I am always amazed by the diversity of approaches consultants use in their work. However, it does concern me when these approaches seem to vary over time, with almost each implementation seeming to be different. Is this normal for consultants?

I can't comment on whether this is normal or not but my sense is that it is not a good practice. Each intervention in the management, governance, operations or culture of an organization should be tailored to the current needs of the organization. However, the core process of intervention should be standardized, for three reasons. First, every change strategy should be a scientific experiment, a hypothesis-driven approach to reach an objective. If the process can be codified (allowing for necessary adaptation to local conditions and needs), it can be replicated and tested for efficacy.

Second, a codified and tested process can be continually improved. The common complaint about the book In Search of Excellence and other anthologies of "great companies” is that they are backward looking cases where the strategies were connected to outcomes without testing the specific strategy for efficacy. We have to be able to describe a process before we can predict its results, and only then can we develop the capability to control it.

Third, consistency and simplicity in a process increase your ability as a consultant to effectively communicate its value to clients and staff. If I understand the theoretical foundations, inherent values and effort required to implement a change process, I am more comfortable implementing it in my organization. Clients are right when they complain about consulting processes that are so theoretical and confusing that they are of little interest or perceived value. If you can't express the premise of your change model in 30 seconds, then you have no business using it.

Tip: Take any one of your intervention processes and commit it to paper, either through prose or (better) a process flow chart. Give it to a colleague for a client and see whether they understand it and could replicate it. Don’t worry about "giving away trade secrets." First of all, your process itself is probably not that unique. Second, like a good cook, your finished product owes a lot to your skills in implementation, regardless of who uses the same recipe.

© 2010 Institute of Management Consultants USA

I am new to consulting, having retired from executive management after almost 30 years. What are some of the ways I can differentiate myself from all the other retiring executives who are entering the consulting market?

First, "entering the consulting market" from business is not as easy as it appears. Having business experience and a robust contacts list is certainly a help, but no guarantee of effectiveness as a consultant or success as a business. There is a false logic to presume that business familiarity is all one needs to be a management advisor. This is like saying, "I have raised three kids, so I think I will go into pediatrics." Consulting, like medicine, is a profession, with specific skills, behaviors, body of knowledge. ethics and practices that need to be developed. The differentiation you seek comes not in your knowledge, but in how you apply it. Look at IMC USA's Management Consulting Competency Framework as a guide to build skills unique to consulting, many of which executives often lack because it was not required by their past job.

Second, look for your edge in area you are passionate about, and I don't necessarily mean subject matter. Start with a notable characteristic about you known to others in your industry. When you were an executive, what were the accomplishments of which you were most proud, on what projects did you contribute in a unique and productive way, and for what were you known in the industry? Were you the go-to person to facilitate tough negotiations, or the one who could find a skilled technician to solve a problem, or the one who saw new markets before anyone else? You most likely already have an edge - ask your coworkers, business partners and industry thoughtleaders.

Tip: Being exceptional in an area does not mean it will be highly valued over the next few years as you build your consulting practice. Balance what you are passionate about with the likely passion of the executives who will be using your services. Your past high value is only the starting point. Create a practice development strategy that builds new capabilities that retain value in an evolving market.

© 2010 Institute of Management Consultants USA

I am not sure I have a simple way to communicate to my client where their investments should be focused. Financial reports are OK, but do not drive home the message to the entire audience of stakeholders, managers, staff and vendors. Got any ideas?

The usual advice is to tailor your communications to each audience. It is perfectly appropriate in presenting your message, the takeaway of which may well be different for each audience, to use a different format, metaphor, learning style or timing. Financial reports may well be best for investors, a video of customers using products for the community, a process model for production staff, or a group presentation for the training staff. Previous Daily Tips (e.g., #25, #63, #174, and #953) have discussed data visualization and techniques for creating rich meaning from a relatively simple graphic. What you seem to be asking for is something that satisfies the financial, strategic and impact needs of a varied audience.

I suggest you consider a "waterfall" graph. A waterfall is a histogram with some cumulative value on the horizontal axis and some measure of impact or performance on the vertical axis. A typical example is to show cumulative revenue on the horizontal axis and profitability of individual investments, programs or products on the vertical axis, with the most profitable on the left, continuing to the least profitable on the right. As is typical of most organizations, at some point, the profitability will trend to zero or below, showing all unprofitable activities to the right. This is a powerful display of how a large company may well be like two separate companies, with one set of activities (those on the left) subsidizing the others (those on the right). Each stakeholder can now see clearly the attractiveness of "their" activities.

See a waterfall graph for the relative costs of CO2 abatement, in which lowest cost strategies are on the left (they actually make money) and the most expensive are on the right. Note how some of the most expensive strategies are often the most highly publicized, even though they show minimal impact and at high cost. The debate would surely be more vigorous over where the biggest bang for the buck comes by using this graph.

Tip: Selection of horizontal and vertical axes do not have to be financial. For a human services nonprofit, one could plot people served against relative impact. A consultant could plot cumulative time of an organization's processes vs reductions implemented by hte consultant. Link the axes to the core items of an organization's mission and you will drive a powerful discussion that can engage all stakeholders.

© 2010 Institute of Management Consultants USA