Consulting Skills in Action
Building
Relationships For Engineering Impact
Engineers hold the key
to progress and problem solving in an increasingly technical world. They
are often seen as experts with the wizardry to solve complicated
problems. Managers sometimes expect miracles from them.
But engineers do not operate in a vacuum. They need the
support of managers or internal clients. Since engineers seldom control
operations, they must collaborate with others in the organization.
Without these relationships, their expert solutions might go unused and
their clients can be dissatisfied. What’s more, the engineers will find
themselves frustrated.
Collaboration with clients requires blending engineering
expertise with consulting skills. Clients must be engaged in the process
from defining the problem to implementing the solution: That’s the
foundation for commitment and responsibility.
“Engineers sometimes have trouble de-emphasizing their
technical competencies when called in to solve problems with internal
clients,” says Dave Bryson of Chevron Inc. “But once engineers force
themselves to begin talking about the personal aspects of projects,
they’re good at it. I enjoy watching engineers learn new aspects of
consulting,” he says.
DIFFERENT RELATIONSHIP
By temperament and training, engineers focus on the
technical aspects of a problem. But in today’s organizations few
problems are purely technical. When the focus is solely in that arena,
important issues get lost. Who manages the problem? What are the
incentives to handle technical factors in a certain way? How can
resistance to solutions be reduced? These non technical issues can
affect virtually every problem.
In a traditional setting an engineer recognizes that
management issues surround a project. Returning to the office, he or she
discusses with other engineers all the issues negatively affecting the
project. But they aren’t in a position to solve the situation. By
contrast, engineers acting as consultants share a whole array of
pertinent information — technical and contextual — with their clients.
FIXING THE REAL PROBLEM
Charles Fields, formerly an engineer with
Hartford Steam Boiler and now a Designed Learning Affiliate, tells how
he returned to one location five times to fix a technical problem
regarding a furnace. He learned on his first visit that operators were
not following the maintenance procedures. They were so busy that no time
was being spent on preventive maintenance. Not wanting to complain, the
operators did not bring up the matter with their supervisor. On his
fifth return trip, Fields called the lack of maintenance to the
manager’s attention. Once preventive maintenance became a priority, the
problem was solved. Acting as a true consultant, Fields recognized that
the technical problem could be solved with a non-technical approach.
GETTING THE BIG PICTURE
“If the widget broke, I’d fix the widget or tell them how
to fix it”, says Frank Talbot, staff engineer for Chevron Corporation in
San Ramon, California. “Now I get outside of purely technical issues and
look at the human factors. I’ve learned to ask: What is the client
contributing to the problem?”
Talbot recalls being called to a plant where the coupling
on a compressor was broken. After a week’s work he made a few
recommendations about instrumentation and controls, his area of
expertise. But four or five other recommendations focused on the way
line managers could prevent the problem from recurring, such as better
training and documentation. A surprising number of recommendations were
adopted.
“That was a first for me,” says Talbot. “It never
occurred to me that a plant manager would welcome the advice of a
technical guy beyond the widget level. Earning that welcome takes
specific skills.”
DIFFERENT VIEWS OF THE PROBLEM
Cost is often a stumbling block for staff engineers who
want to solve technical problems in the best possible way. Managers, on
the other hand, are charged with holding the line on costs. What the
engineer thinks is necessary, the client will see as “over-engineering,”
viewing engineers who hold their ground as stubborn and inflexible.
Consulting skills help narrow the gap between these two positions.
Charles Fields recalls an engineer sent to investigate a
boiler failure who wanted to perform additional tests. When he learned
the tests would lengthen the outage by two days, the plant manager
resisted. Instead of insisting on the tests, the engineer encouraged the
plant manager to express his concerns.
The manager felt pressured because production was behind
schedule. The engineer convinced the plant manager he was on his side
and they quickly eliminated the cause of the boiler failure so the
manager’s operation could return to production.
In extreme cases, clients pressure engineers to take
shortcuts, sometimes demanding a quick and dirty solution that is
unacceptable or even dangerous. In such situations, engineers have to
learn to hold their ground. “It’s important to avoid establishing
possible courses of action as your way and my way,” says
Richard Bergman of Corning Inc. A collaborative approach is essential.
COST ISSUES
More organizations are charging back for the work of
staff engineers. This means corporate engineering departments must
compete with external engineering consulting firms that bid on projects.
Staff engineers are sometimes restricted in the ways they
can set prices, priorities and shift resources. This can prevent them
from competitive bidding. Internal engineering departments must support
corporate overhead, putting them at a pricing disadvantage. While staff
engineers base quotes on time spent, clients prefer a set price. More
effective contracting helps staff engineers and their clients better
understand each other’s situation.
Charles Fields describes a time the home office sent an
account engineer to find out why a regional manager could not provide an
engineer for a temporary assignment. The manager cited limited
resources. Instead of arguing, the engineer lent a sympathetic ear,
encouraging the manager to describe the larger picture.
The company’s accounting procedures did not provide
compensation for the time and expenses of an engineer who was
temporarily reassigned. Since the engineering manager was measured on
profitability, assigning an engineer would affect his results. The
engineer arranged a meeting with accounting, data processing, and the
regional managers. Together they worked out a simple procedure to
transfer expenses across regions.
NOT JUST AN EXPERT OR A PAIR OF HANDS
Engineers can be pigeonholed into roles that block
collaboration. They are often called on to take over a problem in a
situation when a vulnerable or threatened manager plays an inactive
role, simply judging the proposed solution. If the project doesn’t work,
the client blames the engineer. To avoid these pitfalls, engineers must
understand the factors that result in these unproductive expert-client
relationships.
At the other extreme, an engineer can become a pair of
hands, accepting the manager’s plan of action and implementing it
without exploring the overall situation. Often a manager wants the staff
engineer to do some undesirable chore. Some engineers welcome this role
because they like collecting data and creating designs. They may be less
comfortable at the communication necessary to uncover the larger
problem. A good contract includes knowledge of the larger problem and
the right to influence decisions. Without this foundation, the result is
likely to be unsatisfactory.
Neither role — expert or pair of hands — requires
collaboration. If engineers want to work as partners, collaboration is
essential. As consultants, engineers need to develop trust in the
relationship. When trust is established, clients are more willing to
commit the money, time, and effort needed for a successful project.
One engineer worked on the relationship first when she
arrived at a pulp and paper mill to make a risk assessment. Because the
plant manager seemed upset, she asked, “How do you personally feel about
having the assessment conducted?” Disarmed by her personal concern, the
manager confided he was upset because past risk assessments had taken
long. The engineers acted like policemen, he told her, and there had
been problems with the home office. Getting these concerns on the table
early enabled the engineer and manager to work out procedures that
addressed anticipated problems and yielded a productive working
relationship.
There is power in being a true consultant. The engineer
is neither an expert solving problems all alone nor a pair of hands
implementing someone else’s solutions. True consultants give the
relationship with the client as much attention as the technical issues.
CONTRACTING IS ESSENTIAL
The point of maximum leverage for the engineer-consultant
is in the contracting phase of a project.
Internal consultants often undervalue the
process or overlook the essential steps of contracting. These are some
of the steps:
-
Make personal connection
-
Communicate and understand how the problem was initially defined
-
Negotiate the roles and responsibilities of all participants
-
State what you want from the client
-
Be clear on what the client wants from you
-
Deal with resistance
-
Agreeing on a definition of success and failure.
-
Focus on what went well
Richard Bergman of Corning agrees. “Once I jumped into a
project and got going, even though I had nagging questions. In meetings
with the project leader, I provided him with the data he wanted. He,
however, made his decisions in private. I realized that my services and
abilities were being underutilized. Clearly, I’d skipped over the
contracting portion of my involvement. I became a pair of hands.”
Realizing what had happened, Bergman was able to stop the project long
enough to negotiate a more appropriate role.
ONE PROJECT — MANY
CONTRACTS
Good and complete contracting must be done with everyone
participating in the project. An obstacle to good contracting can be
confusion over reporting relationships between corporate offices and
field operations, or both. Sometimes the contract must be triangular.
For example, feelings of rivalry vulnerability, and intrusion can
complicate a project involving a staff engineer from corporate
headquarters, a manager, and a local engineer. The engineer-consultant
learns to bring these concerns out in the open to make the relationship
work.
Charles Fields relates a story of a plant manager of a
utility who requested a corporate engineer to oversee the dismantled
inspection of a large turbine. When he learned that the plant engineers
did not know he was coming, he asked them how they felt about working
with him. After some give and take, they told him they didn’t like the
idea of a “hot shot” from corporate telling them how to do the project.
He acknowledged their feelings as natural, paving the way for a
discussion of how they could work together. “Had this step not been
taken,” says Fields, “those underlying feelings would have slowed the
project and made for a miserable relationship at the plant.”
Engineers often must contract effectively with multiple
clients, not only managers but on-site employees who might be distracted
or removed from their regular duties. Keeping everyone informed takes
time, energy and commitment to communication.
A MATTER OF PRACTICE
Dave Bryson of Chevron has learned the value of
consulting. “Engineers first want to fight the model for contracting
taught in Designed Learning workshops because they are concerned about
showing weaknesses", he says. "Once they take it step-by-step, the
pieces get more comfortable. Once they feel it’s okay to not have all
the answers, they know they can work collaboratively with clients.
Waking up to these new dimensions of their work is good for the engineer
and the organization.”
|
