Ethics as a consultant

Hi and سلام to All

'In this post, the use of the male 'him/he' is used for easy reading and can be replaced by 'her/she' depending on who is reading the post. For the ladies out there, I make a profuse apology.

If you have read my previous posts you would have (hopefully) seen a trend of the need for ethical professional behaviour in consultants. The reason for this is that consultants only have their 'name' to market their services. Not like a 'resource' (refer to previous post),  that can hide behind the name of the company they work for. For example; You contract a company (lets say 'X') to run your IT infrastructure, the company has said all the right words and make themselves shine in the area of service delivery. When they start running your infrastructure you notice that something has gone wrong or is faulty resulting in a problem for your company. What do you do? Call in the account manager. You tell him to sort the problem out and you use the term; 'Company X really messed up' when anyone asks you about Company X or in general discussions.

Now take the same scenario for a 'consultant' (lets say 'Y'), you have contracted him to do a job based on your requirements, understanding and expectations for the deliverable. Now, being a good customer, you have adopted the principles of 'Project Management' and have project planned the deliverables (SCOPE and CHARTER). The project is hopefully a 'fixed cost' project and NOT 'Time and Material'! Yes, there is a difference. The consultant starts working on the deliverable and for some or other reason is sidetracked by some other work either at your or another company. The end result is that the project is not delivered on time OR the deliverable does not meet your expectations. The consultant tells you that the deliverables are not what is expected due to 'unforseen' circumstances. Now, when you are asked about the work that was done, what do you say? 'Y does not know what he is doing, he does not deliver what was expected'. Is this true? Look what has happened in your company in the past and you will see that it is, EVEN if the consultant is contracted through a third party.

So, what do I say about the ethical behaviour of the consultant? Remember, the consultant must make money in order to eat and drive that smart car of his. Taking into account that the consultant only has his name to get more work he has to do the honourable thing and 'not lie or tell untruths'. Take my word for it; this is difficult when an employee is making your life hell and preventing you from delivering what was agreed upon. Does the consultant make the concious decision to remove himself from the project due to 'non performance' or 'loss of name'? Yes or No? I say no, unless there is evidence of 'fraudulent activity' that could result in him going to jail in the event that he does not bring it to the authority's attention and meeting 'Baba' (been in this situation many times) or if management has alterior motives and they use him to build a fictitious (not real or true; imaginary or invented) case against another person. The consultant must tell the truth as he sees it or what he has observed. To do anything else is, in my humble opinion, unethical.

Hopefully, your company has demanded that the consultant has certification from international bodies, these bodies have a 'code of conduct'. While each one seems different, they are, in principle, not. He must give the client the best advice based on knowledge and expertise, this includes the naming of the person who has prevented him from doing his work. Why? It informs management that there is a person in the company that is not bothered with management's decision to employ the consultant. The end result is, in my experience, management's approval for identifying another problem and bringing it to their attention. The downside is that the person will always tell everyone that you did not do your work.

So, what does the consultant do in reality? He MUST determine how management think as they will determine whether he gets paid or not. His decision on what he tells management is based on the way they think. Trust me, this is not easy. He should also have a project closure/handover meeting with a report that  indicates to management the responses he received from the employees. Why you ask? Easy, the report is not 'official' and can be used by management for whatever purpose.

Another one is; if the consultant must deliver a 'findings report' as part of the deliverables, he should (MUST?) indicate the facts as identified. The 'tone' of the report is however different and is based on the audience; Auditors want the truth (as it is), management want it to indicate what they are doing well and minimise what they are not doing although the consultant should put this in the report. The one is a basic cake, the other is a cake with icing sugar which makes it easier to swallow. By doing this, I believe that the consultant has acted 'ethically', failure to do this is an indication that the consultant is primarily concerned with getting paid and not 'rocking' the boat. This usually ends up with a report that has content (?) but is NOT applicable or is of no value to the customer.

The question I ask the consultant out there, does the product you deliver add to the client's knowledge or is it toilet paper/shelf ware? If it adds value, the job has been done ethically else? You decide!

Please, to all the people that are making comments, make sure that your email address is valid, I can not respond to you if the mail bounces with 'Account does not exist'.

Comments are as always, appreciated.

Cheers and Wa Alaikum As-Salam until next time,

Enjoy the rest of the week and may you travel safely.

1. The primary function of a supplier,
2. The primary function of a consultant,
3. The differences between client and supplier,
4. The differences between supplier and consultant,
5. The differences between client and consultant,
6. Ethics as a consultant,
7. Ethics as an employee and
8. Is there ethics in business.

The differences between client and consultant

Hi and Salam to All,

I sometimes get asked by people at conferences when I tell them that I'm a consultant what I do. Some usually pass the comment(s) 'Do as I say, not as I do', 'Give me the money' or the latest, 'do you go to a company, get the information, deliver a report with recommendations that will not work?'. Well, there is a sense of truth in all the comments and observations, Consultants bring to a company their knowledge and experience which has been 'gained' from numerous clients or from a knowledgebase (see wiki as an example).  They also try to fit their knowledge to what they know about the client and what the client expects. The consultant also knows (or should) that every client is different even if they offer the same service to their customers.

The client on the other hand, knows (?) what his buisness is, mainly, making money. The main question is, the IT consultant usually only sees the IT management and staff and never the business. In an IT Risk Management consultation exercise, the consultant may meet business people but only related to the use of IT systems and solutions.

A business consultant on the other hand, usually sees the buisness andhardly ever IT unless it is for a new system that business has asked for a business person as the project manager. The Auditor on the other hand will meet with IT and business and (usually) has the ear of the Financial Director and the Board.

So, back to the comments the people made to me, The role of the consultant is based on what type of engagement it is; Business, Technical and/or Audit. Yes, a consultant can also be an auditor especially with regards to compliance to International Standards.

In my previous posts I mentioned the role of a professional consultant, where they had the best interest of the client at heart but would also like to make some money. I also mentioned the role of a client where they had to find a solution at the best possible price. Based on this, the consultant may require more time to get in-depth knowledge of the client, which is not usually accepted by the client as it costs money. The in-depth knowledge may be gained by interviews, questionnaires and/or Workshops after all, who knows the business better, the consultant or the client and how may the consultant make meaningful or valid implementable recommendations if there is no knowledge?

This is where the diffence is, the client must understand that in order for the consultant to deliver a meaningful document, they need to know the client (Who, What, Where, When, Why and How) this could be solved in one workshop (the cheapest?) from a consultancy cost point of view or through multiple interviews (more expensive?).

These requirements could be resolved in the Project Scoping meeting which unfortunately only occurs after the client has accepted the initial cost based on their 'expectations'.

In essence, there should be no difference between an employee of the client and the consultant, they should both have the 'interest' of the company at heart (?) and understand the business. Unfortunately, in todays world, this is often not true as the requirement for 'profit' exceeds the requirement for 'governance' which certain individuals in a certain country across the waters showed the rest of the world and in my honest opinion started the global recession.

Comments are as always, appreciated.

Cheers and Wa Alaikum As-Salam until next time,

Enjoy the rest of the week and may you travel safely.

1. The primary function of a supplier,
2. The primary function of a consultant,
3. The differences between client and supplier,
4. The differences between supplier and consultant,
   
5. The differences between client and consultant,
6. Ethics as a consultant,
7. Ethics as an employee and
8. Is there ethics in business.