Types of consulting compared: which fits your situation?

The appropriate form of consulting follows from the type of change. The model of the four types serves as a framework: crisis management and restructuring, continuous optimisation, profound transformation and foresighted self-renewal. Two of them are limited in time, two are designed to be permanent.

The decisive factor in the choice is the depth of intervention required. If existing processes are to be improved or an acute problem solved, consulting that addresses exactly this occasion is sufficient. If, on the other hand, the organisation’s fundamental logic of working and deciding has to develop, a form is needed that also examines the existing practice of change.

Expert consulting. Fits when the question is clearly defined in subject terms and the organisation can process the answer through its usual decision-making channels. Contribution: a specialist solution from outside, concepts and methods, support with implementation. Limit: the solution finds no connection in the leadership system; changes generally fail at the social level, not at the factual level.

Turnaround and restructuring. Fits when a concrete, threatening problem has to be solved in a limited time. Contribution: dealing with the acute occasion using means that have proved themselves in the past. Limit: the core of the organisation remains unchanged; the next programme often follows in subsequent years, and radical cuts cost energy and competencies needed for later renewal.

Process consulting. Fits when the specialist knowledge is present in the company and the difficulty lies in how people work together. Contribution: organisational development of the framework for cooperation, such as roles, communication channels and decision-making routines. Limit: tasks that also require specialist concepts and methods; like expert consulting, it remains at the level of second-order change, and the patterns of change themselves are not examined.

Third mode of consulting, in which transformis works. Fits when a change affects several dimensions at once, such as strategy, structure, decision-making processes, leadership and culture, and its course cannot be planned in a linear way. Contribution: the factual, social and time dimensions are included on an equal footing in a solution architecture; the goal is the capability for continuous strategic self-renewal. Limit: not the obvious form for a clearly defined specialist question or an acute crisis; top management must see itself as part of the change.

Classic expert consulting delivers a specialist solution and supports its implementation. Specialist advice on a defined topic and expert reports belong to this form. It understands change management as supporting the implementation of its solution, and it has tools for organising participation. Its contribution lies in the factual dimension: it brings in concepts and methods from outside.

This form fits when the question is clearly defined in subject terms and the organisation can process the answer through its usual decision-making channels. This also includes questions that belong in specialised legal or financial advice.

Its limit lies where the solution finds no connection in the leadership system. In transformis’s experience, changes generally fail at the social level and rarely at the factual level. A concept that is convincing in subject terms then stays in the drawer. With industry-specific advice there is the added factor that companies in one industry receive similar recommendations on market, competition and trends. Anyone who orients themselves solely towards competitors and benchmarks will at best be as good as the comparison.

Many consultancies have specialised in restructuring in crisis mode or in optimising processes. For an acute, threatening situation, this specialisation is the right choice. A turnaround is then painful and necessary. The starting situation can be recognised by the fact that a concrete, threatening problem has to be solved in a limited time.

The limit of this form lies in its mandate. It deals with the occasion using means that have proved themselves in the past and leaves the core of the organisation unchanged. Turnarounds and radical cost programmes are often the result of strategic omissions in the past. If the core remains unchanged, the next programme often follows in subsequent years. Radical cuts also cost energy and competencies that would be needed for later renewal.

A utilities and infrastructure group that had successfully completed several restructuring programmes came to this conclusion: restructuring, efficiency gains and continuous improvement alone do not create a long-term perspective.

Classic process consulting understands change management as organisational development. Like expert consulting, it has tools for organising participation. The focus is on the process in which those involved work on their questions themselves. Organisational development changes the framework of cooperation, such as roles, communication channels and decision-making routines.

This form fits when the specialist knowledge is present in the company and the difficulty lies in how people work together. Signs are recurring upward delegation, unclear responsibilities or conflicts at an interface where several people fail in the same way.

Pure process consulting reaches its limit when the task also requires specialist concepts and methods, for example on strategy or organisational design. In the systemic classification on which transformis bases its work, expert consulting and classic process consulting both operate at the level of second-order change: a concrete occasion is dealt with, but the patterns of change themselves are not examined.

transformis works in the third mode of consulting and acts neither as classic expert consulting nor as pure process consulting. The factual, social and time dimensions are included on an equal footing in the solution architecture from the outset. The work addresses a task-related problem. Through working on the subject matter, the quality of cooperation and the decision-making ability of those involved develop as well, and the steps are coordinated over time.

The approach is not alien to the other two forms. It combines the expert knowledge of the key people in the company with a systemic view of organisation and strategy and with concepts and methods from classic expert consulting.

The second difference lies in the goal. transformis concentrates exclusively on profound organisational transformations. The work addresses the conditions that trigger lasting renewal rather than the immediate occasion for change. The end result should be an organisational core competence: the capability for continuous strategic self-renewal. A single project, a method or a reorganisation is explicitly not what is meant.

The approach is appropriate when a change affects several dimensions at once, such as strategic direction, structure, communication and decision-making processes, leadership and culture, and its course cannot be planned in a linear way.

In everyday business, this situation shows itself in several observations. Conflicts and decision-making problems recur despite various attempts at solutions. Different areas interpret the same situation differently. Strategic priorities have been formulated, but the organisation is not set up to implement them. The company acts according to recipes for success that have worked for a long time and reacts to new developments instead of recognising them early.

Another signal is repetition: one cost programme follows another. The task then lies in the patterns, structures and decision-making logics that enable or block renewal.

The effort pays off for projects whose course is open. For a clearly defined specialist question or an acute crisis, the third mode is not the obvious form. It also places demanding requirements on top management. Top management must see itself as part of the change, explain the need for action credibly and reflect on the course regularly. Knowledge of the company’s own business and responsibility for decisions remain in the company.

The result, too, has to be judged differently from the completion of a project. The capability for self-renewal only becomes apparent over repeated cycles, when new insights actually find their way into strategy and ways of working. A single initiative can be a beginning, but it does not prove the lasting capability.

Then there is the timing. The more optimisation and rationalisation there has been in the past, the fewer free resources are available for a transformation. Foresighted renewal therefore starts earlier than the crisis.

An occasion does not in itself dictate a particular method. First, the occasion, the people involved, the decision-making mandate and the expected outcome are clarified. This also shows which questions belong to the project itself, which belong in specialised legal or financial advice and which decision remains with management. The forms of consulting are therefore not mutually exclusive. They answer different questions, and their value can only be judged against the specific mandate.