networks.

“So I think in the real world infrastructure and networks are in a dialectical relationship…”

Utter nonsense. Infrastructure are networks. (sic)

You need to brush up. You’re lost.

Anyway, your clumsy, naive remarks are very revealing and have put yourself in an entirely new light.

Cordially,

John

Susan --

Thanks for your excellent comments. You are making a potent case for value networks, they are self-evident!

"At operational levels of hospitals, much real power remains with a loose coalition of clinicians engaged in incremental development of their own service largely on their own terms and conditions..."

ABSOLUTELY spot-on. This is a value network. Bravo!

"I am beginning to think the push to create richer networks is illogical, based on the increasing specialization of individual services in healthcare, and the intense competition between services for resources."

Gasp! Susan, Patrick, et al, one does NOT 'create' a value network. (?) Yikes! One does not 'push' networks or create 'richer' networks.

Please, if you can take away one thing from this thread is that you only SERVE networks.

""Value" is defined very differently by patients, health professionals, and management..."

Absolutely. You are beginning to make the transformation to value networks. Hoorah, you are on the right track, nice work!

"- to the extent that I find the term meaningless."

Hang in there Susan, it will become meaningful. In fact, the first application of value network analysis is sensemaking and creating meaning. You are on your way!

"Perhaps the role of the consultant is first to understand the many definitions of "value" and then to bring that forward to senior management..."

Bravo again Susan! You have discovered network exchange analysis --

• Validate or disprove that the network pattern fits its espoused purpose.
• Clarify roles and participant attributes.
• Identify patterns of reciprocity.
• Reveal key value linkages, chains of causality, and “missing links.”
• Show overall patterns of value creation or value loss.
• Provide insights into whole network optimization.

As you message illustrates, value networks are self-evident, axiomatic; they augment, amplify and eventually supplant conventional methods and wisdom.

Nice going! Thank you. It is fun/interesting to observe when people make the cognitive leap over the boundaries that constrain them, particularly in the network domain.

Cordially,

-j

Dave - looks to me like Maloney has highjacked your blog for promoting his Value Networks schtick. I am with you and Drucker and the butterflies and the bees.

Doug Engelbart'a bootstrap theory of consulting made the same "cross pollination" points many years ago.

I particularly like your request for specific definitions of value --it is surely "in the eyes of the beholder"

I don't follow your blog nor the google group's noise,but in cleaning out my email I saw your post to the group and,due to my seeing you present in person at a Maloney-organized gig,followed the ant trail here.

In case you have not seen Despair Inc. demotivational posters, here is one on consulting that reinforces your point.

http://despair.com/consulting.html

Dave,
Given that you now have 360 posts, and 1000 responses I think it important for a long-time troll reading your blog to mention that this thread contains an important first, I think, for your blog. The first use of the word "asinine" in response to a post. I think this is an important step to take. It indicates a more diverse group of readers who are getting into the spirit of things! Woohoo!! I love it! More use of the word "asinine" is strongly encouraged by this troll.

BTW - None of this is tongue in cheek. I really do believe that getting this sort of exchange going is important. Of course being aggressive in language is easy when you aren't looking someone in the eye. A good solid argument is a lot more convincing to those of us out there that may actually be swayed by the arguments presented, but calling someone a name is allowable. Not very compelling, but certainly allowable.
Wayne

John --

By my faith! For more than forty years I have been [doing value networks] without knowing anything about it, and I am much obliged to you for having taught me that.

Gently, human, bourgeois,

-c

Dear Christian --

Fantastic! That is exactly the most common epiphany of the value networks perspective.

Congratulations.

-j