In this second – and concluding part – of this article (read Part 1 of 2 here) , I offer practical suggestions (based on the true success story of a large multinational company) about how businesses can help their in-house experts act, more often, in the best interest of the company.
.

The In-House Expert’s Ideal Role Is To Add Tangible Value With His/Her Unique Expertise

A manufacturing multinational company once had a challenge finding a commercial off-the-shelf software application to comprehensively handle routine data handling and report generation needs of its factory production processes.

Despite repeated efforts to use some of the more popular commercial software, they found a lot of the peculiarities in their production process could not be efficiently catered for via customisation of the purchased software. There was – among others – a requirement for whatever software they used to be able to generate reports conforming to an already existing "house format".

Following some discussions, it was agreed that an in-house solution be developed.

The alternative adopted was a custom automated Lotus 1-2-3 based application built from scratch by a young expatriate middle level manager over a period of some months. Basically, he went around with a laptop speaking with those involved in data generation, analysis and reporting from the Corporate Headquarters to the factories, Purchasing departments, Production Planning, Engineering Utilities etc.

Using the information he gathered, in conjunction with various recording/reporting formats he saw being used in the different units(and his knowledge as an insider with experience in most of the key operations), he built an application that allowed entry of raw factory performance data and which automatically computed the company’s Standard Key Performance Indicators.

The application also automatically produced a one-page report that identified TEN(10) specific areas in which the company had OVER spent and UNDER spend respectively. This was displayed in an automatically generated comparison table, expressing the amounts SAVED or LOST in usage units (e.g. Kgs per litre of product) and monetary unit (e.g. Dollars per litre of product).

On the same page was also an auto-generated Variable Cost Analysis chart and four process charts showing the progressive trend in key waste control parameters over a 12 month period.

The best part was that this nifty program was built using an already familiar spreadsheet application, in a way that a reasonably skilled user could easily make needed changes as the need arose over time. Following reviews, the application was immediately put to use in preparing reports sent monthly from the factories to Headquarters, and also for the Monthly Review meetings held with Directors.

The In-House Expert’s Ideal Mental Attitude: Objective & Results-Focussed

I have narrated the above true story, with names etc removed "to protect the innocent"

It illustrates the fact that senior decision makers in the technical function (a group of in-house experts) of the company did some good QUALITY thinking. This was with the obvious objective outlook being to SOLVE the data handling and reporting problem being experienced.

They liased with the IT department (ANOTHER group of in-house experts) to consider and test possible solutions. Over time they settled for a customised, simple, yet highly effective/flexible solution which they then found someone to develop and implement.

These senior technical managers – as well as the IT – managers functioned PROPERLY and successfully as the In-House Experts they were EXPECTED to be.

They had the final say in terms of recommending what could be done to the company.

They could have INSISTED that the company improvise with the less flexible commercial off-the-shelf applications, and probably the top management etc would have gone along.

But a lot of things would have suffered, and the main problem of poor data handling/standardisation and reporting would have persisted.

Instead, they wisely remained objective and open minded enough to see that the unique problem in the technical function required a unique solution.

They must have left their minds "open" long enough for someone (possibly the young expatriate Training Coordinator himself) to "sell" them the idea of using an automated spreadsheet application to solve the problem.

And that’s how in-house experts can justify their presence in, and earnings from the company: 

By adding REAL value to the company in such a way that it becomes better equipped to achieve its business goals more successfully. If they act this way often, the company they represent is unlikely to miss valuable OPPORTUNITIES to get – and STAY – ahead of the competition.

This is because it would be fully equipped to seize those opportunities as/when they appear using the INSIGHT of its results-oriented in-house experts.

Note: The young expatriate developer of the above mentioned program, was not an IT person.

He was a manager in the technical function, who happened to have a flair for numbers and had also developed his spreadsheet programming skills quite extensively.

Your Company Needs "Non-Partisan" In-House Experts

To help you realise how NOT addressing the issues I have raised here can make your company MISS great opportunities to advance in quantum leaps, I reproduce below just ONE of many available quotes(you probably know some yourself!) credited to "in-house expert" representatives of companies.

These experts confidently gave the following WRITTEN assessment (to top management) of a new idea/concept/innovation that went on to CHANGE the world!

“This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us”. – Western Union Internal Memo, 1876

Can you imagine just how STUPID anyone who took the advice of the guys who wrote the above mentioned memo MUST have felt AFTER seeing demand for the telephone in business and society skyrocket?!

That’s the price one can end up paying for FAILING to remember that EXPERTS will always be human. Which makes it necessary to constantly check and ensure their human weaknesses do not prevent them from delivering EXPERT quality results as often as possible – in the BEST interests of the organisation!

Summary – Set Up Systems To Help Your In-House Experts KEEP Doing Their Jobs Properly

So what’s going to happen when next some unknown, inconsequential looking individual walks into your company lobby…and says s/he has a product or service or IDEA s/he believes your company will find useful?

What will you want your gatekeepers from reception, to your personal assistant(s) and of course the "in-house" experts to DO before they send him/her away?

In my opinion, it would not hurt to arrange for certain members of your team to give formal appointments to – and meet for a limited time. With individuals who come in sounding coherent, purposeful and convincing enough to the gatekeepers.

The fact that your company is BIG does not mean a (seemingly) "small" person cannot have a BIG idea that can make your company bigger!

And THAT is the classic mistake many people make – especially when they feel they are "successful" or more successful than the person who approaches them!

You might also want to set up a system for documentation, collation and careful REVIEW of EVERY idea, suggestion or proposal that is made on paper or verbally, by employees or outsiders, formally or informally, for their potential uses and applications.

Sometimes the solution you seek to a challenge being faced by your company can reveal itself to you, when you OPEN your mind.

Consider the IDEA(S) or SUGGESTION(S) a junior employee – or unknown outsider service provider who offers to give a talk for instance – says s/he has.

It will only be a matter of time before doing so yields benefits that result in significant improvements in your company’s productivity, profitability etc.

“This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us”. – Western Union Internal Memo, 1876. Isn’t it amazing how those narrow minded individuals who wrote that memo, rubbished an innovation that was destined to change the world? If anyone had taken them seriously where would we all be today…without the telephone?

The foregoing is why I argue that companies need to set up systems to help their in-house experts act in the best interests of the organisation. 

(Original version of this article, was published on this static html page on: 7th September 2007)

Who Is An "In-House Expert"?

Here’s my "definition": Any employee – whether temporary, contract or permanent – whose opinion – based on his/her area of recognised expertise, will be sought and used to decide what the company should do, with respect to a particular line of action being considered.

They (i.e. in-house experts) are often given the responsibility of providing related support to other employees using their knowledge and expertise, to evaluate possible strategies, technologies or solutions that the company could adopt to IMPROVE her ability to achieve valued corporate goals.

Common examples include IT managers and their lieutenants.

Sometimes companies outsource their needs in technical fields such as IT, keeping a skeletal structure in-house. Other times they engage consultants on a contract basis. And of course some companies feel more comfortable having a full fledged IT department in some cases with emphasis on development of in-house software solutions.

Other types of in-house experts are the Project Managers, HR managers, PR managers, Marketing Managers, Business Development Managers, People /Organisational Development Managers, Engineering Managers etc.

These individuals would usually be depended upon by various categories of decision makers (including their fellow in-house experts) in the company to EVALUATE – for instance – any new idea or initiative/concept being considered for adoption.

And more often than not, it is whatever they say that gets taken as the "final word", so to say.

But that’s not bad in itself – so long as the in-house expert maintains a dispassionate and professional (UN-BIASED) disposition in giving his/her advice or recommendations.

The Problem: In-House Experts’ Can Sometimes Be Afflicted With "Experts’ Blindness"!

Do you have in-house experts whose word you take as gospel truth?

If you know them well, and are sure of their competence and objectivity, that would be a safe thing to do.

But in life, nothing stays exactly the same. Much as you may trust and like your "expert", s/he may not always be able to deliver to the same high standards.

Why?

Because s/he – like the rest of us – is only human!

And as a human being, when you get used to being "the expert", in a situation where people often readily accept what you say/think, it can get quite intoxicating.

That can make you get just a little "too carried away" sometimes.

Only Few People Can Resist Feeling This Way Every Now and Then

Your in-house expert is just as prone as everyone else. Chances are if/when s/he does slip up, it will be inadvertent rather than deliberate. Whatever may be the cause, the potential damage to you/your organisation in the event that this does happen (and it CAN!) is the most crucial thing to consider.

What if the advice/tip given you by your "in-house expert" turns out to be based on statistics s/he checked two weeks earlier, AND which s/he assumed would stay the same for at least 30 days, as had been his/her experience over that past five years?

But what if THIS time, due to a slight change in market regulations late last week (that your expert did not bother to monitor since s/he "knew" it was the same old "stuff"), your plans based on the expert’s advice had fallen through?

Just think for a moment what it could mean, if this were to happen to you.

The point I’m making is ANYONE of us can use past experience to take intelligent decisions. BUT the key to our being consistently successful will be CONTINUED vigilance to changes that MAY occur and which could have implications for the decisions we take.

Without staying alert to unexpected changes or new developments (some previously unknown to even the most experienced among us) that could occur, we stand little chance of achieving success with any degree of consistency.

And that’s why we cannot afford to turn a blind eye to our environment!

Anybody/anything can help us in this process. The problem with some in-house experts is that they let their egos get in the way – AND block their view.

Whenever this happens, the organisations that depend on them lose out as a result.

Why Do In-House Experts Sometimes Behave This Way?

As I said earlier, the truth is they are only human. We all have our little attacks of insecurity every now and then.

And that makes can make a person inadvertently hold opinions/give recommendations based LESS on objectivity, and more on how s/he "perceives" that an idea/concept/initiative "THREATENS" his/her status as an in-house expert.

A person advocating a new idea/concept or initiative may find it useful to ensure the in-house expert believes s/he can end up looking BETTER by letting the idea reach decision makers, instead of opposing it.

But it may not be easy to do this – especially if one is an outsider, like a consultant or service provider offering his/her services in a unique area e.g. development of a software, website etc.

This is why I suggest that companies develop systems to help in-house experts do what is best for the company at all times.

I offer some ideas for consideration in the second – and concluding part – of this article, which will appear on this blog tomorrow.