Non-key points for collecting data whithin a consultant project

A common complaint about consultants is that after consigning their final report, they disappear. Another one is that they design systems for collecting and recording information so complex, that you would almost have to spend the entire day collecting and organizing their data (not yours), and doing the usual tasks implies overtime.

For the first matter, it is necessary that both, the person hired for the service and the person who will act as the consultant's counterpart, are in tune regarding the scope and other basilar details of the task commissioned, which is extremely difficult in many cases, as will be seen in another article. In any case, it will be necessary to be clear about if it is only a matter of making or validating a diagnosis, of designing or proposing alternatives for improvement, or if there will be needed support for the implementation of what is will be designed.

For the second issue -the work overload to collect and record future information- the consultant must be very cautious to establish the “best optimum” for his proposal, if I may be redundant.

I mean: There is a “theoretical optimum” defined from the relationship of data to be collected for doing the best possible job; i.e., one that allows you to quickly respond to any question related to work that someone may ask. In other words, a lot of data would be taken just in case.

There is also a “practical optimum” that would be like the minimum amount of data that allows sufficient support for diagnosis and improvement proposals; this already takes into account, to a certain extent, the efforts (or costs) associated with the way the data will be collected.

The “best optimum”, as I usually name it, on the other hand, starts from the records that are usually kept; no matter whether they are good or bad; complete or incomplete; coherent or incoherent. At first glance, it is not advisable to make hasty judgments; rather, it is advisable to study and understand them. Just after their analysis it will be seen what should be added, eliminated or modified.

In my experience, requesting and studying these records is of great value, for several reasons. Firstly, because it is quite likely that many operators and supervisors have filled out many data notebooks without anyone having ever read or consulted them; if you begin the consulting work by asking for their records (their whole life work), consider them valuable (almost always they are) and request their support to understand them, you open a way to gain key allies for the task entrusted to you.

Second, it allows the consultant to learn what the key parameters and their values are, as well as some traits of those in charge. This is done, for example, by studying whether large blocks of data are filled with the same pen, or with sequentially varying values; if there is a lot of gaps, what notes are in the margin or on the back, etc. Even, if they are only digital records, you can extract information.

Third, knowing how they are gathering data allows us to propose a realistic scheme for collecting extra information –and subsequent modified registration system– that is not as demanding as the “theoretical optimum” nor as minimalist as the “practical optimum”: we are getting closer to the “best optimum".

A fourth advantage is that the study of these records could already give clues about the stuff needed to be improved to meet the assigned objective, and to do so, we must work on the issue -it should not be shocking to read it- with the operator or supervisor himself. We will discuss this on a future occasion.

As you may have already got, there is incalculable value in reviewing those records as they are: be they old and greasy notebooks, loose sheets, strips of paper, Excel files, or whatever it be. I generally don't allow operators to write them up, transcript them or sort them: as they are, they are. And, if I am not allowed to take them out of the headquarters, I take the time necessary to review them, study them and work on them in situ.

In conclusion, the way we ask for data, how we work with them and how we raise the need for future data records, will say a lot about how the consultant is like, will give space to develop trust and empathy, and will direct him -or not- in the correct direction: direction for solving the diagnosed problems.