Re: Looking for a registrar...
Dave, I can't let this one go by, because there's so much I disagree with and some that, as a consultant, I find somewhat insulting.
1) You are paying someone to type your procedures. Normally, they get paid a great deal more than what you would pay a typist.
And good ones - or even just reasonably competent ones - will deliver a great deal more than simply typing! Such as - finding out the information, putting it together in a logical order, considering alternative (and more user-friendly ways of presenting information), highlighting weaknesses and places where things don't make sense/don't connect... and that's just for a start. And one reason why they should be paid more. If all I was doing was typing something up a/I'd feel guilty because I'd know I was ripping the client off and b/I'd be bored out my brain and c/I'd find an alternative. Just typing? They could get a temp typist if necessary to do that, and cheaper. Have I told clients that? Yes!
2) You pay them to get aquainted with your processes, and even then, they might not understand them as well as they should.
True to some extent. But again good ones are experienced at process analysis and can pick things up very fast. Much faster (usually) than internal people could - that's why you get in consultants! and that's what they're supposed to do. No, they won't know the details - but many times, many organisations still struggle mightily with what
processes are and how to think 'process' as opposed to department/task/procedure.
3) If they write your documentation, then they have ownership... not you. You have to do things their way.
Oh, unfair and not true. I work very hard to make sure that if by any chance I do some of the writing, that my clients are fully involved, review them, and make all the important decisions, such as which format they prefer, what 'works' and feels right for their organisation. Because I
want them to own it, not me! And keep working to ensure that this happens. And the other good consultants I know have the same ethos. I doubt that any of theirs or my clients (for example) would say 'we had to do it their way'. This comment isn't fair or true. Again, good consultants will
work to make sure it belongs to the client and suits the client. Another reason you pay us.
They will undoubtedly have procedures that you don't like. I have seen one instance where the purchasing procedure stated that the Director of Purchasing initials all P.O.'s. Problem is they didn't have a Director of Purchasing, so they created the title for one person. Also, lack of ownership might lead to folks not following procedures.
Causes include: poor consulting, poor (missing??) review by client, failures on
both sides. Does it happen? Yes, unfortunately. But always? NO. Please don't tar 'all consultants' with just the bad examples; I find it insulting.
I've come across some unspeakably awful and incompletent so-called 'Quality Managers', 'Quality Engineers' and the like - but I certainly don't go around tarring all QMs with the same brush. Why, oh why is it that you think it's OK to do this about consultants?
Also some consultants will want to marry your company.
A few might, but good ones won't. Neither I nor any of my colleages do. Because good ones KNOW that their services will remain in demand, there will be new companies to help and new challenges.
Most consultants (certainly good ones) consult because we seek the challenge of difference and change, and we certainly don't want to stick in the same old company. If someone's just consulting 'cos they can't find a 'real job', they may. But they're not really worthy of the name consultant anyway.
ANY consulting assignment can only work if both parties are clear about their respective parts and roles. Both parties work together - it's a team approach, using consultants as temporary skilled resources. A failure is (usually) not solely on one side!!
Finally: could we please respect each others' value and roles?
