All too often, companies hire outside consultants to suggest ways for the company to operate more efficiently. If companies were to spend more time listening to their own employees, such consultants would be unnecessary.
Human resource of a company is the one living its vision and driving its principles and so has a very clear understanding of how things work. This understanding helps them identify flaws in the everyday functioning and in turn find intrinsic ways to fix them. Each employee has an onus to work towards making the company and its functioning smooth for productive outcomes. However, these modifications are a means to and end and not standardized in anyway. This is where the company requires an expert to study, identify and propose ideas to fix flaws, if any, in the workings of the company.
Consultants are industry experts astute in the working of organisations with various models. Financial consultants for instance showcase a thorough understanding of financial aspect of working of a company. They are hired by several firms to study their business model and propose ways to increase revenue and in turn their profit. Many companies prefer hiring consultants for the purpose of studying their functional efficacy for various reasons. One the major reasons is the industry knowledge and fresh perspective the consultants apply to study the given model. Being free from bias, having perused many other successful business models, being in the know-how of best kept industry secrets are few of the many advantages that a consultant brings on board to a study of company standards. This not only helps in detailed study of existing operations model but also in identify its competence with the recent industry developments.
In addition to using their own knowledge, the consultants work closely with select group of individuals from the host organisation. These individuals form a group of people with personal experience with the everyday working of the company. By interviewing and having a detailed dialogue with the people in the organisation, these consultants get a clear picture of how the big rules/policies are translated to day-to-day activities. This analysis gives an unbiased view of efficiency of the policies and hence is easily comparable to 'other' or 'overall' industry standards.
While it is true that hiring a new or unrelated person to identify and correct the flawed policies may result in some people thinking that it is impersonal and hence the results will not be effective. Using a person from within the organisation not only adds extra burden in terms of work hours for the selected person but also give out work of substandard quality. Since people working for the organisation come with heavily informed ideas about the flaws, their proposal might be considered biased.
In conclusion, a study done with thorough expertise will be much better in quality as a result of well-read and knowledgeable people that are involved as opposed to people with experience of whats not working. Consultants help the company achieve their goals.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-26 | Arpit Sahni | 58 | view |
| 2020-01-24 | shamitha | 66 | view |
| 2020-01-18 | JENIRSHAH | 50 | view |
| 2020-01-17 | caseya5 | 66 | view |
| 2020-01-14 | Siddiqur Rahman | 50 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 447, Rule ID: IN_ANYWAY[1]
Message: Did you mean 'in any way'?
Suggestion: in any way
...a means to and end and not standardized in anyway. This is where the company requires an ...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 192, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: what's
...as opposed to people with experience of whats not working. Consultants help the compa...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, anyway, but, hence, however, if, may, so, well, while, as to, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, as a result, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.4196629213 32% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 14.8657303371 128% => OK
Relative clauses : 5.0 11.3162921348 44% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 26.0 33.0505617978 79% => OK
Preposition: 71.0 58.6224719101 121% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2414.0 2235.4752809 108% => OK
No of words: 463.0 442.535393258 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21382289417 5.05705443957 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63868890866 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90632340076 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 230.0 215.323595506 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.496760259179 0.4932671777 101% => OK
syllable_count: 761.4 704.065955056 108% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.9174764261 60.3974514979 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.952380952 118.986275619 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0476190476 23.4991977007 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.33333333333 5.21951772744 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.192256255054 0.243740707755 79% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0673779043788 0.0831039109588 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0674959204034 0.0758088955206 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.106247512672 0.150359130593 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0539969295528 0.0667264976115 81% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.1392134831 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.1639044944 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.96 8.38706741573 107% => OK
difficult_words: 124.0 100.480337079 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.