On our way to Evidence Based Consulting?

Master Thesis Organization Studies

On our way to Evidence Based Consulting? An explorative multiple case study research of the use of evidence to justify the consulting of management consultants.

Faculty of Social Science Department of Organization Studies Date: august 2010

Author: Ka Kin Pang Key words: Evidence based consulting, Evidence based management, Evidence based, Argumentation theory, Justification, Sources of evidence, Type of evidence.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION Details of student: - Name: Ka Kin Pang - ANR: 832069 - Telephone: +31 6 41047027 - Email: [email protected]

Name of the Supervisors: -

Name supervisor: Drs. R. Pranger

-

Name second reader: Dr. J. de Jong

-

Name of MTO evaluator: Drs. F. Tekle

Title of the Master Thesis Circle: Organizational development and the role of the consultant in particular

Title of the thesis: “On our way to evidence based consulting?”

2

Preface After months of hard work this thesis is finally finished! The beginning of this instructive period started in September of 2009 by looking for a topic. My own demand was that it has to be a topic that useful for my future carrier. After weeks of search, I finally found what I was looking for, ‘evidence based consulting’. Although it was a rather difficult topic, because the lack of literature on this topic, I was determined to writing about this topic and I’m still convinced that this topic is very useful for my future carrier. Besides, there was also a personal reason why I was determined to write about this topic. I started my educational carrier with an ‘economic intermediate vocational study (MBO), where I have learned much about businesses and entrepreneurship in general. After, I continue with an ‘economic higher vocational study (HBO), where I have acquired more knowledge about business administration and general management. After some time I asked myself the question: “what can I do with all of these knowledge?” During that time, I already figured out that I was more a generalist than rather a specialist. Through my former lecturer I came acquainted with the consulting. So I decided to focus my carrier in the consulting. I spent my internship in consulting firms and I even started a consulting firm with a few fellow students and my former lecturer during my study. After some time, I was really convinced that consultants are just doing something, as we earned a lot of money with our little consulting firm. After graduation, I raise again a question: “what is my specialism and where am I good at?” I couldn’t really answer this question. Although I already had a rather good knowledge base, but I still couldn’t place this knowledge in a broader perspective e.g. underlying reasons and mechanisms of applied science, theories and models. Therefore, I have decided to continue a new study at the University of Tilburg, Organization Studies. This study really opened my eyes and my insight knowledge about organizations and its phenomena’s. This study teaches my how to apply these knowledge, subject and test it in practice using scientific methods. This study basically gave my knowledge hands and feet’s, and useful tools to use utilize this knowledge in scientific research and practice. Through this study I became very interested in scientific research as I already saw a gap between science and consulting. But I couldn’t place it in any ways.

3

So back to beginning, I came across the concept of ‘evidence based consulting’ and I was convinced that this is what I was looking for. This really reflects on what I had in mind and this was the solutions to apply all of my acquired knowledge about organizations. So I was determined to focus on this topic, resulting in this thesis “On our way to evidence based consulting”. Evidence based consulting does change my way of thinking and the way of examine organizations. I have learned very much about this topic and how I can utilize this concept in my future carrier. And here is my thesis, a closing chapter to my educational carrier, but also a start to explore organizations in practice. In the end, I really want to thank some people during this period. First, I would like to thank all of the management consultants who have participated in my research and their precious time. Second, I would like to thank my fellow students in our thesis circle group for their supportive feedback. Further I would like to thank Dr. Jeroen de Jong and Dr. Fetene Tekle, the two second readers for their very harsh critique and feedback which really helped me to keep the focus and direction in my thesis. Last but not at least, I want to thank Drs. Rob Pranger as my supervisor. I really want to thank him for his patient approach, his feedback and instruction in the whole processes. He has really helped me a lot in guidance and motivation so I can keep going on. Without his supervision, I couldn’t finish this thesis in time. Writing this thesis has really changed my future perspective. …… On my way to evidence based consulting!

Ka Kin Pang August 2010

4

Abstract The consulting sector already exists since the late 19th century. The consulting sector had evolved during that time from a very small niche segment into a billion euro business. This industry already made an enormous progress in consulting services. This also inspires the growing interest of science in this industry. The need for new scientific knowledge and insight in the field of management consulting seems to be increasing considering to the amount of popularizing books and articles on this topic. The next step is therefore necessary to become ‘mature’ in this field with theory forming by means of management insights, models, theories and interventions that can be tested empirically. This calling seems to be inspired by the ‘evidence based’ movement, and it is starting to make its move. This therefore triggers the management and organization science literature to utilize a new organizational approach: evidence based consulting’: “A new formation of service innovation in the consultancy in which interventions are supported by empirical and scientific evidence, to improve the effectiveness of organizations” (Meeus et al., 2009, p. 79). However, ‘evidence based consulting’ is still hypothetical: if and to what extent consultants operate on the basis of this concept is not yet examined empirically. It is simply unknown how management consultants justify their consulting in practice, because no empirical research is done on this topic. How far we are from evidence based consulting? The goal of this research is to find out how consultants justify claims about the expected effectiveness of consulting by proving evidence to support these justifications and which factors determine the use of certain types of evidence. This research therefore wants to examine empirically this gap in the management consultancy and evidence based literature. The following research question can be formulated: “How do consultants justify their claim about the expected effectiveness of their consulting, what type(s) of evidence are used in that justification and which factors determine the use of certain type(s) of evidence?” This research can be characterized as an explorative research, as the theoretical basics are still indefinite in order to formulate hypotheses to determine relationships (‘t Hart et al, 1996). In 5

order to answer the research question, there has been chosen for a cross-sectional, qualitative and comparative design because the topic is examined through 16 semi-structured interviews in which data will be gathered at one moment in time. Each management consultant will be seen as one case and compared with other management consultants. Therefore, this research can also be characterized as a multiple case design in which multiple cases are compared in order to explore specific factors that determine the use of certain type(s) of evidence. Furthermore, this multiple case studies design allows us to conduct an in-depth investigation of multiple consulting cases in which interventions are used in certain organizational context, how consultants justify claims about the expected effectiveness of their consulting using types of evidence to support those claim. Out of the results, it can be concluded that consultants justify their claim about the expected effectiveness of their consulting from different sources of evidence. These sources of evidence together can form the basis of effective consulting in which consultants can draw data, information and knowledge out of these sources to justify their consulting. The empirical results show that consultants justify their consulting based on mainly on their own professional experience, the clients experience and preferences, and data and information from the local context and environment, and lesser from scientific knowledge. Although, the usage of these sources is determined, the role of these sources and how this is used is much more important in the justification. After knowing that consultants justify their effective consulting based on the four sources of evidence, it still doesn’t say anything about the credibility of their consulting. The results show that most of the consultants justify their consulting based on anecdotal and testimonial evidence. That is based on what they have seen, their understanding and interpretation of the organizational problem (anecdotal evidence) and what is in their eyes the best solutions (testimonial evidence). Despite the fact that consultants can face a new problem and in fact doesn’t know how to deal with it, then conclude that intuition and feeling will play a major role, determined as hypothetical evidence. Next to it, there are consultants who use statistical and analogical evidence which is pointing more directed to the principles of evidence based consulting. These consultants are making the combination between science and practice.

6

The use of statistical and analogical evidence is more credible because theories and model are derived from systematic review of the reality and practice. The use of certain types of evidence can be determined by many factors. Out of the results the following factors are derived: attitude of the consultant, shared knowledge base, abstraction level, clients support, scientific skills and time, which can have either positive as negative influence on the use of certain types of evidence. These factors can either facilitate or impede the adoption of evidence based consulting, thus also facilitation of the use of certain types of evidence. “Are we on our way to evidence based consulting?”, the answer is, it depends. Due to the mentioned factors, there is still a long way to evidence based consulting. However, there is a little development in the consulting sector which tents to the concepts of evidence based consulting, is that there are more and more researchers, scholars and professors who make the switch to the consulting. Although, most of the consultants don’t use statistical and analogical evidence to proof their consulting, it doesn’t imply that the current way of working is not effective. The effective consulting may not be explicitly examined, but it can be assumed that the current way of working is establish through endless discussions by experts or even professors in consultancy firms. On the other hand, it is noticeable that evidence based is much more developed in the United States of America, where universities and consultancy firms are embedded in large multinationals. “Is evidence based then in anyways feasible in the consultancy sector?” Yes, it is. There is still a large market undiscovered where social science and consultancy can contribute to the understanding and development of organizations.

7

Contents Preface ..................................................................................................................................3 Abstract .................................................................................................................................5 1.

2.

3.

4.

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 10 1.1.

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 10

1.2.

Research problem .......................................................................................................... 12

1.3.

Research goal and question ........................................................................................... 13

1.4.

Relevance of the research.............................................................................................. 14

1.5.

Construction of the thesis .............................................................................................. 14

Theoretical background ................................................................................................ 15 2.1.

Argumentation theory ................................................................................................... 15

2.2.

Evidence based consulting ............................................................................................. 17

2.3.

Sources of evidence ....................................................................................................... 19

2.4.

Types of Evidence .......................................................................................................... 22

2.5.

The organizational problems and interventions ............................................................ 24

Methodological section ................................................................................................ 27 3.1.

Research design ............................................................................................................. 27

3.2.

Sample strategy ............................................................................................................. 27

3.3.

Data collection ............................................................................................................... 28

3.4.

Data analysis .................................................................................................................. 29

3.5.

Quality indicators ........................................................................................................... 30

Results and Analysis ..................................................................................................... 31 4.1.

The characteristics of the consultants ........................................................................... 31

4.2.

The characteristics of the consulting cases.................................................................... 32 8

4.3.

The Justification of interventions................................................................................... 35

4.4.

The advantage and disadvantage of evidence based consulting................................... 41

4.5.

Impression of the interviews ......................................................................................... 46

5.

Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 48 5.1.

How do consultants justify their claim about the expected effectiveness of their consulting? ..................................................................................................................... 48

5.2.

What type(s) of evidence do consultants use in their justification? ............................. 51

5.3.

What factors determine the use of certain type(s) of evidence? .................................. 53

5.4.

Discussions ..................................................................................................................... 57

5.5.

Limitations and future research..................................................................................... 59

6.

References ................................................................................................................... 62

Appendix ............................................................................................................................. 67 A.

Semi-structured topic list ............................................................................................... 67

B.

Interventielijst ................................................................................................................ 71

C.

Results tables ................................................................................................................. 76

D.

Quotes tables ................................................................................................................. 79

9

1.

Introduction

1.1.

Introduction The consulting sector already exists since the late 19th century. The consulting sector

had evolved during that time from a very small niche segment into a billion euro business. The first consulting firm was Arthur D. Little, which only focused on efficiency and technical issues in manufacturing, like most of the consulting firms before 1950. Most of leading consulting firms arise during this period like McKinsey, Boston Consulting Group, Roland Berger, Price Waterhouse Coopers, but also Dutch consulting firms like: Berenschot and Twijnstra Gudde. In the first half of the 20th century most of the consulting firms started to offer specific specialization and business opportunities, now focusing more on designing, improving and systematizing the internal functioning of organizations and the marketing of products. Till the 1990’s, consulting firms were constantly developing new consulting services from strategic issues to IT infrastructures. However, until today, how far are we? This industry has already made an enormous progress in consulting services. This also inspires the growing interest of science in this industry. The need for new knowledge and insight in the field of management consulting seems to be increasing considering to the amount of popularizing books and articles on this topic. Is there for example progress in the form of systematic research and evaluation of interventions? The next step is therefore necessary to become ‘mature’ in this field with theory forming by means of management insights, models, theories and interventions that are tested empirically. Within the field of management and organization science the need for scientific support of theories and models are significantly increasing (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006). This calling seems to be inspired by the ‘evidence based’ movement, and it is starting to make its move. ‘Evidence’ is one of the trendy words that are used in society nowadays. People are searching for relevant, concrete and objective information and are looking for supportive ‘evidence’ which can proof their right. The concise Oxford English dictionary (1984) gives a number of definitions:

10

“Clearness, obviousness, indication, sign, facts making for a conclusion, in support of, information (personally or drawn from documents) tending to establish fact, serve to indicate, attest.” ‘Evidence based’ seems to be the way of structural development and improvement of the consulting services. ‘Evidence based’ proofs itself more and more in other professions like evidence- based medicine, evidence-based decision-making, evidence-based education. The roots of ‘Evidence based’ stem from medical research; ‘evidence based medicine’. Dr. David Sackett of the University of Ontario defines ‘evidence based medicine’ as: “The conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients.” (1997, p. 2.) This also triggers the management and organization science literature to utilize a new organizational approach: ‘evidence based management’ (Rousseau, Manning, Denyer, 2008; Rousseau, 2006; Learmonth en Harding 2006; Pfeffer en Sutton, 2006; Rousseau en McCarthy 2007). Responding to this development, it remains to be seen to what extent ‘Evidence Based’ is feasible in the consulting sector. Prof. Meeus of the University of Tilburg did an explorative study of the feasibility of ‘Evidence Based Consulting’ and argued that it is also possible to apply evidence based management in the consultancy sector for structural improvement of the services defined as ‘evidence based consulting’: “A new formation of service innovation in the consultancy in which interventions are supported by empirical and scientific evidence, to improve the effectiveness of organizations” (Meeus et al., 2009, p. 79). ‘Evidence based consulting’ could generate an impulse of innovation and renewal within the consultancy services, by using empirical and scientific founded knowledge, e.g. choosing interventions that have been proven effective. So basically, the central claim of evidence based consulting is that consultants should apply and use scientific knowledge to support their consulting in order to improve the legitimacy, quality and added value of their services (Meeus et al., 2009).

11

“Evidence based management … derives principles from research evidence and translates them into practices that solve organizational problems” (Rousseau, 2006, p.265). 1.2.

Research problem However, ‘evidence based consulting’ is still hypothetical: if and to what extent

consultants operate on the basis of this concept is not yet examined empirically. Consultancy practice shows that interventions are not always supported or based on scientific knowledge (Meeus et al., 2009), i.e. knowledge that meets the standards of scientific research. The commonly perceived image of management consultants is that they justify their interventions by reference to their own experiences or the experiences of someone else (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006a; Rousseau, 2006). Clients often cannot criticize the effectiveness of an intervention, but accept it due to the reputation of the consulting firm (Barends & ten Have, 2008). This image is aroused that management consultants are just doing ‘something’, while this image not empirical founded. Practical issues also play a major role. Providing scientific evidence requires more time than quick intervention and ‘cut and dried’ solutions. Clients often don’t need extensive scientific founded advice, but demands in simple, manageable and implementable knowledge without too much analysis and details. This brings us to the following research problem; on the one hand the ideal of ‘evidence based’ and on the other hand the difference image people have about how management consultants justify their intervention e.g. they are just doing ‘something’, intuition, experiential knowledge. It is simply unknown how management consultants justify their consulting in practice, because no empirical research is done on this topic. How far we are from evidence based consulting? In sum, there is much literature concerning ‘evidence based management’ (Cascio, 2007; Learmonth and Harding, 2006; Molier, 2007; Pfeffer and Sutton, 2006; Rousseau, 2006, 2007). However, there has not been written much about ‘evidence based consulting’. Actually the literature evokes the suggestion that there is still a long way to go before we reach the ideal ‘evidence based consulting’, but that is still a proposition. How consultants justify their consulting is not yet thoroughly examined empirically. What type of evidence do consultants use to support their consulting and what is the credibility of their justification? All in all, these 12

are issues which have to be taken into considerarion. Ultimately, within the approach of evidence based consulting, effective consulting have to fit in the strategy of the consultant and the client. On the other hand, consultants have to find evidence to support practical hypotheses, research problems and interventions, and to test and put into practice (Meeus et al., 2009). 1.3.

Research goal and question The goal of this research is to find out how consultants justify claims about the expected

effectiveness of consulting by proving evidence to support these justifications and which factors determine the use of certain types of evidence. The basic assumption is that consultants claim that certain interventions are effective and need to be implemented in certain organizational problem situation. Consultants have to justify this claim by either implicit or explicit evidence and have it proved with evidence. There is no or hardly empirical research done on the nature of this justification and what type of evidence consultants use. This research therefore wants to examine empirically this gap in the management consultancy and evidence based literature. The following research question can be formulated: “How do consultants justify their claim about the expected effectiveness of their consulting, what type(s) of evidence are used in that justification and which factors determine the use of certain type(s) of evidence?” Base on the above research question, the following conceptual model could be represented.

Interventions

Organizational context Justification of consulting

Factors

Figure 1: conceptual model

13

1.4.

Relevance of the research From a scientific perspective, this research wants to find empirical evidence, which

support and declares how consultants justify their claims about the effectiveness of their consulting. The theoretical relevance of this research explicates how consultants rely on different sources in their daily operations to draw certain evidence e.g. knowledge, experience, data or information, to support their justification and the factors that is related to the use of certain evidence. These results could be a starting point of further theorizing and conceptualizing ‘evidence based’ in future research. This research provides more insight in this innovative approach of ‘evidence based consulting’ and how this concept can be improve and developed in the consultancy sector. From a practical perspective, this research gives more insight and understanding in the justification of management consultants and the credibility of their consulting. Further, it could lead to the adoption of the concept ‘evidence based consulting’. This could be useful for consultancy firm that want to change their way of founding consulting to improve their legitimacy, quality and added values in the consultancy sector. Furthermore, consultancy firms could use the concept ‘evidence based’ to benchmark other management consultants in order to compare and set the standard. Finally, proponents of evidence based management believe that evidence based management could lead to competitive advantage, valid learning and continuous improvements, and gives the organization legitimacy because of the high standard of consulting (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006B; Molier, 2001; Rousseau, 2006). 1.5.

Construction of the thesis The structure of this thesis is as follows. In chapter 2, a theoretical framework is

developed in order to define the main concepts of this research. In chapter 3, the methodological framework is developed in order to construct the procedure of the research design, data collection and data analysis. In chapter 4, the results of the data will be presented and analyzed. Finally, this thesis is completed by the conclusion, discussion and recommendation for future search in chapter 5.

14

2. Theoretical background In this chapter the relevant literature will be reviewed to construct the theoretical framework in order to interpret the empirical results. Successively we will describe the literature about argumentation theory in chapter 2.1., evidence based consulting in chapter 2.2., the sources of evidence in chapter 2.3., type of evidence in chapter 2.4., and organizational problems and interventions in chapter 2.5. These theoretical concepts will form the framework and the leading theme of this research. 2.1.

Argumentation theory Drawing from the principle of the argumentation theory of Toulmin (1958), the intent is

to focus on the justificatory function of argumentation, which means that if one has a certain claim of interest; he should then provide justification for it. Toulmin believed that reasoning is not so much about reaching a conclusion based on initial sets of propositions or involving the discovering of new ideas, but more a process of testing and sifting already existing ideas and an act achievable through the process of justification (1958). The central goal of argumentation theory is to increase the insight of an argumentation as verbal convincement, an attempt to solve a difference of opinion by putting statements forward to justify or to bust a certain conception (Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 1987). Drawing deeper from the argumentation theory, Toulmin propose an analysis model which consists of certain components that construct the argumentation. In below figure the analysis model is presented. Data

Claim

Warrant Reservat Backing Qualifier

Figure 2: analysis model of Toulmine (1987) 15

The three main components in argumentation theory include the data, warrant and claim. Data refers to the facts or opinions of a fact. The claim refers to the conclusion of a fact. The warrant is the connection which advances the data to a claim. The second set of components may not be always necessary in the justification, but may be present. The additional three components include backing, rebuttal and qualifier. Backing refers to the evidence or support for assumptions in the warrant. Rebuttal recognizes the conditions under which the claim will not be true. Qualifier is the probability or level of confidence of the claim. Note that the function of the warrant and backing is basically the same, as both components support the relation between the data and claim. However, if the warrant is not convincing enough, one should use the backing to show that it is true. The difference is that both components are associated on a different level of justification / on equivalent levels. The argumentation theory is an important concept within the scope of this research, as the justification by consultants also consists of argumentations and statements which proof their effective consulting. The components of this theory are mainly data, claim, warrant and backing. The basic idea is as follows: the data refers to the information that flows from a certain situation or organizational problem. Whereas the consultant will claim that certain interventions will be effective in that specific organizational problem situation. Based on experience, intuition, explicit data or any kind of knowledge or information, the consultant will try to justify the claim by connecting the data (warrant). Still, some would argue that warrant is not enough to convince the client or to justify the claim. Followed by the backing, the consultant is able to support assumptions in the warrant by providing evidence that proof the claim right en credible.

16

2.2.

Evidence based consulting An inspection of the official website of council consultancy firms (Ooa and Roa)

indicates that explicit reference to evidence based consultancy among the Dutch consultancy firms is lacking (Meeus et al., 2009). This simple observation raises the questions whether Evidence Based Consultancy is in any way feasible within the consultancy sector. However, to which extent consultancy firms operates based on this concept is not yet tested empirically. Proponents (Meeus et al, 2009; Barends and Ten Have, 2008) argue that applying evidence based consulting is a way to improve the quality of a consultants’ intervention and to contribute to the professionalization of the sector. Furthermore, evidence based consulting forces both consultant and client to explicate consideration and motivation toward a problem statement, which make it possible to gain control and guarantee of one decision. Broesskamp Stone and Ackerman (2007) indicate that evidence based in the health care sector is based on three criteria’s. 1. Decisions and interventions must base on professional norms; expert, reliable, cautious, independent and good fellowship (Professional norms). 2. Decisions and interventions must base on recent scientific-oriented expert- and practical knowledge, and the emphasis on empirical results and scientific theories and models (Knowledge infrastructure). 3. Applicability of evidence based consulting within a context that put the emphasis on the procedure and characteristics of a specific circumstance (context sensitivity). Meeus et al., (2009) are convinced that this approach in the health care sector is also suitable for evidence based consulting. Implementing evidence based consulting means that management consultants have to consider the basic values, knowledge and context. These criteria’s are consistently connected to each other and forms together a framework to apply evidence based consultancy. Unfortunately, implementing Evidence based consultancy is not that easy as it sounds. Considering the criteria which consultants have to take into account, some argue that professional norms (code of conduct) of consultants could only be verified with members of the Dutch council of consultancy firms, not for the whole consultant’s population. The same goes for

17

the knowledge infrastructure. This means that consultants have to share their knowledge and communicate this openly among all consultants in order to work thoroughly evidence based. Context sensitivity means that consultants have to take the environment and specific situation into consideration. In this case, the consultant could examine the boundary conditions in which the intervention have to take place. While best practice is also a suitable method to examine the boundary conditions, although not formalized and systematic knowledge. We could expect that consultants and their clients will work in a pragmatic way, even when they don’t know why it is effective, they will probably use it. Although these criteria’s could not be fully realized in practice, we could still assume that these points are applicable in this research to some extent. The use of knowledge that is related to specific context and that are based on specific basis elements makes evidence based consulting not only feasible, but also useful (Meeuw et al., 2009).

18

2.3.

Sources of evidence Still, there is no conformity of what ‘evidence based’ really is. In this context, there was

a common assumption that evidence was research evidence and more specifically, research evidence from the quantitative traditions (Sackett et al. 1997). Through the application of a randomized controlled trail (RCT), systematic reviews and meta-analyses, evidence would reach the top of evidence hierarchy, which counts as the golden standard (Rycroft-Malone, 2003). Nevertheless, the differences between physic science and social science are already known. It is not always possible to apply a RCT, due to fundamental limitations. Social behaviour and its factors are more difficult to capture and to remain constant compare to physical science. Although the usage of fact and statistics has made it progress in the social science in the last 15 years. According to Rycroft-Malone (2003) the role of scientific evidence is suggesting that the nature of evidence is broader than evidence derived from research. In this research, ‘evidence’ is proposed as: “Knowledge derived from a variety of sources that has been subjected to testing and has found to be credible (Higgs & Jones, 2000, p. 311).)” Based on this definition, two basic questions can be asked. Where does knowledge come from and what is the credibility of this knowledge? These two questions need to be answered in order to identify the variety of sources in which consultants acquire their evidence and to what extent these sources has been subjected to testing and had found credible. The literature distinguishes several typologies of evidence. The most relevant concepts of evidence will be discussed. According to Rycroft-Malone et al., (2004) ‘evidence based’ generated from four different sources of evidence in which medical practitioners use in clinical practice. These sources of evidence are also appropriate in this research as the same sources can be found and used in the consulting process. Scientific research Research evidence has assumed priority over other sources of evidence in the delivery of evidence based health care (Rycroft-Malone et al., 2004). However, such evidence rarely attains absolute certainty and may be changed as new research emerges. Research evidence is socially and historically constructed (Wood et al. 1998a, 1998b; Higgs & Titchen 1995). It is not 19

certain, contextual and static, but dynamic and eclectic (Rycroft-Malone et al., 2004). Although, research evidence is able to proof the effectiveness of interventions, it is less certain and less value free as it is accepted because of multiple interpretations of research by different stakeholders exist. This could imply that it is necessary to translate and specify evidence in order to make sense in certain context of the organization. Finally, all these factors highlight that research evidence, although crucial to improving patient care, may not on their own inform practitioners’ decision-making (Thompson et al. 2001a, Bucknall 2003). Professional experience Knowledge that is acquired through professional practice and life experiences is also a type of evidence according to Rycroft-Malone et al., (2004). This type of evidence is called: ‘practical knowledge’, ‘professional craft knowledge’ or ‘practical know-how’ (Eraut, 1985; Oakeshott, 1962; Titchen, 2000). This knowledge is expressed and embedded in practice and is often tacit and intuitive (Rycroft-Malone et al., 2004). Rycroft-Malone et al., (2004) argue that evidence based not only required professional craft knowledge and reasoning, but requires such knowledge and reasoning to integrate the four different types of knowledge. Tacit, experiential forms of knowledge are persuasive and have a reciprocal, reinforcing relationship with ‘scientific’ evidence or research (e.g. Dopson et al. 1999). Research evidence is more powerful when it matches professional experience; conversely, when research and professional experience do not match, its use in practice can be variable (Ferlie et al. 1999). This suggests that improving practice requires more than accessing new knowledge; it requires skills in reasoning to integrate that knowledge into practitioners’ existing knowledge frameworks (Higgs & Jones 2000). Clients experience and preference The third source of evidence that contributes to clinical practice is the personal knowledge and experience of patients and clients (Rycroft-Malone et al., 2004). Here are two types of evidence available and need to be accessed by consultants: evidence from clients’ previous experiences of care, and evidence derived from clients’ knowledge of themselves, their organization and processes, i.e. client’s previous experience of consulting and evidence derived from client’s knowledge of their organizational problem.

20

Local context and environment In the course of improving the organization and processes, consultants may draw on: audit and performance data; client’s stories and narratives; knowledge about the culture of the organization and individuals within it; social and professional networks; information from 360 feedback, i.e. feedback from the fullest possible constituency of stakeholders; local and national policy (Rycroft-Malone et al. 2003, McCormack et al. 2002, Stetler et al. 1999). Stetler (2003) has described this evidence source as ‘internal evidence’. She suggests that it comes primarily from systematically but locally obtained information, including data from local performance, planning, quality, outcome and evaluation activity (Stetler, 2003). The relatively meaning of each of these four sources may vary in each decision. The size of the circle – thus, the impact, differs from each situation. ‘Evidence based’ reside on the cutting surface of the circles. Below figure illustrates how different sources of evidence come together and form the basis to justify decisions.

Figure 3: sources of evidence

21

2.4.

Types of Evidence Based on the sources of evidence alone it cannot be concluded what the credibility is of

these evidences. In the review of the literature on evidence, it can be concluded that for evidence to enhance the acceptance of a claim, the evidence has to be recognized, cognitively processed, and judged as legitimate (Reynolds and Reynolds, 2002). There was a common assumption that evidence was research evidence and more specifically, research evidence from the quantitative tradition (Sackett et al., 1997). However, credibility refers to the objective and subjective components of the believability of a source or message, meaning that subjective components also play a role in the nature of evidence. In addition, evidence plays an important role in many academic disciplines like the health care, law, psychology, science and argumentation in which all of these discipline have made their own classification of evidence. After reviewing the different literature of these disciplines it can be concluded that the types of evidence used are common like and that there is a certain hierarchical credibility of the evidence. In below classification of evidence the following scholars has been included; Seech (1997); Sackett (1997); Hoeken (2001); Koballa (1986); Allen & Preiss (1997); Baesler & Burgoon (1994); Reynolds & Reynolds (2002); Reinard (1998). Hypothetical evidence Hypothetical evidence is a convincing but fictional event with enough detail to feel real. A consultant use a hypothetical situation to illustrate what will happen, to whom it happen, where and when it happen. Most of the time consultants use hypothetical evidence based on their intuition. Hypothetical evidence is considered as very weak positive evidence, because this is not based on facts, but based on hypothesized and logical situations. Anecdotal Evidence Anecdotal evidence generates for a description of one, of small number of specific case. This type of evidence is based on a consultant’s observation of the specific organizational situation whereas he describes what happened, who was involved, where and when it happened. Anecdotal evidence is usually based on facts and figures that are systematically derived from the specific organizational situation. Anecdotal evidence is considered as weak supportive evidence because it does not proof a claim. 22

Testimonial / expert evidence Testimonial or expert evidence refers to an established or trustworthy authority such as educational degree, publication and work experience of professional that is demonstrate his expertise on the topic. Although, testimonial of credible persons could strengthen an argument, most of people accept it without question and without their own understanding of it. Testimonial/ expert evidence is considered as moderate strong supportive evidence, because this is based on previous experiences of the consultants which are based on factual events. Statistical evidence Statistical evidence refers to an empirical analysis or to the results of a methodological or scientific experiments or investigations. Consultants may use a well developed methodological way to examine a practical problem or refer to an empirical analysis by others in order to proof certain effectiveness. Evidence from well designed non-experimental study e.g. cohort, case control or cross-sectional studies including qualitative methods are classified as statistical evidence. Statistical evidence is considered as fairly strong supportive evidence, because this evidence is based on systematic collection of factual data. Analogical evidence The last type of evidence is analogical evidence. Analogical evidence is an explanatory or modeling of the phenomenon by means of a comparison with an already understood phenomenon. Analogical evidence must refer to a quantitative research which supports the consultant’s data which demonstrates measured effectiveness and benefits and which can be applied generally e.g. long term randomized controlled trial, systematic review, and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Analogical evidence is considered as strong supportive evidence as the relationship between certain variables is determined and seen significant.

23

Type of evidence

Definition

Credibility

Hypothetical

Reference to a believable but fictional situation with enough detail

Very weak positive

situation

to feel real.

evidence

Anecdotal evidence

Reference to a description of one, of small number of specific case

Weak supportive evidence

Testimonial

Reference to an established or trustworthy authority or credible

Moderate strong

evidence

source

supportive evidence

Statistical evidence

Reference to an empirical analysis or to the results of a

Fairly strong supportive

methodological or scientific experiments or investigations.

evidence

Reference to an explanatory or modeling of the phenomenon by

Strong supportive evidence

Analogical evidence

means of a comparison with an already understood phenomenon Table 1: types of evidence

2.5.

The organizational problems and interventions There are many literatures on the subject of interventions. However, no literature is

complete and their way of structuring interventions are different, and it is most dependent on the scholars’ conviction. Interventions could be defined as: “Interventions are the conscious activities in which one of more change agents takes in order to achieve a change process” (Cummings and Worley, 2009; De Caluwe and Vermaak, 2004; French and Bell, 1999). The most important characteristic of interventions is that interventions are based on underlying goals and that big differences between interventions are more of less about its active principles, its approach, its human image and the norms, values and conviction that lies behind (Caluwe and Vermaak, 2004). Going from this perspective, it is necessary to distinguish types of interventions and how this is used in specific organizational problems/ situations. According to the empirical research of de Caluwe and Reitsma (2006) on ‘the competence of consultants in organizational change projects’, there is a significant relationship between the goal of the change, the organizational context in which the change occurs and the intervention that is used in that specific case. So basically, the claim that certain interventions works better when it fits the organizational context and the goal of change is already examine

24

empirically. The active principle of interventions and the effectiveness criteria of an intervention assume that an intervention has a certain goal: the consultant utilizes a certain activity (intervention) in order to reach a specific goal or to solve a specific problem. The active principle of interventions is helpful to choose for the best change plan for a certain problem within a certain organization (Caluwe and Vermaak, 2004) “It makes it easier to communicate changes with each other, in order to recognize and to typify interventions” (Twijnstra and Gudde, 2007). To give a brief and clear overview of the leading literature of intervention, this research will further elaborate on the active principle and the classification of interventions composed by de Caluwe and Reitsma (2006) in their empirical research on “the competence of consultants in organizational change projects”. In their research, an extensive literature study has been conducted in order to classify types of interventions and to use certain intervention within specific organizational context. In this list of classification, the work of the following scholars has been included; Cummings en Worley (2005); Schein (1969); Kubr (2002); Keuning en Eppink (2004);Boonstra (2004). This typology is used because this is the most well-known, extensive intervention model in the Netherlands and still has great influences on interventions until today. In the table on the next page, an overview of the composed classification of types of organizational problems is presented. See appendix B for the complete classification of interventions and matching interventions methods.

25

Organizational problem

Active principle

The focus on diagnose and problem solving

To get a hold on the nature and cause of an organizational problem and to make people aware of the necessity of organizational change.

The focus on strategic issues

To stimulate the future direction of the organization, to form this future image and to share this vision.

The focus on short term adaptation of organizational structure or cooperation’s

To assemble facilitation and situation to make the organizational change possible.

The focus on improving the business performance

To assemble measures of organizational processes in order to improve the results.

The focus on the motivation of employees

To stimulate the motivation of the employees in order to improve the flexibility of the organizational and organizational performance.

The focus on internal control

To provide comprehensible progress of the quantity and quality of tasks.

The focus on training and development

To acquire and learn concepts and skills in order to increase the insight of employees.

The focus on processes between people

To improve social processes in the organization e.g. interpersonal relationships, functioning of the team or relations between teams.

The focus on sustainable learning and change

To improve social processes in organization and maintain the process of interaction and communication.

Table 2: classification of organizational problems

26

3.

Methodological

section

In this chapter the research methods will be discussed which we have used to examine the research question. Within the social science, the bridge between theory and empiric is build using the methodological framework. Successively, we will describe the research design in chapter 3.1., sample strategy in chapter 3.2., data collection in chapter 3.3., data analysis in chapter 3.4., and the quality indicators in chapter 3.5. 3.1.

Research design Scientific research can be distinguished into categories based on the principles of

researchers and the problem that is examined. This research can be characterized as an explorative research, as the theoretical basics are still indefinite in order to formulate hypotheses to determine relationships (‘t Hart et al, 1996). Furthermore, there has been chosen for a cross-sectional, qualitative and comparative design because the topic is examined through semi-structured interviews in which data are gathered at one moment in time. Each management consultant will be seen as one case and compared with other management consultants. Therefore, this research can also be characterized as a multiple case design in which multiple cases are compared in order to explore specific factors that determine the use of certain type(s) of evidence. Furthermore, this multiple case studies design allows us to conduct an in-depth investigation of multiple consulting cases in which interventions are used in certain organizational context, how consultants justify claims about the expected effectiveness of their consulting using types of evidence to support those claim. Finally, this study could provide more insight in the concept ‘evidence based’ and how this concept can be improve and developed in the consultancy sector. 3.2.

Sample strategy The unit of analysis will be the consulting process and the units of observation are

management consultants. The research samples are selected by randomly, snowball sampling strategy which means that an individual consultant make his business network ‘public’ in order to find more consultants. Consultants were asked to suggest another expert that they may know who could offer more information. This process will be repeated until the number of consultant is contented. The data will be collected among Dutch consultants in the Netherlands, including

27

employees, freelancers and independent consultants. There are in total 16 management consultants that participated in this research. The following expertises are seen as management consultants with refers generally to the provision of business consulting services: strategy, operations, supply chain, finance, outsourcing, human resource and information technology. 3.3.

Data collection

Literature study This research has started with an in-depth literature study in order to find out what the state of art is of the relevant concepts of this research. This literature study has to be done in order to construct our theoretical framework and data collection methods e.g. constructing the semi-structured topic list. The relevant literature is selected via Web of Science, Google Scholar, the database of Tilburg’s University and Management Executive Base. The keywords to find literature in the search engines were: evidence based consulting, evidence based management, evidence based, argumentation theory, justification, sources of evidence, type of evidence, type of interventions. Furthermore, the reference lists were used to find more related articles. The aim of this literature study is to construct a theoretical framework in order to interpret the empirical results. Interviews Subsequently, interviews were used to collect data among the respondents in order to acquire more ‘rich texture’ information. There has been chosen for a semi-structured interview, in order to measure certain concepts by means of open questions. Besides, it leaves the respondents some space to bring in their own opinion and ideas within the framework. In total there were 16 interviews conducted among management consultants with different backgrounds and expertise. Construction of the semi-structured topic list The semi-structured topic list is based on the theoretical framework which was used as a guideline derived from the literature study. The semi-structured topic list consists of four parts. In the first part, some questions were asked about the background of the consultants. In the second part, the consultants were asked to reflect on a recent consulting case whereupon

28

questions were asked to describe the client, problem(s) and goal(s), the approach of the case and interventions used in the consulting case. In this part, a diagram of specific goals and intervention methods was presented in which the consultants can easily recognize and fill in. This diagram based on an existing intervention list composed by Caluwe and Reitsma (2006) in their empirical research on “the competence of consultants in organizational change projects”. This interventions list is derived from the work of multiple scholars; Cummings en Worley (2005); Schein (1969); Kubr (2002); Keuning en Eppink (2004);Boonstra (2004). In the third part, the consultants were asked to indicate the sources which they have used in their consulting case and provide justification for it. In the last part, the consultants were asked to give their opinion about the ‘evidence based’ concept’ and indicate the advantage and disadvantage of this concept. See appendix A for the semi-structured topic list. All the interviews are recorded and transcribed using an audio transcription program F4. 3.4.

Data analysis The data derived from the interview sessions are analyzed by means of two methods.

The first method is a typical qualitative method to analyze qualitative data like interviews by means of the coding method. The coding method consists of three steps. The first step is open coding which is the process of breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing and categorizing (Straus & Corbin, 1998). In the first step, the data is read carefully and fragmentize. After, the relevant fragments are labeled. The second step is axial coding whereby the data / fragments are put back together according to the code book which is constructed out of the theoretical framework. The last step is selective coding in which the core categories are indentified and systematically related it to other categories. The main purpose is to determine and explore relationships between categories in order to answer the research question. The second method is a rather subjective way of interpreting the data. During the interview and data analysis, some notes are made of remarkable conclusions given by the respondents. These subjective conclusions will be discussed in chapter 4.5. Impressions of the interviews.

29

3.5.

Quality indicators

Credibility – The credibility of on research is to determine causal relationships between concepts or variables (Yin, 1989). A causal relationship is determined when there is a correlation between variables and when there are not other intervening variables (Baker, 1994). In this case study, it is hard to determine relationships between the variables in qualitative research because there is no clear separation of the cases and the context in which it is examined. However, the causal relationships between the variables are determined by means of proper description of the context and the phenomena’s that occurred in the cases. So therefore, the causal relationship can be determined to some extent. Besides some possible relationships and conclusion are given that are derived from the empirical results. This allows the researcher to interpret the data in both objective and subjective way. This will increase the validity and reliability of the results. Transferability - The transferability of the results is moderate, because this research focuses on management consultant and within the scope of ‘evidence based’ to some extent. However, the main research question could also be put forward in other professions, because this questions is mainly focus on the justification of arguments, statements, claim, the use of types of evidence is the justification and it the credibility of the justification. The frameworks of this research could therefore also be used for other professions like, managers, researchers, teachers etcetera. Dependability – The dependability of this research will be achieved by accurate description and documenting all the steps and procedure that has been taken to conduct this research. This allows others to replicate this research or even improve the results. Some limitations are described in this research and some recommendations are given for future researches. Conformability – This research is characterized as an explorative, qualitative research. The conformability of this research is determined as moderate. Within a qualitative research it is hard to determine relationships between variables. However, by means of accurate data collection and data analysis, it is possible to draw conclusions and relationships to some extent, which allows the researcher to interpret in both objective and subjective way. Moreover, there is always a possibility of misinterpretation of the data. Therefore every step of data analysis is registered in a code book.

30

4. Results and Analysis In this chapter the analysis of the qualitative results will be presented. Subsequently, we will examine the step by step the consulting process, starting from the background characteristics of the consultants in chapter 4.1., the characteristics of the consulting cases in chapter 4.2., the justification of the consulting by consultants in chapter 4.3. Finally, in chapter 4.5. the advantages and disadvantages of evidence based consulting. 4.1.

The characteristics of the consultants In the first part of the interview, consultants were asked to indicate their characteristics as a management

consultant. The following characteristics are included: gender, education, experience and specialisms in order to determine the background of the consultants. Further, the consultants were asked whether they operate as independent consultant, whether they are certified consultants and associate with a branch organization. The results present a diversity of consultants within the sample. The total sample consists of 16 consultants, of which 6 female and 9 male consultants. The consultants are in general all high educated. In the sample, there are 3 consultants who have a Bachelor degree (Hoger beroepsonderwijs). The greater number of consultants has a Master degree (Wetenschappelijk onderwijs), which 4 of the consultants already have or taking their PhD. (Doctoraal) and 2 consultants have their MBA degree (Master of Business Administration). The average consulting experience of the consultants is 14 years, varying from 1 to 30 years. With regard to the specialism of the consultants, 7 consultants have indicated one specific specialism, 4 consultants indicate to have two specialisms and 5 consultants indicate to have multiple specialisms. Besides the six core specialism of consulting, other specialism’s are mentioned: project management, IT management, research in health care, logistics in health care, organization design, change processes / large scale interventions, learning and development, law and subsidiary. There are in total 11 consultants in the sample that operate as independent consultants and 4 consultants operated with in a consulting firm. 3 consultants are certified, which means that they have followed a certain educational program which legitimated them as specialized consultants in their expertise. In total there are 9 consultants who are also member of a particular branch association in their specific specialism. The following branch associations are mentioned: Roa (Raad van Organisatie van Adviesbureaus), Ooa (Orde van Organisatieadviseurs), ITSMF (Nederland, de bedrijfsvereniging voor IT-(service)management en –strategie), VLM (vereniging voor logistiek management), NVO2 (Nederlandse verenigng voor HRD-professionals in ontwikkelen en opleiden), NVAS (Nederlandse Vereniging van Adviseurs inzake subsidies en andere Overheidsstimuleringsregelingen) and VLO (vereniging voor logistiek ontwerpers). The results indicate that the total sample of consultants are all unique based on their backgrounds. In below table, an overview of the characteristics of the consultants is presented.

Cases Gender Education

1 F

2 M

3 M

4 F

X

X

X

6 M

7 M

8 F

9 M

10 M

11 M

X

X

12 F

13 F

14 M

15 F

16 M

X

X

X

X

20

22

X

X

Yes No Yes

Yes No Yes

MBO HBO WO

The characteristics of the consulting cases

5 M

PhD

X

X X

Other: Experience in Years Specialism Strategy

X X

X

X

MBA 20 X

12

10

Operations

X

X

Supply Chain

X

X

Finance

10

MBA 13

5

1

30

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Outsourcing

7 X

X

6

8 X

20

8 X X

X

X

HRM

X

Other: Independent consultant Certified consultant Member of branch association

28

Yes Yes Yes

X

X

Yes Yes No

Yes No Yes

Yes No Yes

X

X

Yes No No

No No No

No No No

X

X

X

No No No

Yes No No

No No Yes

X Yes No Yes

Yes No Yes

Yes Yes yes

No No No

Table 3: the characteristics of the consultants

4.2.

The characteristics of the consulting cases In the second part of the interview, consultants were asked to prepare a recently accomplished consulting case

and describe the characteristics of the consulting case. First, the consultants were asked to indicate the generally the consulting case which includes: type of client organization and the organizational problem. After, the consultants were asked how they approach the organizational problem and indicate which of the interventions they have used in order to solve the organizational problem(s). By means of an existing diagram, the consultants can easily select out the organizational problem(s), which are divided in 9 general organizational problems and the corresponding interventions of these organizational problems. This diagram is derived from multiple sources of theories (the complete diagram with details can be found in the appendix). There are in total 16 consulting cases mapped in this research. 4 of the consulting cases were done in a health care organization, 2 consulting cases were in a distribution/logistic organization and the other 10 consulting cases were done in diverse organizations. 4 consultants have indicated one specific organizational problem within the client organization. The other 12 consultants have recognized and indicated multiple organization problems in the client organizations. An overview of the case characteristics is presented in below table 4.3.

32

Cases

1

2

Private organization Type of client organization

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

X

X

X

X

X X X

Distribution organization

X

Industrial organization

X X

Construction organization

X

Consulting organization a. Focus on diagnose and problem solving b. Focus on strategic issue

X X X

c. Focus on short term adaptation of organizational structure or cooperation’s d. Focus on improving the business performance e. Focus on the motivation of employees f. Focus on internal control

Approach of consultant

X

Mix approach

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X X

X

X X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X X

X

X

X

g. Focus on training and development h. Focus on processes between people i. Focus on sustainable learning and change Expert approach Process approach

16

X

Agricultural organization

Type of organizational problem

15

X

X

Non-profit organization

The characteristics of the consultants

11

X

Governmental organization Health care organization

3

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

Table 4: the characteristics of the consulting cases

Further, the consultants were asked how they approach the consulting case. Approach is described as the generic methods of moving towards the organizational problem(s). 9 of the consultants have indicated to use a process/ bottom-up approach, in which they involve and let the client and employees participate in the consulting process. 5 of the consultants have indicated to use an expert/ top-down approach, in which they operate individually or within a small project group and 2 consultants have indicated to use a mix approach in which they combine both an expert approach and process approach. Subsequently, the consultants were asked what interventions they have utilized to solve the organizational problem(s). The results show that consultants have utilized multiple interventions to solve the problem(s). Although the interventions are corresponded with the organizational problem(s), the utilized interventions do not completely correspond with the chosen organizational problem(s) in the consulting cases. The most commonly used interventions

33

are: feedback (9 times), redesign of processes (9 times), workshops (8 times), Project organization (7 times), pilot project (7 times) and process management (7 times). An overview of the used interventions is presented in below table 4.3. Cases a. Focus on diagnose and problem solving

1

2

3

4

5

SWOT analysis

X

X

Benchmarking

X

X X

Balanced Score Card

6

7

X

8

9

10

11

X

Causal Loop diagram b. Focus on strategic issue

Strategic Change Plan Strategic culture change

X

X X

Pilot project

X X

X X

X X X

X

Used interventions by consultant

New organization units Structure change

X

Outsourcing

e. Focus on the motivation of employees

Earnings systems

X X

Integral quality management Selection

X X

Carrier development Task widening

X X X X X X X X X

Task enrichment f. Focus on internal control

Control Report Logbooks

g. Focus on training and development

Training Workshops Feedback Coaching

X X

X X

X

Teambuilding Search conference

X X

i. Focus on sustainable learning and change

X

X

X

X X

X

16

X

X

X

X X X X

X X

X

X

X X X

X

X

X X

X X

X

X X

X X X X X

X X X X

X X X

X X

X

X X

X X

X X

X X X X X

X

X X X

X X

X X

X

Third party Process management

X X X

X X

X X X X X X

X

Gaming h. Focus on processes between people

15

X

Temporary groups

Redesign of processes

14

X

Project organization

d. Focus on improving the business performance

13

X X

Search conference c. Focus on short term adaptation of organizational structure or cooperation’s

12

X

X

X X

X

Action learning Explorative research

X X

Dialogue

*the indicated organizational problems are marked grey. Table 5: used interventions by the management consultants

34

X X

X X

X

X

X X

X

4.3.

The Justification of interventions In the third part of the interviews, the consultants were asked how they justify their choice of the utilized

interventions and its effectiveness in their specific case. Consultants were asked to indicate from what sources of evidence they have draw their justification by means on a diagram. In this diagram consultants can easily select the source of evidence which they have used in their consulting case. According to the Rycroft-Malone et al., (2004) ‘evidence based’ generated from four different sources of evidence which consultants can use in consulting practice. The results indicated that consultants draw from multiple sources of evidence. Professional experience, the client’s experience and preferences and the data from local context and environment are the most used sources of evidence and selected by every consultants. However, only 10 consultants have indicated to use scientific knowledge as source of evidence as justification. An overview of the used sources of evidence is presented below in table: 4.3.

Source of Evidence

Cases Scientific knowledge

1 X

2

3

4

5 X

6 X

7

8 X

9

10

11 X

12 X

13 X

14 X

15 X

16 X

Professional Experience

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Clients experiences and preferences

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Local context and environment

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Table 6: used source of evidence by the management consultants

Although the consultants have indicated to use multiple source of evidence to draw their knowledge and understanding about a certain organizational problem, these sources of evidence are used differently in their justification and argumentation in order to proof the effectiveness and the credibility towards the client. Some consultants give some explanation of how these sources of evidence are used: Scientific knowledge “I do rely strongly on scientific knowledge of what is smart changing or stupid changing” “Scientific knowledge? Minimally……. But, it is good for inspiration!” “My research methodology is based on scientific research” Above quotes indicate that some consultants use scientific knowledge as background information of what is best practice and take that into consideration or either use scientific knowledge, theories or model to apply that in their consulting practice. The interviews clearly indicate that these scientific knowledge stern from a consultants educational period or whether from their interest in keeping their own knowledge up to date and from practical development of 35

scientific theories and model. The basis issue is then, do they use it in practice or do they let the knowledge as it is. Some consultants do and some don’t. Professional experience “Professional experience is the expertise of the consultant. A consultant understand the situation of his client and he can make the translation into practice” “Experience, that is what you have seen and what you have done wrong, you won’t do that again!” “Professional experience is that what you think you have to do and that is based in intuition” Professional experience is what every consultant rely on in their daily practice. Clients often take advice as it is, because they fully trust on the expertise of the consultant. “We are going to do this. Ok, is the answer most of the time.” I would rather say why, but that question is never put forward most of the time”. Either consulting advices is based on previous experience or based on intuition, it do have some truth in it. Most of the time, it is like a kind of ‘cognitive systemization of experiences’. It is embedded in the head of the consultant that is based on what the consultant have done many times or what the consultant see at that moment and think of a logical action. Client’s experiences and preferences “Client has a very important role in what the direction is and what going to happen eventually” “Eventually, the step that need to be taken, have to be reported to the client and the client has to agree with it” “Advertisement’ alone is not enough to convince the client. It is all about money. Clients are focus on efficiency and effectiveness.” As stated in the quotes, the role of the client seems to be an important factor in the consulting practice. Clients pay a lot of money to get the problem solved. Eventually, it has to save the client a lot of money. “The customer is the king”, it is all about the client. The clients know best and the consultants are very aware of that. That is also the reason why consultants often use a process approach. To let the clients and its employees involve and participate in the consulting process. This way, the consultants also take the client’s perspective into consideration and let the client’s employees experience that they are part of the consulting process.

36

Local context and environment “It is important to collect your data from the participants (…) I have talk with those people in order to get a clear picture of the history of the organization”. “I have used a research about employee satisfaction that is conducted by a research institute. I have read that report and took all the important elements”. “We just sit there and watch. Using observations and interviews, and analyze the data”. “The data comes from the respondents. I always work with a large sample and make sure I use take good samples”. Another important source of evidence is the information of the local context en environment of the organizational problem. Most of the time, consultants use this source to get a better understanding about the organization itself and the organizational problem(s). Although every consultants use this source of evidence, the results clearly indicate that the way of collecting data is different. Some of the consultants collect their data by means of informal interactions e.g. participate in daily operations. The larger part of the consultants uses often a more qualitative method to collect their data by means of workshops and feedback which is a form of observations and structured interaction. Only one consultant in this research uses a quantitative method to collect his data by means of questionnaires and large samples. After, the consultants indicate from what sources of evidence they draw their knowledge from, the consultant were ask to provide arguments of how they justify their claims about the expected effectiveness of their consulting. The arguments and justifications are fragmentize and coded according to the categories which are derived from the literature. The arguments are coded according to the types of evidence as presented in table 7. Although the consultants all indicate to use the same sources of evidence, the type of evidence used in their argumentation and justification is more diverse. The results show that anecdotal and testimonial evidence is used by every consultant in their argumentation. 6 consultants have used hypothetical evidence in their argumentation. 8 consultants have used statistical evidence in their arguments and only 3 consultants have used analogical evidence in their argumentation. An overview of the type of evidence used by consultants in their arguments is presented in below table 7.

37

Types of Evidence

Cases Hypothetical Evidence

1

Anecdotal Evidence

X

Testimonial / Expert Evidence

X

Statistical Evidence

X

2

3

4

5

X

X

X

6

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Analogical Evidence

7

8

9

10

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

11

12

13

14

15

16

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Table 7: used types of evidence

The most important aspects are the credibility and the supportive elements in each of the type of evidence. There is a certain hierarchical of the evidence which determine the credibility of the consulting of a consultant. Some quotes are stated below: Hypothetical evidence “You can provide objective and qualitative services in any case, but that is more in the method that is used. The approach is eventually based on 100% feeling and intuition. At a certain moment you have to estimate the direction which is the best”. “In some case intuition works best and in other cases don’t, but it very based on intuition” “In advance you have no clue. Just try, trial and error, look if it works. If it doesn’t works, then you try something else”. “I think that is it based on a lot of intuition and experience. I have done something 10 times and 9 times it went good, so it works probably”. Hypothetical evidence is at the lowest level in the hierarchy of evidence, which is a very weak, positive type of evidence. The quotes illustrates that arguments are based on a fictional event in which consultants hypothesize a logical action. Intuition is a typical type of hypothetical evidence in which consultants think what is best in that situation.

38

Anecdotal evidence “First, I inventorise what the situation is and try to get a clear picture of the situation. Try to get an objective picture as much as possible. But above all, don’t make to quick conclusions” “By means of mapping the nature and content of the conflicts, and the original basic principles”. “I have collected a lot of information out of the organization. I have used benchmark as the standard. Benchmarking is to collect a lot of information and compare it with others. Anecdotal evidence is typical kind of evidence in which consultants describe the problem situation and use that as starting point of their consulting. Anecdotal evidence can be related to the extent in which consultant’s use the local context en environment as their source of collecting data from the organization and it people in order to get a clear picture about the organizational problem. The use of type of evidence in particular is found weak supportive credible. Testimonial/ expert evidence “Big part of the consulting in this case is to tell what is in my eyes the best solutions in this process” “I use my professional experience to interpret the data. Based on the data, I make my conclusion and recommendation. The recommendation I do come up by myself. So it is based on my own professional experience which is based on my data in turn. “I think that the focus lies on professional experience. By working in team, we try to get knowledge and experience as much as possible into the project, so we won’t forget something and make mistakes”. Again, the results show that every consultant relies and trust their own experience and expertise about a certain organizational problem. Also the clients will trust the consultant as an expert and won’t question about his expertise. The more a consultant works in a specific field of consulting, the more the client will trust his abilities and skills. In general this type of evidence is found moderate strong supportive credible.

39

Statistical evidence “It is based on researches about the success and failures of change processes. Besides I have used a lot of theories about group dynamics during guidance of the group”. “We have a theoretical basis which called LEAN which is examined and applied thoroughly in the health care in practice”. “What we use in the supply chain management is the balance score card. The balance score card is a model that corresponds with the supply chain. The Quin-model is a model that examines the culture and EFM-model is a model which can be used to analyze organizations”. Statistical evidence is a typical kind of evidence which is heading closer to evidence based. The bases of this type of evidence, is that it is based on scientific theories and models. Consultants use this type of evidence as a ‘mirror’ to reflect the reality, models that are found credible as a reflector of an organizational problem or organizational context. Although this type of evidence doesn’t say in specific cases, it is found fairy strong supportive credible. Analogical evidence “I have a concept, a variable ‘satisfaction’. I try to determine what the relationship is between satisfaction and the referring behaviour. I collect data about different variables and try to determine correlations. If there is a relation, then that will lead to the conclusion for example: if doctors are more satisfied, it leads to more reference or if doctors are less satisfied it lead to less reference”. “In America is it proven that 67% of all accident is caused by bad sight. In other words, we have used scientific knowledge to prove the surplus value of the concept. Together with the University of Erasmus, we will try to examine the effectiveness of this financial concept. After 2 year we could say that is saves you a lot of money, so it is proven”. Analogical evidence is the most credible type of evidence. It uses scientific validated methods and conclusions to determine certain relationships or prove that a certain concept will be effective in specific cases. Out of the results only 3 consultants uses this kind of arguments. This type of evidence is found strong supportive credible.

40

4.4.

The advantage and disadvantage of evidence based consulting In the final part of the interview, the consultants were asked to give their opinion regarding the advantage and

disadvantage of evidence based consulting. After the fragmentation and coding procedure of all transcriptions, some categories are found and labeled as advantages and disadvantages of evidence based consulting. The following categories are labeled as advantages: attitude, research, communication and objectivity. The disadvantages are: abstraction, authority and attitude, skills and resources, client support and time. Further, similar categories are put back together and the frequency of these categories was counted. In below table, an overview of the advantage and disadvantage is presented.

Advantages

Categories

Frequency

Attitude of consultants

5

Shared knowledge base

8

Objectivity of advice

3

Table 8: advantages of evidence based consulting

Attitude of consultant “I see so many advantages in things that are proven effective in practice. I am so scientifically focused, that I want many things proved”. “It makes you aware that intuition is a way to analyze a situation. But it is also makes you aware that there are many ways to do that”. “It is well thought-out. If applied, it is conscientious at the least and that is important. It applied broadly, every related aspects and factors are take into consideration”. The category attitude implies that consultants first have to be aware of the benefits of evidence based consulting in their consulting practice. This category is defined as positive attitude of the consultants or the client toward the recognition of the importance and benefits of research in practice. The consultant should therefore first enlarge his knowledge and interest of evidence based consulting and change the ways of founding their consulting practice. Shared knowledge base “The advantage is that we all work together in order to make all those unique projects comparable”. “You have to contribute to the knowledge base and that means you have to make that knowledge public”

41

“If you apply evidence based practice, that cooperation’s are very important. It is all about working together. If you do something, then you also shared it with others. This way knowledge can grow”. One of the advantages of evidence based consulting is that there is a shared knowledge base of best practice. The category is defined as the accessibility and availability to realistic and relevant research findings. However, it also implies that this is not an individual, but a collective issue. It is necessary that this knowledge based is shared by many parties. This means accurate communication and partnerships between practioners, researchers and consultants about research outcomes and practical solutions. Objectivity of advice “It is more objective, so you can say that conclusions are more certain to some extent”. “I see only advantages. You are more aware of the facts”. “A good consultant uses a lot more data out of local context and environment”. Practicing evidence based means also that consultants are more aware of the objectiveness of their consulting practice. This means that consultants have to use an objective way to derive conclusions out of the organizational problems by using more facts-based data and information. This category is refers to the way conclusions and advice are derive in an objective way, based on facts without taking ones preference into consideration.

42

Frequency

Disadvantage

Categories Abstraction level

11

Client’s attitude and support

14

Shared knowledge base

4

Scientific skills

3

Time

6

Table 9: disadvantages of evidence based consulting

Abstraction level “You try to catch it too much in an abstractive way that you don’t look what is special and unique about a case”. “It is all about the abstraction level in which you talk with the clients. The abstraction level which I speak with the client was on the level of “concrete proposals”. “You can do really nice scientific research. But the gap between scientific research and the practical solutions is often too large. The distance of the applicability of scientific knowledge in practice is too big”. One of the disadvantages of evidence based consulting is the abstraction level in which scientific knowledge is used in practice. Some consultants indicate that it is hard to translate scientific knowledge into practical solutions. This is often because the organizational problems are about practical problems and solved on the level of ‘concrete’ practical solutions. The abstraction level is defined as a simplified representation of the organizational problem leaving out the concrete details. Client’s attitude and support “You can have a really good team and the best scientific methods. But if you cannot explain it to the management, then you don’t speak in the same language. Your advice will never be accepted”. “Charisma and conviction. There are a few people who can sell total nonsense which is not evidence based, but still be accepted. That is an important factor. There is a lot in personal approach”. “I use a very pragmatic approach because the management was a very authoritarian person. Then you will pick an approach that appeals to him the most”. 43

“For one problem there are 17 solutions. Clients are not waiting for this. You are the professional. This is my problem, so pick the right solution, one or two. Best practice”. “Clients don’t want to be compared with others, because they are unique”. “Science has some bad image. What do you mean with science? That is too complicated. I tried to say that the method is maybe complicated, but the results are clear and you can do a lot with it”. Consultants need support by different parties in order to adapt evidence based in consulting practice. The client attitude and support is seen as the biggest disadvantage and the main obstacle of adopting evidence based consulting. The problem is that some parties lack the attitude of accepting evidence based. Clients either don’t like scientific research or doesn’t understand scientific research. This will result in lack of support and willingness to adopt evidence based consulting. The client’s attitude and support refers to the lack of attitude towards research activity, lack of motivation and the way clients see scientific research. Shared Knowledge base “Some others could say: we are a commercial firm and we should not give too much away”. “The health care is a sector where you can do a lot of scientific research and a place where is a lot of knowledge sharing. Our sector is basically the same. You have to share solutions en by making this available to other. Then knowledge can grow”. “This is only possible when everyone share his knowledge and experiences. That will take a lot of time”. Knowledge based is determined as advantage but as well as disadvantage. One could say that evince based consulting could enhance the knowledge based about effective consulting. However, it is not easy to find relevant research. Practical research outcomes often are held within the consulting firm or by an individual consultant. Consultants are afraid of giving to much knowledge and information away in order to protect their own effective consulting. Shared knowledge base in this perspective refers to availability of research finding and best practice.

44

Scientific skills “We who have come from the university know how to do research”. “It is useful because we are scientific oriented consultants. I have my PhD and my colleague is taking this PhD. It does help a lot in the foundation of the consulting”. Another disadvantage of evidence based consulting is that consultants have to less scientific knowledge in general. Consultants are using to less of scientific methods in their consulting or have to less up to date scientific state of research. Scientific skills refers to the lack of scientific education or training to conduct research in a scientific way and little understanding of scientific methods and the leading scientific knowledge on certain topics. Time “It is not like I’m reading a book for a certain problems. The time is just too short”. “The runtime of the project will be longer and in the consulting where you are paid in hours is not attractive in the eye of the clients. So it is cheaper to do best practice”. “The disadvantage is that it takes a lot of time. You can apply all kind of knowledge, but it will take a lot of time. But if you are crazy about it, then it doesn’t matter. But it does take a lot of time before you can apply”. The results show that time is one of the biggest issues to adopt evidence based consulting. Using scientific methods is consulting do takes more time than using best practice. Clients often don’t want to pay for the extra hours in which consultants spend to find relevant scientific theories or models, executions of scientific research methods and writing scientific reports.

45

4.5.

Impression of the interviews In previous chapter, the qualitative results are presented and interpreted. However,

some impression out of the interviews is developed during the data collection and data analysis. Although these impressions are subjective obviously, it cannot be left behind because it does show some line of thought of the view of consultants. Some remarkable issue were note down and some other categories were derived which do supports the results. Paperwork and reports All most none of the consultants indicated to write a report of the consulting process in the end. Instead, a lot of consultants use presentations and short notes to present the outcomes. Consultants do use multiple combinations of interventions and solutions, but does not report why and how they did. This may implies that most of the consultants are practice-oriented, which means they do like implementation and execution of interventions, but don’t like writing reports during or in the end of the consulting process. Networks Although, the Ooa (Orde van organisatieadviseurs) and Roa (Raad van organisatieadviesbureaus) are the two official branches association of consultancy firms in the Netherlands. Only few consultants indicated to are members of these associations. Membership means that consultants have to follow the code of conducts formulated by the two associations. One of the criteria of the code of conduct is good fellowship, which means that consultants have to keep professional contact with fellow consultants. Instead, most of the consultants have indicated to be in other branch associations within specific specialism where their can keep their contacts as well as acquiring specific knowledge in that specialism. Further, a lot of consultants have indicated to have a small network which consists of only a few consultants. Some consultants describe these networks as study groups in which consultants come together a few times per year. These networks usually function as social bridges or knowledge bank in which consultants can expand their contacts and knowledge sharing about experiences.

46

Effective consulting The meaning of effective consulting is ambiguous. During the interview, some questions were asked about effective consulting and how consultants know this is effective. Some notable answers were given by consultants like “if the clients agree” or “the clients were satisfied about the outcome”. This way, consultants presume their methods are effective in that specific case. By means of evaluations in the end, consultants can estimate how satisfied their clients are and will probably keep their way of working. Most of the consultants have indicated to evaluate with their clients in the end.

47

5. Conclusions In the previous chapter the results are presented and discussed. In this chapter the research question will be answered and the conclusions of this research will be given. The first part of the question will be answered in chapter 5.1. The middle part of the question in chapter 5.2. The last part of the question in chapter 5.3. Following the discussion in chapter 5.4. In the final chapter 5.5. the limitations and recommendations. The main research question of this research was: “How do consultants justify their claim about the expected effectiveness of their intervention, what type(s) evidence are used in that justification and which factors determine the use of specific type(s) of evidence?” 5.1.

How do consultants justify their claim about the expected effectiveness of their consulting? The conclusion will start with answering of the first part of the research question. Out of

the results, it can be concluded that consultants justify their claim about the expected effectiveness of their consulting from different sources of evidence. These sources of evidence together can form the basis of effective consulting in which consultants can draw data, information and knowledge out of these sources to justify their consulting. The empirical results show that consultants justify their consulting based on mainly on their own professional experience, the clients experience and preferences, and data and information from the local context and environment, and lesser from scientific knowledge. Although, the usage of these sources is determined, the role of these sources and how this is used is much more important in the justification. Client’s experiences and preference Consultants are mainly driven by the consulting question, the desire and demands, and the culture which is part of the client’s experience and preference. Consultants often look at the level of consulting question and the nature of the organizational problem e.g. strategic issues; tactical redesign of processes; operational implementation of systems. The fact that consultants emphasize that the clients experience and preference is an important source of evidence, is clearly noticeable in the way consultants involve the participation of employees in the 48

consulting process. Most of the consultants use a bottom-up/ process approach in order to involve the client and it employees and to let them think along about the nature of the problem and their own perception of the problem. This suggests that the involvement of the clients is part of the consulting process which is to advance the relationship during the process. The nature and quality of the relation and process is therefore partly determined for the effectiveness and quality of the consulting. These aspects are factors that consultants have take into consideration in order to fit the demands of the client and to create more supports from the client. Ultimately, it is the client who decides whether the consulting has reached its goal and determined whether it was effective. Data and information from local context and environment Subsequently, consultants will intent to understand the organizational problem by using most of the available knowledge and information from the local context and environment. These knowledge and information about the organizational problem comes mainly from local systematic obtained information from either the clients itself, the employees or other data from internal documents. Along with the bottom-up/ process approach, most of the consultants use this way to find the underlying problem(s) experienced by the employees. Using participative approaches consultants try to collect data from individuals, groups and processes of the actual organizational situation/problem. This way of collecting data is also a way to create the feeling of involvement among the employees and to minimalize the resistance of the change process. This is done by interactive workshops, formal or informal dialogue with clients and consultants, and other methods like observations or interviews. The justification is partly determined by the way consultants recognize the main problem and the way clients, employees, processes react on the change or interventions. By constantly monitoring the beginning, the intervention and the outcome of the consulting processes, the consultant can verify whether this was effective or not. This also partly determines how consultants justify their expected effectiveness of their consulting. Professional experiences After, consultants have a good impression about the organization and determine the scope of the problem; most of the consultants use their own knowledge and experience to

49

interpret the situation. This knowledge usually is expressed and embedded in practice and it often tacit and intuitive. This is usually based on their own fundamental ideas, models or methods in which they have used often in similar practical situation. Although, every consultant has their own professional experience and their way of consulting, it can be assumed that most of the knowledge stern from education or training consultants has done. Consultants usually use important elements of a theory or model either consciously or unconsciously. Consultants who have a rich base of practical experiences will probably possess over a variously and deeply tacit knowledge source. Although some consultants only rely on their own professional experiences, other consultants are well aware about the necessity to keep up the leading literature and keeping their knowledge up to date. Whereas some consultants only read scientific literature and popularizing books as inspiration, others use more scientific articles to utilize important elements of theories and models and some other thoroughly use scientific theories and model to develop their own consulting methods and use it in practice. The most important aspect of the professional experience is how the consultant interprets the main problem and the communication to the client. The reasoning is most likely done based on what the consultant has seen before or what the consultant knows in practice. Scientific knowledge Still, scientific research is used less among the consultants and the way how this knowledge is used differs for each consultant. The way in which research can contribute to the effectiveness of consulting practice is largely ignored by many consultants. Using scientific research can prevent consultants ‘inventing the wheel again’. Scientific knowledge can for example determine relations between certain organizational variables and relational variables, or scientific knowledge can proof that certain interventions or methods are effective. However, such scientific knowledge may not be always applicable directly. But it does contribute to the consultants understanding of the problem and which interventions could possibly be the most effective one. Science and practice are basically two different worlds. Therefore, professional experience plays an important role in the interpretation of theories and models and the transition into practice solutions. Thus, scientific knowledge can form an extra foundation of the consultant’s justification.

50

In other words, these sources are necessary to come to a decision. Thus, clients have a certain organizational problem which is the ‘data’. Consultants presume that certain interventions or solutions are effective which is the ‘claim’ and the way consultants uses different source to justify their claim is called the ‘warrant’. Concluding, consultants will have to justify their effective consulting using different sources to support their consulting practice. What may require is the interaction of different sources, drawing from scientific insight, taking the clients experiences into consideration, the available data and information of local context and environment and the rich professional experiences of the consultants. The challenge is to ensure that each source of evidence is used accurately, while keeping the organizational problem in the middle. 5.2.

What type(s) of evidence do consultants use in their justification? After knowing that consultants justify their effective consulting based on the four

sources of evidence, it still doesn’t say anything about the credibility of their consulting. One consultant could say that he has a rich base of experience and expertise on a problem, but justify and based his arguments on intuition or feeling it sounds not credible. As another consultants justify and based his arguments on fact, figures and scientific knowledge, it is more credible that intuition and feeling alone. This isn’t only a problem of the consultant, but also the clients. Clients often trust the consultants experience and expertise in order to solve their organizational problem. But it doesn’t have to be the case. Clients often rely and trust the consultants to much that he doesn’t even question it. So, it is time to examine the credibility of the consultants. Anecdotal and testimonial evidence The results show that most of the consultants justify their consulting based on anecdotal and testimonial evidence. That is based on what they have seen, their understanding and interpretation of the organizational problem (anecdotal evidence) and what is in their eyes the best solutions (testimonial evidence). This claim can stern from either intuition or from previous experience in which consultants have face similar problems and reflect this on the data what they have seen and understand based on anecdotal evidence out of the local context and environment.

51

Hypothetical evidence Despite the fact that consultants can face a new problem and in fact doesn’t know how to deal with it, then conclude that intuition and feeling will play a major role, determined as hypothetical evidence. Consultants often won’t say it and don’t know if it would work. The client in this case wouldn’t even notice, which is quite logical. Consultants who justify their consulting based on hypothetical, anecdotal and testimonial evidence vary from very weak to moderate supportive credibility. Although, it doesn’t mean that their consulting is not effective, only the likelihood of effective consulting is less certain in theory. Statistical evidence Next to it, there are consultants who use statistical and analogical evidence which is pointing more directed the principles of evidence based consulting. These consultants are making the combination between science and practice. These types of evidence are more credible because theories and model are derived from systematic review of the reality and practice. However, the results show that the extent in which consultants uses these types of evidence is different. Some consultants only use scientific theories and model to draw inspiration and some take important elements of these theories to use in practice. In other words, if consultants only read popularizing books or scientific article and he don’t use it, than he is no wiser than before. Consultants who justify their consulting with statistical evidence will based their consulting on important elements and underlying principles of theories and models. Analogical evidence The most reliable and credible evidence is analogical evidence. This evidence is derived from knowledge, theories and models that have been examine and test by means of valid scientific methods. One disadvantage of this type of evidence is that it has to be translated and adapted into other context and situation. The question rise to what extent theories or models are also applicable and useful in other situation. Therefore, consultants still have to understand the underlying mechanisms of certain theories and model, and use their own interpretation of the applicability of certain theories or models to make it work in practice. Consultants who justify their consulting based on statistical and analogical evidence vary from fairly strong to strong credibility. 52

Concluding, the combination of the types of evidence only makes the consulting stronger and credible. The most credible consulting is when consultants use a combination of types of evidence to proof the effectiveness of their consulting. Effective consulting means that intuition is necessary to take risks and follow you own heart, but use the fact and figures out of the local context and environment as bases of the decision. Consultants should trust their own professional experience and expertise to interpret the data and information, and their own understanding about the organizational problem. But take underlying mechanisms of relevant theories and models into consideration. Strive for the highest and most credible quality of consulting by means of reliable, credible and valid scientific knowledge and methods that are proven effective to support and as founding of the consulting process. In addition, hypothetical, anecdotal and testimonial evidence are sees as non-scientific evidence. Statistical and analogical evidence clearly move toward the principles of evidence based consulting. 5.3.

What factors determine the use of certain type(s) of evidence? The use of certain types of evidence can be determined by many factors. Out of the

result in which the advantage and disadvantage of evidence based consulting are mentioned by the consultants can be related to these factors to some extent. To answer this question, the factors will be discussed on how these factors can determine the use of certain types of evidence. Out of the results the following factors are derived: attitude of the consultant, shared knowledge base, abstraction level, clients support, scientific skills and time. Attitude of consultant According to the results, there are certain attitude which can determine the use of certain types of evidence and especially statistical and analogical evidence. The fact that scientific research can enhance the effectiveness of consulting is recognized by many consultants, but also ignored. The results show that most of the consultants indicate this factors as advantage as well as disadvantage of evidence based consulting. So the attitude of curiosity, sympathy attitude towards research, interesting attitude, attitude of wisdom e.g. knowledge that they don’t know all, could facilitate the use of scientific evidence. Thus, consultants will likely use more scientific knowledge to proof their effective consulting and the mechanism behind the effective interventions, and also the way consultants use more objective ways to examine the organizational problem, if they are aware of the contribution of scientific 53

knowledge. In turn, without these attitudes, consultants ignore the benefits of research and act on the best of their knowledge while questioning what they know, thus will continuing using their traditional way of consulting, meaning hypothetical, anecdotal and testimonial evidences. Shared knowledge based One of the factors that are mentioned by consultants as advantage, is that evidence based consulting could enhance a shared knowledge base. The concept of evidence based consulting presume that consultants will use best practice, methods and intervention that are scientifically and empirically examined, tested and proven effective in practice. Through a accurate shared knowledge base consultants and researchers can examine which or what interventions and methods are effective in certain situation in scientific way. Through this way, consultants are able to use more statistical and analogical evidence of best practice that are proven effective. However, this is only possible in the most optimal situation of evidence based consulting. The shared knowledge base in the consulting sector is still inaccurate and limited. Unlike the health care sector, where there is an accurate shared knowledge base, a rich knowledge flow of best practice, medical protocols and treatments methods is available throughout the whole medical professions. This means that the consultancy sectors still lacks on this issue. This kind of knowledge has to be explicit and objectified as much as possible by means of for example evaluation studies of interventions or consulting processes. The impression of the interviews clearly indicates that consultants do evaluate their consulting process with their clients in the end. But don’t share this knowledge throughout the whole consulting profession, only to their own colleagues or own network at the very most. Thus, the availability of empirical results of findings or best practice is not for granted. Until then consultants must use what is available at the moment of scientific article, popularizing articles of theories and models, try to use as much as possible of the available resources of proven theories, concepts or models. Once there is a shared knowledge base of best consulting practice, effective interventions and methods available, this will lead to a more evidence based consulting in practice, thus to more credible evidence of effective consulting. However, with a limited amount of shared knowledge, the use of more credible evidence is also limited. This factor is strongly related to the consultant’s attitude toward the use of scientific evidence, because proven effective consulting is still hard to find at this moment.

54

Abstraction level The important factor that stops consultants using more scientific evidence is the abstraction level of consulting questions. This issue is mentioned 11 times in the interview and is seen as the biggest obstacle of practicing evidence based consulting. Many consultants see scientific knowledge as an abstractive form of knowledge and claim that it doesn’t fit in concrete consulting practice. To some extent it is true, the distance between science and practice is a well known issue. Based on this assumption, consultants rather don’t use scientific research in their consulting practice. However, some consultants argue that it is not the abstraction level of consulting questions, but the problem of interpreting scientific research and the transition of science into practical solutions. Also due to the fact that most of the consultants don’t have much scientific skills to do so which is also determined as a factor. In consulting questions whereas clients demand concrete proposals, keeps consultants using more hypothetical, anecdotal or testimonial evidence. This issue is in turn is related to the shared knowledge base. If there is more shared knowledge about concrete best practice situations where practical solutions is proven effective, it will likely remove the gap between science and practical, thus lead to more statistical and analogical evidence. Attitude of clients The next factor is also an important factor that determines the use of certain types of evidence. The fact that clients rather want simple and clear solutions is mentioned 8 times during the interviews. This indicated that the attitude of clients towards scientific research is also a big obstacle for consultants to practice evidence based consulting. Out of the results it comes clear that clients lack the understanding of scientific research and its contribution to more credible evidence which support the consulting. Most of the consultants are very aware of this issue and rather choose for a simple and practical approach of practicing their consulting. Thus, this issue keeps the consultants on using hypothetical, anecdotal and testimonial evidence to justify their consulting toward the clients. This issue can simply be solved by clear communication with the clients and clarify the needs and benefits of scientific knowledge. This issue is raised by a few consultants who indicate that personal approach of the consultant could determine the acceptance of research evidence, and it all about talking in the same ‘language’. Thus, the presentation of scientific outcomes and the interpretation results into practical 55

solutions would enlarge the acceptance of client and ultimately enhance the use of more statistical and analogical evidence. Scientific skills Although this factor is only mentioned 3 times, it can be assumed that this is the most important factor that could determine the adoption of evidence based consulting. According to some consultants, practicing evidence based consulting is determined by the way consultants can deal with scientific knowledge. That is the lack of scientific skills, the knowledge in using scientific methods and the skills of searching appropriate and relevant scientific literature. This issues it most obvious due to the fact that only the consultants that have a research background with a PhD are using more statistical and analogical evidence to justify their effective consulting. These consultants are able to use scientific methods to examine the organizational problem, the skills of finding relevant literature and interpretation of scientific outcomes into practical situations. The ability and skills of doing research on the university is already embedded in their way of working, thus it is much easier for those consultants to combine research with the consulting practice. These consultants are more likely to use more statistical and analogical evidence to justify their consulting. Time The final factor that could determine the use of certain types of evidence is the amount of time this is available for consultants to collect their data, knowledge and information. The biggest issue of using scientific knowledge or methods is that it is very time consuming. In the consultancy sector where consultants are paid in hours it is hard to spend more time in systematic review of data and information and the search of relevant literature. Consultants rather spend more time on practical issues that finding evidence to proof their effective consulting. Consultants in sum want to sell as much as time and the clients want more performance in less time. This could be a barrier of using more statistical and analogical evidence in their consulting. However, some consultant indicates that is related to the scientific skills of a consultant. In the beginning it is hard to use more scientific methods scientific knowledge, but if these skills are mastered it will become much easier and take less time to do so.

56

5.4.

Discussions Concluding, these factors may determine the use of certain types of evidence. These

factors can have either positive as negative influence on the use of certain types of evidence. In optimal situation as describe in each of the factors, these aspects can facilitate the adoption of evidence based consulting, thus also the use of more statistical and analogical evidence. Right at this moment, the shared knowledge base of effective interventions, best practice and other proven concepts is limited. The available scientific knowledge is in most cases to raw in order to apply directly in practical situations. Also the large collection and extensive scientific literature consist of too much information to consume and too hard for consultants to find relevant theories and models to apply. The acceptance of scientific research by clients and the limited of time in the consulting practice make it even harder for consultants to use scientific knowledge. The only way to bridge these aspects is to improve the individual attitude of consultants, thus a more positive attitude towards scientific knowledge and evidence. In other words, consultants have to criticize their own consulting process and the credibility of it. By using as much as possible of the objective facts and figures and, the available and logical evidence to support decisions, interventions, methods and consulting process. Enlarge their scientific skills in order to build on more scientific oriented methods in their consulting practice. Adopting evidence based consulting means to use more scientific oriented knowledge, empirical findings of best practice and to work more in a scientific way. This doesn’t mean that consultants are now the same as researchers, but on the contrary consultants have to use empirical or scientific knowledge that is related to an organizational problem situation, use their own professional experience to interpret and judge the organizational context and client experiences and preferences, and more important is to evaluate empirical finding of interventions, methods or best practice and share it throughout the consulting professions. This way the combination of science and practical application will lead to a new formation of service innovation in the consultancy known as evidence based consulting. In contract, this research uses many examples of the health care sectors in which many scholars see similarities. The main difference is that the health care sector is already seen as a profession and the management consultancy sectors still have to become one. The health care sector is mainly influence by governmental organizations with policies and responsibilities. 57

Whereas the consultancy sectors don’t have to deal with governmental pressures, many consulting firms don’t see the emergence to change their way of working. It profit is made and if clients don’t ask for empirical evidence, then there is no need to change their way of working. “Are we on our way to evidence based consulting?”, the answer is, it depends. Due to the mentioned factors, there is still a long way to evidence based consulting. However, there is a little development in the consulting sector which tents to the concepts of evidence based consulting, is that there are more and more researchers, scholars and professors who make the switch to the consulting. Although, most of the consultants don’t use statistical and analogical evidence to proof their consulting, it doesn’t imply that the current way of working is not effective. The effective consulting may not be explicitly examined, but it can be assumed that the current way of working is establish through endless discussions by experts or even professors in consultancy firms. On the other hand, it is noticeable that evidence based is much more developed in the United States of America, where universities and consultancy firms are embedded in large multinationals. “Is evidence based then in anyways feasible in the consultancy sector?” Yes, it is. There is still a large market undiscovered where social science and consultancy are contribute to the understanding and development of organizations.

58

5.5.

Limitations and future research After finishing this research, there are some limitations encountered that may influence

the results and the conclusions of this research. The following limitations will be discussed. The first limitation is that this research measures the effectiveness of interventions in first instance. This was measured by means of indicating the problem situation / problem focus and the used interventions. After the data collection and analysis it has turn out that consultants indicated multiple problem situations and used multiple interventions. Due to this is not possible to draw conclusions what the effectiveness is of specific interventions and how this is used, because there is no clear cause or consequence to point out. Future research should focus on one specific problem situation per case and indicate the interventions that are used to solve this particular problem situation. With this it is possible to draw relations between the mechanism of specific interventions that solve a particular problem situation and therefore also the effectiveness of an intervention. The second limitation is that this research should make a better classification of specialism. In this research, consultants have indicated multiple specialisms. Due to this it is not possible to determine the relation between the specialism of a consultants and the problem situation. Future research should make a better classification of specialisms and let the consultants indicate only one specialism that characterize his expertise. This way it is possible to determine the specialism of a consultants and the relationship between the expertise of an consultants and the problem situation. The third limitation of this research is that the empirical results are only based on 16 interviews. This limited amount interview is not sufficient to generalize conclusions. However, it does determine some factors which are important in these specific case studies. This research is therefore characterized as an explorative research. So, future research should elaborate on this research and test the factors by means on quantitative data collection in order to draw generalizable conclusions. The previous described limitations are caused due to the construction of the measurements and semi-structured topic list and the interview itself. The researcher should ask better and more specific questions about certain topics. Also the extent in which the researcher should have interrogated at certain answers did not happen. So, one major limitation lies with 59

the research himself. The reasons are the limited interview and research experience of the researcher which had a major impact on the quality of this research. Although there are some limitations in this research, there are also some positive aspects in this research. That is namely the transferability of this research. The procedure of this research is described well, so other researchers should able to conduct this research again and better. Due to this, the limitations and the missteps of the researcher are also clear, but luckily, these mistakes can be used as wise lessons. This research attempting to measure the effectiveness of interventions in the first place and became the effectiveness of consulting at a higher level. The justification is measured well to my opinion. By means of indicating the sources which consultants use to draw their knowledge, experience, data or information, this determines the justification of consultant’s effective consulting e.g. experience-oriented, client-oriented, theory-oriented or data-oriented. Besides, the use of certain types of evidence in this justification is determined well. The types of evidence is measured by means of analyzing the answers and arguments of the consultants why their use certain methods and how they know it will work. A classification of the types of evidence is with this determined well, because the nature of each type of evidence is defined and the hierarchy of the types of evidence is determined, from the lowest credible type of evidence to the golden standard of evidence. With this, makes it possible to use it as the level of evidence, from the lowest credible evidence to the most reliable evidence. In the final part of this research, some factors have been explored that could possibly determine the use of certain types of evidence. However, there are possible other factors that may determine the types of evidence. One other limitation is that this research did not determine what the possible relationships are of these factors e.g. direct, indirect, moderating or mediating effect of the use of evidence. All in all, this research has examined what it has supposed to examine, that is how consultants justify their claim of expected effectiveness of consulting, what types of evidence consultants use and what factors determine the use of certain types of evidence. Future research therefore could build on this research by means of a quantitative research. A possible research could be the relationship between the factors and the level of evidence in order to

60

determine specific correlations between factors and the effect on the level of evidence. Hereby it is possible to draw conclusions about the quality and the credibility of maybe the consulting process or specific interventions by management consultants.

61

6.

References

Allen, M., & Preiss, R. W. (1997). Comparing the persuasiveness of narrative and statistical evidence using meta-analysis. Communication Research Reports, 17, 331-336. Baesler, E. J., & Burgoon, J. K. (1994). The temporal effects of story and statistical evidence. Communication Research, 21, 582-602 Barends, E., en S. Ten Have – Op weg naar evidence based verandermanagement. – In: Holland Management Review (2008) 120, P. 45-51 Boonstra, Jaap J., Lopen over water, over dynamiek van organiseren, vernieuwen en leren. Vossiuspers, AUP, Amsterdam, 2000. Broesskamp-Stone, U., en G. Ackermann (m.m.v. B. Ruckstuhl, R. Steinmann en het team Best Practice van de Gesundheitsförderung Schweiz) – Best Practicein der Gesundheitsförderung und Prävention – Konzept und Leitlinien für Entscheidfindung und fachliches Handeln. – Version 1.0. – Gesundheitsförderung Schweiz, juli 2007 Bucknall T. (2003) The clinical landscape of critical care: nurses’ decision-making. Journal of Advanced Nursing 43(3), 310–319. Burrell, G. & G. Morgan, Sociological paradigms and organizational analyses, Heinemann, Londen (1979). Caluwe, L. de & Reitsma, E. Onderzoek naar competenties van organisatieadviseurs in verandertrajecten. Center for Research on Consultancy, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, 2006. Caluwe, L. de & H. Vermaak, Learning to change. A guide for organization change agents, Sage Publications, Seven Oaks, 2004a. Caluwe, L. de & H. Vermaak (2004b): Change paradigms: an overview. Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22, 2004b, nr. 4, p. 9-18. Caluwe, de, L. & Vermaak, H. (2006). Leren veranderen. Een handboek voor de veranderkundige. Deventer: Kluwer.

62

Caluwe, L., Interventies: Wat zijn dat? Intervenieren: Wat is dat? Management Executive, 2009 Cascio, W.F. – Evidence Based Management and the marketplace for Ideas. – In: Academy of management Journal 50 (2007) 5, p. 1009-1012 Cohen, W.M. & Levinthal, D.A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 35 (1), 128-152. Cummings T.G. en C.G. Worley, Organization Development and Change. Thomson, SouthWestern, 8de druk. 2005 Cummings, T. & C. Worley, Organization development and change, West Publishing Company, Minneapolis, 2009. Davenport, T. & Prusak, P. (1998). Working knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Davenport, T.H. & Prusak, L. (2005). Knowledge management in consulting. In L. Greiner & F. Poulfelt (Eds.), The contemporary consultant: insights from world experts (pp. 305-326). Mason: Thomson South-Western. Dodgson, M. 1993. Organizational learning: A review of some literature. Organization Studies, 14(3): 375-394. Dopson S., Gabbay J., Locock L. & Chambers D. (1999) Evaluation of the PACE Programme: Final Report. Oxford Healthcare Management Institute, Templeton College University of Oxford & Wessex Institute for Health Research and Development, University of Southampton, Southampton. Eraut M. (1985) Knowledge creation and knowledge use in professional contexts. Studies in Higher Education 10(2), 117–133. Ferlie E., Wood M. & Fitzgerald L. (1999) Some limits to evidence based medicine: a case study from elective orthopaedics. Quality In Health Care 8, 99–107. French, W. & C. Bell, Organization development. Behavioral science interventions for organization improvement, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 1999. 63

Higgs J. & Jones M. (2000) Will evidence-based practice take the reasoning out of practice? In Clinical Reasoning in the Health Professionals, 2nd edn (Higgs J. & Jones M. eds), Butterworth Heineman, Oxford, pp. 307–315. Higgs J. & Titchen A. (1995) The nature, generation and verification of knowledge. Physiotherapy, 81(9), 521–530 Hoeken, H. (2001). Convincing citizens: The role of argument quality. In D. Janssen & R. Neutelings (Eds.), Reading and writing public documents (pp. 147-169). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Keuning, Dr. K., Dr. D.J. Eppink, Management & Organisatie, theorie en toepassing. Stenfert Kroese, Groningen, achtste druk, 2004. Kim, L. 1998. Crisis construction and organizational learning: Capability building in catching-up at Hyundai Motor. Organization Science, 9: 506-52 Koballa, T. R. (1986). Persuading teachers to reexamine the innovative elementary science programs of yesterday: The effect of anecdotal versus data-summary communications. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 437-449. Kubr, M. (ed.), Management consulting: A guide to the profession (fourth edition). Geneva, International Labour Office, 2002. Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. 1998. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19: 461-477. Lawler III, E.E. – Why HR Practices Are Not Evidence Based. – In: Academy of Management Journal 50 (2007) 5, p. 1033-1036 Learmonth M., en N. Harding – Evidence-Based Management : The Very Idea. – In: Public Administration 84 (2006) 2, 2006, p. 245-266 Leonard-Barton, D. 1995. Wellsprings of Knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

64

Maister, D.H. (1993), Managing the professional service firm, New York: The Free Press, pp. XV; 3-6; 321-327 Martens, D., (2008), Knowledge acquirement by management consultants: a quantitative research, Master Thesis , Tilburg’s University. Meeus, M.T.H., Baaijens, J.M.J., en Kenis, P.N. – Evidence based consultancy. – In Management & Organisatie, nr 1- Jan/feb 2009 McCormack B., Kitson A., Harvey G., Rycroft-Malone J., Seers K. & Titchen A. (2002) Getting evidence into practice – The meaning of ‘practice context’. Journal of Advanced Nursing 38(1), 94–104. Molier, E. – Evidence Based management. – In Holland Management review (2001) 79. P. 67-73 Morrell, K. – The narrative of Evidence Based Management: a polemic. – In Journal of management Studies 45 (2008) 3, P.615-635 Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5: 14-37. Oakeshott M. (1962) Rationalism in Politics: And Other Essays. Methuen, London. Otto, M. : Strategisch veranderen in politiek bestuurde organisaties. Van Gorcum, 2000. Parikh, M. (2001). Knowledge management framework for high-tech research and development. Engineering management journal, 13 (3), 27-33. Pfeffer J., en R.I. Sutton – The Knowing Doing Gap. How smart companies turn knowledge into action. – Boston : Harvard Business School Press, 2000 Pfeffer J., en R.I. Sutton – Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths and Total Nonsense. Profiting from Evidence Based Management. Boston : Harvard Business School Press, 2006 Pfeffer J., en R.I. Sutton. – Evidence-Based Management. – In: Harvard Business Review, 2006 Reinard, J. C. (1998). The persuasive effects of testimony assertion evidence. In M. Allen & R. W. Preiss (Eds.), Persuasion. Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 69-96). Cresskill, 65

NJ: Hampton. Reynolds, R. A., & Reynolds, J. L. (2002). Evidence. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The Persuasion Handbook (pp. 427-444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rousseau, D.M. – Is There Such A Thing As ‘Evidence Based Management’? – In: Academy of Management Review 31 (2006) 2, p. 256-269 Rousseau, D.M., en S. McCarthy – Educating managers from an evidence based perspective. – In: Academy of Management Learning and Education (2007) 6, p. 84-101 RYCROFT-MALONE J. , SEERS K. , TITCHEN A., HARVEY G. , KITSON A. & MCCORMACK B. (2004) Journal of Advanced Nursing 47(1), 81–90; What counts as evidence in evidence-based practice? Sanchez, Ron., “Tacit Knowledge” versus “Explicit Knowledge”, Approaches to Knowledge Management Practice, 2004 Schein, Edgar H., Process Consultation: its role in organization development. Addison-Wesley Publising Company, 1969. Singh, J.P., Defining the Developmental Consulting: A Dive in the Quagmire, (2005) Stetler C., Corrigan B., Sander-Buscemi K. & Burns M. (1999) Integration of evidence into practice and the change process: A fall prevention program as a model. Outcomes and Management for Nursing Practice 3(3), 102–111. Stetler C. (2003) The role of the organization in translating research into evidence-based practice. Outcomes Management for Nursing Practice, 7(3), 97–103. Thompson C., McCaughan D., Cullum N., Sheldon T.A., Thompson D.R. & Mulhall A. (2001a) Nurses’ Use of Research Information in Clinical Decision making: A Descriptive and Analytical Study. University of York, York. Wood M., Ferlie E. & FitzGerald L. (1998a) Achieving Change in Clinical Practice: Scientific, organisational and Behavioural Processes. CCSC, University of Warwick, Warwick. Seech, Zachary. Writing philosophy papers / Zachary Seech. Location: Fenwick Stacks B52.7 .S44 1997) 66

Appendix A. Semi-structured topic list Dit onderzoek wordt uitgevoerd in het kader van een afstudeeronderzoek voor de studie Organisatiewetenschappen aan de Universiteit van Tilburg. In dit onderzoek staat de volgende vraag centraal: “Hoe rechtvaardigen consultants hun interventie keuze en welke bewijsvoering gebruiken consultants om de effectiviteit aan te tonen?” Het doel van dit onderzoek is om te achterhalen hoe consultants hun keuze voor een bepaalde interventie rechtvaardigen en welke bewijsvoering zij daarbij gebruiken om de effectiviteit aan te tonen. Evidence Based Consulting is gericht op structurele verbetering van de dienstverlening door gefundeerde adviezen. EBC in deze betekenis kan daarom een impuls zijn voor innovatie en vernieuwing binnen bepaalde vormen van zakelijke dienstverlening door de combinatie van wetenschap en toepassing. Instructies De interview bestaat uit 8 hoofdvragen en bijbehorende subvragen en duurt maximaal 1 uur. Het is de bedoeling dat u een adviesopdracht in gedachte neemt die u recentelijk heeft uitgevoerd. Het gaat hierbij om uw persoonlijke mening. Verkeerde of foute antwoorden zijn dan ook niet mogelijk: het gaat om wat u ervan vindt. Neemt u rustig de tijd die u nodig vindt om de vragen te beantwoorden. Voelt u zich vooral vrij om uit te weiden. Als er onderwerpen zijn die voor u belangrijk zijn, maar die voor uw gevoel niet of onvoldoende aan bod zijn gekomen, dan bent u van harte welkom om dat te vertellen. Het interview wordt verder strict vertrouwelijk gehouden. Voor de verwerking van de resultaten wordt de interview opgenomen. Indien u hierbij bezwaar tegen heeft kunt dit vooraf aangeven. Voor meer informatie kunt u contact opnemen met: K. Pang Tel: 06-41047027 Email: [email protected]

67

1. Kunt u iets vertellen over uw werk als adviseur? a. b. c. d.

Hoeveel jaar ervaring? Hoogst genoten opleiding? Aangesloten bij branche vereniging (Ooa en Roa)? Zelfstandig adviseur?

2. Wat is uw specialisatie? Strategy Operations Supply chain Finance Outsourcing HRM Anders: 3. Kunt u iets vertellen over een adviesopdracht die u recentelijk heeft afgerond? a. Aanleiding van opdracht b. Welk doel vindt u passend in deze case en waarom? A. gericht op diagnostiek en probleemoplossing B. gericht op strategische vraagstukken C. gericht op het al dan niet tijdelijk aanpassen van de structuur in een organisatie of in samenwerkingsverbanden D. gericht op het verbeteren van de bedrijfsprestaties (business performance) E. gericht op de motivatie van werknemers F. gericht op beheersing en controle G. gericht op training en ontwikkeling H. gericht op processen tussen mensen I. gericht op duurzaam leren en veranderen

4. Hoe heeft u deze case benaderd en waarom? Expertmatig Niet participatief, alleen of met collega Procesmatig Volledig participatief, met grote groep

68

5. Welk aanpak, methode, interventie heeft u daarbij gebruikt en waarom? A

B SWOT-analyse Benchmarking Balanced Score Card Causal loop diagram

C

Strategisch veranderplan Search conference Strategische cultuur verandering

D Projectorganisatie Tijdelijke groepen Pilot project Nieuwe organisatie eenheden Structuuraanpassingen Outsourcing

E

Herontwerp van bedrijfsprocessen Integrale kwaliteitszorg Het conference model

F Beloningssysteem Selectie Carrièreontwikkeling Taakverbreding Taakverrijking

G

Controleren Rapporteren Tijdschrijven

H Training Workshops Feedback Coaching of counseling Spelsituaties Survey feedback

Proces Consultatie/ Teambuilding Zoekconferentie Derde partij Procesmanagement

Actie leren Actie onderzoek Begrijpend onderzoek

Dialoog Verhalen vertellen

I

6. Hoe weet u dat de door u gekozen aanpak, methode, interventie effectief zal zijn? a. Welke aspecten of factoren bepalen de interventie keuze? b. Hoe verantwoordt u uw keuze bij uw opdrachtgever? c. Welke informatie heeft u opgezocht? d. Wat is de rol van de opdrachtgever in de interventie keuze?

69

7. Welk onderstaande bewijsvoering heeft u gebruikt om de effectiviteit van uw keuze aan te tonen en waarom? a. Welke aspecten of factoren bepalen het gebruik van deze type bewijzen volgens u en waarom? Wetenschappelijke kennis

Professionele deskundigheid

Contexuele kennis en ervaring Plaatselijke data en informatie

waarnemingen die een hypothese of theorie bevestigd of ontkrachten, en wetenschappelijke theorievorming die leidt tot werkbare modellen van de waargenomen werkelijkheid kennis, ervaringen, persoonlijke eigenschappen en werkcapaciteiten van de adviseur of anderen in hun specifieke expertise of specialisatie. persoonlijke kennis en ervaringen van anderen in een specifiek casus of probleemcontext. interne en externe informatie dat systematische is verkregen uit plaatselijk data en informatie.

Evidence Based Consulting: “Het verantwoorden van interventies en beslissingen met empirische en wetenschappelijk onderbouwde kennis, respectievelijk te kiezen voor die interventies die zich op herhaalbare en overtuigende wijze bewezen hebben in de praktijk”. 8. In hoeverre past u ‘Evidence Based Consulting’ toe in uw dagelijkse werkzaamheden? a. In hoeverre worden de resultaten gegeneraliseerd? b. In hoeverre worden de resultaten gesystematiseerd? c. Wat doet u met de opgebouwde ervaring of empirische materiaal om het toch wetenschappelijke kennis te maken? d. Wat zijn volgens u de voor- en nadelen van Evidence Based Consulting? Zijn er nog zaken die niet aan de orde zijn geweest in dit interview, maar die wel van belang zijn om te weten in het kader van mijn onderzoek? Zo ja, welke?

70

B. Interventielijst Categorie interventies

Voorbeeld Interventies

1. Interventies gericht op verkenning en bewustwording

SWOT-analyse: het in kaart (laten) brengen van sterkten, zwakten, kansen en bedreigingen om de eigen prestaties, die van de concurrenten en de ontwikkelingen in de omgeving te kennen en op basis hiervan de (organisatie)strategie te bepalen.

Het onderkennen van de aard en oorzaak van een probleem en mensen bewustworden van de noodzaak tot verandering

Benchmarking: het (laten) vergelijken van de eigen prestaties met die van de beste concurrenten om te onderkennen op welke onderdelen de organisatie beter kan presteren. Balanced Score Card: het in kaart (laten) brengen/meten van prestatieindicatoren op het gebied van financiën, bedrijfsprocessen, innovatie en klanten om te onderkennen op welke onderdelen de organisatie naar verwachting presteert en op welke onderdelen verbetering is aan te brengen. Causal loop diagrams (causale kaarten): het in kaart (laten) brengen van oorzaak – gevolg relaties waardoor terugkerende patronen zichtbaar worden. De kaarten geven aanwijzingen over welke factoren relatief gemakkelijk zijn te beïnvloeden en welke moeilijk. Andere voorbeelden: het 5-krachtenmodel van Porter; Pesti-omgevingsanalyse

2. Interventies gericht op strategische vraagstukken en het vormen van toekomstbeelden

Het bevorderen dat toekomstbeelden over de organisatie gevormd (en gedeeld) worden

Strategisch veranderplan: het opstellen van een plan met doelen en middelen om vanuit de huidige situatie de beoogde langere termijn positionering van de organisatie in de omgeving te realiseren. Search Conference: het gebruik maken van een conferentiemethode (large scale intervention) om een wel omschreven, wenselijke en bereikbare toekomst te creëren en een plan te maken om daar te komen. Strategische cultuur verandering: het ontwikkelen van een sterke gemeenschappelijke cultuur die fundamenteel afwijkt van de huidige cultuur en van belang is voor het voortbestaan van de organisatie.

71

Categorie interventies

Voorbeeld Interventies

3. Interventies gericht op het al dan niet tijdelijk aanpassen van de structuur in een organisatie of in samenwerkings-verbanden

Projectorganisatie: het benoemen van een persoon of eenheid die een tijdelijke, afgebakende opdracht uitvoert, binnen de bestaande organisatiestructuur en met eigen additionele middelen.

Het treffen van passende voorzieningen en omstandigheden om de veranderingen mogelijk te maken.

Tijdelijke groepen: het benoemen van taskforces (of andere benaming) die in het veranderproces een helder gedefinieerd doel hebben, bijvoorbeeld nieuwe ideeën ontwikkelen, prioriteiten stellen of het veranderproces plannen en coördineren. Pilot project: het op beperkte schaal laten uitproberen of de beoogde verandering haalbaar is, alvorens deze breder wordt uitgezet Nieuwe organisatie eenheden: het opzetten van een of meerdere nieuwe organisatieonderdelen om bijvoorbeeld een nieuwe dienst aan te bieden, veelal als oplossing om inertia in de staande organisatie te omzeilen. Structuuraanpassingen: het verduidelijken en (mogelijk) aanpassen van de verdeling van taken, bevoegdheden, verantwoordelijkheden en coördinatiemechanismen. Outsourcing: het buiten de organisatie onderbrengen van activiteiten die voorheen door de organisatie zelf zijn uitgevoerd. Andere voorbeelden: fusie en overname, joint ventures

4. Interventies gericht op het verbeteren van de bedrijfsprestaties via bedrijfsprocessen (business performance)

Het treffen van maatregelen op het gebied van de bedrijfsprocessen om het resultaat te verbeteren

Herontwerp van bedrijfsprocessen (BPR): het fundamenteel aanpassen van de werkprocessen veelal met behulp van informatietechnologie. Of: het in kaart brengen van werkprocessen en mogelijk het aanpassen daarvan Integrale kwaliteitszorg: een permanent proces waarin wordt gestreefd de tevredenheid van de klant te vergroten door systematisch te werken aan verbetering van producten of diensten Het Conference model: het gebruik maken van een conferentiemethode (large scale intervention) om processen te herontwerpen en klantleverancierrelaties te verbeteren waarbij wordt aangesloten op de strategie van de organisatie.

72

Categorie interventies

Voorbeeld Interventies

5. Interventies gericht op de motivatie van werknemers met behulp van HRM-instrumentarium

Beloningssysteem: het ontwerpen van een systeem dat zowel de prestaties van de medewerkers en de werknemerstevredenheid bevordert als ongewenst gedrag vermindert, zoals regels rond prestatiebeloning en promotie.

Het bevorderen van motivatie van betrokkenen om de flexibiliteit van de organisatie en de organisatieprestaties te vergroten

Selectie: het bevorderen dat de juiste man/vrouw op de juiste plaats komt. Carrièreontwikkeling: het ondersteunen van mensen bij hun loopbaan in de organisatie en bij het stellen van carrièredoelen. Taakverbreding: het uitbreiden van een takenpakket met werkzaamheden op hetzelfde niveau. Taakverrijking: het toevoegen van ‘hogere’ taken aan een takenpakket, inclusief de daarmee samenhangende verantwoordelijkheden en bevoegdheden.

6. Interventies gericht op beheersing en controle

Het inzichtelijk (laten) maken van de voortgang of de kwantiteit en de kwaliteit van de werkzaamheden 7. Interventies gericht op training en ontwikkeling

Het aanleren en eigen maken van concepten en vaardigheden of het vergroten van inzicht.

Controleren: het nagaan of taken naar behoren zijn uitgevoerd. Rapporteren: het met een bepaalde frequentie laten opstellen van rapportages over behaalde resultaten en/of voortgang van activiteiten. Tijdschrijven: het met een bepaalde frequentie laten rapporteren hoeveel tijd besteed is aan activiteiten.

Training: het aanleren van vaardigheden door managers, medewerkers of staf. Workshops: het gevoelig maken van mensen voor de noodzaak van verandering, voor trends, voor verschillende opties voor hun organisatie of henzelf of voor bepaalde methoden en concepten. Feedback: het bevorderen dat het individu, de groep of de organisatie inziet wat voor effect het eigen gedrag of de prestatie heeft op anderen. Coaching of counseling: het geven van individuele feedback om de effectiviteit van het individu te vergroten en het bevorderen van het zelfvertrouwen en de kennis en vaardigheden om een verandering te

73

Categorie interventies

Voorbeeld Interventies realiseren. Spelsituaties: het via spelsituaties laten ervaren van de (systeem)consequenties van het eigen gedrag Survey feedback: het in een actief proces informatie en kennis (laten) vergaren over problemen en oplossingen om vervolgens gerichte activiteiten te formuleren en uit te voeren Andere voorbeelden: 360 graden feedback

8. Interventies gericht op processen tussen mensen (sociale processen)

Proces Consultatie / Teambuilding: een groep in staat stellen om het eigen functioneren als groep te analyseren en passende oplossingen te formuleren voor disfunctionele groepsprocessen.

Het verbeteren van sociale processen in organisaties

Zoekconferentie: het houden van een organisatiebrede bijeenkomst met als doel belangrijke organisatiewaarden te verduidelijken en om een (nieuwe) manier te ontwikkelen om problemen te benaderen

bv. de interpersoonlijke relaties, het functioneren van een team, de relatie tussen teams of organisaties.

Derde partij: als neutrale derde partij de interactie tussen partijen begeleiden en probleemoplossing bevorderen om tot een door partijen onderschreven resultaat te komen. Procesmanagement: het faciliteren van besluitvormingsprocessen in complexe situaties, waarin op voorhand geen oplossing voorhanden is en de belangen van partijen uiteen lopen. Sturen op: openheid/toegankelijkheid van stakeholders; het in acht nemen van de kernwaarden van de stakeholders; de continuïteit en het tempo van het proces; de inhoudelijke kwaliteit van de oplossing. Andere voorbeelden: T-group; Organization confrontation meeting; Intergroup relations; Agenda Setting.

9. Interventies gericht op duurzaam leren en veranderen door interactie gaande te houden

Actie leren: het creëren van een context waarin ‘leren’ het met anderen oplossen van echte problemen is en waarbij de uitwisseling van ervaringen en reflectie essentiële onderdelen zijn. Actie onderzoek: het creëren van een samenwerkingsverband tussen onderzoeker en actoren (medewerkers) waarbij onderzoeken en leren samen opgaan.

74

Categorie interventies

Voorbeeld Interventies

Het gaande houden van het proces van interactie en communicatie

Begrijpend onderzoek: het bevorderen te veranderen in sociaal geconstrueerde realiteiten door: interactieve observatie en doorgronden ‘wat is’, daarna formuleren ‘wat zou kunnen’ en ‘wat zou moeten’ om vervolgens te gaan starten met experimenteren met ‘wat kan’. Dialoog: het bevorderen dat op basis van dialoog en interactie verschillende ideeën over de werkelijkheid worden gedeeld en dat van hieruit nieuwe realiteiten worden geconstrueerd. Verhalen vertellen: het bevorderen dat via open interviews verhalen worden vastgelegd en dat in deze verhalen naar tegenstellingen wordt gezocht en ‘tussen de regels door wordt gelezen’ en dat vervolgens samenvoeging tot nieuwe verhalen plaatsvindt.

75

C. Results tables Cases Gender Education

1 F

3 M

4 F

5 M

X

X

X

6 M

7 M

8 F

9 M

10 M

11 M

X

X

12 F

13 F

14 M

15 F

16 M

X

X

X

X

20

22

X

X

Yes No Yes

Yes No Yes

15

16

MBO HBO

The characteristics of the consulting cases

2 M

X

WO

X

PhD

X

X

X

Other:

X

X

MBA

Experience in Years Specialism Strategy

20 X

10

MBA

12

10

Operations

X

X

Supply Chain

X

X

Finance

13

5

7 X

1

30

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Outsourcing

6

8 X

20

8 X

28

X

X

X

HRM

X

Other: Independent consultant Certified consultant Member of branch association

Yes Yes Yes

X

X

Yes Yes No

Yes No Yes

Yes No Yes

X

X

Yes No No

No No No

No No No

X

X

X

No No No

Yes No No

No No Yes

X Yes No Yes

Yes No Yes

Yes Yes yes

No No No

Table 3: the characteristics of the consultants Cases

1

2

Private organization Type of client organization

Governmental organization Health care organization

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

11

12

X

13

14

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Non-profit organization

The characteristics of the consultants

10

X

Agricultural organization

X

Distribution organization

X

Industrial organization

X X

Construction organization

X

Consulting organization Type of organizational problem

a. Focus on diagnose and problem solving b. Focus on strategic issue c. Focus on short term adaptation of organizational structure or cooperation’s d. Focus on improving the business performance e. Focus on the motivation of employees f. Focus on internal control g. Focus on training and development

X X X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X X

X

X

76

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X X

X

Approach of consultant

h. Focus on processes between people i. Focus on sustainable learning and change Expert approach Process approach

X

X

X

X

X X X

Mix approach

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

Table 4: the characteristics of the consulting cases Cases j. Focus on diagnose and problem solving

1

2

3

4

5

SWOT analysis

X

X

Benchmarking

X

X X

Balanced Score Card

6

7

X

8

9

10

11

X

Causal Loop diagram k. Focus on strategic issue

Strategic Change Plan Strategic culture change

X

X X

Project organization Temporary groups Pilot project

X X

X X

X X X

X

Used interventions by consultant

X

Outsourcing Redesign of processes

X X

Integral quality management Earnings systems Selection

X X

Carrier development Task widening

X X X X X X X X X

Task enrichment o. Focus on internal control

Control Report Logbooks

p. Focus on training and development

Training Workshops Feedback Coaching

X X

X X

X

Teambuilding Search conference

X X

r. Focus on sustainable learning and change

X

X X

X

16

X

X

X

X

X X X X

X X

X

X

X X X

X

X

X X

X X

X

X X

X X X X X

X X X X

X X X

X X

X

X X

X X

X X

X X X X X

X

X X X

X X

X X

X

Third party Process management

X X X

X X

X X X X X X

X

Gaming q. Focus on processes between people

15

X

X

Structure change

n. Focus on the motivation of employees

14

X

X

New organization units

m. Focus on improving the business performance

13

X X

Search conference l. Focus on short term adaptation of organizational structure or cooperation’s

12

X

X X

X

Action learning Explorative research

X X

Dialogue

*the indicated organizational problems are marked grey. Table 5: used interventions by the management consultants

77

X X

X X

X

X

X X

X

Source of Evidence

Cases Scientific knowledge

1 X

2

3

4

5 X

6 X

7

8 X

9

10

11 X

12 X

13 X

14 X

15 X

16 X

Professional Experience

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Patients, Clients and careers

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Local context and environment

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

6

7

8

11

12

13

14

15

16

Table 6: used source of evidence by the management consultants

Types of Evidence

Cases Hypothetical Evidence

1

Anecdotal Evidence

X

Testimonial / Expert Evidence

X

Statistical Evidence

X

2

3

4

5

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Analogical Evidence

X

9

10

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Table 7: used types of evidence

Advantages

Categories

Frequency

Attitude of consultants

5

Shared knowledge base

8

Objectivity of advice

3

Table 8: advantages of evidence based consulting Frequency

Disadvantage

Categories Abstraction level

11

Client’s attitude and support

14

Shared knowledge base

4

Scientific skills

3

Time

6

Table 9: disadvantages of evidence based consulting

78

D. Quotes tables Scientific knowledge



(9X)

 

   

Source of evidence

 

Professional experience



(14X)

           



Ik leun wel heel erg op wetenschappelijke inzichten over wat slim veranderen is of wat stom veranderen is. Wetenschappelijk, maardus minimaal. Maar dat is meer... voor de inspiratie. (Evidence based evaluation) Ik heb die evaluatie methode is gebaseerd op wetenschappelijke onderzoeksliteratuur. Ook gezien mijn achtergrond en dat ik van de universiteit afkomt weet ik welke literatuur ik daarvoor moet gebruiken. onze onderzoeksmethodiek is gebaseerd op wetenschappelijke onderzoeken. De basis is wetenschappelijke kennis. Wetenschappelijke kennis. Wat je dus gebruikt is gewoon om bijvoorbeeld voor supply chain management het scoremodel. Scoremodel is een model dat bekijkt wat er bij supply chain management hoort. Quinn-model is een model dat naar de cultuur van het bedrijf kijkt. Efm is een model die je kan gebruiken om te kijken naar organisatie. eigenlijk niet echt, maar heb voor me zelf wel de krachten model van porter gebruikt, Omdat ik dat wel aardig vond. Waardoor onderscheidt dit bureau zich nou? Wat ik straks nog wilt gebruiken is dat competing values van Quinn. Omdat het een handig model is om iets van een cultuur in kaart te brengen. Ik denk dat wetenschappelijk kennis dat het altijd een onderliggende is. we hebben wetenschappelijk kennis gebruikt om dan op de meer waarde en de noodzaak van de oogbus aan te kunnen tonen. De financiele effectiviteit van de oogbus gaan wij en Erasmus gaat dat ook onderzoeken. Want na 2 jaar moet je zeggen kijk dit scheelt jullie. Wetenschappelijk kennis op basis van een haalbaarheid is aan getoond. We zitten op de goed weg en het is aangetoond. Het groot stuk van het adviseren is in deze opdracht zat in het vertellen wat in mijn ogen het beste aanpak was voor dit proces. Professionele deskundigheid is de expertise van de consultant. Dat de consultant begrijp dat wanneer een key-user zijn verhaal doet, dat hij die vertaalslag kan maken naar SAP. Heel veel eerdere ervaring. Uit ervaring. Wat heb je gezien, wat heb je ooit fout gedaan. Dat ga je in ieder geval niet meer fout doen. Bij mij vind ik professionele deskundigheid. Dat is dus ervaring. Daarnaast legimiteer ik ook dat ik voor een universiteit werkt en dat ik op een unviseriteit heb gewerkt. Dat ik bekend ben met de onderzoek methode. Dat is mij legitimatie. Ik denk dat de nadruk ligt op professionele deskundigheid. Waarbij wij dat intern organiseren door vooral teamgewijs te werken. om zoveel mogelijk ervaring en kunde op projecten in te zetten en onszelf scherp te houden zodat we geen dingen vergeten of denk fouten maken. professionele deskundigheid waarbij je ook gebruik maakt van plaatselijk data en informatie. ervaringskwestie voor mij. Professionele deskundigheid zijn voor mijn segmenten heel erg belangrijk. Om daarmee probeer je ook de vertrouwen naar de klant toe uit te stralen. De klant ziet je in veel gevallen ook als deskundige. Professionele deskundigheid voor een groot gedeelte. Het is heel erg van de kant van expert en ervaring om daar dan te kijken in hoeverre dat verschillende werkwijze van toepassing kan zijn voor de organisatie. Heel erg projecteren op en luisteren naar wat daarop terugkomt en dan pas die aanpak kiest. Het is vooral professionele deskundigheid. Mijn eigen ervaringen en ervaringen van anderen. Daar zit je je ervaring in van alle jaren. Hoe werkt dat hier en wat zie ik hier. De kennis van mensen, je kennis van hoe mensen reageren. Je kennis van op je gevoel leren vertrouwen ook. Maar ook gewoon heel professionele aantal dingen. Een aantal technieken inzet om dingen te doen. De professionele deskundigheid om die oogbus verder te uit te kunnen rollen.

79

Clients experience and preferences



(20X)

      

         

Local context and environment



(16X) 

 

Mensen kennis laten nemen van elkaars gezichtpunten en te kijken naar gemeenschappelijkheden, wat zijn verschillen en daar werkende weg via een dialoog uitkomen Maar ik zorg ervoor dat de manager en key-users zeggen dat de blauwdruk goed is. Ik zorg ervoor dat de key-users die afgevaardigd zijn van een afdeling, dat die zeggen dat het goed is. De acceptatie van de organisatie. Om weerstand te voorkomen of te helpen overbruggen, hebben wij een pilot project gedraaid met een select aantal mensen, die heel bewust is gekozen op een bepaalde manier. Vaak is er wel iemand in het bedrijf die je verder kan helpen. Als je iets niet weet, dan zoek je vaak iemand binnen de organisatie die wel verstand van zaken heeft. Zo zijn het stappen die afhankelijk wat de klant wilt en wat je goed acht. Dan laat je de groep erover praten en meedenken en van daaruit een besluit te nemen. Ik geloof heel erg in dat je het met mensen doet. Als de mensen niet weet te winnen en het te betrekken in het proces, gaat de verandering nooit plaatsvinden Het proces klopt het dan niet en dan legt je het terug bij het hogere management. Dan komen er aanvullingen bij en we hebben een proces wat gedragen is en op voorgesproken door de mens. Het is ook zo dat de interactie met de klant om betrokkenheid te creeeren. Als jij niks van je laat horen en je moet opeens een onnderzoek uitvoeren, dan moet je mensen meekrijgen. anders is er geen draagvlak voor zo'n onderzoek. Dus daarom is het belangrijk dat je dit in dialoog doet. Dat je genoeg rapporteert naar je opdrachtgever. Die keuze is gebaseerd om draagvlak en betrokkenheid te creeeren. Maar we onderbouwen dat door hun eigen cijfers en informatie. Daarmee krijgen zij dus ook een bedrijfsplan waarin we voor een klein stukje eigen kennis in te verwerken. We geven zelf geen eens de strategische richting aan. Dat weten ze zeker vaak zelf wel. Het idee is dat men tijd en efficiency winst over en niet met het idee dat we met lean sparen om ..... het is eigenlijk het slimmer werken, de klant als uitgangspunt nemen. Dan gaat het om primaire processen daar omheen. Workshops spreekt men altijd aan in zoverre dat je iedereen erbij betrekt en als je een afdeling wilt laat verbeteren continue dan moet je iedereen erbij betrekken. De rol van de opdrachtgever in dit geval niet heel nauw bij betrokken. wat heel belangrijk is dat de opdrachtgever erachter staat. De leiding moet wel mee en 100% erachter staan. Die moet toch ook wel overal zijn akkoord voor geven voor alle zaken die je doet. dat koppel ik altijd terug. Ik doe niets zonder dat de opdrachtgevers akkoord geeft. Contextuele kennis en ervaring: Ook natuurlijk hoe zij zich gedragen. Dit was een organisatie waar mensen heel veel op papier zette en heel veel overlegde. De rol van de opdrachtgever is belangrijk, want die bepaald mede de aanpak. Dus de opdrachtgever heeft een hele belangrijke rol uiteindelijk en in wat wordt de weg en aanpak van hoe het moet. Heel interactief met elkaar delen van wat gaat de interventies gaat doen. ik gebruik de ervaring van de andere bureau om hun eigen ervaring in te zetten. ze weten ook heel veel. Ik zie het ook mijn taak om hun te prikkelen om hun eigen inzicht te gebruiken. Een eindsituatie is akkoord als het acceptabel is voor een opdrachtgever. Uiteindelijk moet ik dat vertellen aan een opdrachtgever en dan moet de opdrachtgever daarmee akkoord gaan. Ik weet dat het methotiek die wij nu willen gaan uit proberen dat dat de methode is om ziektekostenverzekeraars over de streep te trekken. Alleen reclame dat zal een ziektekostenverzekeraar niet van overtuigd zijn. Dat werkt misschien paar jaren, maar het geld puur over geld. Dus ik weet gewoon dat die factor geldt die variabel dat dat gewoon voor ziektekostenverzekeraars heel efficiente en effectieve aspecten zijn om dit project efficient uit te voeren. maakt ik heel erg gebruik van de informatie uit die organisatie en de mensen die daarin werken. Het kan zijn dat ik jaarverslagen en rapporten lees. Mensen bevragen in interviews, hoe zit je in de situatie? Ik maak gebruik van branche kennis. Abracte kennis over meer de ziekenhuiswereld. De website daarover te lezen. Ik heb de key-users en de consultants samengebacht. Een belangrijke key-user die alle gedeeltes van productie tot HR en financieen beheerste vanuit de klantkant. Ik heb iedere keer een key-users gekoppeld aan een consultant. Consultant heeft opdat moment de knoppen bedient, maar de key-users heeft het verhaal verteld aan zo'n klankboordgroep. Ziet het maar als mensen die niet in het projectgroep zitten, maar die wel verstand van zaken hebben. door een onderzoeksbureau een klanttevredenheidsonderzoek was uitgevoerd. Die heb ik wel doorgenomen en daar wat puntje uitgepakt. Wat ik wel heb gebruik is het zoeken naar die richtlijnen. Welke artikelen in een ziekenhuis zitten specifieke eisen aan. Zitten er gevaarlijke stoffen bij? Zitten er steriele goederen bij die speciale opslag eisen hebben. De brandweer heeft altijd haar eigen eisen. Zoals die steriele goederen zijn richtlijnen en geen wetten. Dus er staat ook duidelijk in wat wel mag of niet mag.

80





   

  

 



Hoe zit je vragen in ontwikkelingen, Hoe zit je eigen aanbod en hoe ver zijn die in overeenstemming En dan duiken we langzamerhand in het proces in. Dat is dus ook wat ik nu bij één doe. Gewoon stap voor stap de verschillende processen in de intern doorlopen die het product doorgaat. Je moet natuurlijk eerst de mensen redelijk, goed en snel kunnen begrijpen. En als je dan ziet hoe het eindelijk gaat, dan kan je het zelf verder gaan invullen. Het proces klopt het dan niet en dan legt je het terug bij het hogere management. Dan komen er aanvullingen bij en we hebben een proces wat gedragen is en op voorgesproken door de mens. Die informatie komt van de verwijzers zelf. Ik werk altijd met grote steekproef en ik probeer goede steekproef te trekken. Je gebruik dat plaatselijke data en informatie voor het doorrekenen van de ambities van de klant zelf. We hebben daar met 2 adviserus gezeten en ook rondgekeken, observaties en interview en de data die daar aanwezig was geanalyseerd. De kennis die de mensen hebben van de interne organisatie. hangt er van af op welke manier je die informatie naar boven. Dat is heel belangrijk om de juiste vragen te stellen om de mensen te prikkelen tot nadenken over hun eigen handelingen en waarom doe ik dat? Hun een speigel voor te houden en een stukje zelfreflectie. Dat hun je meenemen. Dat bepaald toch voor een deel van je oplossingsrichting die je gaat aanbieden. We zijn afhankelijk van de informatie voorziening die dan moet gaan spelen. Op welke manier ga je dus die infomatie uitwisselen en wat ga je vastleggen en op welke manier ga je dat vastleggen. Wie moet wat en wanneer weten. Plaatselijk data en informatie: Dan zie ik rapporten van mensen die ook al hebben nagedacht over de vraag. Alles wat er is en wat relevant is, heb ik meegenomen. Kijken naar verschil in bedrijf. Wat voor bedrijf, wat zijn de producten, wat zijn de markt, wat zijn de leveringscondities, heel de logistiek van zo'n bedrijf. Al die gegevens die gebruik je dus voor data informatie. Dus het is een samenhang van al deze 4 dit mogelijk maakt om een goede klus te doen. met een workshop met adviseurs, stuurt mij alle stukken toe die de afgelopen jaren in dit kader zijn geproduceerd. Ik wil mezelf een beeld kunnen vormen van de strategie. Puur voor interne beeldvorming. Een plaatselijke data aan informatie en dan zit je met van ''hoe werkt dat hier intern'' en ''hoe lopen hazen''. Ja natuurlijk gebruik je die. Hoe raar dat ook lijkt, dat het vaak het langste duurt om dat soort dingen boven tafel te krijgen.Uiteindelijk blijkt dat de invloed.. ging over een team.. over een secretariaatteam en er kwamen steeds meer mensen die daar iets van vonden. En uiteindelijk blijkt dan dat er verschillende mensen daar iets verschillends van vonden. Zelfs de oplossing en het tevredenheid van de opdrachtgever in het feit dat ze uiteindelijk met een aantal mensen het eens waren over de koers die ze moesten gaan varen voor de komende tijd. Dus die gebruik je ook altijd. Plaatselijke data en informatie van ziektekostenverzekeraars, want die moeten aantonen, we hebben zoveel minder aanspraken en zoveel minder declaratie binnengekregen van botbreuken van 65 plussers met name in die regio.

Quote table 1: sources of evidence

81

Anecdotal Evidence



(12X)   



    

Types of evidence





Hypothetical Evidence (8X)

       

Testimonial / Expert Evidence (17X)

      

Het is belangrijk om eerst wat informatie te verzamelen bij de verschillende deelnemers. Mensen kennis laten namen van elkaars gezichtpunten en te kijken naar gemeenschappelijkheden, wat zijn verschillen en daar werkende weg via een dialoog uitkomen. Ik heb deels met mensen uit de organisatie gesproken om de historie boven tafel te krijgen. Consultant heeft opdat moment de knoppen bedient, maar de key-users heeft het verhaal verteld aan zo'n klankboordgroep. Ziet het maar als mensen die niet in het projectgroep zitten, maar die wel verstand van zaken hebben. Informatie uit de organisatie en over de aanpakken. Ik heb heel veel informatie opgezocht. Dat begon al met de benchmark die ik heb uitgevoerd. Ik heb de benchmark gebruik als nul meting. Maar benchmark is eigenlijk heel veel informatie verzamelen en vervolgens vergelijken met anderen. Hoe zit je vragen in ontwikkelingen, Hoe zit je eigen aanbod en hoe ver zijn die in overeenstemming En dan duiken we langzamerhand in het proces in. Dat is dus ook wat ik nu bij één doe. Gewoon stap voor stap de verschillende processen in de intern doorlopen die het product doorgaat. Maar we onderbouwen dat door hun eigen cijfers en informatie. Daarmee krijgen zij dus ook een bedrijfsplan waarin we voor een klein stukje eigen kennis in te verwerken. We hebben daar met 2 adviserus gezeten en ook rondgekeken, observaties en interview en de data die daar aanwezig was geanalyseerd. Uitleggen wat ik signaleer en die is wat ik ga doen. Als je er niet mee eens ben, dan moet je het gaan zeggen, op die manier. door het in kaart brengen wat de aard en inhoud van conflicten zijn en de oorspronkelijke uitgang posities zijn waarbij de partijen wel in konden vinden. Ja, want het is altijd iets wat in een bepaalde context gebeurd. Dus je probeert altijd te kijken van.. hoeveel invloed heeft de context en wat zou er gebeuren als dit in een andere context zou zijn. In hoeverre is die context.. is die specifieke situatie hier afhankelijk. Eindeloos onderzoeken. Eerst inventariseren wat de situatie is. Proberen zo goed te mogelijk beeld te krijgen van de dingen die ik zeker weet die ik niet zeker. Proberen zo hoog mogelijk zekerheid gfehalte in het beeld te krijgen. Door op allerlei manieren met alle actoren te praten. Vooral niet te snel oordelen. Heel erg lang bij de principe blijven van mensen willen inprincipe veranderen. Wat ik doe is gebruik maken van een database. Dus elke dag komt er nieuwe regelingen en verdwijnen oude regelingen, budget raakt op, macro-economische ontwikkelingen die uiteindelijk mijn werk als subsidie-adviseur leidt. Heel veel onderbuik. Je neemt ergens bewust of onbewust toch mee en dat ga je gebruiken. Je maakt het je eigen en heb je het niet meer in de gaten dat je dat ooit gelezen hebt. Dan schets je wel ongeveer waar de organisatie naar toe moet. We gaan het op die en die manier doen''. OK, dat is meestal de antwoord wat ik terug krijg. En het liefst zeggen waarom. Die vragen worden bijna nooit gesteld. In gevallen als ik dat zo aanpak werkt het in deze situatie gevoelsmatig het beste en in een andere situatie ga je wat meer grotere stappen er door heen. Het is heel erg gevoelsmatig. Maar van tevoren heb je dus geen idee. Dat is proberen, trail & error, kijken of het werkt. Als het niet werkt, dan probeer je wat anders. Het is altijd wel gebaseerd op wat je al een keer heb gedaan en toen goed ging en dat doe je nog een keer. Ik denk dat heel veel intuitie en ervaring. Ik heb iets 10 keer gedaan en 9 keer ging het goed. dus kennelijk werkt het wel. Omdat ik al zou lang dit werk doe zit er ook heel veel ingesloten kennis. Het groot stuk van het adviseren is in deze opdracht zat in het vertellen wat in mijn ogen het beste aanpak was voor dit proces In de buildfase komt de professionele deskundigheid. Op basis van wat er geschreven is, gaat men het systeem bouwen. Professionele deskundigheid is zeker het overgrote deel geweest. Professionele deskundigheid: we hebben een eigen groepje van logistiek interimmers en adviseurs. Als ik ergens mee zit, dan vraag je het bijelkaar. Je kijkt naar de organisatie en kijkt naar je eigen kennis. Al dan niet met informatie of inzichten die je erbij wilt hebben. Het is wel zo dat ik in de opbouw, mijn professionele kennis meeneem. Het kan bij de aanbevelingen komt het terug. Want ik heb data en op basis van mijn data maak ik mijn conclusie. Dan moet ik aanbevelingen doen. Die aanbevelingen die bedenk ik dan wel zelf. Op

82

       

 

Statistical Evidence (8X)

  

   



Analogical Evidence (3X)



basis van mijn professionele deskundigheid die weer gebaseert is op mijn gegevens. Ik denk dat de nadruk ligt op professionele deskundigheid. Waarbij wij dat intern organiseren door vooral teamgewijs te werken. om zoveel mogelijk ervaring en kunde op projecten in te zetten en onszelf scherp te houden zodat we geen dingen vergeten of denk fouten maken. Ook een inschatting van je professionele deskundigheid om dat te kunnen bepalen. Ik maak gebruik van methode die ook door anderen zijn aangeleverd. Dat toets je in de praktijk. Professionele deskundigheid voor een groot gedeelte. Wat je doet, zeker in deze vraag is op basis van wat je denk dat je moet doen. Dat is heel gevoelsmatig. Dat is heel sterk. Dat is dus de ervaring om ervoor te zorgen welke modellen er toegepast moeten worden en ook alleen toepassen dat past bij het bedrijf. Keuzes en hoe pak je het aan. Mijn rol is om vanuit mijn professioneel deskundigheid dat juist te gaan doen. Daar gaat het met name om redelijke professionele deskundigheid. Kun je de wetenschappelijk kennis gebruiken. Als je dat in de goede context kunt plaatsen, dan zegt dat weer dan hoe je het moet doen. Wat hier evidence based is, is dat ik ervaring uit die 5 andere bureaus put en daar heb ik gezien dat het wel werkt. Dat zou je evidence based kunnen noemen. Dat is niet keihard, maar wel gebaseerd op eerdere ervaringen. En je doet iets op basis van '' je hebt ervaring'' of ''kijk je maakt een plan'' en dan kies je een bepaalde aanpak. Die aanpak evalueer je een op een gegeven moment. Soms borduur je daarop verder en soms anders verzinnen. Daar doe je voor een deel op basis van ervaring en voor een deel van wat werkt in de praktijk en wat niet. Wat niet werkt, moet je het weer gaan aanpassen. En daarop kan ik de gewonnen kennis gebruiken om dan ook het project waar ik subsidie op aan gevraagd heb in de juiste perspectief kan plaatsen. En dat is wat een subsidioloog moet doen. Er is een project en dit is de subsidieregelingen en die moet wel beetje matchen met elkaar. Het moet innovatief zijn. Je moet dan dus al die elementen die moet je een beetje in elkaar krijgen. Wat daar onderzit is eigenlijk een empirische onderzoek naar het slagen van veranderprocessen in organisaties waaruit blijkt dat blauwdrukachtige veranderprocessen waarin je een klein groep apart gaat zetten in een kamer. Het is gebaseerd op onderzoeken naar welke veranderprocessen slagen en welke processen falen, Daarnaast heb ik naast het begeleiden van de groep heel veel gebruik gemaakt van noties en theorieen uit groepsdynamicaleer. Dus ik heb een aantal artikelen en met name boeken. Er zijn boeken geschreven door autoriteiten in de zin van hoogleraren. Echt kennis op hun gebied. Die heb ik als leiddraad genomen. Daar kan ik ook vanuit gaan dat dat valide, betrouwbaar en gegeneraliseerbaar methodieken zijn om goede conclusies te kunnen trekken. In dit geval ligt wetenschappelijk kennis als achtergrond waarom deze methode en waarom je bepaalde instrumenten gebruikkt en hoe een proces benaderd. Dus naar aanleiding van het theorie wat daar achter ligt. Daar proberen we naar de klant toe niet te veel naar te refereren in zoverre dat lean gewoon heel weinig zegt, maar alle sterke punten eruit te pakken. continue verbeterstand en heeft zich ook bewezen in achter sectoren. We hebben een theoretische basis die heet LEAN. het komt oorspronkelijk uit een Mallorca fabriek. het is nu al herhaaldelijke onderzocht en toegepast in de zorg en hoe dat precies werkt. Wat je dus gebruikt is gewoon om bijvoorbeeld voor supply chain management het scoremodel. Scoremodel is een model dat bekijkt wat er bij supply chain management hoort. Quinn-model is een model dat naar de cultuur van het bedrijf kijkt. Efm is een model die je kan gebruiken om te kijken naar organisaties. In dit soort situatie gebruik ik wetenschappelijk kennis om gewoon modellen op te zoeken. Die modellen gebruiken om over die werkelijkheid heen te leggen. Dan probeer ik verschillende modellen te gebruiken, want dat helpt mij een analyse te maken en daar realiseer ik me heel goed dat dan de model van de werkelijkheid is. Dat helpt me dus om. Op een gegeven moment zegt van.. als dit model op dat bedrijf legt, wat zie ik dan. Als dit model erop legt en wat voor conclusie kan ik trekken. Dan doe ik met wetenschappelijke kennis en ik denk dat je met wetenschappelijk kennis altijd onder je werk ligt. Tenminste bij mij wel en dat hou ik ook redelijk bij. Daarnaast door de inter rate reliability, dus als ik de data heb geanalyseerd dan gaat een collega het nog een keer analyseren. Kijken of ik fouten heb gemaakt. Dus het verslag wordt door 2 onafhandelijke collega's nagelezen. Daarin proberen wij ook een kwaliteitsslag te maken.

83





Ik heb een concept, een variable. Tevredenheid over iets. Daarnaast ben ik ook verbanden aan het leggen. Ik ga kijken wat het verband is tussen tevredenheid en verwijsgedrag. Ik verzamel data over verschillende variabelen en dan ga ik mijn correlaties trekken. Als er een correlatie/ verband vind, dan leidt dat tot als verwijzers meer tevreden zijn over noem maar wat, ze meer doorverwijzen of wanneer ze ontevreden zijn, minder doorverwijzen. In die zin ben ik wel zoveel mogelijk wetenschappelijk bezig. Je moet dan een bewijs leveren aan die ziektekostenverzekeraars. Dat gaan we nu ook doen, met een pilot project in het west van Nederland. Dan moeten we aan de hand van statistische gegevens aantonen dat voorgaande jaren altijd 26 miljoen euro aan die doelgroep betaald zijn.

Quote table 2: types of evidence

Attitude



(5X)



 

Advantages



Shared knowledge base



(8X)

    

  Objectivity



(3X)



Disadvantage

 Abstraction level



(11X)

    

Ik zie veel voordelen in zaken die zich in de praktijk bewezen heeft. Ik ben zo wetenschappelijk ingericht. Ik heb meer zo iets van bewijs het maar. Het is evidence bases in die zin dat je daarbij gebruikt maakt van je ervaring en daarbij kijkt wat deze oorzaak het beste bij deze opdracht het beste bij het pupliek zijn. Het is wel degelijk evidence. Het is bewezen praktijk en het is onderbouwde kennis, dat je inderdaad herhaalbaar overtuigende wijze bewezen. minder snel fouten maakt, omdat je niet goed heb nagedacht of je denk dat je het ergens anders heb gedaan, dus dat past hier ook wel. maakt je bewust van dat de manier waarop jij intuitief naar een situatie kijkt ook maar een manier is. Het is heel goed om je daart bewust van te zijn. Dat er mogelijk nog hele andere manieren zijn. Het is heel doordacht. Als je het goed toepast is het op zijn minst heel zorgvuldig en dat is belangrijk. als je het breed toepast komen alle aspecten en factoren die er te doen aan orde Voordeel is wel dat met elkaar werkt aan een taal om al die unieke projecten die unieken consultants doen om die vergelijkbaar met elkaar te maken Het voordeel van evidence based consulting dat we de kunde uitbouwen. Maar dan wel op die kennisgebied heel veel uitwisselt. Dat je een bijdrage moet leveren aan de kennis basis en dat je dus ook gewoon je kennis voor een deel publiek moet maken. Als je die evidence base practice doet, is de samenwerking heel belangrijk. Het gaat erom het willen samen werken. Als je dan iets doet, het dan ook erover hebben met anderen. Op die manier die kennis laten groeien. En of die samenwerkingsvorm geeft, is niet zo belangrijk. Het gaat over de samenwerking en vooral over het besef dat kennis meer wordt als je het deelt. (..) Samen heb je meer kennis. Niet alleen jou kennis en mijn kennis. Maar ook een kennis die we samen maken. Dus dat je op verschillende manieren naar kennis moet kijken om dit optimaal te doen. En dat door goed te respecteren op dat evidence based practice. Dat het de juiste waar de mensen van leren en ook weet nieuwe kennisen van komt. Of je moet in een kennis netwerk zitten die inprincipe allemaal dezelfde werk doen. Maar wel met andere conculting. Maar dan wel op die kennisgebied heel veel uitwisselt. voordeel is dat je het leerproces versneld op de vlak van professionele deskundigheid. Je objectiveert het veel meer, dus je kan met grotere zekerheid zeggen dat de conclusies juist zijn Ik zie eigenlijk alleen maar voordelen, door wel je bewust van te zijn heb je de feiten wel op een rijtje Wat een goede adviseur doet, die haalt heel veel uit de plaatselijk data en informatie Dat je het zo probeert te vangen in wat abstraties. Dat je geen recht doet wat er nou daadwerkelijk bijzonder en unieke en apart was aan die casus. Het gaat eigenlijk om het abstractie niveau waarmee je met je opdrachtgevers spreekt. De abstract waarmee ik met de opdrachtgever sprak was op het niveau van concrete voorstellen. Sommige vraagstukken zijn zo complex, kan je alleen doen met interviews. Dat kan niet zo heel veel wetenschappelijk mee doen. anders dan je eigen interpretatie doe op basis van interviews, maar dan moet je advies gewoon goed zijn. Het nadeel is dat je denk dat het de werkelijkheid is. Maar de nadeel zou kunnen zijn, dat je daarmee intuitie onderschat. Dat is een belangrijk element wat je meest gebruikt. Wat je wel vaak ziet is dat

84



   

Client’s attitude and support (14X)

 

      

    

Research (4X)

  

wetenschappelijk onderzoek voor veel klanten en voor mij toch een beetje te abstract is. Heel veel wordt onderzocht, maar er is maar een aantal elementen die voor mij als subsioloog van belang zijn. Als ik TU-delft als klant zou hebben dan zou ik wel iets meer in de materie gaan zitten. Mijn klanten zijn machinefabrieken. Die hebben minder met wetenschap te maken. Voor hun is het heel abstract, maar wij leggen een aantal dingen die wij kunnen vertalen in concrete projecten, in concrete producten, in concrete processen en dan is het wel zinvol. Je kan heel mooi wetenschappelijk onderzoek doen. De afstand van veel wetenschappelijke onderzoek tot de praktijk is vaak heel groot. Daarmee is de afstand tussen de toepasbaarheid van die wetenschappelijk kennis in de praktijk vaak beperkt. Als je op strategische niveau bekijkt, is het altijd op advisering. Wat ik doe, ik zit op soms ook de taktische niveau. Dat hangt ook van de probleem stelling en de vraagstelling. Het zijn continue zoveel factoren waar je op moet letten dan het niet zo makkelijk is om het in een lijst te vangen is. Je heb wel bepaalde strategieen, bijvoorbeeld als je tegen maken heb met een juist een zeker of onzekere kant. Het is context bepalend. De genoten onderwijs in het managment wat echt voor nederlandse begrippen echt heel laag was. Daar maak je gebruik van. Dan bedoel ik het niet negatief. Dat betekent dat je je boodschap moet aanpassen op wat daar speelt. Je kan een hele goede team hebben. Die hebben de beste wetenschappelijke benodigheden. Maar als je niet kan uitleggen aan de directie dan praat je niet in dezelfde taal. Dan wordt jou advies nooit geaccepteerd. Vervolgens kan je een hele slechte powerpoint hebben, terwijl je inhoudelijk zo goed bent, maar dan moet je je verhaal kunnen verkopen. In de charisma en overtuigingskracht. Er zijn een aantal figuren die iets kunnen verkondigen wat totaal niet evidence based is. Maar wat je aanneemt van iemand. Dat is wel een hele belangrijke factor. Dat zit heel veel in de persoonlijke benadering Je komt bij de raad van bestuur en zeg dit is evidence based. Maar dat ze toch zeggen: hij is wel jong, dus ik vertrouw het niet helemaal. Maar misschien dat je wel helemaal gelijk heeft Maar dat is de oplossing (methode of aanpak) die bij het minst tegenstand en het meest draagvlak mee denk te genereren. Een hele pragmatische aanpak omdat de directeur een authoritair leidinggevende is. Dan kies je ook een aanpak die hem waarschijnlijk aanspreekt. Dan is dat heel back to basic en dat heeft zeker invloed op hoe je je opdrachten doet. In plaats van proberen iets te bewijzen en dan te doen. Het is Ad hocerig op een of andere manier. Nadeel kan zijn dat je je eigen falen ook pijnlijk inzichtelijk maakt naar de klatn toe. dat heeft ook met integriteit te maken. Je hebt wat minder middelen om je resultaten op te poetsen. Je had voor een probleem 17 oplossingen. Daar zat je niet op te wachten. Precies wat je zelf, ik zit niet te wachten op 17 oplossingen. Jij bent de professional, dit is mijn probleem, kies voor mij die juiste oplossing. Een van die 17. Of hooguit 2 dat ik een keuze maak ui die 2. Best practice. Ingehuurd voor kant en klare oplossingen. Maar het heeft veel meer met de context te maken dat zowel organisatiesook niet goed snappen wat de meerwaarde daarvan kan zijn. Aan de andere kant, wat je ziet bij opdrachtgevers is dat ze juist niet willen worden vergeleken met anderen. want ze zijn uniek. Dat heeft denk ik ook te maken met de cultuur bij logistieke dienstverleners. Er wordt over het algemeen weinig geinvesteerd. Ik werk voor midden klein bedrijf, minder grote en die zijn daar nog lang niet. Die zijn veel praktischer. Je ziet dat sommige organisatie, ook het wetenschap een beetje last heeft van een bepaalde imago.Wat versta u onder wetenschap? veel te ingewikkeld. Probeer ik het nogmaals uit te leggen dat de methode is misschien ingewikkeld, maar de resultaten zijn heel helder wat eruit komt. Dan kunt u ook veel meer mee doen. Dat je de eerste paar criteria neerlegt en dan van bepaalde richting erft en dan ook evidence based bezig. Maar dan moet je het dus wel allemaal kan vergelijken. Dat is voor mij niet bij te houden. De anderen zou ook kunnen zeggen ''wij zijn een commercieel bureau en moeten niet teveel weg geven''. Volgens mij is de zorg bij uitstek een sector waar je heel veel wetenschap kan onderzoeken. Maar waar ook heel veel kennis komt. Gewoon omdat de situatie zo uniek is dat je ter plekke een oplossing moet verzinnen. Iemand heeft een keer die oplossing verzonnen en die oplossing gaat dan weer...en de zorg kan iedereen zich dat voorstellen. Maar is natuurlijk in onze sector niet anders. Daar ga je ook een gewoon een probleem waar je accuut een

85



Scientific skills (3X)

  

Time



(6X)

    

oplossing voor moet opzoeken. Juist door die oplossingen te delen en juist doordat beschikbaar te maken die kennis, groeit die kennis dan. Dat komt gewoon pas met het opbouwen van kennis en ervaringen en delen. Dat kost tijd en is denk ik een nadeel. heel veel adviseurs zich niet bewust zijn van het feit hoe ze werken. Dus heel veel van hun kennis en ervaringen zijn niet gecodificeerd. vooral bij HR advisering, dat is niet een heel hard vak. Consultants over het algemeen weinig onderzoekskennis hebben. Wij die komen van een universiteit en wij snappen hoe je onderzoek moet doen. Het is ook nuttig dat wij tween wetenschappelijk onderlegde medewerkers zijn. Ik ben gepromoveerd en Tim is bezig met zijn promotie. Dat helpt inderdaad wel met een stukje onderbouwing voor al die adviezen. Maar niet zozeer van een probleem en ik ga daar een boek voor lezen. Daar is de tijd te kort voor Het kan ook zijn dat de doorlooptijd van je maatregel langer wordt. Bij consulting waar je per uur betaald wordt kan een opdrachtgever dat veel minder aantrekkelijk vinden dus is het goedkoper om het maar best practice te blijven doen Het nadeel is wel dat het tijdrovend is. Wij hebben dit nu geadviseerd en dit hebben we bedacht, laten we daarvan de effectiviteit meten. Ik denk dat bi veel opdrachten dat meer werk zal zijn dan het beantwoorden van de oorspronkelijke vraag. Nadeel is dat er heel wat tijd overheen komt, als het gaat om het kunnen toepassen allemaal. Dat is echt het hele lang leren zeg maar. Als je het gek op bent, is het geen nadeel. Het duurt wel dan een tijd voordat je het kunt toepass. Ik moet wel mijn uurtjes draaien.

Quote table 3: advantage and disadvantage of evidence based consulting

86