This past summer I worked as an
intern for a consulting firm. I was
placed on a project building an agent portal for an insurance company, and
through this I was able to experience a triangle like arrangement. There were around 30 people working on the
project: those who worked for the consulting company, those who worked for the
insurance company, and contractors. Who
had hired the contractors also varied; the consulting company hired some, while
the insurance company hired others.
This created an interesting dynamic on the project (which I’m sure is
present in most situations like this, where a consulting company has come in to
help on a project).
The views,
opinions, and goals of the higher ups in the insurance company were most
important, as they were the ones with all the money on the line for this
project. However, sometimes the best way
to achieve those goals would come into question. There were several instances over the summer
where a small disagreement might be had in determining what was most valuable
for me to do that day, and this happened to a larger extent with the developers
on the project. Managers would
occasionally debate about what they needed from each employee. For myself, sometimes it wasn’t exactly clear
who I should listen to. While the head
of my QA team was an insurance company man, the head of the project and the
person I interacted with more was from the consulting company. Since the head of the QA team was in Florida,
sometimes he was a little out of touch with exactly what was the most efficient
thing for me to be doing, and my boss in Illinois might have me do something
other than what he asked. These
situations arise when something comes up that my boss knew I could handle while
still (eventually) completing what the QA lead had asked of me. Luckily, my situation worked out fine.
More
communication would definitely be a good way to resolve the tension when there
is a question of how the agent should preform.
Sometimes the principal’s may not wish to waste time by coming to some
kind of compromise, but in the long run a confused agent may just become
stressed out and less efficient. If principals
are good at compromise, this makes things a lot easier.
My experience with something similar was from the point of view in your story of a fairly high level executive in the insurance company. I had no problem with the consultants we used, but my staff had plenty of them, so there was tension across organizations lower down in the hierarchy.
ReplyDeleteYou say that communication would have lessened the tension. Perhaps. There may be an inherent problem that is not fundamentally a communications issue. The project is something new for the organization and/or even if it has done similar projects it has done them with the aid of outside help. Part of the reason for this is lack of expertise internally. But consultants aren't perfect and they can be second guessed. Where the staff would never second guess the decisions the boss makes on internal company matters, on what the consultant provides, that level of respect may simply not be there. If that is right, it opens up the possibility or tension immediately. Indeed, Web sites are one of those that can really raise people's hackles, because it isn't just the technical issues but effective design from a usability point of view that matters, and the consultants might not understand that even if they are quite good otherwise.
The upshot is, I think some of this goes with the territory. It's good to get exposed to it some beforehand so you can have more realistic expectations the next time around.