Page 70 - Crossing Cultural Boundaries - Cees den Teuling

solutions” (Grolik et al., 2003, p. 3). To be able to re-use experiences and retained knowledge, consultancy firms may choose a standardized collection and storage of information (databases) for similar issues and solutions to provide uniformed modules for developing and implementation of new constructions. On the contrary, another business model in consulting is the provision of more customized solutions to unique situations. Based on analytical, creative and often substantially disrupting advice, the business approach is based on the availability of a tacit knowledge, focused on boardroom strategic issues, channelled by individual consultant’s expertise. Additionally, consultancy firms tend to have high level of staff fluctuation, which can result a critical level of loss of knowledge and competencies (Ko, Kirsch and King, 2005). Since the consultancy firm’s value and assets are inclined into their staff and partners (consultants), the consolidation of the learned and acquired knowledge is put in a repository, extracted from consultants and stored as the firm’s assets. Such firms “usually have their staff, and therefore, their knowledge and competencies, spread out across many office locations and client sites” (Grolik et al., 2003, p. 3). The described situation is “normal” for the majority of consulting firms, and is an open “invitation” to individual consultants or a group of consultants to use the firm’s knowledge, if not protected by intellectual property rights or contractual barriers. A number of “spin-offs” of existing and operational consultancy firms used the non-voluntary transfer of the knowledge assets to start their own and independent business.
Management of a consulting firm implies a KM approach as a critical factor. To disseminate and “translate” managerial and business knowledge, an elaborated KM strategy should be originated, maintained, installed and developed as the “backbone” of each consultancy/advisory organisation. Appelbaum and Steed (2004, p. 73) argue that there is “an explanation of the reason consultants tend to transfer their competencies to company’s staff. Principal’s decisions on which consultant is hired, are based on the prior performance and the consultant’s understanding of the potential client’s needs, as well as their ability to spread new ideas to solve the client’s problems and to bring new strategies and/or concepts to the client’s organisation”.
Strong justificational and decisive arguments are required before the involvement of consultants. Consultants are perceived as “expensive”. Also, many clients have concerns regarding their own employees and a potential backlash to the fees paid to consultants. Beyond price, difficulties in implementation of the consultant’s recommendations and the consultant’s lacking sufficient internal and industry sector knowledge in respect of the hiring company were voiced as the concerns of the
68