Advise and Consult

Yesterday as a citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts I got to participate in Jury Duty. It gave me a lot of time to think.

So I was thinking how our role as jurors, even folks showing up for Jury Duty itself, is not unlike our jobs as consultants. "How?" you ask. Excellent question.

We have a system which is "adversarial." We have inherited, and continued to grow a system that assumes the best way to pursue, determine, and carry out justice is to allow opposing sides to advocate within the law, to represent their case, to raise questions, doubts, bring evidence, and attempt to persuade a neutral party of their position. Through conflict, we expect the truth to manifest, to be found. In fact, the judge who opened the video we were shown told us that our job was to "find the truth."

When implementing business solutions, it is seldom enough to listen to one Subject Matter Expert (SME). It is generally not sufficient to get one person's idea of what success is for the project or for the business. We need to bring a variety of perspectives together and see in the light of sameness and differences what the scope of the engagement and the criteria for success are. As consultants we should seek out ideas different from our own and learn from them, use them to "find the truth."

Depending on the type of case, criminal or civil, you have a different standard to achieve in order to win your case. For matters of criminal law, guilt must be determined "beyond a reasonable doubt." For civil matters, the court will find for them based on a "preponderance of evidence."

Think about this. When it comes to determining someone's freedom, their ability to participate freely in all the rights they have as US citizens, our standard is very high. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" means that guilt is determined past 99%. It's not just "likely" the defendant did "it," but it is unreasonable to assume anyone else did and it is unreasonable to assume he didn't "do it."

How many projects implementing software as parts of business solutions need this standard when making decisions? How many projects could reasonably allocate the time, resources, cost to sustain such a standard?

When it comes to civil cases, our standard is a lower. The court will find for one party or the other in a civil case based on a determination that it is "likely" that either the plaintiff is correct, or it is "likely" that the defendant is correct. We're looking for "good enough" or "sure enough."

Is this not a model by which most of us live and work through our projects? Is this not sustained in every aspect of Agile projects? We build something likely to fulfill the requirements and which is likely to be flexible enough to be augmented, changed, or added to in subsequent slivers or phases.

In Massachusetts, the jury determines the "truth" by making two vital decisions:

1. What are the facts of the case? Literally what of the evidence, testimony, etc. presented are factual.


2. What is the verdict? Guilty or Not Guilty vs. Verdict for the Plaintiff or Verdict for the Defendant

What happens in the courtroom is that the judge runs the trial, wrangles the attorneys, and instructs the jury as to what law should be applied in the case. In Massachusetts, once the jury renders the verdict it is the judge who imposes sentencing.

Now I know that when I work with a client I like to feel useful, and part of that is really feeling utilized. I like to share my experience, my expertise, participate alongside the client, really dig in. Also, I'm a fan of control. Generally I feel like I have something to lend in terms of the structure and process through which we will work and by which our results will be judged.

What I have found, and increasingly find, is that it's impossible to "control" a client. They may be persuaded by you, but they will not be "run" by you. Even if you think you know better how to do something, or what should be done, you're going to have to let this go or really create conflict. This is exactly the opposite of "helping" our client "do it better."

We must remember that no matter how many engagement we have worked, even with the same software in an identical application, in the same exact industry (and there are NONE of these repetitions in my experience, something is ALWAYS unique)...

• We cannot be the arbiters of success for a client. They have internal bodies, mechanisms for this.


• We are not more expert than they on their business environment, drivers, politics, or processes.


• We cannot mandate cooperation, collaboration, or a change in tactic to people who do not report on us and are not incented by us when we do not govern their position descriptions, performance evaluations, bonuses, benefits, etc.

So, when it comes to determining the success factors for a project, we cannot play the role of judge. That's for our client to do. We can influence, but we cannot mandate. They determine the laws that apply. See?

It is imperative that we treat our client with the respect, the deference that they deserve. We should recognize their expertise even as we are proud of and wanting to share our own.

How does one influence a judge? Well, present a good case. Base your case on facts, on evidence. Carefully structure it so that the holes are plugged and the leaks are filled. If any remain, acknowledge them honestly and offer your best advice as to what to do about them. Don't create mayhem, chaos, distraction. You have some options, and generally speaking, committing contempt of court -- winding up in jail, paying a fine, or both -- isn't the best one.

Don't let this become you. Don't turn the project into a circus just to get attention. Though it might feel like you're on the winning side, it's bound to be held against you later on.

The thing is too, that as much as I find myself as a consultant craving a spotlight, craving the action, it gets hot in that spotlight and it's tiring after a while being the guy always leading the charge, making every objection, cross-examining every witness, and there's always a losing side.

No one wants to be on the losing side of anything, especially not your client. Do you think that gladiatorial combat with your fellow vendors will pay off well in the long run at this site? How about the next site where tales of carnage and chaos are carried from the battlefield into the new engagement.

Hm. So maybe taking such an adversarial tact might be ill-advised. Now what?


Well, you can certainly be a witness, even an expert witness. Present your research and credentials in a way that substantiates our expert opinion. Cool. That can work.

Offer a pilot, a paper, a proof of concept. Offer a model from another engagement as evidence that your recommendations were successful elsewhere.

Use the tools of your trade. As a consultant, advise, consult, persuade, enable, and empower the client. Help them make decisions. At least provide the best possible information and your suggestion, your opinion.



The key here is to persuade and enable. Remember that when it comes to being expert, your client is the ultimate judge. So engage them. Educate, enable, empower them. HELP them do it great. Make them your expert witness. Let them make the case.





So what's this about juries? Well, as a juror, you can determine the facts of the case and you can render a verdict.

Determine the facts. These are the critical factors for success. Find them and then set them out as guardrails for your strategy and tactics. In consulting, that can be about negotiating, learning your client, educating yourself on the information available. Do your research. See what makes the most sense to you.

Render your verdict. As a consultant, you can offer a project plan, a strategy, an application architecture. Offer a guide based on careful deliberation of both the law (the criteria for success) and the facts (the requirements and other criteria for the business solution). Build the application as best you know how according to the requirements, the critical factors for success.

Then step back. Remember you may not always agree with the client, but this is their project. It is they who are responsible for it in the end, and we want to help them, no matter what the course they choose. Don't make it personal. Render your services and let the client be the judge.

Advise and Consult. Be an advocate for your client, but not an adversary. Let go the thrill of combat, of being a hero, and instead figure out how to let your client do what they must in order to achieve success. That's not always following behind you as you cut through the jungle with a machete.

As I also learned from Jury Duty yesterday, sometimes it's enough just to show up. Yesterday I wasn't selected for a jury, but neither were any of my peers who showed up. Yesterday, for justice to be done, for the eleven cases that were going forward to trial or reach an agreement, all we had to do is be willing to do our jobs. The presence of people willing and able to participate in trials allowed the parties in each case to decide whether to go forward or settle. Everyone settled, and that was justice as it was performed yesterday.

Sometimes, the hardest, and best job we can do is just show up. Allow our presence to facilitate our client's goals, to "Help them do it great."

References: "About My Juror Summons" http://www.mass.gov./courts/jury/aboutmy.htm

John Adams, President of the United States, framer of the US Constitution and one of the authors of the Massachusetts Constitution, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams

"Thoughts on Government", by John Adams, spring 1776, http://en.wikepedia.org/wiki/Thoughts_on_Government

Massachusetts Constitution, drafted by John Adams, Samuel Adams, and James Bowdoin between September 1 and October 30, 1779, ratified on June 5, 1770, effective as of October 25, 1770, and the oldest functioning written constitution in continuous effect in the world. http://en.wikepedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Constitution