Rapport building

Although not a focus of this study, rapport building was highlighted as a critical aspect of the consultancy process during the first two visits. Rapport was built with a potential client to achieve a number of goals. First, it was used to secure an engagement visit, a point not previously reported in the New Zealand research. Second, it was used to secure and then retain the farmer as a fee-paying client. Again, this goal in relation to rapport building has not been explicitly stated in the New Zealand research. Third, it was used to develop a comfortable and relaxed working environment such that the client would freely provide sensitive information that the client required for effective problem solving, a point made by several other studies (Williams et al., 1997a,b; Kemp et al., 2000). During this early phase of the client-consultant relationship, the two former goals were more important than the latter goal.

The consultant prioritises his clients and for his most important clients he wants to make them his friend. He stated that they might not be a close friend, “but you will be intimate”. As such, the consultant treats his clients as he would a friend and wants to develop a high level of trust with a client that places him as close to the client as possible in the relationship circle as shown in Figure 14. However, within his client portfolio, he has varying degrees of relationships and this reflects the variation in his client base. Developing a high level of trust with a client improves the consultant’s client retention, a point not explicitly made in the New Zealand literature. The consultant has to be very professional with the advice he gives a client and he has to make sure his advice is objective, a point emphasised in other studies (Williams et al., 1997a,b; Kemp et al., 2000).

A range of techniques were used by the consultant to develop rapport during the phases of a consultancy visit. This begins with the first contact over the telephone and continues throughout the visit and post-visit phases. As reported in other studies (Rogers et al., 1996a,b; Gray et al., 1999a,b) upon arrival at the farm, the consultant greets the client and then undertakes a period of ice-breaking conversation to further build rapport with the client. The consultant stressed that this was important because at this stage he has yet to develop a high level of rapport with the new client. Other studies (Williams et al., 1997a,b; Gray et al., 1999a,b; Bruce 2013) have also stated that during the early phases of the visit to a new client, rapport is being established. The consultant reiterated the importance of being cheerful and positive when greeting the client even if he does not feel this way. One of his rules is to always maintain a happy and positive demeanour during a visit. He believes that clients prefer to work with happy positive people. Being positive has been mentioned in other studies (e.g. Williams et al., 1997a,b; Kemp et al., 2000), but not to this degree. As with the other studies (Rogers et al., 1996a,b; Gray et al., 1999a,b), the ice-breaking conversation normally occurs at the kitchen table over a cup of tea or coffee, but it may occur at the cow shed or out on the farm depending upon the client. Topics of conversation might include the weather, the season, the pay out, or current state of the farm. Other studies (Gray et al., 1999b; Kemp et al., 2000) have mentioned sport, pets, the house and garden, the family and local events.

The consultant stressed that a novice consultant required good interpersonal communication skills and that these were more important than analytical skills. The consultant believes that the former are much more difficult to teach than the latter. As such, he believed that it was important for consultancy firms to recruit novice consultants with good interpersonal communication skills. Interestingly, in the studies by Kenny and Nettle, 2012, 2013) of New Zealand farm management consultants in relation to capability, the focus was on technical and problem solving skills, not interpersonal communication skills.

4.3.3.3.2 The problem solving process

The problem solving process used by the consultant can be usefully separated into the eight steps identified in the literature (Rogers et al., 1996b; Gray et al., 1999b) of: gather information, identify the problem, determine alternatives, analyse alternatives, choose alternative, plan implementation, implementation and evaluation. As reported in other studies (Rogers et al., 1996b; Gray et al., 1999b), the consultant spent most of his time during a first consultancy visit on information gathering and diagnosis. This is a “situation assessment” (Lipshitz and Shaul, 1997; Klein 1998) which produces “situation awareness” (Endsley, 1988.) Limited time was spent on the other steps in the problem solving process. The following sections will describe how the consultant undertakes each of these steps in the problem solving process and compare the findings to the literature.

4.3.3.3.2.1 Information gathering

As with other studies (Rogers et al., 1996a,b; Gray et al. 1999a,b) information gathering was used by the consultant to collect information for a number of reasons. First it was used to build a picture of the client, farm family and farm business. Second it was used to build rapport with the client. Third it was used to diagnose the problems faced by the client. Fourth, it was used to tailor solutions to the client’s situation. The information is also used to “baseline” the farming system so that the consultant has a record of where the farm was at before he intervened. This is important for demonstrating to the client the impact of his involvement and the value he has added to the business over time. The study also highlighted the importance of rapport building in relation to information collection, particularly in relation to sensitive information around finance and long-term goals, a point stressed by other researchers (Williams et al., 1997a,b; Kemp et al., 2000).

Information gathering by the consultant occurs from first contact and continues until the end of the visit and also post-visit, a point made in other studies (Rogers et al., 1996b; Gray et al., 1999b). As mentioned by Gray

et al. (1999b), the majority of the consultant’s time during a visit is spent on information gathering or what

Lipshitz and Shaul (1997) refer to as “situation assessment”. The main method of data collection used by the consultant was semi-structured interviews. Observation was an important information collection method and the consultant also used documents (financial accounts, soil tests etc.) as another source of information. Other studies have reported similar findings (Rogers et al., 1996b; Gray et al., 1999b; Bruce, 2013), emphasising the importance of interviewing (or questioning and listening skills) and observational skills in consultancy, a point previously made by Williams et al. (1997a,b). Other studies have identified a range of techniques used by consultants to collect data (e.g. open, closed, probing, “why” and teach back questions as well as laddering techniques) (Williams et al., 1997a,b; Rogers et al., 1996b;Gray et al., 1999b, Bruce, 2013). However, an important point made by the consultant when conversing with a client was not to “play the blame game”. The consultant avoids being judgmental and asking questions or making statements that suggests he is “blaming” the client for the businesses poor performance. Kenny and Nettle (2013) in their study of novice consultants’ use of the Whole Farm Assessment and Planning program for training reported that assistance was needed to help novice consultants keep questions conversational and not sound judgemental.

Although the consultant follows a general mental script (Endsley, 1988) in terms of his information gathering process, it is not rigidly structured in that he does not move through the process topic by topic. As such, the information gathering process used by the consultant alternates between being data- and goal-driven (Endsley, 1997; Gray et al., 1999a; Bruce, 2013). Normally, the consultant collects data using data-driven methods such as conversation and observations, but this process becomes goal-driven when he recognises a relevant cue that highlights an issue or problem. He then begins collecting data actively that relates to that cue. The consultant did have a mental checklist of information that he aimed to collect on a visit. This was also reported in a study by Gray et al. (1999a). The consultant would assess if he had covered the required information before terminating his visit.

In terms of the timing of information gathering, the consultant used a mental script or schema (Endsley, 1997) that he followed for most clients. This process was similar to other studies for a first consultancy visit (Rogers

et al., 1996b; Gray et al., 1999b) with a few exceptions. The first exception was that the consultant undertook

an engagement visit before the first formal consultancy visit, something not reported in other studies (Rogers

et al., 1996b; Gray et al., 1999b; Bruce, 2013). This meant that he had collected a lot more information

before the first formal consultancy visit about the client than the consultants in the other studies (Rogers et al., 1996b; Gray et al., 1999b; Bruce, 2013). The majority of consultants in other studies (Rogers et al., 1996b; Gray et al., 1999b; Bruce, 2013) collected a reasonable amount of information during first contact, the period of pre-visit analysis and preparation and on the drive out to the farm. In contrast, the consultant collected limited information during these phases, mainly to save time and because he preferred to collect information on the farm, but also because in terms of information about the district, he had already collected good information about this through previous visits and through his networks. Information collection during the other phases of the consultancy visit were similar to that reported from other studies (Rogers et al., 1996b; Gray et al., 1999b; Bruce, 2013).

The types of information collected by the consultant in this study were similar to those reported in other studies (Rogers et al., 1996b; Gray et al., 1999b; Bruce, 2013). One exception was that the consultant collected information about the power relationships between decision makers on the farm. Other studies had not reported this, although Bruce (2013) reported that the consultant in her study collected information of the family dynamics. Unlike most of the consultants in other studies (Rogers et al., 1996b; Gray et al., 1999b; Bruce, 2013), the consultant in this study collected limited financial information during the first visit. The financial accounts were normally obtained from the client at the end of the visit, but not analysed until after the visit. However, one of the consultants in the study by Gray et al. (1999b) did not analyse the accounts unless he believed there was a problem. The consultant distinguished between sensitive and non-sensitive information during information gathering. He stressed the importance of rapport in gaining access to sensitive information, particularly around the client’s goals. Other studies (Williams et al. 1997a,b; Kemp et al., 2000) have stressed the importance of rapport in accessing sensitive information from clients for problem solving. A critical issue identified by Kenny and Nettle (2012, 2013) for training novice consultants is the amount of information they need to collect during a visit to a client. The consultant provided some insights into how he reduces the amount of information he has to collect on a visit. The consultant’s mental schema (Endsley, 1988) performed an important role in reducing the amount of information he has to collect during a visit. On the drive out to the farm for his first formal consultancy visit, the consultant plans the visit and part of that planning process is to consider four problem (or issue) sets from memory (Figure 15). These include: 1) seasonal problems and 2) district problems the client might have, 3) the problems the client identified as important during the engagement visit and 4) the “other” problems the consultant diagnosed as important to the client during the engagement visit. The consultant’s mental schema (Endsley, 1988) has a set of symptoms associated with each problem within the four problem sets. These dictate the information that the consultant needs to collect to confirm or refute the existence of problems within these four problem sets. Little has been written in the literature about how consultants might constrain information gathering to make it more effective. Bruce (2013) did report that the consultant in her study believed that it was important to determine the real reason for the visit so that he could focus his efforts. Lipshitz and Shaul (1997) reported that experts used more information and more sources when making decisions and are more efficient at collecting information than novices, but they did not provide any insights into how they did this. Gray et al. (1999a) reported that the classification schema used by the consultants in their study allowed them to operate with missing information, but they did not discuss how the consultants managed the information collection process to make it more efficient.

Figure 15 The process used by the consultant to reduce the amount of information he must gather The issues or problems that the consultant identifies, triggers him to collect information across a broad set of information categories (Figure 16). For any issue or problem that he has identified, the consultant will collect information about how the client manages the problem area, the client’s attitudes around the problem area, performance indicators associated with the problem area, the nature of the resources associated with the problem area and the client’s use of technology in relation to the problem area (Figure 16). There may be other information categories, but these have yet to be identified. For each of these information categories, the consultant has a mental checklist or schema that sets out the specific information he has to collect. The role of mental schema and classification in information collection has been reported in the literature (Lipshitz and Shaul, 1997, Gray et al., 1999a), but not to this level of specificity. Further detail on these schemas will be provided in the following sections.

Figure 16 How the problem constrains information gathering

As with other studies (Gray et al., 1999a, 2000), the consultant’s classification schemas allowed him to infer missing information about the client and farm business. Examples of this were the inference that the consultant could draw about the labour on the farm after classifying the size and nature of the milking shed. He could also infer potential problems that the client might face from knowing the location of his farm. Similarly, he could infer if labour would be an issue from classifying herd size.

The role of the whole farm assessment in information gathering

The consultant stated that a template might be useful for a novice consultant to ensure they collect the required information and provided them with check points for them to work with. However, he believed that one of the problems for a novice consultant using the whole farm assessment sheet is that he has to collect all the data about the farm. This was highlighted as a problem with the Whole Farm assessment and Planning (WFAP) program evaluated by Kenny and Nettle (2013). The consultant believed that much of the data collected using this approach may be irrelevant to the client which wastes both the client’s and the consultant’s time. To overcome this problem, he also suggested only doing some blocks within the whole farm assessment sheet for a visit and then doing others at the next visit. This is in line with the feedback from the evaluation of the WFAP program which suggested that a two hour visit would be ideal (Kenny and Nettle, 2013). A key skill for the consultant is being able to quickly identify what the issues are on the property for a new client without collecting large amounts of data. The method the consultant uses to do this is shown in Figure 15 and this could be incorporated into the WFAP program. One of the recommendations from Kenny and Nettle’s (2013) evaluation of the WFAP was to streamline the amount of information required from the farmer. The following section describes how the information is used by the consultant.

4.3.3.3.2.2 Picture building

The information gathered by the consultant is of little use until he has processed it. As with other studies (Gray

et al., 1999a,b; Bruce 2013), the consultant processes the information he has gathered using a range of

techniques. These include benchmarking, comparative analysis, classification, triangulation and retrodiction (Figure 23), processes also reported by Gray et al. (1999a,b) and Bruce (2013) with the exception of retrodiction. Retrodiction (Schreiber et al., 2000) is the process of calculating past values and the consultant does this because he visits the farm at one point in time and must make some assessment of what state the farm has been in during previous years or time periods. Trend analysis has been identified in other studies (Rogers et al., 1996b; Gray et al., 1999a; Bruce, 2013), but it was not mentioned by the consultant in this study. This may be because the pilot nature of the project prevented adequate data collection or that this was undertaken during the accounts analysis phase which was not investigated. These processes shown in Figure 17 are used in tandem to both build a picture of the client, farm family and farm business and diagnose problems in much the same way as reported by Gray et al. (1999a,b) and Bruce (2013). The outputs from this process include a mental picture of the farming system and the identification of the problems and the causes of those problems as reported by Gray et al. (1999a,b) and Bruce (2013). However, the consultant also uses this process to identify constraints to the client’s business and the strengths and weaknesses of the client and farming business. Although mentioned in other studies (e.g. Bruce, 2013), these were not identified as explicit outputs from this process as depicted in Figure 17.

Figure 17. The process followed by the consultant to build a picture of the farm business and diagnose problems

This work highlights the distinction between data, information and knowledge as proposed by Boisot and Canals (2004) (Figure 18). The consultant is receiving stimuli from the world during his visit to the client. This stimuli is transformed into data through the consultant’s perceptual filters that are based on the consultant’s knowledge, a combination of mental models and values. It is also related to the way the consultant frames the situation (Beach, 1990.) The consultant then transforms this data into information using his conceptual filters. Finally, the information is processed and transformed into knowledge about the client, farm family and farm business. This is a useful model for thinking about the distinction between data, information and knowledge in relation to a novice versus an expert consultant. It highlights where differences may occur between them that are reflected in their relative abilities to diagnose and solve problems for a client. Firstly, a novice consultant may not recognise stimuli from the real world as an important source of data because they have not been able to frame the problem. For example, they may fail to observe important aspects of the pasture or the herd when on a farm inspection. Second, they may collect the required data, but be unable to process it into useful information. Thirdly, they may obtain the required information, but be unable to process it into a useful form