Feedback

The final part of the clarification stage is to identify how the client and organization wish to be informed of progress. A consultant can often perform miracles, but unless the client is aware of the success there is every chance that the change will fail because of diminished senior management support. Additionally, unless you stay close to the client's team there is a possibility that operational changes will be initiated that have a detrimental effect on your project.

Four things need to be agreed to ensure that the feedback process will be effective: timing, detail, issue management and ownership. If these are defined at the outset of the relationship, then there is little chance that communication will break down. If you don't agree the overall process and structure of the feedback link at the outset then there is every chance that the change will end up out of sync with the needs of the client and consumer.

The timing of feedback depends on a range of factors, but most important is the client's interaction rate. Consider the director who runs a team of ten managers. She might well be responsible for a spread of processes ranging from product design right through to product delivery. The diversity of activities under her command means that at most she will allocate a day or two to each area over the period of a month. Consequently, the time allocated to interact with the consultant is likely to be limited (unless the project is mission-critical). As such, the consultant will probably be able to touch base with the client at most once a month to up-date her on progress and highlight future plans. The alternative example is the director from a financial institution who is responsible for regulatory affairs. In such a highly specialized job, he might have a team of people and can allocate more time to the consultant. Neither option is better, it is simply a case of trying to fit in with the client's needs and work patterns.

As mentioned earlier in the Orientation section, some clients will prefer to look at the big picture, only worrying about what is happening to the total programme. Others will want feedback that offers information on the smallest detail, individual or project task. Although you might have guessed their orientation in the early Client stage of the relationship, at this point you should attempt to derive a clear agreement as to the level of detail the client wants to receive.

Issue management is simple to deal with. At the end of the day, the client either wants to be in the loop, dealing with issues as they arise, or to stay out of the loop, only dealing with problems by exception. Your objective is to agree the trigger point. Do they want to be advised if people don't become engaged; software doesn't work; or when the project is about to hit a major blockage? No one option is correct; it simply depends upon the client's needs.

Finally, it is important for the client to appreciate that the issue of feedback is not a one-way option. Both you and the client are responsible for ensuring a two-way flow. Your responsiblity is to be honest with the client about formal progress and your personal concerns. The client's responsibility is to keep you informed of all the operational issues that might affect your areas of concern.

There is no single model for agreeing the feedback mechanism as personal choice and context drive it. Hence it is important that you specifically ask the client how often they want feedback, what level of detail is required, whom you should go through if the client is unavailable and how problem escalation should be managed.

The following list offers a range of actions to be used during an engagement:

• Breakpoint presentation: proving an update only when a critical milestone is reached.

• Monthly RAG reports (Red for problems, Amber for potential issues and Green for things going well)

• Daily voice-mail or e-mail updates, possibly to act as more of an emotional comfort as opposed to adding any real value to the client management process.

• Board updates. On the upside, these can ensure continued visibility of the project, but on the downside can simply feed the political system's insatiable desire for current data rather than any real desire to understand progress issues.

• Covert client reviews to allow the client to understand and possibly influence progress of the process in the background.

This leads to the final question, what circle of security should be applied to the feedback process? Within any feedback, there is a circle of people exposed to the ongoing flow of information. At the core of the circle will be the followers, those people who the client trusts. This continuum continues out to the opposite extreme, to those people who must never be exposed to the content or process information. Woe-betide the consultant who fails to respect this delicate balance and discloses information to someone outside the trust circle. As part of any discussion about the feedback process, you must get explicit information about who is allowed what information and when.