Why do some clients (and some consultants, for that matter) insist on only one brand of assessments, approaches, processes, etc. when there are a range of proven and innovative options?

Be careful here. Whether we develop them ourselves or adopt (or adapt) concepts developed by others, consultants can settle into allegiances from which we are hard to dislodge. Despite evidence to the contrary, we stay in our conceptual lanes and dismiss any concept that we think doesn't align with what we already know and use. For example, even though there are a dozen nuanced approaches to strategy, we only use the planning, environmental, transformation, cultural or other concept.

However easy it is for us, this is ultimately a disservice to our clients. Our obligation is to provide the best advice to each client, not just what's easiest for us to deliver. Also, consider why there are so many variations on a theme in assessments, approaches, etc. for consultants. It's because, as consultants, we frequently repackage and rename an old concept, write articles and a book, heavily promote it as "revolutionary" and dismiss other good ideas that aren't consistent. I am a firm believer that there is rarely anything new under the sun and, as we repeatedly discover, each "revolutionary" management concept has its adherents before being cast off in favor of the next variation.

Tip: This has gotten to be such a problem, especially in its power to squelch debate about improving a discipline, that it has led to the Oath of Non-Allegiance, which states: I promise not to exclude from consideration any idea based on its source, but to consider ideas across schools and heritages in order to find the ones that best suit the current situation (more from my website). The movement is intended to end statements like, "This idea is not worth discussion. It doesn't include ______ criteria or align with the ______ method." As professionals, management consultants can do better than intellectual or methodological parochiality.

© 2010 Institute of Management Consultants USA

How should a consultant, not acting as a facilitator, just an observer, intervene when two members of a client staff are arguing? Is it better to just let the argument run its course or to intervene?

Whether you are a facilitator or not, your presumed independence and objectivity can be useful in resolving disputes. And if you understand the issues, you may be tempted to use your position to mediate. This does not, however, mean you should. Doing so depends on the arguing parties' trust in you as a neutral arbiter, the nature of the debate, and the implications of anyone's presumption that you "took sides," regardless of whether you did so or not.

Stay out of personal arguments that have nothing to do with the nature of your engagement. In fact, it might be prudent to remove yourself from the room and let the antagonists resolve this without you. In some cases, what appears to be an argument is instead two sides in "violent agreement." In cases like this, your entry into the mix may be very helpful, warranted and appreciated.

Tip: Know your capabilities and limits of your place in the client organization. Remember, it is unlikely you were hired to engage employees in their internal disputes. The risks are substantial if you do. If you feel you must intervene, approach your client sponsor with an offer to do so and take his or her direction.

© 2010 Institute of Management Consultants USA

Our client just told us all our products needed to be Section 508 compliant. I know this is a government requirement, but is this really necessary for non-public work products?

Section 508 refers to a provision of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 that requires federal agencies (and their consultants providing work products to be used as federal products) to make their online information accessible to people with disabilities. This makes sure information is provided in a form that everyone can use and benefit from. Legally, you are likely not required to deliver section 508 compliant work products for private sector clients.

However, as consultants, we are professionally obligated to maximize the access, use, and understanding of our work products, regardless of the client. Making your work products Section 508 compliant not only assures access, it is a "good (if not best) practice" and a valuable standard by which you can improve their consistency and quality. This is not just the law, and not just a good idea, but a way to improve the usability of your products for the potentially millions of people who might eventually use your work products or derivatives (e.g., that piece of text, chart or web page your client repurposes to the public). It’s the right thing to do.

The Section 508 guidelines address page layout and formatting, fonts, page and document numbering, images, tables, video captioning, HTML and CSS formatting, web page linking formats, etc. These apply to word processing, spreadsheet, webpage, multimedia, presentation. Some very good resources such as checklists are available.

Tip: Compare the Section 508 guidelines with your own company's document creation and publication guidelines. Oh, you don't have quality assurance standards for your communications? Here is a good and rigorously developed start to enhancing your consulting value and professionalism. A good place to get the basics is http://www.section508.gov/ (fully qualified URLs are a Section 508 good practice).

© 2010 Institute of Management Consultants USA