Food for thought: Methodology or madness?

Report by Mick James

Are consultants artists, responding intuitively to each presenting situations, or scientists, applying predefined procedures to solve problems? For the consultant, this question is vital when deciding whether to embark on the labour-intensive work of creating and then following a formal methodology.

For a large consultancy, there is little choice. The sheer mechanics of managing legions of consultants worldwide and ensuring uniform delivery in large projects in multiple countries demand that procedures and practices be laid down and followed. But some would argue that this is precisely where the smaller consultancy can score over the big boys, in offering the sort of flexibility and ability to improvise that a formal methodology suppresses.

If you asked clients, the final arbiters of all consulting debates, you might well get a mixed response. No-one likes the idea of being put through a purely mechanical process; but are you going to entrust your business future to a consultant who appears to do everything off the top of his head?

Perhaps the key to this dilemma lies in the idea of 'improvisation', and a comparison between consultancy and music. Some musicians work best from a written score; others play 'by ear'. However, many of the best do both: the greatest improvisers depend on a comprehensive understanding of the deep structures of music: chords, scales, harmonics, rhythmic patterns.

In music, improvisation is not the easy way out of doing homework, but nor is it about reinventing the wheel every time you play. Saxophonist legend Charlie 'Bird' Parker may have been famous for never repeating himself in performance, but he was also renowned among his peers for his formidable ability to practise for hours each day.

Looked at in this way, knowledge of structures and technique is not the enemy of creativity, but the foundation on which it is built. When asked "how do you know which note to play?" the jazz musician will point to a creative tension between his own imagination and the limits laid down by the structure of the music.

For a consultant this question becomes, "how do you know what to do?" Methodologies do not necessarily dictate, but provide a framework within which alternatives can be evaluated. But what are the consulting equivalents of the scales and arpeggios that the aspiring musician must learn? How do you change a quiverful of tricks and tips and experience and build it into a formal battery of techniques for future use?

This, in essence is the task that a consultancy sets itself when it tries to capture its existing way of working in a formal methodology. Done properly, a methodology becomes a valuable piece of intellectual capital in its own right, refining and capturing a range of best practice. Once captured, it can then be transmitted, either to clients who want to know how the assignment will run, to new consultant or associates, or even to purchasers who want to a ready-made methodology of the shelf.

But what should the content of the methodology be? Whether it's professional organisations like the IMC and MCA, 'Big Five' consultancies, or smaller consultancies like Elevation Learning, everyone has their own take on what constitutes the essentials of the consultant's craft.

But it's a wide field, and one that's very much open for debate. Why not share your views? Where do you fit on the improvisation/methodology scale? Are there basic routines that every consultant should follow, and what are they?

We'd love to hear a range of opinions on this topic, and hopefully report back on them in a future issue of Learning Edge.