Master Thesis Organization Studies

On our way to Evidence Based Consulting? An explorative multiple case study research of the use of evidence to justify the consulting of management consultants.

Faculty of Social Science

Department of Organization Studies

Date: august 2010

Author:

Ka Kin Pang

Key words:

Evidence based consulting, Evidence based management, Evidence based, Argumentation

theory, Justification, Sources of evidence, Type of evidence.

2

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Details of student:

- Name: Ka Kin Pang

- ANR: 832069

- Telephone: +31 6 41047027

- Email: k.pang@uvt.nl

Name of the Supervisors:

- Name supervisor: Drs. R. Pranger

- Name second reader: Dr. J. de Jong

- Name of MTO evaluator: Drs. F. Tekle

Title of the Master Thesis Circle:

Organizational development and the role of the consultant in particular

Title of the thesis:

“On our way to evidence based consulting?”

3

Preface

After months of hard work this thesis is finally finished! The beginning of this instructive period

started in September of 2009 by looking for a topic. My own demand was that it has to be a

topic that useful for my future carrier. After weeks of search, I finally found what I was looking

for, ‘evidence based consulting’. Although it was a rather difficult topic, because the lack of

literature on this topic, I was determined to writing about this topic and I’m still convinced that

this topic is very useful for my future carrier. Besides, there was also a personal reason why I

was determined to write about this topic.

I started my educational carrier with an ‘economic intermediate vocational study (MBO), where

I have learned much about businesses and entrepreneurship in general. After, I continue with an

‘economic higher vocational study (HBO), where I have acquired more knowledge about

business administration and general management. After some time I asked myself the question:

“what can I do with all of these knowledge?” During that time, I already figured out that I was

more a generalist than rather a specialist. Through my former lecturer I came acquainted with

the consulting. So I decided to focus my carrier in the consulting. I spent my internship in

consulting firms and I even started a consulting firm with a few fellow students and my former

lecturer during my study. After some time, I was really convinced that consultants are just doing

something, as we earned a lot of money with our little consulting firm.

After graduation, I raise again a question: “what is my specialism and where am I good at?” I

couldn’t really answer this question. Although I already had a rather good knowledge base, but I

still couldn’t place this knowledge in a broader perspective e.g. underlying reasons and

mechanisms of applied science, theories and models. Therefore, I have decided to continue a

new study at the University of Tilburg, Organization Studies. This study really opened my eyes

and my insight knowledge about organizations and its phenomena’s. This study teaches my how

to apply these knowledge, subject and test it in practice using scientific methods. This study

basically gave my knowledge hands and feet’s, and useful tools to use utilize this knowledge in

scientific research and practice. Through this study I became very interested in scientific

research as I already saw a gap between science and consulting. But I couldn’t place it in any

ways.

4

So back to beginning, I came across the concept of ‘evidence based consulting’ and I was

convinced that this is what I was looking for. This really reflects on what I had in mind and this

was the solutions to apply all of my acquired knowledge about organizations. So I was

determined to focus on this topic, resulting in this thesis “On our way to evidence based

consulting”. Evidence based consulting does change my way of thinking and the way of examine

organizations. I have learned very much about this topic and how I can utilize this concept in my

future carrier. And here is my thesis, a closing chapter to my educational carrier, but also a start

to explore organizations in practice.

In the end, I really want to thank some people during this period. First, I would like to thank all

of the management consultants who have participated in my research and their precious time.

Second, I would like to thank my fellow students in our thesis circle group for their supportive

feedback. Further I would like to thank Dr. Jeroen de Jong and Dr. Fetene Tekle, the two second

readers for their very harsh critique and feedback which really helped me to keep the focus and

direction in my thesis. Last but not at least, I want to thank Drs. Rob Pranger as my supervisor. I

really want to thank him for his patient approach, his feedback and instruction in the whole

processes. He has really helped me a lot in guidance and motivation so I can keep going on.

Without his supervision, I couldn’t finish this thesis in time.

Writing this thesis has really changed my future perspective. ……

On my way to evidence based consulting!

Ka Kin Pang

August 2010

5

Abstract

The consulting sector already exists since the late 19th century. The consulting sector

had evolved during that time from a very small niche segment into a billion euro business. This

industry already made an enormous progress in consulting services. This also inspires the

growing interest of science in this industry. The need for new scientific knowledge and insight in

the field of management consulting seems to be increasing considering to the amount of

popularizing books and articles on this topic. The next step is therefore necessary to become

‘mature’ in this field with theory forming by means of management insights, models, theories

and interventions that can be tested empirically. This calling seems to be inspired by the

‘evidence based’ movement, and it is starting to make its move. This therefore triggers the

management and organization science literature to utilize a new organizational approach:

evidence based consulting’:

“A new formation of service innovation in the consultancy in which interventions are

supported by empirical and scientific evidence, to improve the effectiveness of

organizations” (Meeus et al., 2009, p. 79).

However, ‘evidence based consulting’ is still hypothetical: if and to what extent

consultants operate on the basis of this concept is not yet examined empirically. It is simply

unknown how management consultants justify their consulting in practice, because no empirical

research is done on this topic. How far we are from evidence based consulting? The goal of this

research is to find out how consultants justify claims about the expected effectiveness of

consulting by proving evidence to support these justifications and which factors determine the

use of certain types of evidence. This research therefore wants to examine empirically this gap

in the management consultancy and evidence based literature. The following research question

can be formulated:

“How do consultants justify their claim about the expected effectiveness of their

consulting, what type(s) of evidence are used in that justification and which factors

determine the use of certain type(s) of evidence?”

This research can be characterized as an explorative research, as the theoretical basics are still

indefinite in order to formulate hypotheses to determine relationships (‘t Hart et al, 1996). In

6

order to answer the research question, there has been chosen for a cross-sectional, qualitative

and comparative design because the topic is examined through 16 semi-structured interviews in

which data will be gathered at one moment in time. Each management consultant will be seen

as one case and compared with other management consultants. Therefore, this research can

also be characterized as a multiple case design in which multiple cases are compared in order to

explore specific factors that determine the use of certain type(s) of evidence. Furthermore, this

multiple case studies design allows us to conduct an in-depth investigation of multiple

consulting cases in which interventions are used in certain organizational context, how

consultants justify claims about the expected effectiveness of their consulting using types of

evidence to support those claim.

Out of the results, it can be concluded that consultants justify their claim about the

expected effectiveness of their consulting from different sources of evidence. These sources of

evidence together can form the basis of effective consulting in which consultants can draw data,

information and knowledge out of these sources to justify their consulting. The empirical results

show that consultants justify their consulting based on mainly on their own professional

experience, the clients experience and preferences, and data and information from the local

context and environment, and lesser from scientific knowledge. Although, the usage of these

sources is determined, the role of these sources and how this is used is much more important in

the justification.

After knowing that consultants justify their effective consulting based on the four

sources of evidence, it still doesn’t say anything about the credibility of their consulting. The

results show that most of the consultants justify their consulting based on anecdotal and

testimonial evidence. That is based on what they have seen, their understanding and

interpretation of the organizational problem (anecdotal evidence) and what is in their eyes the

best solutions (testimonial evidence). Despite the fact that consultants can face a new problem

and in fact doesn’t know how to deal with it, then conclude that intuition and feeling will play a

major role, determined as hypothetical evidence. Next to it, there are consultants who use

statistical and analogical evidence which is pointing more directed to the principles of evidence

based consulting. These consultants are making the combination between science and practice.

7

The use of statistical and analogical evidence is more credible because theories and model are

derived from systematic review of the reality and practice.

The use of certain types of evidence can be determined by many factors. Out of the

results the following factors are derived: attitude of the consultant, shared knowledge base,

abstraction level, clients support, scientific skills and time, which can have either positive as

negative influence on the use of certain types of evidence. These factors can either facilitate or

impede the adoption of evidence based consulting, thus also facilitation of the use of certain

types of evidence.

“Are we on our way to evidence based consulting?”, the answer is, it depends. Due to

the mentioned factors, there is still a long way to evidence based consulting. However, there is a

little development in the consulting sector which tents to the concepts of evidence based

consulting, is that there are more and more researchers, scholars and professors who make the

switch to the consulting. Although, most of the consultants don’t use statistical and analogical

evidence to proof their consulting, it doesn’t imply that the current way of working is not

effective. The effective consulting may not be explicitly examined, but it can be assumed that

the current way of working is establish through endless discussions by experts or even

professors in consultancy firms. On the other hand, it is noticeable that evidence based is much

more developed in the United States of America, where universities and consultancy firms are

embedded in large multinationals. “Is evidence based then in anyways feasible in the

consultancy sector?” Yes, it is. There is still a large market undiscovered where social science

and consultancy can contribute to the understanding and development of organizations.

8

Contents

Preface ..................................................................................................................................3

Abstract .................................................................................................................................5

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 10

1.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 10

1.2. Research problem .......................................................................................................... 12

1.3. Research goal and question ........................................................................................... 13

1.4. Relevance of the research.............................................................................................. 14

1.5. Construction of the thesis .............................................................................................. 14

2. Theoretical background ................................................................................................ 15

2.1. Argumentation theory ................................................................................................... 15

2.2. Evidence based consulting ............................................................................................. 17

2.3. Sources of evidence ....................................................................................................... 19

2.4. Types of Evidence .......................................................................................................... 22

2.5. The organizational problems and interventions ............................................................ 24

3. Methodological section ................................................................................................ 27

3.1. Research design ............................................................................................................. 27

3.2. Sample strategy ............................................................................................................. 27

3.3. Data collection ............................................................................................................... 28

3.4. Data analysis .................................................................................................................. 29

3.5. Quality indicators ........................................................................................................... 30

4. Results and Analysis ..................................................................................................... 31

4.1. The characteristics of the consultants ........................................................................... 31

4.2. The characteristics of the consulting cases.................................................................... 32

9

4.3. The Justification of interventions................................................................................... 35

4.4. The advantage and disadvantage of evidence based consulting................................... 41

4.5. Impression of the interviews ......................................................................................... 46

5. Conclusions .................................................................................................................. 48

5.1. How do consultants justify their claim about the expected effectiveness of their

consulting? ..................................................................................................................... 48

5.2. What type(s) of evidence do consultants use in their justification? ............................. 51

5.3. What factors determine the use of certain type(s) of evidence? .................................. 53

5.4. Discussions ..................................................................................................................... 57

5.5. Limitations and future research ..................................................................................... 59

6. References ................................................................................................................... 62

Appendix ............................................................................................................................. 67

A. Semi-structured topic list ............................................................................................... 67

B. Interventielijst ................................................................................................................ 71

C. Results tables ................................................................................................................. 76

D. Quotes tables ................................................................................................................. 79

10

1. Introduction

1.1. Introduction

The consulting sector already exists since the late 19th century. The consulting sector

had evolved during that time from a very small niche segment into a billion euro business. The

first consulting firm was Arthur D. Little, which only focused on efficiency and technical issues in

manufacturing, like most of the consulting firms before 1950. Most of leading consulting firms

arise during this period like McKinsey, Boston Consulting Group, Roland Berger, Price

Waterhouse Coopers, but also Dutch consulting firms like: Berenschot and Twijnstra Gudde. In

the first half of the 20th century most of the consulting firms started to offer specific

specialization and business opportunities, now focusing more on designing, improving and

systematizing the internal functioning of organizations and the marketing of products. Till the

1990’s, consulting firms were constantly developing new consulting services from strategic

issues to IT infrastructures.

However, until today, how far are we? This industry has already made an enormous

progress in consulting services. This also inspires the growing interest of science in this industry.

The need for new knowledge and insight in the field of management consulting seems to be

increasing considering to the amount of popularizing books and articles on this topic. Is there for

example progress in the form of systematic research and evaluation of interventions? The next

step is therefore necessary to become ‘mature’ in this field with theory forming by means of

management insights, models, theories and interventions that are tested empirically. Within the

field of management and organization science the need for scientific support of theories and

models are significantly increasing (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006). This calling seems to be inspired by

the ‘evidence based’ movement, and it is starting to make its move.

‘Evidence’ is one of the trendy words that are used in society nowadays. People are

searching for relevant, concrete and objective information and are looking for supportive

‘evidence’ which can proof their right. The concise Oxford English dictionary (1984) gives a

number of definitions:

11

“Clearness, obviousness, indication, sign, facts making for a conclusion, in support of,

information (personally or drawn from documents) tending to establish fact, serve to

indicate, attest.”

‘Evidence based’ seems to be the way of structural development and improvement of the

consulting services. ‘Evidence based’ proofs itself more and more in other professions like

evidence- based medicine, evidence-based decision-making, evidence-based education. The

roots of ‘Evidence based’ stem from medical research; ‘evidence based medicine’. Dr. David

Sackett of the University of Ontario defines ‘evidence based medicine’ as:

“The conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making

decisions about the care of individual patients.” (1997, p. 2.)

This also triggers the management and organization science literature to utilize a new

organizational approach: ‘evidence based management’ (Rousseau, Manning, Denyer, 2008;

Rousseau, 2006; Learmonth en Harding 2006; Pfeffer en Sutton, 2006; Rousseau en McCarthy

2007). Responding to this development, it remains to be seen to what extent ‘Evidence Based’ is

feasible in the consulting sector. Prof. Meeus of the University of Tilburg did an explorative

study of the feasibility of ‘Evidence Based Consulting’ and argued that it is also possible to apply

evidence based management in the consultancy sector for structural improvement of the

services defined as ‘evidence based consulting’:

“A new formation of service innovation in the consultancy in which interventions are

supported by empirical and scientific evidence, to improve the effectiveness of

organizations” (Meeus et al., 2009, p. 79).

‘Evidence based consulting’ could generate an impulse of innovation and renewal within the

consultancy services, by using empirical and scientific founded knowledge, e.g. choosing

interventions that have been proven effective. So basically, the central claim of evidence based

consulting is that consultants should apply and use scientific knowledge to support their

consulting in order to improve the legitimacy, quality and added value of their services (Meeus

et al., 2009).

12

“Evidence based management … derives principles from research evidence and

translates them into practices that solve organizational problems” (Rousseau, 2006,

p.265).

1.2. Research problem

However, ‘evidence based consulting’ is still hypothetical: if and to what extent

consultants operate on the basis of this concept is not yet examined empirically. Consultancy

practice shows that interventions are not always supported or based on scientific knowledge

(Meeus et al., 2009), i.e. knowledge that meets the standards of scientific research. The

commonly perceived image of management consultants is that they justify their interventions

by reference to their own experiences or the experiences of someone else (Pfeffer & Sutton,

2006a; Rousseau, 2006). Clients often cannot criticize the effectiveness of an intervention, but

accept it due to the reputation of the consulting firm (Barends & ten Have, 2008). This image is

aroused that management consultants are just doing ‘something’, while this image not empirical

founded.

Practical issues also play a major role. Providing scientific evidence requires more time

than quick intervention and ‘cut and dried’ solutions. Clients often don’t need extensive

scientific founded advice, but demands in simple, manageable and implementable knowledge

without too much analysis and details. This brings us to the following research problem; on the

one hand the ideal of ‘evidence based’ and on the other hand the difference image people have

about how management consultants justify their intervention e.g. they are just doing

‘something’, intuition, experiential knowledge. It is simply unknown how management

consultants justify their consulting in practice, because no empirical research is done on this

topic. How far we are from evidence based consulting?

In sum, there is much literature concerning ‘evidence based management’ (Cascio, 2007;

Learmonth and Harding, 2006; Molier, 2007; Pfeffer and Sutton, 2006; Rousseau, 2006, 2007).

However, there has not been written much about ‘evidence based consulting’. Actually the

literature evokes the suggestion that there is still a long way to go before we reach the ideal

‘evidence based consulting’, but that is still a proposition. How consultants justify their

consulting is not yet thoroughly examined empirically. What type of evidence do consultants

use to support their consulting and what is the credibility of their justification? All in all, these

13

are issues which have to be taken into considerarion. Ultimately, within the approach of

evidence based consulting, effective consulting have to fit in the strategy of the consultant and

the client. On the other hand, consultants have to find evidence to support practical hypotheses,

research problems and interventions, and to test and put into practice (Meeus et al., 2009).

1.3. Research goal and question

The goal of this research is to find out how consultants justify claims about the expected

effectiveness of consulting by proving evidence to support these justifications and which factors

determine the use of certain types of evidence. The basic assumption is that consultants claim

that certain interventions are effective and need to be implemented in certain organizational

problem situation. Consultants have to justify this claim by either implicit or explicit evidence

and have it proved with evidence. There is no or hardly empirical research done on the nature of

this justification and what type of evidence consultants use. This research therefore wants to

examine empirically this gap in the management consultancy and evidence based literature.

The following research question can be formulated:

“How do consultants justify their claim about the expected effectiveness of their

consulting, what type(s) of evidence are used in that justification and which factors

determine the use of certain type(s) of evidence?”

Base on the above research question, the following conceptual model could be represented.

Figure 1: conceptual model

Interventions Organizational

context

Justification of

consulting

Factors

14

1.4. Relevance of the research

From a scientific perspective, this research wants to find empirical evidence, which

support and declares how consultants justify their claims about the effectiveness of their

consulting. The theoretical relevance of this research explicates how consultants rely on

different sources in their daily operations to draw certain evidence e.g. knowledge, experience,

data or information, to support their justification and the factors that is related to the use of

certain evidence. These results could be a starting point of further theorizing and

conceptualizing ‘evidence based’ in future research. This research provides more insight in this

innovative approach of ‘evidence based consulting’ and how this concept can be improve and

developed in the consultancy sector.

From a practical perspective, this research gives more insight and understanding in the

justification of management consultants and the credibility of their consulting. Further, it could

lead to the adoption of the concept ‘evidence based consulting’. This could be useful for

consultancy firm that want to change their way of founding consulting to improve their

legitimacy, quality and added values in the consultancy sector. Furthermore, consultancy firms

could use the concept ‘evidence based’ to benchmark other management consultants in order

to compare and set the standard. Finally, proponents of evidence based management believe

that evidence based management could lead to competitive advantage, valid learning and

continuous improvements, and gives the organization legitimacy because of the high standard

of consulting (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006B; Molier, 2001; Rousseau, 2006).

1.5. Construction of the thesis

The structure of this thesis is as follows. In chapter 2, a theoretical framework is

developed in order to define the main concepts of this research. In chapter 3, the

methodological framework is developed in order to construct the procedure of the research

design, data collection and data analysis. In chapter 4, the results of the data will be presented

and analyzed. Finally, this thesis is completed by the conclusion, discussion and

recommendation for future search in chapter 5.

15

2. Theoretical background

In this chapter the relevant literature will be reviewed to construct the theoretical framework in

order to interpret the empirical results. Successively we will describe the literature about

argumentation theory in chapter 2.1., evidence based consulting in chapter 2.2., the sources of

evidence in chapter 2.3., type of evidence in chapter 2.4., and organizational problems and

interventions in chapter 2.5. These theoretical concepts will form the framework and the

leading theme of this research.

2.1. Argumentation theory

Drawing from the principle of the argumentation theory of Toulmin (1958), the intent is

to focus on the justificatory function of argumentation, which means that if one has a certain

claim of interest; he should then provide justification for it. Toulmin believed that reasoning is

not so much about reaching a conclusion based on initial sets of propositions or involving the

discovering of new ideas, but more a process of testing and sifting already existing ideas and an

act achievable through the process of justification (1958).

The central goal of argumentation theory is to increase the insight of an argumentation

as verbal convincement, an attempt to solve a difference of opinion by putting statements

forward to justify or to bust a certain conception (Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 1987).

Drawing deeper from the argumentation theory, Toulmin propose an analysis model which

consists of certain components that construct the argumentation.

In below figure the analysis model is presented.

Figure 2: analysis model of Toulmine (1987)

Data Claim

Warrant

Reservat

Backing

Qualifier

16

The three main components in argumentation theory include the data, warrant and

claim. Data refers to the facts or opinions of a fact. The claim refers to the conclusion of a fact.

The warrant is the connection which advances the data to a claim. The second set of

components may not be always necessary in the justification, but may be present. The

additional three components include backing, rebuttal and qualifier. Backing refers to the

evidence or support for assumptions in the warrant. Rebuttal recognizes the conditions under

which the claim will not be true. Qualifier is the probability or level of confidence of the claim.

Note that the function of the warrant and backing is basically the same, as both components

support the relation between the data and claim. However, if the warrant is not convincing

enough, one should use the backing to show that it is true. The difference is that both

components are associated on a different level of justification / on equivalent levels.

The argumentation theory is an important concept within the scope of this research, as

the justification by consultants also consists of argumentations and statements which proof

their effective consulting. The components of this theory are mainly data, claim, warrant and

backing. The basic idea is as follows: the data refers to the information that flows from a certain

situation or organizational problem. Whereas the consultant will claim that certain interventions

will be effective in that specific organizational problem situation. Based on experience, intuition,

explicit data or any kind of knowledge or information, the consultant will try to justify the claim

by connecting the data (warrant). Still, some would argue that warrant is not enough to

convince the client or to justify the claim. Followed by the backing, the consultant is able to

support assumptions in the warrant by providing evidence that proof the claim right en credible.

17

2.2. Evidence based consulting

An inspection of the official website of council consultancy firms (Ooa and Roa)

indicates that explicit reference to evidence based consultancy among the Dutch consultancy

firms is lacking (Meeus et al., 2009). This simple observation raises the questions whether

Evidence Based Consultancy is in any way feasible within the consultancy sector. However, to

which extent consultancy firms operates based on this concept is not yet tested empirically.

Proponents (Meeus et al, 2009; Barends and Ten Have, 2008) argue that applying evidence

based consulting is a way to improve the quality of a consultants’ intervention and to contribute

to the professionalization of the sector. Furthermore, evidence based consulting forces both

consultant and client to explicate consideration and motivation toward a problem statement,

which make it possible to gain control and guarantee of one decision. Broesskamp Stone and

Ackerman (2007) indicate that evidence based in the health care sector is based on three

criteria’s.

1. Decisions and interventions must base on professional norms; expert, reliable, cautious,

independent and good fellowship (Professional norms).

2. Decisions and interventions must base on recent scientific-oriented expert- and practical

knowledge, and the emphasis on empirical results and scientific theories and models

(Knowledge infrastructure).

3. Applicability of evidence based consulting within a context that put the emphasis on the

procedure and characteristics of a specific circumstance (context sensitivity).

Meeus et al., (2009) are convinced that this approach in the health care sector is also suitable

for evidence based consulting. Implementing evidence based consulting means that

management consultants have to consider the basic values, knowledge and context. These

criteria’s are consistently connected to each other and forms together a framework to apply

evidence based consultancy.

Unfortunately, implementing Evidence based consultancy is not that easy as it sounds.

Considering the criteria which consultants have to take into account, some argue that

professional norms (code of conduct) of consultants could only be verified with members of the

Dutch council of consultancy firms, not for the whole consultant’s population. The same goes for

18

the knowledge infrastructure. This means that consultants have to share their knowledge and

communicate this openly among all consultants in order to work thoroughly evidence based.

Context sensitivity means that consultants have to take the environment and specific situation

into consideration. In this case, the consultant could examine the boundary conditions in which

the intervention have to take place. While best practice is also a suitable method to examine

the boundary conditions, although not formalized and systematic knowledge. We could expect

that consultants and their clients will work in a pragmatic way, even when they don’t know why

it is effective, they will probably use it.

Although these criteria’s could not be fully realized in practice, we could still assume

that these points are applicable in this research to some extent. The use of knowledge that is

related to specific context and that are based on specific basis elements makes evidence based

consulting not only feasible, but also useful (Meeuw et al., 2009).

19

2.3. Sources of evidence

Still, there is no conformity of what ‘evidence based’ really is. In this context, there was

a common assumption that evidence was research evidence and more specifically, research

evidence from the quantitative traditions (Sackett et al. 1997). Through the application of a

randomized controlled trail (RCT), systematic reviews and meta-analyses, evidence would reach

the top of evidence hierarchy, which counts as the golden standard (Rycroft-Malone, 2003).

Nevertheless, the differences between physic science and social science are already known. It is

not always possible to apply a RCT, due to fundamental limitations. Social behaviour and its

factors are more difficult to capture and to remain constant compare to physical science.

Although the usage of fact and statistics has made it progress in the social science in the last 15

years. According to Rycroft-Malone (2003) the role of scientific evidence is suggesting that the

nature of evidence is broader than evidence derived from research. In this research, ‘evidence’

is proposed as:

“Knowledge derived from a variety of sources that has been subjected to testing and has

found to be credible (Higgs & Jones, 2000, p. 311).)”

Based on this definition, two basic questions can be asked. Where does knowledge come from

and what is the credibility of this knowledge? These two questions need to be answered in order

to identify the variety of sources in which consultants acquire their evidence and to what extent

these sources has been subjected to testing and had found credible. The literature distinguishes

several typologies of evidence. The most relevant concepts of evidence will be discussed.

According to Rycroft-Malone et al., (2004) ‘evidence based’ generated from four

different sources of evidence in which medical practitioners use in clinical practice. These

sources of evidence are also appropriate in this research as the same sources can be found and

used in the consulting process.

Scientific research

Research evidence has assumed priority over other sources of evidence in the delivery

of evidence based health care (Rycroft-Malone et al., 2004). However, such evidence rarely

attains absolute certainty and may be changed as new research emerges. Research evidence is

socially and historically constructed (Wood et al. 1998a, 1998b; Higgs & Titchen 1995). It is not

20

certain, contextual and static, but dynamic and eclectic (Rycroft-Malone et al., 2004). Although,

research evidence is able to proof the effectiveness of interventions, it is less certain and less

value free as it is accepted because of multiple interpretations of research by different

stakeholders exist. This could imply that it is necessary to translate and specify evidence in order

to make sense in certain context of the organization. Finally, all these factors highlight that

research evidence, although crucial to improving patient care, may not on their own inform

practitioners’ decision-making (Thompson et al. 2001a, Bucknall 2003).

Professional experience

Knowledge that is acquired through professional practice and life experiences is also a

type of evidence according to Rycroft-Malone et al., (2004). This type of evidence is called:

‘practical knowledge’, ‘professional craft knowledge’ or ‘practical know-how’ (Eraut, 1985;

Oakeshott, 1962; Titchen, 2000). This knowledge is expressed and embedded in practice and is

often tacit and intuitive (Rycroft-Malone et al., 2004). Rycroft-Malone et al., (2004) argue that

evidence based not only required professional craft knowledge and reasoning, but requires such

knowledge and reasoning to integrate the four different types of knowledge. Tacit, experiential

forms of knowledge are persuasive and have a reciprocal, reinforcing relationship with

‘scientific’ evidence or research (e.g. Dopson et al. 1999). Research evidence is more powerful

when it matches professional experience; conversely, when research and professional

experience do not match, its use in practice can be variable (Ferlie et al. 1999). This suggests

that improving practice requires more than accessing new knowledge; it requires skills in

reasoning to integrate that knowledge into practitioners’ existing knowledge frameworks (Higgs

& Jones 2000).

Clients experience and preference

The third source of evidence that contributes to clinical practice is the personal

knowledge and experience of patients and clients (Rycroft-Malone et al., 2004). Here are two

types of evidence available and need to be accessed by consultants: evidence from clients’

previous experiences of care, and evidence derived from clients’ knowledge of themselves, their

organization and processes, i.e. client’s previous experience of consulting and evidence derived

from client’s knowledge of their organizational problem.

21

Local context and environment

In the course of improving the organization and processes, consultants may draw on:

audit and performance data; client’s stories and narratives; knowledge about the culture of the

organization and individuals within it; social and professional networks; information from 360

feedback, i.e. feedback from the fullest possible constituency of stakeholders; local and national

policy (Rycroft-Malone et al. 2003, McCormack et al. 2002, Stetler et al. 1999). Stetler (2003) has

described this evidence source as ‘internal evidence’. She suggests that it comes primarily from

systematically but locally obtained information, including data from local performance, planning,

quality, outcome and evaluation activity (Stetler, 2003).

The relatively meaning of each of these four sources may vary in each decision. The size

of the circle – thus, the impact, differs from each situation. ‘Evidence based’ reside on the

cutting surface of the circles. Below figure illustrates how different sources of evidence come

together and form the basis to justify decisions.

Figure 3: sources of evidence

22

2.4. Types of Evidence

Based on the sources of evidence alone it cannot be concluded what the credibility is of

these evidences. In the review of the literature on evidence, it can be concluded that for

evidence to enhance the acceptance of a claim, the evidence has to be recognized, cognitively

processed, and judged as legitimate (Reynolds and Reynolds, 2002). There was a common

assumption that evidence was research evidence and more specifically, research evidence from

the quantitative tradition (Sackett et al., 1997). However, credibility refers to the objective and

subjective components of the believability of a source or message, meaning that subjective

components also play a role in the nature of evidence. In addition, evidence plays an important

role in many academic disciplines like the health care, law, psychology, science and

argumentation in which all of these discipline have made their own classification of evidence.

After reviewing the different literature of these disciplines it can be concluded that the types of

evidence used are common like and that there is a certain hierarchical credibility of the evidence.

In below classification of evidence the following scholars has been included; Seech (1997);

Sackett (1997); Hoeken (2001); Koballa (1986); Allen & Preiss (1997); Baesler & Burgoon (1994);

Reynolds & Reynolds (2002); Reinard (1998).

Hypothetical evidence

Hypothetical evidence is a convincing but fictional event with enough detail to feel real.

A consultant use a hypothetical situation to illustrate what will happen, to whom it happen,

where and when it happen. Most of the time consultants use hypothetical evidence based on

their intuition. Hypothetical evidence is considered as very weak positive evidence, because this

is not based on facts, but based on hypothesized and logical situations.

Anecdotal Evidence

Anecdotal evidence generates for a description of one, of small number of specific case.

This type of evidence is based on a consultant’s observation of the specific organizational

situation whereas he describes what happened, who was involved, where and when it

happened. Anecdotal evidence is usually based on facts and figures that are systematically

derived from the specific organizational situation. Anecdotal evidence is considered as weak

supportive evidence because it does not proof a claim.

23

Testimonial / expert evidence

Testimonial or expert evidence refers to an established or trustworthy authority such as

educational degree, publication and work experience of professional that is demonstrate his

expertise on the topic. Although, testimonial of credible persons could strengthen an argument,

most of people accept it without question and without their own understanding of it.

Testimonial/ expert evidence is considered as moderate strong supportive evidence, because

this is based on previous experiences of the consultants which are based on factual events.

Statistical evidence

Statistical evidence refers to an empirical analysis or to the results of a methodological

or scientific experiments or investigations. Consultants may use a well developed

methodological way to examine a practical problem or refer to an empirical analysis by others in

order to proof certain effectiveness. Evidence from well designed non-experimental study e.g.

cohort, case control or cross-sectional studies including qualitative methods are classified as

statistical evidence. Statistical evidence is considered as fairly strong supportive evidence,

because this evidence is based on systematic collection of factual data.

Analogical evidence

The last type of evidence is analogical evidence. Analogical evidence is an explanatory or

modeling of the phenomenon by means of a comparison with an already understood

phenomenon. Analogical evidence must refer to a quantitative research which supports the

consultant’s data which demonstrates measured effectiveness and benefits and which can be

applied generally e.g. long term randomized controlled trial, systematic review, and meta-

analysis of randomized controlled trials. Analogical evidence is considered as strong supportive

evidence as the relationship between certain variables is determined and seen significant.

24

Table 1: types of evidence

2.5. The organizational problems and interventions

There are many literatures on the subject of interventions. However, no literature is

complete and their way of structuring interventions are different, and it is most dependent on

the scholars’ conviction. Interventions could be defined as:

“Interventions are the conscious activities in which one of more change agents takes in

order to achieve a change process” (Cummings and Worley, 2009; De Caluwe and Vermaak,

2004; French and Bell, 1999).

The most important characteristic of interventions is that interventions are based on underlying

goals and that big differences between interventions are more of less about its active principles,

its approach, its human image and the norms, values and conviction that lies behind (Caluwe

and Vermaak, 2004). Going from this perspective, it is necessary to distinguish types of

interventions and how this is used in specific organizational problems/ situations.

According to the empirical research of de Caluwe and Reitsma (2006) on ‘the

competence of consultants in organizational change projects’, there is a significant relationship

between the goal of the change, the organizational context in which the change occurs and the

intervention that is used in that specific case. So basically, the claim that certain interventions

works better when it fits the organizational context and the goal of change is already examine

Type of evidence Definition Credibility

Hypothetical

situation

Reference to a believable but fictional situation with enough detail

to feel real.

Very weak positive

evidence

Anecdotal evidence Reference to a description of one, of small number of specific case Weak supportive evidence

Testimonial

evidence

Reference to an established or trustworthy authority or credible

source

Moderate strong

supportive evidence

Statistical evidence Reference to an empirical analysis or to the results of a

methodological or scientific experiments or investigations.

Fairly strong supportive

evidence

Analogical evidence Reference to an explanatory or modeling of the phenomenon by

means of a comparison with an already understood phenomenon

Strong supportive evidence

25

empirically. The active principle of interventions and the effectiveness criteria of an

intervention assume that an intervention has a certain goal: the consultant utilizes a certain

activity (intervention) in order to reach a specific goal or to solve a specific problem. The active

principle of interventions is helpful to choose for the best change plan for a certain problem

within a certain organization (Caluwe and Vermaak, 2004)

“It makes it easier to communicate changes with each other, in order to recognize and to

typify interventions” (Twijnstra and Gudde, 2007).

To give a brief and clear overview of the leading literature of intervention, this research will

further elaborate on the active principle and the classification of interventions composed by de

Caluwe and Reitsma (2006) in their empirical research on “the competence of consultants in

organizational change projects”. In their research, an extensive literature study has been

conducted in order to classify types of interventions and to use certain intervention within

specific organizational context. In this list of classification, the work of the following scholars has

been included; Cummings en Worley (2005); Schein (1969); Kubr (2002); Keuning en Eppink

(2004);Boonstra (2004). This typology is used because this is the most well-known, extensive

intervention model in the Netherlands and still has great influences on interventions until today.

In the table on the next page, an overview of the composed classification of types of

organizational problems is presented. See appendix B for the complete classification of

interventions and matching interventions methods.

26

Organizational problem Active principle

The focus on diagnose and problem solving To get a hold on the nature and cause of an organizational problem

and to make people aware of the necessity of organizational change.

The focus on strategic issues To stimulate the future direction of the organization, to form this

future image and to share this vision.

The focus on short term adaptation of organizational

structure or cooperation’s

To assemble facilitation and situation to make the organizational

change possible.

The focus on improving the business performance To assemble measures of organizational processes in order to

improve the results.

The focus on the motivation of employees To stimulate the motivation of the employees in order to improve the

flexibility of the organizational and organizational performance.

The focus on internal control To provide comprehensible progress of the quantity and quality of

tasks.

The focus on training and development To acquire and learn concepts and skills in order to increase the

insight of employees.

The focus on processes between people To improve social processes in the organization e.g. interpersonal

relationships, functioning of the team or relations between teams.

The focus on sustainable learning and change To improve social processes in organization and maintain the process

of interaction and communication.

Table 2: classification of organizational problems

27

3. Methodological section

In this chapter the research methods will be discussed which we have used to examine the

research question. Within the social science, the bridge between theory and empiric is build

using the methodological framework. Successively, we will describe the research design in

chapter 3.1., sample strategy in chapter 3.2., data collection in chapter 3.3., data analysis in

chapter 3.4., and the quality indicators in chapter 3.5.

3.1. Research design

Scientific research can be distinguished into categories based on the principles of

researchers and the problem that is examined. This research can be characterized as an

explorative research, as the theoretical basics are still indefinite in order to formulate

hypotheses to determine relationships (‘t Hart et al, 1996). Furthermore, there has been chosen

for a cross-sectional, qualitative and comparative design because the topic is examined through

semi-structured interviews in which data are gathered at one moment in time. Each

management consultant will be seen as one case and compared with other management

consultants. Therefore, this research can also be characterized as a multiple case design in

which multiple cases are compared in order to explore specific factors that determine the use of

certain type(s) of evidence. Furthermore, this multiple case studies design allows us to conduct

an in-depth investigation of multiple consulting cases in which interventions are used in certain

organizational context, how consultants justify claims about the expected effectiveness of their

consulting using types of evidence to support those claim. Finally, this study could provide more

insight in the concept ‘evidence based’ and how this concept can be improve and developed in

the consultancy sector.

3.2. Sample strategy

The unit of analysis will be the consulting process and the units of observation are

management consultants. The research samples are selected by randomly, snowball sampling

strategy which means that an individual consultant make his business network ‘public’ in order

to find more consultants. Consultants were asked to suggest another expert that they may know

who could offer more information. This process will be repeated until the number of consultant

is contented. The data will be collected among Dutch consultants in the Netherlands, including

28

employees, freelancers and independent consultants. There are in total 16 management

consultants that participated in this research. The following expertises are seen as management

consultants with refers generally to the provision of business consulting services: strategy,

operations, supply chain, finance, outsourcing, human resource and information technology.

3.3. Data collection

Literature study

This research has started with an in-depth literature study in order to find out what the

state of art is of the relevant concepts of this research. This literature study has to be done in

order to construct our theoretical framework and data collection methods e.g. constructing the

semi-structured topic list. The relevant literature is selected via Web of Science, Google Scholar,

the database of Tilburg’s University and Management Executive Base. The keywords to find

literature in the search engines were: evidence based consulting, evidence based management,

evidence based, argumentation theory, justification, sources of evidence, type of evidence, type

of interventions. Furthermore, the reference lists were used to find more related articles. The

aim of this literature study is to construct a theoretical framework in order to interpret the

empirical results.

Interviews

Subsequently, interviews were used to collect data among the respondents in order to

acquire more ‘rich texture’ information. There has been chosen for a semi-structured interview,

in order to measure certain concepts by means of open questions. Besides, it leaves the

respondents some space to bring in their own opinion and ideas within the framework. In total

there were 16 interviews conducted among management consultants with different

backgrounds and expertise.

Construction of the semi-structured topic list

The semi-structured topic list is based on the theoretical framework which was used as

a guideline derived from the literature study. The semi-structured topic list consists of four parts.

In the first part, some questions were asked about the background of the consultants. In the

second part, the consultants were asked to reflect on a recent consulting case whereupon

29

questions were asked to describe the client, problem(s) and goal(s), the approach of the case

and interventions used in the consulting case. In this part, a diagram of specific goals and

intervention methods was presented in which the consultants can easily recognize and fill in.

This diagram based on an existing intervention list composed by Caluwe and Reitsma (2006) in

their empirical research on “the competence of consultants in organizational change projects”.

This interventions list is derived from the work of multiple scholars; Cummings en Worley (2005);

Schein (1969); Kubr (2002); Keuning en Eppink (2004);Boonstra (2004). In the third part, the

consultants were asked to indicate the sources which they have used in their consulting case

and provide justification for it. In the last part, the consultants were asked to give their opinion

about the ‘evidence based’ concept’ and indicate the advantage and disadvantage of this

concept. See appendix A for the semi-structured topic list. All the interviews are recorded and

transcribed using an audio transcription program F4.

3.4. Data analysis

The data derived from the interview sessions are analyzed by means of two methods.

The first method is a typical qualitative method to analyze qualitative data like interviews by

means of the coding method. The coding method consists of three steps. The first step is open

coding which is the process of breaking down, examining, comparing, conceptualizing and

categorizing (Straus & Corbin, 1998). In the first step, the data is read carefully and fragmentize.

After, the relevant fragments are labeled. The second step is axial coding whereby the data /

fragments are put back together according to the code book which is constructed out of the

theoretical framework. The last step is selective coding in which the core categories are

indentified and systematically related it to other categories. The main purpose is to determine

and explore relationships between categories in order to answer the research question.

The second method is a rather subjective way of interpreting the data. During the

interview and data analysis, some notes are made of remarkable conclusions given by the

respondents. These subjective conclusions will be discussed in chapter 4.5. Impressions of the

interviews.

30

3.5. Quality indicators

Credibility – The credibility of on research is to determine causal relationships between concepts

or variables (Yin, 1989). A causal relationship is determined when there is a correlation between

variables and when there are not other intervening variables (Baker, 1994). In this case study, it

is hard to determine relationships between the variables in qualitative research because there is

no clear separation of the cases and the context in which it is examined. However, the causal

relationships between the variables are determined by means of proper description of the

context and the phenomena’s that occurred in the cases. So therefore, the causal relationship

can be determined to some extent. Besides some possible relationships and conclusion are

given that are derived from the empirical results. This allows the researcher to interpret the

data in both objective and subjective way. This will increase the validity and reliability of the

results.

Transferability - The transferability of the results is moderate, because this research focuses on

management consultant and within the scope of ‘evidence based’ to some extent. However, the

main research question could also be put forward in other professions, because this questions is

mainly focus on the justification of arguments, statements, claim, the use of types of evidence is

the justification and it the credibility of the justification. The frameworks of this research could

therefore also be used for other professions like, managers, researchers, teachers etcetera.

Dependability – The dependability of this research will be achieved by accurate description and

documenting all the steps and procedure that has been taken to conduct this research. This

allows others to replicate this research or even improve the results. Some limitations are

described in this research and some recommendations are given for future researches.

Conformability – This research is characterized as an explorative, qualitative research. The

conformability of this research is determined as moderate. Within a qualitative research it is

hard to determine relationships between variables. However, by means of accurate data

collection and data analysis, it is possible to draw conclusions and relationships to some extent,

which allows the researcher to interpret in both objective and subjective way. Moreover, there

is always a possibility of misinterpretation of the data. Therefore every step of data analysis is

registered in a code book.

4. Results and Analysis In this chapter the analysis of the qualitative results will be presented. Subsequently, we will examine the step by step

the consulting process, starting from the background characteristics of the consultants in chapter 4.1., the

characteristics of the consulting cases in chapter 4.2., the justification of the consulting by consultants in chapter 4.3.

Finally, in chapter 4.5. the advantages and disadvantages of evidence based consulting.

4.1. The characteristics of the consultants

In the first part of the interview, consultants were asked to indicate their characteristics as a management

consultant. The following characteristics are included: gender, education, experience and specialisms in order to

determine the background of the consultants. Further, the consultants were asked whether they operate as

independent consultant, whether they are certified consultants and associate with a branch organization. The results

present a diversity of consultants within the sample.

The total sample consists of 16 consultants, of which 6 female and 9 male consultants. The consultants are in

general all high educated. In the sample, there are 3 consultants who have a Bachelor degree (Hoger beroepsonderwijs).

The greater number of consultants has a Master degree (Wetenschappelijk onderwijs), which 4 of the consultants

already have or taking their PhD. (Doctoraal) and 2 consultants have their MBA degree (Master of Business

Administration). The average consulting experience of the consultants is 14 years, varying from 1 to 30 years. With

regard to the specialism of the consultants, 7 consultants have indicated one specific specialism, 4 consultants indicate

to have two specialisms and 5 consultants indicate to have multiple specialisms. Besides the six core specialism of

consulting, other specialism’s are mentioned: project management, IT management, research in health care, logistics in

health care, organization design, change processes / large scale interventions, learning and development, law and

subsidiary. There are in total 11 consultants in the sample that operate as independent consultants and 4 consultants

operated with in a consulting firm. 3 consultants are certified, which means that they have followed a certain

educational program which legitimated them as specialized consultants in their expertise. In total there are 9

consultants who are also member of a particular branch association in their specific specialism. The following branch

associations are mentioned: Roa (Raad van Organisatie van Adviesbureaus), Ooa (Orde van Organisatieadviseurs), ITSMF

(Nederland, de bedrijfsvereniging voor IT-(service)management en –strategie), VLM (vereniging voor logistiek

management), NVO2 (Nederlandse verenigng voor HRD-professionals in ontwikkelen en opleiden), NVAS (Nederlandse

Vereniging van Adviseurs inzake subsidies en andere Overheidsstimuleringsregelingen) and VLO (vereniging voor logistiek

ontwerpers). The results indicate that the total sample of consultants are all unique based on their backgrounds. In

below table, an overview of the characteristics of the consultants is presented.

32

Table 3: the characteristics of the consultants

4.2. The characteristics of the consulting cases

In the second part of the interview, consultants were asked to prepare a recently accomplished consulting case

and describe the characteristics of the consulting case. First, the consultants were asked to indicate the generally the

consulting case which includes: type of client organization and the organizational problem. After, the consultants were

asked how they approach the organizational problem and indicate which of the interventions they have used in order to

solve the organizational problem(s). By means of an existing diagram, the consultants can easily select out the

organizational problem(s), which are divided in 9 general organizational problems and the corresponding interventions

of these organizational problems. This diagram is derived from multiple sources of theories (the complete diagram with

details can be found in the appendix).

There are in total 16 consulting cases mapped in this research. 4 of the consulting cases were done in a health

care organization, 2 consulting cases were in a distribution/logistic organization and the other 10 consulting cases were

done in diverse organizations. 4 consultants have indicated one specific organizational problem within the client

organization. The other 12 consultants have recognized and indicated multiple organization problems in the client

organizations. An overview of the case characteristics is presented in below table 4.3.

The

char

acte

rist

ics

of

the

con

sult

ing

case

s

Cases 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Gender F M M F M M M F M M M F F M F M

Education

MBO

HBO X X X X

WO X X X X X X X X

PhD X X X X

Other: MBA MBA

Experience in Years 20 10 12 10 13 5 7 1 30 6 8 20 8 28 20 22

Specialism Strategy X X X X

Operations X X X X X X X

Supply Chain X X X X X X

Finance X X X

Outsourcing X

HRM X

Other: X X X X X X X X X X

Independent consultant Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Certified consultant Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No

Member of branch association

Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Yes Yes yes No Yes Yes

33

The

char

acte

rist

ics

of

the

con

sult

ants

Cases 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Type of client

organization

Private organization X X

Governmental organization X X

Health care organization X X X X X

Non-profit organization X

Agricultural organization X

Distribution organization X X

Industrial organization X

Construction organization X

Consulting organization X

Type of organizational problem

a. Focus on diagnose and problem solving

X X X X X

b. Focus on strategic issue X X X X X X X

c. Focus on short term adaptation of organizational structure or cooperation’s

X X X X X

d. Focus on improving the business performance

X X X X X X X X X X X

e. Focus on the motivation of employees

X X X X X X

f. Focus on internal control X X X X X X X

g. Focus on training and development

X X X

h. Focus on processes between people

X X X X X

i. Focus on sustainable learning and change

X X X

Approach of consultant

Expert approach X X X X X

Process approach X X X X X X X X X

Mix approach X X

Table 4: the characteristics of the consulting cases

Further, the consultants were asked how they approach the consulting case. Approach is described as the generic

methods of moving towards the organizational problem(s). 9 of the consultants have indicated to use a process/

bottom-up approach, in which they involve and let the client and employees participate in the consulting process. 5 of

the consultants have indicated to use an expert/ top-down approach, in which they operate individually or within a small

project group and 2 consultants have indicated to use a mix approach in which they combine both an expert approach

and process approach.

Subsequently, the consultants were asked what interventions they have utilized to solve the organizational problem(s).

The results show that consultants have utilized multiple interventions to solve the problem(s). Although the

interventions are corresponded with the organizational problem(s), the utilized interventions do not completely

correspond with the chosen organizational problem(s) in the consulting cases. The most commonly used interventions

34

are: feedback (9 times), redesign of processes (9 times), workshops (8 times), Project organization (7 times), pilot project

(7 times) and process management (7 times). An overview of the used interventions is presented in below table 4.3.

Use

d in

terv

enti

on

s b

y co

nsu

ltan

t

Cases 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

a. Focus on diagnose and problem solving

SWOT analysis X X X X X

Benchmarking X X X X Balanced Score Card X X X X Causal Loop diagram X

b. Focus on strategic issue Strategic Change Plan X X X Search conference X X Strategic culture change X X X X

c. Focus on short term adaptation of organizational structure or cooperation’s

Project organization X X X X X X Temporary groups X X X X X X Pilot project X X X X X X New organization units X X Structure change X X X X X Outsourcing X

d. Focus on improving the business performance

Redesign of processes X X X X X X X X X Integral quality management X X X X X

e. Focus on the motivation of employees

Earnings systems X Selection X X X X X Carrier development X X Task widening X X X X X Task enrichment X X X X X

f. Focus on internal control Control X X Report X X Logbooks X

g. Focus on training and development

Training X X X X X Workshops X X X X X X X X Feedback X X X X X X X X X Coaching X X X X X X Gaming X X

h. Focus on processes between people

Teambuilding X X X Search conference X Third party X Process management X X X X X X X

i. Focus on sustainable learning and change

Action learning X X Explorative research X X Dialogue X X X

*the indicated organizational problems are marked grey.

Table 5: used interventions by the management consultants

35

4.3. The Justification of interventions

In the third part of the interviews, the consultants were asked how they justify their choice of the utilized

interventions and its effectiveness in their specific case. Consultants were asked to indicate from what sources of

evidence they have draw their justification by means on a diagram. In this diagram consultants can easily select the

source of evidence which they have used in their consulting case. According to the Rycroft-Malone et al., (2004)

‘evidence based’ generated from four different sources of evidence which consultants can use in consulting practice.

The results indicated that consultants draw from multiple sources of evidence. Professional experience, the client’s

experience and preferences and the data from local context and environment are the most used sources of evidence

and selected by every consultants. However, only 10 consultants have indicated to use scientific knowledge as source of

evidence as justification. An overview of the used sources of evidence is presented below in table: 4.3.

Table 6: used source of evidence by the management consultants

Although the consultants have indicated to use multiple source of evidence to draw their knowledge and

understanding about a certain organizational problem, these sources of evidence are used differently in their

justification and argumentation in order to proof the effectiveness and the credibility towards the client. Some

consultants give some explanation of how these sources of evidence are used:

Scientific knowledge

“I do rely strongly on scientific knowledge of what is smart changing or stupid changing”

“Scientific knowledge? Minimally……. But, it is good for inspiration!”

“My research methodology is based on scientific research”

Above quotes indicate that some consultants use scientific knowledge as background information of what is best

practice and take that into consideration or either use scientific knowledge, theories or model to apply that in their

consulting practice. The interviews clearly indicate that these scientific knowledge stern from a consultants educational

period or whether from their interest in keeping their own knowledge up to date and from practical development of

Cases 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Source of Evidence Scientific knowledge X X X X X X X X X X

Professional Experience X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Clients experiences and preferences X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Local context and environment X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

36

scientific theories and model. The basis issue is then, do they use it in practice or do they let the knowledge as it is.

Some consultants do and some don’t.

Professional experience

“Professional experience is the expertise of the consultant. A consultant understand the situation of his client and

he can make the translation into practice”

“Experience, that is what you have seen and what you have done wrong, you won’t do that again!”

“Professional experience is that what you think you have to do and that is based in intuition”

Professional experience is what every consultant rely on in their daily practice. Clients often take advice as it is, because

they fully trust on the expertise of the consultant. “We are going to do this. Ok, is the answer most of the time.” I would

rather say why, but that question is never put forward most of the time”. Either consulting advices is based on previous

experience or based on intuition, it do have some truth in it. Most of the time, it is like a kind of ‘cognitive systemization

of experiences’. It is embedded in the head of the consultant that is based on what the consultant have done many

times or what the consultant see at that moment and think of a logical action.

Client’s experiences and preferences

“Client has a very important role in what the direction is and what going to happen eventually”

“Eventually, the step that need to be taken, have to be reported to the client and the client has to agree with it”

“Advertisement’ alone is not enough to convince the client. It is all about money. Clients are focus on efficiency

and effectiveness.”

As stated in the quotes, the role of the client seems to be an important factor in the consulting practice. Clients pay a lot

of money to get the problem solved. Eventually, it has to save the client a lot of money. “The customer is the king”, it is

all about the client. The clients know best and the consultants are very aware of that. That is also the reason why

consultants often use a process approach. To let the clients and its employees involve and participate in the consulting

process. This way, the consultants also take the client’s perspective into consideration and let the client’s employees

experience that they are part of the consulting process.

37

Local context and environment

“It is important to collect your data from the participants (…) I have talk with those people in order to get a clear

picture of the history of the organization”.

“I have used a research about employee satisfaction that is conducted by a research institute. I have read that

report and took all the important elements”.

“We just sit there and watch. Using observations and interviews, and analyze the data”.

“The data comes from the respondents. I always work with a large sample and make sure I use take good

samples”.

Another important source of evidence is the information of the local context en environment of the organizational

problem. Most of the time, consultants use this source to get a better understanding about the organization itself and

the organizational problem(s). Although every consultants use this source of evidence, the results clearly indicate that

the way of collecting data is different. Some of the consultants collect their data by means of informal interactions e.g.

participate in daily operations. The larger part of the consultants uses often a more qualitative method to collect their

data by means of workshops and feedback which is a form of observations and structured interaction. Only one

consultant in this research uses a quantitative method to collect his data by means of questionnaires and large samples.

After, the consultants indicate from what sources of evidence they draw their knowledge from, the consultant

were ask to provide arguments of how they justify their claims about the expected effectiveness of their consulting. The

arguments and justifications are fragmentize and coded according to the categories which are derived from the

literature. The arguments are coded according to the types of evidence as presented in table 7. Although the consultants

all indicate to use the same sources of evidence, the type of evidence used in their argumentation and justification is

more diverse. The results show that anecdotal and testimonial evidence is used by every consultant in their

argumentation. 6 consultants have used hypothetical evidence in their argumentation. 8 consultants have used

statistical evidence in their arguments and only 3 consultants have used analogical evidence in their argumentation. An

overview of the type of evidence used by consultants in their arguments is presented in below table 7.

38

Table 7: used types of evidence

The most important aspects are the credibility and the supportive elements in each of the type of evidence.

There is a certain hierarchical of the evidence which determine the credibility of the consulting of a consultant. Some

quotes are stated below:

Hypothetical evidence

“You can provide objective and qualitative services in any case, but that is more in the method that is used. The

approach is eventually based on 100% feeling and intuition. At a certain moment you have to estimate the

direction which is the best”.

“In some case intuition works best and in other cases don’t, but it very based on intuition”

“In advance you have no clue. Just try, trial and error, look if it works. If it doesn’t works, then you try something

else”.

“I think that is it based on a lot of intuition and experience. I have done something 10 times and 9 times it went

good, so it works probably”.

Hypothetical evidence is at the lowest level in the hierarchy of evidence, which is a very weak, positive type of evidence.

The quotes illustrates that arguments are based on a fictional event in which consultants hypothesize a logical action.

Intuition is a typical type of hypothetical evidence in which consultants think what is best in that situation.

Cases 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Types of Evidence Hypothetical Evidence X X X X X X

Anecdotal Evidence X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Testimonial / Expert Evidence X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Statistical Evidence X X X X X X X X

Analogical Evidence X X X

39

Anecdotal evidence

“First, I inventorise what the situation is and try to get a clear picture of the situation. Try to get an objective

picture as much as possible. But above all, don’t make to quick conclusions”

“By means of mapping the nature and content of the conflicts, and the original basic principles”.

“I have collected a lot of information out of the organization. I have used benchmark as the standard.

Benchmarking is to collect a lot of information and compare it with others.

Anecdotal evidence is typical kind of evidence in which consultants describe the problem situation and use that as

starting point of their consulting. Anecdotal evidence can be related to the extent in which consultant’s use the local

context en environment as their source of collecting data from the organization and it people in order to get a clear

picture about the organizational problem. The use of type of evidence in particular is found weak supportive credible.

Testimonial/ expert evidence

“Big part of the consulting in this case is to tell what is in my eyes the best solutions in this process”

“I use my professional experience to interpret the data. Based on the data, I make my conclusion and

recommendation. The recommendation I do come up by myself. So it is based on my own professional experience

which is based on my data in turn.

“I think that the focus lies on professional experience. By working in team, we try to get knowledge and

experience as much as possible into the project, so we won’t forget something and make mistakes”.

Again, the results show that every consultant relies and trust their own experience and expertise about a certain

organizational problem. Also the clients will trust the consultant as an expert and won’t question about his expertise.

The more a consultant works in a specific field of consulting, the more the client will trust his abilities and skills. In

general this type of evidence is found moderate strong supportive credible.

40

Statistical evidence

“It is based on researches about the success and failures of change processes. Besides I have used a lot of

theories about group dynamics during guidance of the group”.

“We have a theoretical basis which called LEAN which is examined and applied thoroughly in the health care in

practice”.

“What we use in the supply chain management is the balance score card. The balance score card is a model that

corresponds with the supply chain. The Quin-model is a model that examines the culture and EFM-model is a

model which can be used to analyze organizations”.

Statistical evidence is a typical kind of evidence which is heading closer to evidence based. The bases of this type of

evidence, is that it is based on scientific theories and models. Consultants use this type of evidence as a ‘mirror’ to

reflect the reality, models that are found credible as a reflector of an organizational problem or organizational context.

Although this type of evidence doesn’t say in specific cases, it is found fairy strong supportive credible.

Analogical evidence

“I have a concept, a variable ‘satisfaction’. I try to determine what the relationship is between satisfaction and

the referring behaviour. I collect data about different variables and try to determine correlations. If there is a

relation, then that will lead to the conclusion for example: if doctors are more satisfied, it leads to more reference

or if doctors are less satisfied it lead to less reference”.

“In America is it proven that 67% of all accident is caused by bad sight. In other words, we have used scientific

knowledge to prove the surplus value of the concept. Together with the University of Erasmus, we will try to

examine the effectiveness of this financial concept. After 2 year we could say that is saves you a lot of money, so

it is proven”.

Analogical evidence is the most credible type of evidence. It uses scientific validated methods and conclusions to

determine certain relationships or prove that a certain concept will be effective in specific cases. Out of the results only

3 consultants uses this kind of arguments. This type of evidence is found strong supportive credible.

41

4.4. The advantage and disadvantage of evidence based consulting

In the final part of the interview, the consultants were asked to give their opinion regarding the advantage and

disadvantage of evidence based consulting. After the fragmentation and coding procedure of all transcriptions, some

categories are found and labeled as advantages and disadvantages of evidence based consulting. The following

categories are labeled as advantages: attitude, research, communication and objectivity. The disadvantages are:

abstraction, authority and attitude, skills and resources, client support and time. Further, similar categories are put back

together and the frequency of these categories was counted. In below table, an overview of the advantage and

disadvantage is presented.

Ad

van

tage

s

Categories Frequency

Attitude of consultants 5

Shared knowledge base 8

Objectivity of advice 3

Table 8: advantages of evidence based consulting

Attitude of consultant

“I see so many advantages in things that are proven effective in practice. I am so scientifically focused, that I

want many things proved”.

“It makes you aware that intuition is a way to analyze a situation. But it is also makes you aware that there are

many ways to do that”.

“It is well thought-out. If applied, it is conscientious at the least and that is important. It applied broadly, every

related aspects and factors are take into consideration”.

The category attitude implies that consultants first have to be aware of the benefits of evidence based consulting in

their consulting practice. This category is defined as positive attitude of the consultants or the client toward the

recognition of the importance and benefits of research in practice. The consultant should therefore first enlarge his

knowledge and interest of evidence based consulting and change the ways of founding their consulting practice.

Shared knowledge base

“The advantage is that we all work together in order to make all those unique projects comparable”.

“You have to contribute to the knowledge base and that means you have to make that knowledge public”

42

“If you apply evidence based practice, that cooperation’s are very important. It is all about working together. If

you do something, then you also shared it with others. This way knowledge can grow”.

One of the advantages of evidence based consulting is that there is a shared knowledge base of best practice. The

category is defined as the accessibility and availability to realistic and relevant research findings. However, it also implies

that this is not an individual, but a collective issue. It is necessary that this knowledge based is shared by many parties.

This means accurate communication and partnerships between practioners, researchers and consultants about research

outcomes and practical solutions.

Objectivity of advice

“It is more objective, so you can say that conclusions are more certain to some extent”.

“I see only advantages. You are more aware of the facts”.

“A good consultant uses a lot more data out of local context and environment”.

Practicing evidence based means also that consultants are more aware of the objectiveness of their consulting practice.

This means that consultants have to use an objective way to derive conclusions out of the organizational problems by

using more facts-based data and information. This category is refers to the way conclusions and advice are derive in an

objective way, based on facts without taking ones preference into consideration.

43

Dis

adva

nta

ge

Categories Frequency

Abstraction level 11

Client’s attitude and support 14

Shared knowledge base 4

Scientific skills 3

Time 6

Table 9: disadvantages of evidence based consulting

Abstraction level

“You try to catch it too much in an abstractive way that you don’t look what is special and unique about a case”.

“It is all about the abstraction level in which you talk with the clients. The abstraction level which I speak with the

client was on the level of “concrete proposals”.

“You can do really nice scientific research. But the gap between scientific research and the practical solutions is

often too large. The distance of the applicability of scientific knowledge in practice is too big”.

One of the disadvantages of evidence based consulting is the abstraction level in which scientific knowledge is used in

practice. Some consultants indicate that it is hard to translate scientific knowledge into practical solutions. This is often

because the organizational problems are about practical problems and solved on the level of ‘concrete’ practical

solutions. The abstraction level is defined as a simplified representation of the organizational problem leaving out the

concrete details.

Client’s attitude and support

“You can have a really good team and the best scientific methods. But if you cannot explain it to the

management, then you don’t speak in the same language. Your advice will never be accepted”.

“Charisma and conviction. There are a few people who can sell total nonsense which is not evidence based, but

still be accepted. That is an important factor. There is a lot in personal approach”.

“I use a very pragmatic approach because the management was a very authoritarian person. Then you will pick

an approach that appeals to him the most”.

44

“For one problem there are 17 solutions. Clients are not waiting for this. You are the professional. This is my

problem, so pick the right solution, one or two. Best practice”.

“Clients don’t want to be compared with others, because they are unique”.

“Science has some bad image. What do you mean with science? That is too complicated. I tried to say that the

method is maybe complicated, but the results are clear and you can do a lot with it”.

Consultants need support by different parties in order to adapt evidence based in consulting practice. The client attitude

and support is seen as the biggest disadvantage and the main obstacle of adopting evidence based consulting. The

problem is that some parties lack the attitude of accepting evidence based. Clients either don’t like scientific research or

doesn’t understand scientific research. This will result in lack of support and willingness to adopt evidence based

consulting. The client’s attitude and support refers to the lack of attitude towards research activity, lack of motivation

and the way clients see scientific research.

Shared Knowledge base

“Some others could say: we are a commercial firm and we should not give too much away”.

“The health care is a sector where you can do a lot of scientific research and a place where is a lot of knowledge

sharing. Our sector is basically the same. You have to share solutions en by making this available to other. Then

knowledge can grow”.

“This is only possible when everyone share his knowledge and experiences. That will take a lot of time”.

Knowledge based is determined as advantage but as well as disadvantage. One could say that evince based consulting

could enhance the knowledge based about effective consulting. However, it is not easy to find relevant research.

Practical research outcomes often are held within the consulting firm or by an individual consultant. Consultants are

afraid of giving to much knowledge and information away in order to protect their own effective consulting. Shared

knowledge base in this perspective refers to availability of research finding and best practice.

45

Scientific skills

“We who have come from the university know how to do research”.

“It is useful because we are scientific oriented consultants. I have my PhD and my colleague is taking this PhD. It

does help a lot in the foundation of the consulting”.

Another disadvantage of evidence based consulting is that consultants have to less scientific knowledge in general.

Consultants are using to less of scientific methods in their consulting or have to less up to date scientific state of

research. Scientific skills refers to the lack of scientific education or training to conduct research in a scientific way and

little understanding of scientific methods and the leading scientific knowledge on certain topics.

Time

“It is not like I’m reading a book for a certain problems. The time is just too short”.

“The runtime of the project will be longer and in the consulting where you are paid in hours is not attractive in

the eye of the clients. So it is cheaper to do best practice”.

“The disadvantage is that it takes a lot of time. You can apply all kind of knowledge, but it will take a lot of time.

But if you are crazy about it, then it doesn’t matter. But it does take a lot of time before you can apply”.

The results show that time is one of the biggest issues to adopt evidence based consulting. Using scientific methods is

consulting do takes more time than using best practice. Clients often don’t want to pay for the extra hours in which

consultants spend to find relevant scientific theories or models, executions of scientific research methods and writing

scientific reports.

46

4.5. Impression of the interviews

In previous chapter, the qualitative results are presented and interpreted. However,

some impression out of the interviews is developed during the data collection and data analysis.

Although these impressions are subjective obviously, it cannot be left behind because it does

show some line of thought of the view of consultants. Some remarkable issue were note down

and some other categories were derived which do supports the results.

Paperwork and reports

All most none of the consultants indicated to write a report of the consulting process in

the end. Instead, a lot of consultants use presentations and short notes to present the outcomes.

Consultants do use multiple combinations of interventions and solutions, but does not report

why and how they did. This may implies that most of the consultants are practice-oriented,

which means they do like implementation and execution of interventions, but don’t like writing

reports during or in the end of the consulting process.

Networks

Although, the Ooa (Orde van organisatieadviseurs) and Roa (Raad van

organisatieadviesbureaus) are the two official branches association of consultancy firms in the

Netherlands. Only few consultants indicated to are members of these associations. Membership

means that consultants have to follow the code of conducts formulated by the two associations.

One of the criteria of the code of conduct is good fellowship, which means that consultants have

to keep professional contact with fellow consultants. Instead, most of the consultants have

indicated to be in other branch associations within specific specialism where their can keep their

contacts as well as acquiring specific knowledge in that specialism. Further, a lot of consultants

have indicated to have a small network which consists of only a few consultants. Some

consultants describe these networks as study groups in which consultants come together a few

times per year. These networks usually function as social bridges or knowledge bank in which

consultants can expand their contacts and knowledge sharing about experiences.

47

Effective consulting

The meaning of effective consulting is ambiguous. During the interview, some questions

were asked about effective consulting and how consultants know this is effective. Some notable

answers were given by consultants like “if the clients agree” or “the clients were satisfied about

the outcome”. This way, consultants presume their methods are effective in that specific case.

By means of evaluations in the end, consultants can estimate how satisfied their clients are and

will probably keep their way of working. Most of the consultants have indicated to evaluate with

their clients in the end.

48

5. Conclusions

In the previous chapter the results are presented and discussed. In this chapter the research

question will be answered and the conclusions of this research will be given. The first part of the

question will be answered in chapter 5.1. The middle part of the question in chapter 5.2. The

last part of the question in chapter 5.3. Following the discussion in chapter 5.4. In the final

chapter 5.5. the limitations and recommendations. The main research question of this research

was:

“How do consultants justify their claim about the expected effectiveness of their

intervention, what type(s) evidence are used in that justification and which factors

determine the use of specific type(s) of evidence?”

5.1. How do consultants justify their claim about the expected effectiveness of their

consulting?

The conclusion will start with answering of the first part of the research question. Out of

the results, it can be concluded that consultants justify their claim about the expected

effectiveness of their consulting from different sources of evidence. These sources of evidence

together can form the basis of effective consulting in which consultants can draw data,

information and knowledge out of these sources to justify their consulting. The empirical results

show that consultants justify their consulting based on mainly on their own professional

experience, the clients experience and preferences, and data and information from the local

context and environment, and lesser from scientific knowledge. Although, the usage of these

sources is determined, the role of these sources and how this is used is much more important in

the justification.

Client’s experiences and preference

Consultants are mainly driven by the consulting question, the desire and demands, and

the culture which is part of the client’s experience and preference. Consultants often look at the

level of consulting question and the nature of the organizational problem e.g. strategic issues;

tactical redesign of processes; operational implementation of systems. The fact that consultants

emphasize that the clients experience and preference is an important source of evidence, is

clearly noticeable in the way consultants involve the participation of employees in the

49

consulting process. Most of the consultants use a bottom-up/ process approach in order to

involve the client and it employees and to let them think along about the nature of the problem

and their own perception of the problem. This suggests that the involvement of the clients is

part of the consulting process which is to advance the relationship during the process. The

nature and quality of the relation and process is therefore partly determined for the

effectiveness and quality of the consulting. These aspects are factors that consultants have take

into consideration in order to fit the demands of the client and to create more supports from

the client. Ultimately, it is the client who decides whether the consulting has reached its goal

and determined whether it was effective.

Data and information from local context and environment

Subsequently, consultants will intent to understand the organizational problem by using

most of the available knowledge and information from the local context and environment.

These knowledge and information about the organizational problem comes mainly from local

systematic obtained information from either the clients itself, the employees or other data from

internal documents. Along with the bottom-up/ process approach, most of the consultants use

this way to find the underlying problem(s) experienced by the employees. Using participative

approaches consultants try to collect data from individuals, groups and processes of the actual

organizational situation/problem. This way of collecting data is also a way to create the feeling

of involvement among the employees and to minimalize the resistance of the change process.

This is done by interactive workshops, formal or informal dialogue with clients and consultants,

and other methods like observations or interviews. The justification is partly determined by the

way consultants recognize the main problem and the way clients, employees, processes react on

the change or interventions. By constantly monitoring the beginning, the intervention and the

outcome of the consulting processes, the consultant can verify whether this was effective or not.

This also partly determines how consultants justify their expected effectiveness of their

consulting.

Professional experiences

After, consultants have a good impression about the organization and determine the

scope of the problem; most of the consultants use their own knowledge and experience to

50

interpret the situation. This knowledge usually is expressed and embedded in practice and it

often tacit and intuitive. This is usually based on their own fundamental ideas, models or

methods in which they have used often in similar practical situation. Although, every consultant

has their own professional experience and their way of consulting, it can be assumed that most

of the knowledge stern from education or training consultants has done. Consultants usually use

important elements of a theory or model either consciously or unconsciously. Consultants who

have a rich base of practical experiences will probably possess over a variously and deeply tacit

knowledge source. Although some consultants only rely on their own professional experiences,

other consultants are well aware about the necessity to keep up the leading literature and

keeping their knowledge up to date. Whereas some consultants only read scientific literature

and popularizing books as inspiration, others use more scientific articles to utilize important

elements of theories and models and some other thoroughly use scientific theories and model

to develop their own consulting methods and use it in practice. The most important aspect of

the professional experience is how the consultant interprets the main problem and the

communication to the client. The reasoning is most likely done based on what the consultant

has seen before or what the consultant knows in practice.

Scientific knowledge

Still, scientific research is used less among the consultants and the way how this

knowledge is used differs for each consultant. The way in which research can contribute to the

effectiveness of consulting practice is largely ignored by many consultants. Using scientific

research can prevent consultants ‘inventing the wheel again’. Scientific knowledge can for

example determine relations between certain organizational variables and relational variables,

or scientific knowledge can proof that certain interventions or methods are effective. However,

such scientific knowledge may not be always applicable directly. But it does contribute to the

consultants understanding of the problem and which interventions could possibly be the most

effective one. Science and practice are basically two different worlds. Therefore, professional

experience plays an important role in the interpretation of theories and models and the

transition into practice solutions. Thus, scientific knowledge can form an extra foundation of the

consultant’s justification.

51

In other words, these sources are necessary to come to a decision. Thus, clients have a

certain organizational problem which is the ‘data’. Consultants presume that certain

interventions or solutions are effective which is the ‘claim’ and the way consultants uses

different source to justify their claim is called the ‘warrant’. Concluding, consultants will have to

justify their effective consulting using different sources to support their consulting practice.

What may require is the interaction of different sources, drawing from scientific insight, taking

the clients experiences into consideration, the available data and information of local context

and environment and the rich professional experiences of the consultants. The challenge is to

ensure that each source of evidence is used accurately, while keeping the organizational

problem in the middle.

5.2. What type(s) of evidence do consultants use in their justification?

After knowing that consultants justify their effective consulting based on the four

sources of evidence, it still doesn’t say anything about the credibility of their consulting. One

consultant could say that he has a rich base of experience and expertise on a problem, but

justify and based his arguments on intuition or feeling it sounds not credible. As another

consultants justify and based his arguments on fact, figures and scientific knowledge, it is more

credible that intuition and feeling alone. This isn’t only a problem of the consultant, but also the

clients. Clients often trust the consultants experience and expertise in order to solve their

organizational problem. But it doesn’t have to be the case. Clients often rely and trust the

consultants to much that he doesn’t even question it. So, it is time to examine the credibility of

the consultants.

Anecdotal and testimonial evidence

The results show that most of the consultants justify their consulting based on

anecdotal and testimonial evidence. That is based on what they have seen, their understanding

and interpretation of the organizational problem (anecdotal evidence) and what is in their eyes

the best solutions (testimonial evidence). This claim can stern from either intuition or from

previous experience in which consultants have face similar problems and reflect this on the data

what they have seen and understand based on anecdotal evidence out of the local context and

environment.

52

Hypothetical evidence

Despite the fact that consultants can face a new problem and in fact doesn’t know how

to deal with it, then conclude that intuition and feeling will play a major role, determined as

hypothetical evidence. Consultants often won’t say it and don’t know if it would work. The client

in this case wouldn’t even notice, which is quite logical. Consultants who justify their consulting

based on hypothetical, anecdotal and testimonial evidence vary from very weak to moderate

supportive credibility. Although, it doesn’t mean that their consulting is not effective, only the

likelihood of effective consulting is less certain in theory.

Statistical evidence

Next to it, there are consultants who use statistical and analogical evidence which is

pointing more directed the principles of evidence based consulting. These consultants are

making the combination between science and practice. These types of evidence are more

credible because theories and model are derived from systematic review of the reality and

practice. However, the results show that the extent in which consultants uses these types of

evidence is different. Some consultants only use scientific theories and model to draw

inspiration and some take important elements of these theories to use in practice. In other

words, if consultants only read popularizing books or scientific article and he don’t use it, than

he is no wiser than before. Consultants who justify their consulting with statistical evidence will

based their consulting on important elements and underlying principles of theories and models.

Analogical evidence

The most reliable and credible evidence is analogical evidence. This evidence is derived

from knowledge, theories and models that have been examine and test by means of valid

scientific methods. One disadvantage of this type of evidence is that it has to be translated and

adapted into other context and situation. The question rise to what extent theories or models

are also applicable and useful in other situation. Therefore, consultants still have to understand

the underlying mechanisms of certain theories and model, and use their own interpretation of

the applicability of certain theories or models to make it work in practice. Consultants who

justify their consulting based on statistical and analogical evidence vary from fairly strong to

strong credibility.

53

Concluding, the combination of the types of evidence only makes the consulting

stronger and credible. The most credible consulting is when consultants use a combination of

types of evidence to proof the effectiveness of their consulting. Effective consulting means that

intuition is necessary to take risks and follow you own heart, but use the fact and figures out of

the local context and environment as bases of the decision. Consultants should trust their own

professional experience and expertise to interpret the data and information, and their own

understanding about the organizational problem. But take underlying mechanisms of relevant

theories and models into consideration. Strive for the highest and most credible quality of

consulting by means of reliable, credible and valid scientific knowledge and methods that are

proven effective to support and as founding of the consulting process. In addition, hypothetical,

anecdotal and testimonial evidence are sees as non-scientific evidence. Statistical and analogical

evidence clearly move toward the principles of evidence based consulting.

5.3. What factors determine the use of certain type(s) of evidence?

The use of certain types of evidence can be determined by many factors. Out of the

result in which the advantage and disadvantage of evidence based consulting are mentioned by

the consultants can be related to these factors to some extent. To answer this question, the

factors will be discussed on how these factors can determine the use of certain types of

evidence. Out of the results the following factors are derived: attitude of the consultant, shared

knowledge base, abstraction level, clients support, scientific skills and time.

Attitude of consultant

According to the results, there are certain attitude which can determine the use of

certain types of evidence and especially statistical and analogical evidence. The fact that

scientific research can enhance the effectiveness of consulting is recognized by many

consultants, but also ignored. The results show that most of the consultants indicate this factors

as advantage as well as disadvantage of evidence based consulting. So the attitude of curiosity,

sympathy attitude towards research, interesting attitude, attitude of wisdom e.g. knowledge

that they don’t know all, could facilitate the use of scientific evidence. Thus, consultants will

likely use more scientific knowledge to proof their effective consulting and the mechanism

behind the effective interventions, and also the way consultants use more objective ways to

examine the organizational problem, if they are aware of the contribution of scientific

54

knowledge. In turn, without these attitudes, consultants ignore the benefits of research and act

on the best of their knowledge while questioning what they know, thus will continuing using

their traditional way of consulting, meaning hypothetical, anecdotal and testimonial evidences.

Shared knowledge based

One of the factors that are mentioned by consultants as advantage, is that evidence

based consulting could enhance a shared knowledge base. The concept of evidence based

consulting presume that consultants will use best practice, methods and intervention that are

scientifically and empirically examined, tested and proven effective in practice. Through a

accurate shared knowledge base consultants and researchers can examine which or what

interventions and methods are effective in certain situation in scientific way. Through this way,

consultants are able to use more statistical and analogical evidence of best practice that are

proven effective. However, this is only possible in the most optimal situation of evidence based

consulting. The shared knowledge base in the consulting sector is still inaccurate and limited.

Unlike the health care sector, where there is an accurate shared knowledge base, a rich

knowledge flow of best practice, medical protocols and treatments methods is available

throughout the whole medical professions. This means that the consultancy sectors still lacks on

this issue. This kind of knowledge has to be explicit and objectified as much as possible by

means of for example evaluation studies of interventions or consulting processes. The

impression of the interviews clearly indicates that consultants do evaluate their consulting

process with their clients in the end. But don’t share this knowledge throughout the whole

consulting profession, only to their own colleagues or own network at the very most. Thus, the

availability of empirical results of findings or best practice is not for granted. Until then

consultants must use what is available at the moment of scientific article, popularizing articles of

theories and models, try to use as much as possible of the available resources of proven

theories, concepts or models. Once there is a shared knowledge base of best consulting practice,

effective interventions and methods available, this will lead to a more evidence based

consulting in practice, thus to more credible evidence of effective consulting. However, with a

limited amount of shared knowledge, the use of more credible evidence is also limited. This

factor is strongly related to the consultant’s attitude toward the use of scientific evidence,

because proven effective consulting is still hard to find at this moment.

55

Abstraction level

The important factor that stops consultants using more scientific evidence is the

abstraction level of consulting questions. This issue is mentioned 11 times in the interview and is

seen as the biggest obstacle of practicing evidence based consulting. Many consultants see

scientific knowledge as an abstractive form of knowledge and claim that it doesn’t fit in concrete

consulting practice. To some extent it is true, the distance between science and practice is a well

known issue. Based on this assumption, consultants rather don’t use scientific research in their

consulting practice. However, some consultants argue that it is not the abstraction level of

consulting questions, but the problem of interpreting scientific research and the transition of

science into practical solutions. Also due to the fact that most of the consultants don’t have

much scientific skills to do so which is also determined as a factor. In consulting questions

whereas clients demand concrete proposals, keeps consultants using more hypothetical,

anecdotal or testimonial evidence. This issue is in turn is related to the shared knowledge base.

If there is more shared knowledge about concrete best practice situations where practical

solutions is proven effective, it will likely remove the gap between science and practical, thus

lead to more statistical and analogical evidence.

Attitude of clients

The next factor is also an important factor that determines the use of certain types of

evidence. The fact that clients rather want simple and clear solutions is mentioned 8 times

during the interviews. This indicated that the attitude of clients towards scientific research is

also a big obstacle for consultants to practice evidence based consulting. Out of the results it

comes clear that clients lack the understanding of scientific research and its contribution to

more credible evidence which support the consulting. Most of the consultants are very aware of

this issue and rather choose for a simple and practical approach of practicing their consulting.

Thus, this issue keeps the consultants on using hypothetical, anecdotal and testimonial evidence

to justify their consulting toward the clients. This issue can simply be solved by clear

communication with the clients and clarify the needs and benefits of scientific knowledge. This

issue is raised by a few consultants who indicate that personal approach of the consultant could

determine the acceptance of research evidence, and it all about talking in the same ‘language’.

Thus, the presentation of scientific outcomes and the interpretation results into practical

56

solutions would enlarge the acceptance of client and ultimately enhance the use of more

statistical and analogical evidence.

Scientific skills

Although this factor is only mentioned 3 times, it can be assumed that this is the most

important factor that could determine the adoption of evidence based consulting. According to

some consultants, practicing evidence based consulting is determined by the way consultants

can deal with scientific knowledge. That is the lack of scientific skills, the knowledge in using

scientific methods and the skills of searching appropriate and relevant scientific literature. This

issues it most obvious due to the fact that only the consultants that have a research background

with a PhD are using more statistical and analogical evidence to justify their effective consulting.

These consultants are able to use scientific methods to examine the organizational problem, the

skills of finding relevant literature and interpretation of scientific outcomes into practical

situations. The ability and skills of doing research on the university is already embedded in their

way of working, thus it is much easier for those consultants to combine research with the

consulting practice. These consultants are more likely to use more statistical and analogical

evidence to justify their consulting.

Time

The final factor that could determine the use of certain types of evidence is the amount

of time this is available for consultants to collect their data, knowledge and information. The

biggest issue of using scientific knowledge or methods is that it is very time consuming. In the

consultancy sector where consultants are paid in hours it is hard to spend more time in

systematic review of data and information and the search of relevant literature. Consultants

rather spend more time on practical issues that finding evidence to proof their effective

consulting. Consultants in sum want to sell as much as time and the clients want more

performance in less time. This could be a barrier of using more statistical and analogical

evidence in their consulting. However, some consultant indicates that is related to the scientific

skills of a consultant. In the beginning it is hard to use more scientific methods scientific

knowledge, but if these skills are mastered it will become much easier and take less time to do

so.

57

5.4. Discussions

Concluding, these factors may determine the use of certain types of evidence. These

factors can have either positive as negative influence on the use of certain types of evidence. In

optimal situation as describe in each of the factors, these aspects can facilitate the adoption of

evidence based consulting, thus also the use of more statistical and analogical evidence. Right at

this moment, the shared knowledge base of effective interventions, best practice and other

proven concepts is limited. The available scientific knowledge is in most cases to raw in order to

apply directly in practical situations. Also the large collection and extensive scientific literature

consist of too much information to consume and too hard for consultants to find relevant

theories and models to apply. The acceptance of scientific research by clients and the limited of

time in the consulting practice make it even harder for consultants to use scientific knowledge.

The only way to bridge these aspects is to improve the individual attitude of consultants,

thus a more positive attitude towards scientific knowledge and evidence. In other words,

consultants have to criticize their own consulting process and the credibility of it. By using as

much as possible of the objective facts and figures and, the available and logical evidence to

support decisions, interventions, methods and consulting process. Enlarge their scientific skills in

order to build on more scientific oriented methods in their consulting practice. Adopting

evidence based consulting means to use more scientific oriented knowledge, empirical findings

of best practice and to work more in a scientific way. This doesn’t mean that consultants are

now the same as researchers, but on the contrary consultants have to use empirical or scientific

knowledge that is related to an organizational problem situation, use their own professional

experience to interpret and judge the organizational context and client experiences and

preferences, and more important is to evaluate empirical finding of interventions, methods or

best practice and share it throughout the consulting professions. This way the combination of

science and practical application will lead to a new formation of service innovation in the

consultancy known as evidence based consulting.

In contract, this research uses many examples of the health care sectors in which many

scholars see similarities. The main difference is that the health care sector is already seen as a

profession and the management consultancy sectors still have to become one. The health care

sector is mainly influence by governmental organizations with policies and responsibilities.

58

Whereas the consultancy sectors don’t have to deal with governmental pressures, many

consulting firms don’t see the emergence to change their way of working. It profit is made and if

clients don’t ask for empirical evidence, then there is no need to change their way of working.

“Are we on our way to evidence based consulting?”, the answer is, it depends. Due to

the mentioned factors, there is still a long way to evidence based consulting. However, there is a

little development in the consulting sector which tents to the concepts of evidence based

consulting, is that there are more and more researchers, scholars and professors who make the

switch to the consulting. Although, most of the consultants don’t use statistical and analogical

evidence to proof their consulting, it doesn’t imply that the current way of working is not

effective. The effective consulting may not be explicitly examined, but it can be assumed that

the current way of working is establish through endless discussions by experts or even

professors in consultancy firms. On the other hand, it is noticeable that evidence based is much

more developed in the United States of America, where universities and consultancy firms are

embedded in large multinationals. “Is evidence based then in anyways feasible in the

consultancy sector?” Yes, it is. There is still a large market undiscovered where social science

and consultancy are contribute to the understanding and development of organizations.

59

5.5. Limitations and future research

After finishing this research, there are some limitations encountered that may influence

the results and the conclusions of this research. The following limitations will be discussed. The

first limitation is that this research measures the effectiveness of interventions in first instance.

This was measured by means of indicating the problem situation / problem focus and the used

interventions. After the data collection and analysis it has turn out that consultants indicated

multiple problem situations and used multiple interventions. Due to this is not possible to draw

conclusions what the effectiveness is of specific interventions and how this is used, because

there is no clear cause or consequence to point out. Future research should focus on one

specific problem situation per case and indicate the interventions that are used to solve this

particular problem situation. With this it is possible to draw relations between the mechanism

of specific interventions that solve a particular problem situation and therefore also the

effectiveness of an intervention.

The second limitation is that this research should make a better classification of

specialism. In this research, consultants have indicated multiple specialisms. Due to this it is not

possible to determine the relation between the specialism of a consultants and the problem

situation. Future research should make a better classification of specialisms and let the

consultants indicate only one specialism that characterize his expertise. This way it is possible to

determine the specialism of a consultants and the relationship between the expertise of an

consultants and the problem situation.

The third limitation of this research is that the empirical results are only based on 16

interviews. This limited amount interview is not sufficient to generalize conclusions. However, it

does determine some factors which are important in these specific case studies. This research is

therefore characterized as an explorative research. So, future research should elaborate on this

research and test the factors by means on quantitative data collection in order to draw

generalizable conclusions.

The previous described limitations are caused due to the construction of the

measurements and semi-structured topic list and the interview itself. The researcher should ask

better and more specific questions about certain topics. Also the extent in which the researcher

should have interrogated at certain answers did not happen. So, one major limitation lies with

60

the research himself. The reasons are the limited interview and research experience of the

researcher which had a major impact on the quality of this research.

Although there are some limitations in this research, there are also some positive

aspects in this research. That is namely the transferability of this research. The procedure of this

research is described well, so other researchers should able to conduct this research again and

better. Due to this, the limitations and the missteps of the researcher are also clear, but luckily,

these mistakes can be used as wise lessons.

This research attempting to measure the effectiveness of interventions in the first place

and became the effectiveness of consulting at a higher level. The justification is measured well

to my opinion. By means of indicating the sources which consultants use to draw their

knowledge, experience, data or information, this determines the justification of consultant’s

effective consulting e.g. experience-oriented, client-oriented, theory-oriented or data-oriented.

Besides, the use of certain types of evidence in this justification is determined well. The types of

evidence is measured by means of analyzing the answers and arguments of the consultants why

their use certain methods and how they know it will work. A classification of the types of

evidence is with this determined well, because the nature of each type of evidence is defined

and the hierarchy of the types of evidence is determined, from the lowest credible type of

evidence to the golden standard of evidence. With this, makes it possible to use it as the level of

evidence, from the lowest credible evidence to the most reliable evidence.

In the final part of this research, some factors have been explored that could possibly

determine the use of certain types of evidence. However, there are possible other factors that

may determine the types of evidence. One other limitation is that this research did not

determine what the possible relationships are of these factors e.g. direct, indirect, moderating

or mediating effect of the use of evidence.

All in all, this research has examined what it has supposed to examine, that is how

consultants justify their claim of expected effectiveness of consulting, what types of evidence

consultants use and what factors determine the use of certain types of evidence. Future

research therefore could build on this research by means of a quantitative research. A possible

research could be the relationship between the factors and the level of evidence in order to

61

determine specific correlations between factors and the effect on the level of evidence. Hereby

it is possible to draw conclusions about the quality and the credibility of maybe the consulting

process or specific interventions by management consultants.

62

6. References

Allen, M., & Preiss, R. W. (1997). Comparing the persuasiveness of narrative and statistical

evidence using meta-analysis. Communication Research Reports, 17, 331-336.

Baesler, E. J., & Burgoon, J. K. (1994). The temporal effects of story and statistical evidence.

Communication Research, 21, 582-602

Barends, E., en S. Ten Have – Op weg naar evidence based verandermanagement. – In: Holland

Management Review (2008) 120, P. 45-51

Boonstra, Jaap J., Lopen over water, over dynamiek van organiseren, vernieuwen en leren.

Vossiuspers, AUP, Amsterdam, 2000.

Broesskamp-Stone, U., en G. Ackermann (m.m.v. B. Ruckstuhl, R. Steinmann en het team Best

Practice van de Gesundheitsförderung Schweiz) – Best Practicein der Gesundheitsförderung und

Prävention – Konzept und Leitlinien für Entscheidfindung und fachliches Handeln. – Version 1.0. –

Gesundheitsförderung Schweiz, juli 2007

Bucknall T. (2003) The clinical landscape of critical care: nurses’ decision-making. Journal of

Advanced Nursing 43(3), 310–319.

Burrell, G. & G. Morgan, Sociological paradigms and organizational analyses, Heinemann,

Londen (1979).

Caluwe, L. de & Reitsma, E. Onderzoek naar competenties van organisatieadviseurs in

verandertrajecten. Center for Research on Consultancy, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, 2006.

Caluwe, L. de & H. Vermaak, Learning to change. A guide for organization change agents, Sage

Publications, Seven Oaks, 2004a.

Caluwe, L. de & H. Vermaak (2004b): Change paradigms: an overview. Organization

Development Journal, Vol. 22, 2004b, nr. 4, p. 9-18.

Caluwe, de, L. & Vermaak, H. (2006). Leren veranderen. Een handboek voor de veranderkundige.

Deventer: Kluwer.

63

Caluwe, L., Interventies: Wat zijn dat? Intervenieren: Wat is dat? Management Executive, 2009

Cascio, W.F. – Evidence Based Management and the marketplace for Ideas. – In: Academy of

management Journal 50 (2007) 5, p. 1009-1012

Cohen, W.M. & Levinthal, D.A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and

innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 35 (1), 128-152.

Cummings T.G. en C.G. Worley, Organization Development and Change. Thomson, South-

Western, 8de druk. 2005

Cummings, T. & C. Worley, Organization development and change, West Publishing Company,

Minneapolis, 2009.

Davenport, T. & Prusak, P. (1998). Working knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School

Press.

Davenport, T.H. & Prusak, L. (2005). Knowledge management in consulting. In L. Greiner & F.

Poulfelt (Eds.), The contemporary consultant: insights from world experts (pp. 305-326). Mason:

Thomson South-Western.

Dodgson, M. 1993. Organizational learning: A review of some literature. Organization Studies,

14(3): 375-394.

Dopson S., Gabbay J., Locock L. & Chambers D. (1999) Evaluation of the PACE Programme: Final

Report. Oxford Healthcare Management Institute, Templeton College University of Oxford &

Wessex Institute for Health Research and Development, University of Southampton,

Southampton.

Eraut M. (1985) Knowledge creation and knowledge use in professional contexts. Studies in

Higher Education 10(2), 117–133.

Ferlie E., Wood M. & Fitzgerald L. (1999) Some limits to evidence based medicine: a case study

from elective orthopaedics. Quality In Health Care 8, 99–107.

French, W. & C. Bell, Organization development. Behavioral science interventions for

organization improvement, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 1999.

64

Higgs J. & Jones M. (2000) Will evidence-based practice take the reasoning out of practice? In

Clinical Reasoning in the Health Professionals, 2nd edn (Higgs J. & Jones M. eds), Butterworth

Heineman, Oxford, pp. 307–315.

Higgs J. & Titchen A. (1995) The nature, generation and verification of knowledge. Physiotherapy,

81(9), 521–530

Hoeken, H. (2001). Convincing citizens: The role of argument quality. In D. Janssen & R.

Neutelings (Eds.), Reading and writing public documents (pp. 147-169).

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Keuning, Dr. K., Dr. D.J. Eppink, Management & Organisatie, theorie en toepassing. Stenfert

Kroese, Groningen, achtste druk, 2004.

Kim, L. 1998. Crisis construction and organizational learning: Capability building in catching-up at

Hyundai Motor. Organization Science, 9: 506-52

Koballa, T. R. (1986). Persuading teachers to reexamine the innovative elementary science

programs of yesterday: The effect of anecdotal versus data-summary communications.

Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 437-449.

Kubr, M. (ed.), Management consulting: A guide to the profession (fourth edition). Geneva,

International Labour Office, 2002.

Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. 1998. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning.

Strategic Management Journal, 19: 461-477.

Lawler III, E.E. – Why HR Practices Are Not Evidence Based. – In: Academy of Management

Journal 50 (2007) 5, p. 1033-1036

Learmonth M., en N. Harding – Evidence-Based Management : The Very Idea. – In: Public

Administration 84 (2006) 2, 2006, p. 245-266

Leonard-Barton, D. 1995. Wellsprings of Knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

65

Maister, D.H. (1993), Managing the professional service firm, New York: The Free Press, pp. XV;

3-6; 321-327

Martens, D., (2008), Knowledge acquirement by management consultants: a quantitative

research, Master Thesis , Tilburg’s University.

Meeus, M.T.H., Baaijens, J.M.J., en Kenis, P.N. – Evidence based consultancy. – In Management

& Organisatie, nr 1- Jan/feb 2009

McCormack B., Kitson A., Harvey G., Rycroft-Malone J., Seers K. & Titchen A. (2002) Getting

evidence into practice – The meaning of ‘practice context’. Journal of Advanced Nursing 38(1),

94–104.

Molier, E. – Evidence Based management. – In Holland Management review (2001) 79. P. 67-73

Morrell, K. – The narrative of Evidence Based Management: a polemic. – In Journal of

management Studies 45 (2008) 3, P.615-635

Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science,

5: 14-37.

Oakeshott M. (1962) Rationalism in Politics: And Other Essays. Methuen, London.

Otto, M. : Strategisch veranderen in politiek bestuurde organisaties. Van Gorcum, 2000.

Parikh, M. (2001). Knowledge management framework for high-tech research and development.

Engineering management journal, 13 (3), 27-33.

Pfeffer J., en R.I. Sutton – The Knowing Doing Gap. How smart companies turn knowledge into

action. – Boston : Harvard Business School Press, 2000

Pfeffer J., en R.I. Sutton – Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths and Total Nonsense. Profiting from

Evidence Based Management. Boston : Harvard Business School Press, 2006

Pfeffer J., en R.I. Sutton. – Evidence-Based Management. – In: Harvard Business Review, 2006

Reinard, J. C. (1998). The persuasive effects of testimony assertion evidence. In M. Allen &

R. W. Preiss (Eds.), Persuasion. Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 69-96). Cresskill,

66

NJ: Hampton.

Reynolds, R. A., & Reynolds, J. L. (2002). Evidence. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The

Persuasion Handbook (pp. 427-444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rousseau, D.M. – Is There Such A Thing As ‘Evidence Based Management’? – In: Academy of

Management Review 31 (2006) 2, p. 256-269

Rousseau, D.M., en S. McCarthy – Educating managers from an evidence based perspective. – In:

Academy of Management Learning and Education (2007) 6, p. 84-101

RYCROFT-MALONE J. , SEERS K. , TITCHEN A., HARVEY G. , KITSON A. & MCCORMACK B. (2004)

Journal of Advanced Nursing 47(1), 81–90; What counts as evidence in evidence-based practice?

Sanchez, Ron., “Tacit Knowledge” versus “Explicit Knowledge”, Approaches to Knowledge

Management Practice, 2004

Schein, Edgar H., Process Consultation: its role in organization development. Addison-Wesley

Publising Company, 1969.

Singh, J.P., Defining the Developmental Consulting: A Dive in the Quagmire, (2005)

Stetler C., Corrigan B., Sander-Buscemi K. & Burns M. (1999) Integration of evidence into

practice and the change process: A fall prevention program as a model. Outcomes and

Management for Nursing Practice 3(3), 102–111.

Stetler C. (2003) The role of the organization in translating research into evidence-based

practice. Outcomes Management for Nursing Practice, 7(3), 97–103.

Thompson C., McCaughan D., Cullum N., Sheldon T.A., Thompson D.R. & Mulhall A. (2001a)

Nurses’ Use of Research Information in Clinical Decision making: A Descriptive and Analytical

Study. University of York, York.

Wood M., Ferlie E. & FitzGerald L. (1998a) Achieving Change in Clinical Practice: Scientific,

organisational and Behavioural Processes. CCSC, University of Warwick, Warwick.

Seech, Zachary. Writing philosophy papers / Zachary Seech.

Location: Fenwick Stacks B52.7 .S44 1997)

67

Appendix

A. Semi-structured topic list

Dit onderzoek wordt uitgevoerd in het kader van een afstudeeronderzoek voor de studie

Organisatiewetenschappen aan de Universiteit van Tilburg.

In dit onderzoek staat de volgende vraag centraal:

“Hoe rechtvaardigen consultants hun interventie keuze en welke bewijsvoering gebruiken

consultants om de effectiviteit aan te tonen?”

Het doel van dit onderzoek is om te achterhalen hoe consultants hun keuze voor een bepaalde

interventie rechtvaardigen en welke bewijsvoering zij daarbij gebruiken om de effectiviteit aan

te tonen. Evidence Based Consulting is gericht op structurele verbetering van de dienstverlening

door gefundeerde adviezen. EBC in deze betekenis kan daarom een impuls zijn voor innovatie

en vernieuwing binnen bepaalde vormen van zakelijke dienstverlening door de combinatie van

wetenschap en toepassing.

Instructies

De interview bestaat uit 8 hoofdvragen en bijbehorende subvragen en duurt maximaal 1 uur.

Het is de bedoeling dat u een adviesopdracht in gedachte neemt die u recentelijk heeft

uitgevoerd. Het gaat hierbij om uw persoonlijke mening. Verkeerde of foute antwoorden zijn

dan ook niet mogelijk: het gaat om wat u ervan vindt. Neemt u rustig de tijd die u nodig vindt

om de vragen te beantwoorden. Voelt u zich vooral vrij om uit te weiden. Als er onderwerpen

zijn die voor u belangrijk zijn, maar die voor uw gevoel niet of onvoldoende aan bod zijn

gekomen, dan bent u van harte welkom om dat te vertellen. Het interview wordt verder strict

vertrouwelijk gehouden. Voor de verwerking van de resultaten wordt de interview opgenomen.

Indien u hierbij bezwaar tegen heeft kunt dit vooraf aangeven.

Voor meer informatie kunt u contact opnemen met:

K. Pang Tel: 06-41047027 Email: Kpang@live.nl

68

1. Kunt u iets vertellen over uw werk als adviseur?

a. Hoeveel jaar ervaring?

b. Hoogst genoten opleiding?

c. Aangesloten bij branche vereniging (Ooa en Roa)?

d. Zelfstandig adviseur?

2. Wat is uw specialisatie?

Strategy

Operations

Supply chain

Finance

Outsourcing

HRM

Anders:

3. Kunt u iets vertellen over een adviesopdracht die u recentelijk heeft afgerond?

a. Aanleiding van opdracht

b. Welk doel vindt u passend in deze case en waarom?

A. gericht op diagnostiek en probleemoplossing

B. gericht op strategische vraagstukken

C. gericht op het al dan niet tijdelijk aanpassen van de structuur in een organisatie of in samenwerkingsverbanden

D. gericht op het verbeteren van de bedrijfsprestaties (business performance)

E. gericht op de motivatie van werknemers

F. gericht op beheersing en controle

G. gericht op training en ontwikkeling

H. gericht op processen tussen mensen

I. gericht op duurzaam leren en veranderen

4. Hoe heeft u deze case benaderd en waarom?

Expertmatig Niet participatief, alleen of met collega

Procesmatig Volledig participatief, met grote groep

69

5. Welk aanpak, methode, interventie heeft u daarbij gebruikt en waarom?

A B

SWOT-analyse Strategisch veranderplan

Benchmarking Search conference

Balanced Score Card Strategische cultuur verandering

Causal loop diagram

C D

Projectorganisatie Herontwerp van bedrijfsprocessen

Tijdelijke groepen Integrale kwaliteitszorg

Pilot project Het conference model

Nieuwe organisatie eenheden

Structuuraanpassingen

Outsourcing

E F

Beloningssysteem Controleren

Selectie Rapporteren

Carrièreontwikkeling Tijdschrijven

Taakverbreding

Taakverrijking

G H

Training Proces Consultatie/ Teambuilding

Workshops Zoekconferentie

Feedback Derde partij

Coaching of counseling Procesmanagement

Spelsituaties

Survey feedback

I

Actie leren Dialoog

Actie onderzoek Verhalen vertellen

Begrijpend onderzoek

6. Hoe weet u dat de door u gekozen aanpak, methode, interventie effectief zal zijn?

a. Welke aspecten of factoren bepalen de interventie keuze?

b. Hoe verantwoordt u uw keuze bij uw opdrachtgever?

c. Welke informatie heeft u opgezocht?

d. Wat is de rol van de opdrachtgever in de interventie keuze?

70

7. Welk onderstaande bewijsvoering heeft u gebruikt om de effectiviteit van uw keuze aan

te tonen en waarom?

a. Welke aspecten of factoren bepalen het gebruik van deze type bewijzen volgens

u en waarom?

Wetenschappelijke kennis waarnemingen die een hypothese of theorie bevestigd of ontkrachten, en wetenschappelijke theorievorming die leidt tot werkbare modellen van de waargenomen werkelijkheid

Professionele deskundigheid kennis, ervaringen, persoonlijke eigenschappen en werkcapaciteiten van de adviseur of anderen in hun specifieke expertise of specialisatie.

Contexuele kennis en ervaring persoonlijke kennis en ervaringen van anderen in een specifiek casus of probleemcontext.

Plaatselijke data en informatie interne en externe informatie dat systematische is verkregen uit plaatselijk data en informatie.

Evidence Based Consulting:

“Het verantwoorden van interventies en beslissingen met empirische en wetenschappelijk

onderbouwde kennis, respectievelijk te kiezen voor die interventies die zich op herhaalbare en

overtuigende wijze bewezen hebben in de praktijk”.

8. In hoeverre past u ‘Evidence Based Consulting’ toe in uw dagelijkse werkzaamheden?

a. In hoeverre worden de resultaten gegeneraliseerd?

b. In hoeverre worden de resultaten gesystematiseerd?

c. Wat doet u met de opgebouwde ervaring of empirische materiaal om het toch

wetenschappelijke kennis te maken?

d. Wat zijn volgens u de voor- en nadelen van Evidence Based Consulting?

Zijn er nog zaken die niet aan de orde zijn geweest in dit interview, maar die wel van belang zijn om te weten in het kader van mijn onderzoek? Zo ja, welke?

71

B. Interventielijst

Categorie interventies Voorbeeld Interventies

1. Interventies gericht op

verkenning en

bewustwording

Het onderkennen van de

aard en oorzaak van een

probleem en mensen

bewustworden van de

noodzaak tot verandering

SWOT-analyse: het in kaart (laten) brengen van sterkten, zwakten, kansen

en bedreigingen om de eigen prestaties, die van de concurrenten en de

ontwikkelingen in de omgeving te kennen en op basis hiervan de

(organisatie)strategie te bepalen.

Benchmarking: het (laten) vergelijken van de eigen prestaties met die van

de beste concurrenten om te onderkennen op welke onderdelen de

organisatie beter kan presteren.

Balanced Score Card: het in kaart (laten) brengen/meten van prestatie-

indicatoren op het gebied van financiën, bedrijfsprocessen, innovatie en

klanten om te onderkennen op welke onderdelen de organisatie naar

verwachting presteert en op welke onderdelen verbetering is aan te

brengen.

Causal loop diagrams (causale kaarten): het in kaart (laten) brengen van

oorzaak – gevolg relaties waardoor terugkerende patronen zichtbaar

worden. De kaarten geven aanwijzingen over welke factoren relatief

gemakkelijk zijn te beïnvloeden en welke moeilijk.

Andere voorbeelden: het 5-krachtenmodel van Porter; Pesti-omgevings-

analyse

2. Interventies gericht op

strategische vraagstukken

en het vormen van

toekomstbeelden

Het bevorderen dat

toekomstbeelden over de

organisatie gevormd (en

gedeeld) worden

Strategisch veranderplan: het opstellen van een plan met doelen en

middelen om vanuit de huidige situatie de beoogde langere termijn

positionering van de organisatie in de omgeving te realiseren.

Search Conference: het gebruik maken van een conferentiemethode (large

scale intervention) om een wel omschreven, wenselijke en bereikbare

toekomst te creëren en een plan te maken om daar te komen.

Strategische cultuur verandering: het ontwikkelen van een sterke

gemeenschappelijke cultuur die fundamenteel afwijkt van de huidige

cultuur en van belang is voor het voortbestaan van de organisatie.

72

Categorie interventies Voorbeeld Interventies

3. Interventies gericht op

het al dan niet tijdelijk

aanpassen van de

structuur in een

organisatie of in

samenwerkings-verbanden

Het treffen van passende

voorzieningen en

omstandigheden om de

veranderingen mogelijk te

maken.

Projectorganisatie: het benoemen van een persoon of eenheid die een

tijdelijke, afgebakende opdracht uitvoert, binnen de bestaande

organisatiestructuur en met eigen additionele middelen.

Tijdelijke groepen: het benoemen van taskforces (of andere benaming) die

in het veranderproces een helder gedefinieerd doel hebben, bijvoorbeeld

nieuwe ideeën ontwikkelen, prioriteiten stellen of het veranderproces

plannen en coördineren.

Pilot project: het op beperkte schaal laten uitproberen of de beoogde

verandering haalbaar is, alvorens deze breder wordt uitgezet

Nieuwe organisatie eenheden: het opzetten van een of meerdere nieuwe

organisatieonderdelen om bijvoorbeeld een nieuwe dienst aan te bieden,

veelal als oplossing om inertia in de staande organisatie te omzeilen.

Structuuraanpassingen: het verduidelijken en (mogelijk) aanpassen van de

verdeling van taken, bevoegdheden, verantwoordelijkheden en

coördinatiemechanismen.

Outsourcing: het buiten de organisatie onderbrengen van activiteiten die

voorheen door de organisatie zelf zijn uitgevoerd.

Andere voorbeelden: fusie en overname, joint ventures

4. Interventies gericht op

het verbeteren van de

bedrijfsprestaties via

bedrijfsprocessen (business

performance)

Het treffen van

maatregelen op het gebied

van de bedrijfsprocessen

om het resultaat te

verbeteren

Herontwerp van bedrijfsprocessen (BPR): het fundamenteel aanpassen

van de werkprocessen veelal met behulp van informatietechnologie.

Of: het in kaart brengen van werkprocessen en mogelijk het aanpassen

daarvan

Integrale kwaliteitszorg: een permanent proces waarin wordt gestreefd de

tevredenheid van de klant te vergroten door systematisch te werken aan

verbetering van producten of diensten

Het Conference model: het gebruik maken van een conferentiemethode

(large scale intervention) om processen te herontwerpen en klant-

leverancierrelaties te verbeteren waarbij wordt aangesloten op de strategie

van de organisatie.

73

Categorie interventies Voorbeeld Interventies

5. Interventies gericht op

de motivatie van

werknemers met behulp

van HRM-instrumentarium

Het bevorderen van

motivatie van betrokkenen

om de flexibiliteit van de

organisatie en de

organisatieprestaties te

vergroten

Beloningssysteem: het ontwerpen van een systeem dat zowel de prestaties

van de medewerkers en de werknemerstevredenheid bevordert als

ongewenst gedrag vermindert, zoals regels rond prestatiebeloning en

promotie.

Selectie: het bevorderen dat de juiste man/vrouw op de juiste plaats komt.

Carrièreontwikkeling: het ondersteunen van mensen bij hun loopbaan in

de organisatie en bij het stellen van carrièredoelen.

Taakverbreding: het uitbreiden van een takenpakket met werkzaamheden

op hetzelfde niveau.

Taakverrijking: het toevoegen van ‘hogere’ taken aan een takenpakket,

inclusief de daarmee samenhangende verantwoordelijkheden en

bevoegdheden.

6. Interventies gericht op

beheersing en controle

Het inzichtelijk (laten)

maken van de voortgang of

de kwantiteit en de

kwaliteit van de

werkzaamheden

Controleren: het nagaan of taken naar behoren zijn uitgevoerd.

Rapporteren: het met een bepaalde frequentie laten opstellen van

rapportages over behaalde resultaten en/of voortgang van activiteiten.

Tijdschrijven: het met een bepaalde frequentie laten rapporteren hoeveel

tijd besteed is aan activiteiten.

7. Interventies gericht op

training en ontwikkeling

Het aanleren en eigen

maken van concepten en

vaardigheden of het

vergroten van inzicht.

Training: het aanleren van vaardigheden door managers, medewerkers of

staf.

Workshops: het gevoelig maken van mensen voor de noodzaak van

verandering, voor trends, voor verschillende opties voor hun organisatie of

henzelf of voor bepaalde methoden en concepten.

Feedback: het bevorderen dat het individu, de groep of de organisatie

inziet wat voor effect het eigen gedrag of de prestatie heeft op anderen.

Coaching of counseling: het geven van individuele feedback om de

effectiviteit van het individu te vergroten en het bevorderen van het

zelfvertrouwen en de kennis en vaardigheden om een verandering te

74

Categorie interventies Voorbeeld Interventies

realiseren.

Spelsituaties: het via spelsituaties laten ervaren van de

(systeem)consequenties van het eigen gedrag

Survey feedback: het in een actief proces informatie en kennis (laten)

vergaren over problemen en oplossingen om vervolgens gerichte

activiteiten te formuleren en uit te voeren

Andere voorbeelden: 360 graden feedback

8. Interventies gericht op

processen tussen mensen

(sociale processen)

Het verbeteren van sociale

processen in organisaties

bv. de interpersoonlijke

relaties, het functioneren

van een team, de relatie

tussen teams of

organisaties.

Proces Consultatie / Teambuilding: een groep in staat stellen om het eigen

functioneren als groep te analyseren en passende oplossingen te

formuleren voor disfunctionele groepsprocessen.

Zoekconferentie: het houden van een organisatiebrede bijeenkomst met

als doel belangrijke organisatiewaarden te verduidelijken en om een

(nieuwe) manier te ontwikkelen om problemen te benaderen

Derde partij: als neutrale derde partij de interactie tussen partijen

begeleiden en probleemoplossing bevorderen om tot een door partijen

onderschreven resultaat te komen.

Procesmanagement: het faciliteren van besluitvormingsprocessen in

complexe situaties, waarin op voorhand geen oplossing voorhanden is en

de belangen van partijen uiteen lopen. Sturen op:

openheid/toegankelijkheid van stakeholders; het in acht nemen van de

kernwaarden van de stakeholders; de continuïteit en het tempo van het

proces; de inhoudelijke kwaliteit van de oplossing.

Andere voorbeelden: T-group; Organization confrontation meeting;

Intergroup relations; Agenda Setting.

9. Interventies gericht op

duurzaam leren en

veranderen door interactie

gaande te houden

Actie leren: het creëren van een context waarin ‘leren’ het met anderen

oplossen van echte problemen is en waarbij de uitwisseling van ervaringen

en reflectie essentiële onderdelen zijn.

Actie onderzoek: het creëren van een samenwerkingsverband tussen

onderzoeker en actoren (medewerkers) waarbij onderzoeken en leren

samen opgaan.

75

Categorie interventies Voorbeeld Interventies

Het gaande houden van het

proces van interactie en

communicatie

Begrijpend onderzoek: het bevorderen te veranderen in sociaal

geconstrueerde realiteiten door: interactieve observatie en doorgronden

‘wat is’, daarna formuleren ‘wat zou kunnen’ en ‘wat zou moeten’ om

vervolgens te gaan starten met experimenteren met ‘wat kan’.

Dialoog: het bevorderen dat op basis van dialoog en interactie

verschillende ideeën over de werkelijkheid worden gedeeld en dat van

hieruit nieuwe realiteiten worden geconstrueerd.

Verhalen vertellen: het bevorderen dat via open interviews verhalen

worden vastgelegd en dat in deze verhalen naar tegenstellingen wordt

gezocht en ‘tussen de regels door wordt gelezen’ en dat vervolgens

samenvoeging tot nieuwe verhalen plaatsvindt.

76

C. Results tables

Table 3: the characteristics of the consultants

The

char

acte

rist

ics

of

the

con

sult

ants

Cases 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Type of client

organization

Private organization X X

Governmental organization

X X

Health care organization X X X X X

Non-profit organization X

Agricultural organization X

Distribution organization X X

Industrial organization X

Construction organization X

Consulting organization X

Type of organizational problem

a. Focus on diagnose and problem solving

X X X X X

b. Focus on strategic issue X X X X X X X

c. Focus on short term adaptation of organizational structure or cooperation’s

X X X X X

d. Focus on improving the business performance

X X X X X X X X X X X

e. Focus on the motivation of employees

X X X X X X

f. Focus on internal control

X X X X X X X

g. Focus on training and development

X X X

The

char

acte

rist

ics

of

the

con

sult

ing

case

s

Cases 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Gender F M M F M M M F M M M F F M F M

Education

MBO

HBO X X X X

WO X X X X X X X X

PhD X X X X

Other: MBA MBA

Experience in Years 20 10 12 10 13 5 7 1 30 6 8 20 8 28 20 22

Specialism Strategy X X X X

Operations X X X X X X X

Supply Chain X X X X X X

Finance X X X

Outsourcing X

HRM X

Other: X X X X X X X X X X

Independent consultant Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Certified consultant Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No

Member of branch association Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes Yes Yes yes No Yes Yes

77

h. Focus on processes between people

X X X X X

i. Focus on sustainable learning and change

X X X

Approach of consultant

Expert approach X X X X X

Process approach X X X X X X X X X

Mix approach X X

Table 4: the characteristics of the consulting cases

Use

d in

terv

enti

on

s b

y co

nsu

ltan

t

Cases 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

j. Focus on diagnose and problem solving

SWOT analysis X X X X X

Benchmarking X X X X Balanced Score Card X X X X Causal Loop diagram X

k. Focus on strategic issue Strategic Change Plan X X X Search conference X X Strategic culture change X X X X

l. Focus on short term adaptation of organizational structure or cooperation’s

Project organization X X X X X X Temporary groups X X X X X X Pilot project X X X X X X New organization units X X Structure change X X X X X Outsourcing X

m. Focus on improving the business performance

Redesign of processes X X X X X X X X X Integral quality management

X X X X X

n. Focus on the motivation of employees

Earnings systems X Selection X X X X X Carrier development X X Task widening X X X X X Task enrichment X X X X X

o. Focus on internal control

Control X X Report X X Logbooks X

p. Focus on training and development

Training X X X X X Workshops X X X X X X X X Feedback X X X X X X X X X Coaching X X X X X X Gaming X X

q. Focus on processes between people

Teambuilding X X X Search conference X Third party X Process management X X X X X X X

r. Focus on sustainable learning and change

Action learning X X Explorative research X X Dialogue X X X

*the indicated organizational problems are marked grey.

Table 5: used interventions by the management consultants

78

Table 6: used source of evidence by the management consultants

Table 7: used types of evidence

Ad

van

tage

s

Categories Frequency

Attitude of consultants 5

Shared knowledge base 8

Objectivity of advice 3

Table 8: advantages of evidence based consulting

Dis

adva

nta

ge

Categories Frequency

Abstraction level 11

Client’s attitude and support 14

Shared knowledge base 4

Scientific skills 3

Time 6

Table 9: disadvantages of evidence based consulting

Cases 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Source of Evidence Scientific knowledge X X X X X X X X X X

Professional Experience X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Patients, Clients and careers X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Local context and environment X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Cases 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Types of Evidence Hypothetical Evidence X X X X X X

Anecdotal Evidence X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Testimonial / Expert Evidence X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Statistical Evidence X X X X X X X X

Analogical Evidence X X X

79

D. Quotes tables

Sou

rce

of

evid

ence

Scientific knowledge

(9X)

Ik leun wel heel erg op wetenschappelijke inzichten over wat slim veranderen is of wat stom veranderen is.

Wetenschappelijk, maardus minimaal. Maar dat is meer... voor de inspiratie.

(Evidence based evaluation) Ik heb die evaluatie methode is gebaseerd op wetenschappelijke onderzoeksliteratuur. Ook gezien mijn achtergrond en dat ik van de universiteit afkomt weet ik welke literatuur ik daarvoor moet gebruiken. onze onderzoeksmethodiek is gebaseerd op wetenschappelijke onderzoeken.

De basis is wetenschappelijke kennis.

Wetenschappelijke kennis. Wat je dus gebruikt is gewoon om bijvoorbeeld voor supply chain management het scoremodel. Scoremodel is een model dat

bekijkt wat er bij supply chain management hoort. Quinn-model is een model dat naar de cultuur van het bedrijf kijkt. Efm is een model die je kan gebruiken om te kijken naar organisatie.

eigenlijk niet echt, maar heb voor me zelf wel de krachten model van porter gebruikt, Omdat ik dat wel aardig vond. Waardoor onderscheidt dit bureau zich nou? Wat ik straks nog wilt gebruiken is dat competing values van Quinn. Omdat het een handig model is om iets van een cultuur in kaart te brengen.

Ik denk dat wetenschappelijk kennis dat het altijd een onderliggende is.

we hebben wetenschappelijk kennis gebruikt om dan op de meer waarde en de noodzaak van de oogbus aan te kunnen tonen. De financiele effectiviteit van de oogbus gaan wij en Erasmus gaat dat ook onderzoeken. Want na 2 jaar moet je zeggen kijk dit scheelt jullie. Wetenschappelijk kennis op basis van een haalbaarheid is aan getoond. We zitten op de goed weg en het is aangetoond.

Professional experience

(14X)

Het groot stuk van het adviseren is in deze opdracht zat in het vertellen wat in mijn ogen het beste aanpak was voor dit proces.

Professionele deskundigheid is de expertise van de consultant. Dat de consultant begrijp dat wanneer een key-user zijn verhaal doet, dat hij die vertaalslag kan maken naar SAP.

Heel veel eerdere ervaring.

Uit ervaring. Wat heb je gezien, wat heb je ooit fout gedaan. Dat ga je in ieder geval niet meer fout doen.

Bij mij vind ik professionele deskundigheid. Dat is dus ervaring.

Daarnaast legimiteer ik ook dat ik voor een universiteit werkt en dat ik op een unviseriteit heb gewerkt. Dat ik bekend ben met de onderzoek methode. Dat is mij legitimatie.

Ik denk dat de nadruk ligt op professionele deskundigheid. Waarbij wij dat intern organiseren door vooral teamgewijs te werken. om zoveel mogelijk ervaring en kunde op projecten in te zetten en onszelf scherp te houden zodat we geen dingen vergeten of denk fouten maken.

professionele deskundigheid waarbij je ook gebruik maakt van plaatselijk data en informatie.

ervaringskwestie voor mij. Professionele deskundigheid zijn voor mijn segmenten heel erg belangrijk. Om daarmee probeer je ook de vertrouwen naar de klant toe uit te stralen. De klant ziet je in veel gevallen ook als deskundige.

Professionele deskundigheid voor een groot gedeelte.

Het is heel erg van de kant van expert en ervaring om daar dan te kijken in hoeverre dat verschillende werkwijze van toepassing kan zijn voor de organisatie. Heel erg projecteren op en luisteren naar wat daarop terugkomt en dan pas die aanpak kiest.

Het is vooral professionele deskundigheid. Mijn eigen ervaringen en ervaringen van anderen.

Daar zit je je ervaring in van alle jaren. Hoe werkt dat hier en wat zie ik hier. De kennis van mensen, je kennis van hoe mensen reageren. Je kennis van op je gevoel leren vertrouwen ook. Maar ook gewoon heel professionele aantal dingen. Een aantal technieken inzet om dingen te doen.

De professionele deskundigheid om die oogbus verder te uit te kunnen rollen.

80

Clients experience and preferences

(20X)

Mensen kennis laten nemen van elkaars gezichtpunten en te kijken naar gemeenschappelijkheden, wat zijn verschillen en daar werkende weg via een dialoog uitkomen

Maar ik zorg ervoor dat de manager en key-users zeggen dat de blauwdruk goed is. Ik zorg ervoor dat de key-users die afgevaardigd zijn van een afdeling, dat die zeggen dat het goed is.

De acceptatie van de organisatie. Om weerstand te voorkomen of te helpen overbruggen, hebben wij een pilot project gedraaid met een select aantal mensen, die heel bewust is gekozen op een bepaalde manier.

Vaak is er wel iemand in het bedrijf die je verder kan helpen. Als je iets niet weet, dan zoek je vaak iemand binnen de organisatie die wel verstand van zaken heeft.

Zo zijn het stappen die afhankelijk wat de klant wilt en wat je goed acht.

Dan laat je de groep erover praten en meedenken en van daaruit een besluit te nemen. Ik geloof heel erg in dat je het met mensen doet. Als de mensen niet weet te winnen en het te betrekken in het proces, gaat de verandering nooit plaatsvinden

Het proces klopt het dan niet en dan legt je het terug bij het hogere management. Dan komen er aanvullingen bij en we hebben een proces wat gedragen is en op voorgesproken door de mens.

Het is ook zo dat de interactie met de klant om betrokkenheid te creeeren. Als jij niks van je laat horen en je moet opeens een onnderzoek uitvoeren, dan moet je mensen meekrijgen. anders is er geen draagvlak voor zo'n onderzoek. Dus daarom is het belangrijk dat je dit in dialoog doet. Dat je genoeg rapporteert naar je opdrachtgever. Die keuze is gebaseerd om draagvlak en betrokkenheid te creeeren.

Maar we onderbouwen dat door hun eigen cijfers en informatie. Daarmee krijgen zij dus ook een bedrijfsplan waarin we voor een klein stukje eigen kennis in te verwerken. We geven zelf geen eens de strategische richting aan. Dat weten ze zeker vaak zelf wel.

Het idee is dat men tijd en efficiency winst over en niet met het idee dat we met lean sparen om ..... het is eigenlijk het slimmer werken, de klant als uitgangspunt nemen. Dan gaat het om primaire processen daar omheen.

Workshops spreekt men altijd aan in zoverre dat je iedereen erbij betrekt en als je een afdeling wilt laat verbeteren continue dan moet je iedereen erbij betrekken.

De rol van de opdrachtgever in dit geval niet heel nauw bij betrokken. wat heel belangrijk is dat de opdrachtgever erachter staat. De leiding moet wel mee en 100% erachter staan.

Die moet toch ook wel overal zijn akkoord voor geven voor alle zaken die je doet. dat koppel ik altijd terug. Ik doe niets zonder dat de opdrachtgevers akkoord geeft.

Contextuele kennis en ervaring: Ook natuurlijk hoe zij zich gedragen. Dit was een organisatie waar mensen heel veel op papier zette en heel veel overlegde.

De rol van de opdrachtgever is belangrijk, want die bepaald mede de aanpak. Dus de opdrachtgever heeft een hele belangrijke rol uiteindelijk en in wat wordt de weg en aanpak van hoe het moet. Heel interactief met elkaar delen van wat gaat de interventies gaat doen.

ik gebruik de ervaring van de andere bureau om hun eigen ervaring in te zetten. ze weten ook heel veel. Ik zie het ook mijn taak om hun te prikkelen om hun eigen inzicht te gebruiken.

Een eindsituatie is akkoord als het acceptabel is voor een opdrachtgever. Uiteindelijk moet ik dat vertellen aan een opdrachtgever en dan moet de opdrachtgever daarmee akkoord gaan.

Ik weet dat het methotiek die wij nu willen gaan uit proberen dat dat de methode is om ziektekostenverzekeraars over de streep te trekken. Alleen reclame dat zal een ziektekostenverzekeraar niet van overtuigd zijn. Dat werkt misschien paar jaren, maar het geld puur over geld. Dus ik weet gewoon dat die factor geldt die variabel dat dat gewoon voor ziektekostenverzekeraars heel efficiente en effectieve aspecten zijn om dit project efficient uit te voeren.

Local context and environment

(16X)

maakt ik heel erg gebruik van de informatie uit die organisatie en de mensen die daarin werken. Het kan zijn dat ik jaarverslagen en rapporten lees. Mensen bevragen in interviews, hoe zit je in de situatie? Ik maak gebruik van branche kennis. Abracte kennis over meer de ziekenhuiswereld. De website daarover te lezen.

Ik heb de key-users en de consultants samengebacht. Een belangrijke key-user die alle gedeeltes van productie tot HR en financieen beheerste vanuit de klantkant. Ik heb iedere keer een key-users gekoppeld aan een consultant. Consultant heeft opdat moment de knoppen bedient, maar de key-users heeft het verhaal verteld aan zo'n klankboordgroep. Ziet het maar als mensen die niet in het projectgroep zitten, maar die wel verstand van zaken hebben.

door een onderzoeksbureau een klanttevredenheidsonderzoek was uitgevoerd. Die heb ik wel doorgenomen en daar wat puntje uitgepakt.

Wat ik wel heb gebruik is het zoeken naar die richtlijnen. Welke artikelen in een ziekenhuis zitten specifieke eisen aan. Zitten er gevaarlijke stoffen bij? Zitten er steriele goederen bij die speciale opslag eisen hebben. De brandweer heeft altijd haar eigen eisen. Zoals die steriele goederen zijn richtlijnen en geen wetten. Dus er staat ook duidelijk in wat wel mag of niet mag.

81

Hoe zit je vragen in ontwikkelingen, Hoe zit je eigen aanbod en hoe ver zijn die in overeenstemming En dan duiken we langzamerhand in het proces in. Dat is dus ook wat ik nu bij één doe. Gewoon stap voor stap de verschillende processen in de intern doorlopen die het product doorgaat.

Je moet natuurlijk eerst de mensen redelijk, goed en snel kunnen begrijpen. En als je dan ziet hoe het eindelijk gaat, dan kan je het zelf verder gaan invullen. Het proces klopt het dan niet en dan legt je het terug bij het hogere management. Dan komen er aanvullingen bij en we hebben een proces wat gedragen is en op voorgesproken door de mens.

Die informatie komt van de verwijzers zelf. Ik werk altijd met grote steekproef en ik probeer goede steekproef te trekken.

Je gebruik dat plaatselijke data en informatie voor het doorrekenen van de ambities van de klant zelf.

We hebben daar met 2 adviserus gezeten en ook rondgekeken, observaties en interview en de data die daar aanwezig was geanalyseerd.

De kennis die de mensen hebben van de interne organisatie. hangt er van af op welke manier je die informatie naar boven. Dat is heel belangrijk om de juiste vragen te stellen om de mensen te prikkelen tot nadenken over hun eigen handelingen en waarom doe ik dat? Hun een speigel voor te houden en een stukje zelfreflectie. Dat hun je meenemen. Dat bepaald toch voor een deel van je oplossingsrichting die je gaat aanbieden.

We zijn afhankelijk van de informatie voorziening die dan moet gaan spelen. Op welke manier ga je dus die infomatie uitwisselen en wat ga je vastleggen en op welke manier ga je dat vastleggen. Wie moet wat en wanneer weten.

Plaatselijk data en informatie: Dan zie ik rapporten van mensen die ook al hebben nagedacht over de vraag. Alles wat er is en wat relevant is, heb ik meegenomen.

Kijken naar verschil in bedrijf. Wat voor bedrijf, wat zijn de producten, wat zijn de markt, wat zijn de leveringscondities, heel de logistiek van zo'n bedrijf. Al die gegevens die gebruik je dus voor data informatie. Dus het is een samenhang van al deze 4 dit mogelijk maakt om een goede klus te doen.

met een workshop met adviseurs, stuurt mij alle stukken toe die de afgelopen jaren in dit kader zijn geproduceerd. Ik wil mezelf een beeld kunnen vormen van de strategie. Puur voor interne beeldvorming.

Een plaatselijke data aan informatie en dan zit je met van ''hoe werkt dat hier intern'' en ''hoe lopen hazen''. Ja natuurlijk gebruik je die. Hoe raar dat ook lijkt, dat het vaak het langste duurt om dat soort dingen boven tafel te krijgen.Uiteindelijk blijkt dat de invloed.. ging over een team.. over een secretariaatteam en er kwamen steeds meer mensen die daar iets van vonden. En uiteindelijk blijkt dan dat er verschillende mensen daar iets verschillends van vonden. Zelfs de oplossing en het tevredenheid van de opdrachtgever in het feit dat ze uiteindelijk met een aantal mensen het eens waren over de koers die ze moesten gaan varen voor de komende tijd. Dus die gebruik je ook altijd.

Plaatselijke data en informatie van ziektekostenverzekeraars, want die moeten aantonen, we hebben zoveel minder aanspraken en zoveel minder declaratie binnengekregen van botbreuken van 65 plussers met name in die regio.

Quote table 1: sources of evidence

82

Typ

es o

f ev

iden

ce

Anecdotal Evidence

(12X)

Het is belangrijk om eerst wat informatie te verzamelen bij de verschillende deelnemers. Mensen kennis laten namen van elkaars gezichtpunten en te kijken naar gemeenschappelijkheden, wat zijn verschillen en daar werkende weg via een dialoog uitkomen.

Ik heb deels met mensen uit de organisatie gesproken om de historie boven tafel te krijgen.

Consultant heeft opdat moment de knoppen bedient, maar de key-users heeft het verhaal verteld aan zo'n klankboordgroep. Ziet het maar als mensen die niet in het projectgroep zitten, maar die wel verstand van zaken hebben.

Informatie uit de organisatie en over de aanpakken. Ik heb heel veel informatie opgezocht. Dat begon al met de benchmark die ik heb uitgevoerd. Ik heb de benchmark gebruik als nul meting. Maar benchmark is eigenlijk heel veel informatie verzamelen en vervolgens vergelijken met anderen.

Hoe zit je vragen in ontwikkelingen, Hoe zit je eigen aanbod en hoe ver zijn die in overeenstemming En dan duiken we langzamerhand in het proces in. Dat is dus ook wat ik nu bij één doe. Gewoon stap voor stap de verschillende processen in de intern doorlopen die het product doorgaat.

Maar we onderbouwen dat door hun eigen cijfers en informatie. Daarmee krijgen zij dus ook een bedrijfsplan waarin we voor een klein stukje eigen kennis in te verwerken.

We hebben daar met 2 adviserus gezeten en ook rondgekeken, observaties en interview en de data die daar aanwezig was geanalyseerd.

Uitleggen wat ik signaleer en die is wat ik ga doen. Als je er niet mee eens ben, dan moet je het gaan zeggen, op die manier.

door het in kaart brengen wat de aard en inhoud van conflicten zijn en de oorspronkelijke uitgang posities zijn waarbij de partijen wel in konden vinden.

Ja, want het is altijd iets wat in een bepaalde context gebeurd. Dus je probeert altijd te kijken van.. hoeveel invloed heeft de context en wat zou er gebeuren als dit in een andere context zou zijn. In hoeverre is die context.. is die specifieke situatie hier afhankelijk.

Eindeloos onderzoeken. Eerst inventariseren wat de situatie is. Proberen zo goed te mogelijk beeld te krijgen van de dingen die ik zeker weet die ik niet zeker. Proberen zo hoog mogelijk zekerheid gfehalte in het beeld te krijgen. Door op allerlei manieren met alle actoren te praten. Vooral niet te snel oordelen. Heel erg lang bij de principe blijven van mensen willen inprincipe veranderen.

Wat ik doe is gebruik maken van een database. Dus elke dag komt er nieuwe regelingen en verdwijnen oude regelingen, budget raakt op, macro-economische ontwikkelingen die uiteindelijk mijn werk als subsidie-adviseur leidt.

Hypothetical Evidence

(8X)

Heel veel onderbuik.

Je neemt ergens bewust of onbewust toch mee en dat ga je gebruiken. Je maakt het je eigen en heb je het niet meer in de gaten dat je dat ooit gelezen hebt.

Dan schets je wel ongeveer waar de organisatie naar toe moet.

We gaan het op die en die manier doen''. OK, dat is meestal de antwoord wat ik terug krijg. En het liefst zeggen waarom. Die vragen worden bijna nooit gesteld.

In gevallen als ik dat zo aanpak werkt het in deze situatie gevoelsmatig het beste en in een andere situatie ga je wat meer grotere stappen er door heen. Het is heel erg gevoelsmatig.

Maar van tevoren heb je dus geen idee. Dat is proberen, trail & error, kijken of het werkt. Als het niet werkt, dan probeer je wat anders.

Het is altijd wel gebaseerd op wat je al een keer heb gedaan en toen goed ging en dat doe je nog een keer.

Ik denk dat heel veel intuitie en ervaring. Ik heb iets 10 keer gedaan en 9 keer ging het goed. dus kennelijk werkt het wel.

Testimonial / Expert Evidence

(17X)

Omdat ik al zou lang dit werk doe zit er ook heel veel ingesloten kennis.

Het groot stuk van het adviseren is in deze opdracht zat in het vertellen wat in mijn ogen het beste aanpak was voor dit proces

In de buildfase komt de professionele deskundigheid. Op basis van wat er geschreven is, gaat men het systeem bouwen.

Professionele deskundigheid is zeker het overgrote deel geweest.

Professionele deskundigheid: we hebben een eigen groepje van logistiek interimmers en adviseurs. Als ik ergens mee zit, dan vraag je het bijelkaar.

Je kijkt naar de organisatie en kijkt naar je eigen kennis. Al dan niet met informatie of inzichten die je erbij wilt hebben.

Het is wel zo dat ik in de opbouw, mijn professionele kennis meeneem. Het kan bij de aanbevelingen komt het terug. Want ik heb data en op basis van mijn data maak ik mijn conclusie. Dan moet ik aanbevelingen doen. Die aanbevelingen die bedenk ik dan wel zelf. Op

83

basis van mijn professionele deskundigheid die weer gebaseert is op mijn gegevens.

Ik denk dat de nadruk ligt op professionele deskundigheid. Waarbij wij dat intern organiseren door vooral teamgewijs te werken. om zoveel mogelijk ervaring en kunde op projecten in te zetten en onszelf scherp te houden zodat we geen dingen vergeten of denk fouten maken.

Ook een inschatting van je professionele deskundigheid om dat te kunnen bepalen.

Ik maak gebruik van methode die ook door anderen zijn aangeleverd. Dat toets je in de praktijk.

Professionele deskundigheid voor een groot gedeelte. Wat je doet, zeker in deze vraag is op basis van wat je denk dat je moet doen. Dat is heel gevoelsmatig. Dat is heel sterk.

Dat is dus de ervaring om ervoor te zorgen welke modellen er toegepast moeten worden en ook alleen toepassen dat past bij het bedrijf. Keuzes en hoe pak je het aan. Mijn rol is om vanuit mijn professioneel deskundigheid dat juist te gaan doen.

Daar gaat het met name om redelijke professionele deskundigheid. Kun je de wetenschappelijk kennis gebruiken. Als je dat in de goede context kunt plaatsen, dan zegt dat weer dan hoe je het moet doen.

Wat hier evidence based is, is dat ik ervaring uit die 5 andere bureaus put en daar heb ik gezien dat het wel werkt. Dat zou je evidence based kunnen noemen. Dat is niet keihard, maar wel gebaseerd op eerdere ervaringen.

En je doet iets op basis van '' je hebt ervaring'' of ''kijk je maakt een plan'' en dan kies je een bepaalde aanpak. Die aanpak evalueer je een op een gegeven moment. Soms borduur je daarop verder en soms anders verzinnen. Daar doe je voor een deel op basis van ervaring en voor een deel van wat werkt in de praktijk en wat niet.

Wat niet werkt, moet je het weer gaan aanpassen.

En daarop kan ik de gewonnen kennis gebruiken om dan ook het project waar ik subsidie op aan gevraagd heb in de juiste perspectief kan plaatsen. En dat is wat een subsidioloog moet doen. Er is een project en dit is de subsidieregelingen en die moet wel beetje matchen met elkaar. Het moet innovatief zijn. Je moet dan dus al die elementen die moet je een beetje in elkaar krijgen.

Statistical Evidence

(8X)

Wat daar onderzit is eigenlijk een empirische onderzoek naar het slagen van veranderprocessen in organisaties waaruit blijkt dat blauwdrukachtige veranderprocessen waarin je een klein groep apart gaat zetten in een kamer.

Het is gebaseerd op onderzoeken naar welke veranderprocessen slagen en welke processen falen, Daarnaast heb ik naast het begeleiden van de groep heel veel gebruik gemaakt van noties en theorieen uit groepsdynamicaleer.

Dus ik heb een aantal artikelen en met name boeken. Er zijn boeken geschreven door autoriteiten in de zin van hoogleraren. Echt kennis op hun gebied. Die heb ik als leiddraad genomen. Daar kan ik ook vanuit gaan dat dat valide, betrouwbaar en gegeneraliseerbaar methodieken zijn om goede conclusies te kunnen trekken.

In dit geval ligt wetenschappelijk kennis als achtergrond waarom deze methode en waarom je bepaalde instrumenten gebruikkt en hoe een proces benaderd.

Dus naar aanleiding van het theorie wat daar achter ligt. Daar proberen we naar de klant toe niet te veel naar te refereren in zoverre dat lean gewoon heel weinig zegt, maar alle sterke punten eruit te pakken. continue verbeterstand en heeft zich ook bewezen in achter sectoren.

We hebben een theoretische basis die heet LEAN. het komt oorspronkelijk uit een Mallorca fabriek. het is nu al herhaaldelijke onderzocht en toegepast in de zorg en hoe dat precies werkt.

Wat je dus gebruikt is gewoon om bijvoorbeeld voor supply chain management het scoremodel. Scoremodel is een model dat bekijkt wat er bij supply chain management hoort. Quinn-model is een model dat naar de cultuur van het bedrijf kijkt. Efm is een model die je kan gebruiken om te kijken naar organisaties.

In dit soort situatie gebruik ik wetenschappelijk kennis om gewoon modellen op te zoeken. Die modellen gebruiken om over die werkelijkheid heen te leggen. Dan probeer ik verschillende modellen te gebruiken, want dat helpt mij een analyse te maken en daar realiseer ik me heel goed dat dan de model van de werkelijkheid is. Dat helpt me dus om. Op een gegeven moment zegt van.. als dit model op dat bedrijf legt, wat zie ik dan. Als dit model erop legt en wat voor conclusie kan ik trekken. Dan doe ik met wetenschappelijke kennis en ik denk dat je met wetenschappelijk kennis altijd onder je werk ligt. Tenminste bij mij wel en dat hou ik ook redelijk bij.

Analogical Evidence

(3X)

Daarnaast door de inter rate reliability, dus als ik de data heb geanalyseerd dan gaat een collega het nog een keer analyseren. Kijken of ik fouten heb gemaakt. Dus het verslag wordt door 2 onafhandelijke collega's nagelezen. Daarin proberen wij ook een kwaliteitsslag te maken.

84

Ik heb een concept, een variable. Tevredenheid over iets. Daarnaast ben ik ook verbanden aan het leggen. Ik ga kijken wat het verband is tussen tevredenheid en verwijsgedrag. Ik verzamel data over verschillende variabelen en dan ga ik mijn correlaties trekken. Als er een correlatie/ verband vind, dan leidt dat tot als verwijzers meer tevreden zijn over noem maar wat, ze meer doorverwijzen of wanneer ze ontevreden zijn, minder doorverwijzen. In die zin ben ik wel zoveel mogelijk wetenschappelijk bezig.

Je moet dan een bewijs leveren aan die ziektekostenverzekeraars. Dat gaan we nu ook doen, met een pilot project in het west van Nederland. Dan moeten we aan de hand van statistische gegevens aantonen dat voorgaande jaren altijd 26 miljoen euro aan die doelgroep betaald zijn.

Quote table 2: types of evidence

Ad

van

tage

s

Attitude

(5X)

Ik zie veel voordelen in zaken die zich in de praktijk bewezen heeft. Ik ben zo wetenschappelijk ingericht. Ik heb meer zo iets van bewijs het maar.

Het is evidence bases in die zin dat je daarbij gebruikt maakt van je ervaring en daarbij kijkt wat deze oorzaak het beste bij deze opdracht het beste bij het pupliek zijn. Het is wel degelijk evidence. Het is bewezen praktijk en het is onderbouwde kennis, dat je inderdaad herhaalbaar overtuigende wijze bewezen.

minder snel fouten maakt, omdat je niet goed heb nagedacht of je denk dat je het ergens anders heb gedaan, dus dat past hier ook wel.

maakt je bewust van dat de manier waarop jij intuitief naar een situatie kijkt ook maar een manier is. Het is heel goed om je daart bewust van te zijn. Dat er mogelijk nog hele andere manieren zijn.

Het is heel doordacht. Als je het goed toepast is het op zijn minst heel zorgvuldig en dat is belangrijk. als je het breed toepast komen alle aspecten en factoren die er te doen aan orde

Shared knowledge base

(8X)

Voordeel is wel dat met elkaar werkt aan een taal om al die unieke projecten die unieken consultants doen om die vergelijkbaar met elkaar te maken

Het voordeel van evidence based consulting dat we de kunde uitbouwen.

Maar dan wel op die kennisgebied heel veel uitwisselt.

Dat je een bijdrage moet leveren aan de kennis basis en dat je dus ook gewoon je kennis voor een deel publiek moet maken.

Als je die evidence base practice doet, is de samenwerking heel belangrijk. Het gaat erom het willen samen werken. Als je dan iets doet, het dan ook erover hebben met anderen. Op die manier die kennis laten groeien. En of die samenwerkingsvorm geeft, is niet zo belangrijk.

Het gaat over de samenwerking en vooral over het besef dat kennis meer wordt als je het deelt. (..) Samen heb je meer kennis. Niet alleen jou kennis en mijn kennis. Maar ook een kennis die we samen maken. Dus dat je op verschillende manieren naar kennis moet kijken om dit optimaal te doen. En dat door goed te respecteren op dat evidence based practice. Dat het de juiste waar de mensen van leren en ook weet nieuwe kennisen van komt.

Of je moet in een kennis netwerk zitten die inprincipe allemaal dezelfde werk doen. Maar wel met andere conculting. Maar dan wel op die kennisgebied heel veel uitwisselt.

voordeel is dat je het leerproces versneld op de vlak van professionele deskundigheid.

Objectivity

(3X)

Je objectiveert het veel meer, dus je kan met grotere zekerheid zeggen dat de conclusies juist zijn

Ik zie eigenlijk alleen maar voordelen, door wel je bewust van te zijn heb je de feiten wel op een rijtje

Wat een goede adviseur doet, die haalt heel veel uit de plaatselijk data en informatie

Dis

adva

nta

ge

Abstraction level

(11X)

Dat je het zo probeert te vangen in wat abstraties. Dat je geen recht doet wat er nou daadwerkelijk bijzonder en unieke en apart was aan die casus.

Het gaat eigenlijk om het abstractie niveau waarmee je met je opdrachtgevers spreekt. De abstract waarmee ik met de opdrachtgever sprak was op het niveau van concrete voorstellen.

Sommige vraagstukken zijn zo complex, kan je alleen doen met interviews. Dat kan niet zo heel veel wetenschappelijk mee doen. anders dan je eigen interpretatie doe op basis van interviews, maar dan moet je advies gewoon goed zijn.

Het nadeel is dat je denk dat het de werkelijkheid is.

Maar de nadeel zou kunnen zijn, dat je daarmee intuitie onderschat.

Dat is een belangrijk element wat je meest gebruikt. Wat je wel vaak ziet is dat

85

wetenschappelijk onderzoek voor veel klanten en voor mij toch een beetje te abstract is. Heel veel wordt onderzocht, maar er is maar een aantal elementen die voor mij als subsioloog van belang zijn.

Als ik TU-delft als klant zou hebben dan zou ik wel iets meer in de materie gaan zitten. Mijn klanten zijn machinefabrieken. Die hebben minder met wetenschap te maken. Voor hun is het heel abstract, maar wij leggen een aantal dingen die wij kunnen vertalen in concrete projecten, in concrete producten, in concrete processen en dan is het wel zinvol.

Je kan heel mooi wetenschappelijk onderzoek doen. De afstand van veel wetenschappelijke onderzoek tot de praktijk is vaak heel groot. Daarmee is de afstand tussen de toepasbaarheid van die wetenschappelijk kennis in de praktijk vaak beperkt.

Als je op strategische niveau bekijkt, is het altijd op advisering. Wat ik doe, ik zit op soms ook de taktische niveau.

Dat hangt ook van de probleem stelling en de vraagstelling.

Het zijn continue zoveel factoren waar je op moet letten dan het niet zo makkelijk is om het in een lijst te vangen is. Je heb wel bepaalde strategieen, bijvoorbeeld als je tegen maken heb met een juist een zeker of onzekere kant. Het is context bepalend.

Client’s attitude and support

(14X)

De genoten onderwijs in het managment wat echt voor nederlandse begrippen echt heel laag was. Daar maak je gebruik van. Dan bedoel ik het niet negatief. Dat betekent dat je je boodschap moet aanpassen op wat daar speelt.

Je kan een hele goede team hebben. Die hebben de beste wetenschappelijke benodigheden. Maar als je niet kan uitleggen aan de directie dan praat je niet in dezelfde taal. Dan wordt jou advies nooit geaccepteerd. Vervolgens kan je een hele slechte powerpoint hebben, terwijl je inhoudelijk zo goed bent, maar dan moet je je verhaal kunnen verkopen.

In de charisma en overtuigingskracht. Er zijn een aantal figuren die iets kunnen verkondigen wat totaal niet evidence based is. Maar wat je aanneemt van iemand. Dat is wel een hele belangrijke factor. Dat zit heel veel in de persoonlijke benadering

Je komt bij de raad van bestuur en zeg dit is evidence based. Maar dat ze toch zeggen: hij is wel jong, dus ik vertrouw het niet helemaal. Maar misschien dat je wel helemaal gelijk heeft

Maar dat is de oplossing (methode of aanpak) die bij het minst tegenstand en het meest draagvlak mee denk te genereren.

Een hele pragmatische aanpak omdat de directeur een authoritair leidinggevende is. Dan kies je ook een aanpak die hem waarschijnlijk aanspreekt.

Dan is dat heel back to basic en dat heeft zeker invloed op hoe je je opdrachten doet. In plaats van proberen iets te bewijzen en dan te doen. Het is Ad hocerig op een of andere manier.

Nadeel kan zijn dat je je eigen falen ook pijnlijk inzichtelijk maakt naar de klatn toe. dat heeft ook met integriteit te maken. Je hebt wat minder middelen om je resultaten op te poetsen.

Je had voor een probleem 17 oplossingen. Daar zat je niet op te wachten. Precies wat je zelf, ik zit niet te wachten op 17 oplossingen. Jij bent de professional, dit is mijn probleem, kies voor mij die juiste oplossing. Een van die 17. Of hooguit 2 dat ik een keuze maak ui die 2. Best practice.

Ingehuurd voor kant en klare oplossingen.

Maar het heeft veel meer met de context te maken dat zowel organisatiesook niet goed snappen wat de meerwaarde daarvan kan zijn.

Aan de andere kant, wat je ziet bij opdrachtgevers is dat ze juist niet willen worden vergeleken met anderen. want ze zijn uniek.

Dat heeft denk ik ook te maken met de cultuur bij logistieke dienstverleners. Er wordt over het algemeen weinig geinvesteerd. Ik werk voor midden klein bedrijf, minder grote en die zijn daar nog lang niet. Die zijn veel praktischer.

Je ziet dat sommige organisatie, ook het wetenschap een beetje last heeft van een bepaalde imago.Wat versta u onder wetenschap? veel te ingewikkeld. Probeer ik het nogmaals uit te leggen dat de methode is misschien ingewikkeld, maar de resultaten zijn heel helder wat eruit komt. Dan kunt u ook veel meer mee doen.

Research

(4X)

Dat je de eerste paar criteria neerlegt en dan van bepaalde richting erft en dan ook evidence based bezig. Maar dan moet je het dus wel allemaal kan vergelijken. Dat is voor mij niet bij te houden.

De anderen zou ook kunnen zeggen ''wij zijn een commercieel bureau en moeten niet teveel weg geven''.

Volgens mij is de zorg bij uitstek een sector waar je heel veel wetenschap kan onderzoeken. Maar waar ook heel veel kennis komt. Gewoon omdat de situatie zo uniek is dat je ter plekke een oplossing moet verzinnen. Iemand heeft een keer die oplossing verzonnen en die oplossing gaat dan weer...en de zorg kan iedereen zich dat voorstellen. Maar is natuurlijk in onze sector niet anders. Daar ga je ook een gewoon een probleem waar je accuut een

86

oplossing voor moet opzoeken. Juist door die oplossingen te delen en juist doordat beschikbaar te maken die kennis, groeit die kennis dan.

Dat komt gewoon pas met het opbouwen van kennis en ervaringen en delen. Dat kost tijd en is denk ik een nadeel.

Scientific skills

(3X)

heel veel adviseurs zich niet bewust zijn van het feit hoe ze werken. Dus heel veel van hun kennis en ervaringen zijn niet gecodificeerd. vooral bij HR advisering, dat is niet een heel hard vak.

Consultants over het algemeen weinig onderzoekskennis hebben. Wij die komen van een universiteit en wij snappen hoe je onderzoek moet doen.

Het is ook nuttig dat wij tween wetenschappelijk onderlegde medewerkers zijn. Ik ben gepromoveerd en Tim is bezig met zijn promotie. Dat helpt inderdaad wel met een stukje onderbouwing voor al die adviezen.

Time

(6X)

Maar niet zozeer van een probleem en ik ga daar een boek voor lezen. Daar is de tijd te kort voor

Het kan ook zijn dat de doorlooptijd van je maatregel langer wordt. Bij consulting waar je per uur betaald wordt kan een opdrachtgever dat veel minder aantrekkelijk vinden dus is het goedkoper om het maar best practice te blijven doen

Het nadeel is wel dat het tijdrovend is.

Wij hebben dit nu geadviseerd en dit hebben we bedacht, laten we daarvan de effectiviteit meten. Ik denk dat bi veel opdrachten dat meer werk zal zijn dan het beantwoorden van de oorspronkelijke vraag.

Nadeel is dat er heel wat tijd overheen komt, als het gaat om het kunnen toepassen allemaal. Dat is echt het hele lang leren zeg maar. Als je het gek op bent, is het geen nadeel. Het duurt wel dan een tijd voordat je het kunt toepass.

Ik moet wel mijn uurtjes draaien.

Quote table 3: advantage and disadvantage of evidence based consulting