week-4

https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415613340

International Journal of Business Communication 2019, Vol. 56(2) 249 –277

© The Author(s) 2015 Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/2329488415613340

journals.sagepub.com/home/job

Article

How Consultants and Their Clients Collaborate in Spite of Massive Communication Barriers

Michäas Sutter1 and Alfred Kieser2

Abstract Managers often collaborate with members of consultancies with the aim of improving the performance of their organizations. It is astonishing that, after the completion of such consulting projects, both parties in most cases express satisfaction with the results. It is astonishing because, as we show in this article, consultants and the managers of client organizations, when engaging in joint projects, have to overcome severe communication barriers. These communication barriers originate from different frames of reference the collaborators refer to, different goals they pursue, and different logics they follow. As we demonstrate on the basis of an empirical analysis, the communication barriers are overcome predominantly through the use of boundary objects and prototyping.

Keywords boundary objects, collaboration between consultants and clients, communication barriers, consulting, prototyping

Introduction

When confronted with the task of finding a solution to a complex problem individuals with different professional specializations often encounter communication problems. They use specific frames of reference, that is, specific ways of formulating and solving problems, of applying specific paradigms and languages (Brown & Duguid, 1998).

1Deloitte Consulting, Munich, Germany 2Zeppelin University, Friedrichshafen, Germany

Corresponding Author: Alfred Kieser, Zeppelin University, D-88045 Friedrichshafen, Germany and Mannheim University, Mannheim, Germany. Email: alfred.kieser@zu.de

613340 JOBXXX10.1177/2329488415613340International Journal of Business CommunicationSutter and Kieser research-article2015

250 International Journal of Business Communication 56(2)

Specialized organizational units that collaborate with one another are often confronted with similar problems: “As these specialized units develop, each generates its own idiosyncratic norms, values, time frame, and coding schemes to permit effective pro- cessing of information” (Tushman, 1977, p. 590). Specialists pursue different logics and therefore live in different “thought worlds” (Dougherty, 1992; Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012).

Whole organizations can also be specialized in a way that impedes collaboration with organizations that are specialized in a different way. By focusing on specific tasks, organizations develop specific frames of reference or specific logics. They base their decisions on specific assumptions that determine how they perceive events in their environment and how they select and interpret information on them (Shrivastava & Mitroff, 1984; Shrivastava & Schneider, 1984). Comparable to the logics of special- ists within an organization, organizational frames of reference or logics are “a source of differences between organizations and consistency within them” (Shrivastava & Schneider, 1984, p. 802).

Paradoxically, communication problems between organizations that follow differ- ent logics are also present in collaborations between consultancies and their clients, regardless of the consultancies’ specialization on solving their clients’ problems. Because of communication problems consultancies not necessarily tackle their clients’ problems in ways that correspond with their clients’ interests. Consequently, the will- ingness to respect “the client’s expertise, knowledge, and skills” and to focus “on the (client) company’s goals, not the consultant’s, were seen as “characteristics of a good consultant” (Wootton, 1995, p. 61). Of course, this willingness implies readiness on the consultant’s as well as on the client’s for intensive mutual communication. A recent article points to the need for consultants and their clients to “[g]et agreement as quickly as possible on what the scope of the communication program should be for each phase and work with your counterpart to clearly identify what the communication deliver- ables for each phase will be” (Hannegan, 2007, p. 15).

In this article, we analyze how consultants and members of their client organiza- tions can efficiently collaborate in spite of severe communication problems.

Conceptualization

Communication Barriers

In a most instructive article, Carlile (2002) points out that departments within an orga- nization pursuing different functions and having to collaborate, for example, in an effort to create a new product, are likely to encounter profound communication barriers:

The characteristics of knowledge that drive innovative problem solving within a function actually hinder problem solving and knowledge creation across functions. It is at these “knowledge boundaries” that we find the deep problems that specialized knowledge poses to organizations. The irony is that these knowledge boundaries are not only a

Sutter and Kieser 251

critical challenge, but also a perpetual necessity because much of what organizations produce has a foundation in the specialization of different kinds of knowledge. (p. 442)

Referring to Dougherty (1992), Carlile (2002) explains that “different thought worlds (what they know and how they know it) make communication difficult because indi- viduals use different meanings in their functional setting” (p. 442). In addition, indi- viduals are reluctant to replace knowledge that they found helpful in solving problems they had been confronted with:

When knowledge proves successful, individuals are inclined to use that knowledge to solve problems in the future. In this way, individuals are less able and willing to change their knowledge to accommodate the knowledge developed by another group that they are dependent on. (p. 442)

Carlile (2004) distinguishes syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic types of barriers that present different kinds of challenges for the organizational units trying to establish common understandings. Syntactic barriers are present when the unit receiving new knowledge needs to extend its lexica of technical expressions in order to be able to communicate properly with the unit that transmits new knowledge. If in attempts of knowledge transfer the meaning of words, measurements, or outcomes are unclear for the receiving side, a semantic barrier is present necessitating the collaborators to initi- ate processes for establishing shared meanings. Pragmatic boundaries emerge when any solution to the problem at hand affects the different interests of actors involved. Overcoming this barrier requires the renegotiation of practices (Brown & Duguid, 2001).

In this vein, Orlikowski (2002) argues that knowledge cannot easily be transferred from one organization to another. Such a transfer necessitates “translating” the knowl- edge to make it understandable in the context of the receiving organization. For exam- ple, when consultants start a project with a client they need to learn about the client organization to be able to make their recommendations understandable to members of the client organization. The consultants interpret contexts of client organizations on the basis of their knowledge and thereby create new knowledge for their consul- tancy—knowledge that relates to different contexts of client organizations (see also Sturdy, Clark, Fincham, & Handley, 2009).

The most radical conceptualization of communication barriers between consultants and their clients has been suggested by Luhmann in his theory of autopoietic systems (Czarniawska & Mazza, 2012; Kieser, 2002; Kieser & Wellstein, 2007; Mohe & Seidl, 2011). A central assumption of this theory is that social relations in systems generally have to be conceptualized as communication processes. Communication in social sys- tems is initiated by individuals but is beyond their control.

People might utter words or make particular gestures but they have no control over the way in which these are understood, i.e. what communication is ultimately realized. . . . Thus, the meaning of a message, i.e. the concrete communication, is not produced by the

252 International Journal of Business Communication 56(2)

speaker but by the listener, or more precisely: by the connecting communications. (Mohe & Seidl, 2011, p. 8)

For example, a presentation by a consultant in an organization may trigger a discus- sion among the managers focusing on opportunities and drawbacks, whether the changes recommended by the consultant would ultimately improve the organization’s position in the market. This discussion will refer to earlier discussions in the respective organization and to earlier decisions and their outcomes. If quotes from the consultant are repeated they are discussed and interpreted with regard to the client’s organiza- tional context. For this organization’s members that is the only way to understand them. Thus,

Each communication within such a system is determined with regard to its meaning through the network of other communications within the same system. Because communications within a particular system only connect to communications belonging to the same system (otherwise this would not constitute a system) the communication process becomes idiosyncratic. The same words have different meanings in different systems. Metaphorically speaking, every system develops its own “logic” of communication according to which communications are made meaningful. (Mohe & Seidl, 2011, p. 8)

In other words, social systems are highly self-referential or autopoietic. They operate on the basis of different frames of reference in isolation from each other (Seidl, 2005a, 2005b; Seidl & Becker, 2005). Communication elements of other systems cannot be directly connected to an importing system’s communication elements. This character- istic is labeled operative closure, meaning that operations from the outside cannot directly interfere with operations within a system. External events can be observed by the system and taken into consideration in its communication as it is operating in a cognitively open style. External events may “trigger” internal processes but they can- not determine them. For example, an organization will react to recommendations of a contracted consultant. However, consultants can never completely model processes or structures of client organizations according to their conception. Client organizations will always understand and implement the consultants’ recommendations in their own ways.

A social system might pick up utterances from outside its boundaries, but the meaning of the utterances, and thus the communication that is ultimately realized, is determined by the logic of that particular system—consequently, it is its own product. (Mohe & Seidl, 2011, p. 10)

The consultants are unable to completely get the communication within the client systems since “[e]ven though consultants stay inside the client firm for a certain time and form teams with members of the client organization they remain part of the cli- ent’s environment” (Kieser & Wellstein, 2008, p. 504). The members of the client organization keep referring to the consultants as “them.” Thus, the consultants can

Sutter and Kieser 253

never be sure having grasped the client’s problems in the same way as the client orga- nization’s managers themselves (see, e.g., Mohe, 2005; Mohe & Seidl, 2011; Willke, 1987). Also, the members of the client organization do not communicate everything that they talk about the consulting project to the consultants in the project team. And even if consultants were capable of defining a solution the members of the client orga- nization could totally approve of they could not communicate the solution “into” the client system in a way that the members of the client system could immediately under- stand. “Any communication coming from ‘outside’ would be reconstructed according to the system-specific logic and thus would become a different communication” (Mohe & Seidl, 2009, p. 57). The members of the client organization would interpret the new solution with their organization’s vocabulary and rhetorically link it with existing routines. In this way, structural communication barriers emerge that are insur- mountable since they are caused by the systems’ self-reference. In consulting projects, these communication barriers are noticeable predominantly as incidents of inadequate connectivity. Communication from one system cannot be connected to the communi- cation of the partner system (Luhmann, 2005; Luhmann & Fuchs, 1989). “The system [the client system] decides itself which events from the environment find entrance into its internal communication network” (Kolbeck, 2001, p. 138). Decisions on how to deal with the consultant’s suggestions are taken by the consulted system on the basis of criteria that are based on its specific frame of reference (Güttel, 2007, p. S287). If the client system does not perceive an obvious advantage in a consultant’s recommen- dation, it tends to ignore this intrusion from the outside (Mohe & Seidl, 2011).

Social systems constantly take efforts to maintain their differences and boundaries:

Structurally, systems are oriented toward their environment and could not exist without their environment. They constitute and preserve themselves through generating and perpetuating a difference with respect to their environment. In this sense boundary maintenance is system maintenance. (Luhmann, 1984, p. 35)

At the same time, “closedness is a precondition for the openness of systems” (Luhmann, 2000, p. 54).

[I]t is the operative closure that enables social systems to be interactively open, i.e., to re-act to the environment. Operative closure in this sense implies that the different systems create their own meaning from external influences and accordingly are able to develop their own reaction to them. If there were not such a clear distinction between the systems and their environments, the operations of the system would be just the continuation of the environment rather than the system’s own operations. (Seidl & Schoeneborn, 2010)

System boundaries thus serve a “double function of separating and connecting a sys- tem and its environment” (Luhmann, 1984, p. 52). For this reason logics and frames of reference cannot be harmonized between organizations since this would resolve the systems’ boundaries that are constitutive for the systems’ existence (Kieser, 2002, p. 216).

254 International Journal of Business Communication 56(2)

We have already mentioned that the operational closure of social systems does not mean that they are ignorant vis-à-vis their environment. They are linked to their envi- ronment through structural coupling.

The concept of structural coupling refers to the case of two systems that have adjusted their respective structures in such a way that systematically allows mutual perturbations. That is, whenever one system produces an event of a particular kind it is very likely that this event will trigger a reaction of a particular kind in the structurally coupled system. (Mohe & Seidl, 2011, p. 12)

Each social system pursues special programs that define the “rules of accepted commu- nication” (Diekmann, 2004, p. 186; all translations from German publications are from the authors) according to the system’s logic or set the frame that determines possible communication contents. For example, consultants should not discuss in the presence of members from the client organization the rhetorical practices they have developed to make their presentations more convincing or to handle critical responses from clients.

“Institutional logics” is a concept which has some similarities with Luhmann’s approach to social systems. Thornton and Ocasio (1999) define it as “the socially con- structed, historical pattern of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules by which individuals produce and reproduce their material subsystems, organize time and space, and provide meaning to their social reality” (p. 804). Institutional logics determine the rules of communication and organizational goals as well as actions and interactions that inform and constrain organizational members in their pursuit of these goals (Friedland & Alford, 1991; Jackall, 1988; Ocasio, 1997; Pache & Santos, 2010; Thornton et al., 2012).

The two systems—consultancy and client organization—need a specific form to handle their collaboration. Essentially, this is accomplished through the temporary proj- ect organization constituted by members of the consultancy and the client organization that operates as a separate system in its own right, as a “contact system” (Luhmann, 2005, p. 360). The consultants and managers from the client system collaborate on a temporary basis. The contact systems’ interventions in the client organization are in need of interpretation for the client system as well as for the consultancy.

The question that follows from such a conceptualization is how consultancies and client organizations can collaborate in spite of the severe communication barriers pointed out above. As we will see, boundary objects and prototyping are useful tech- niques in this context.

Boundary Objects and Prototyping

Boundary Objects and Standardized Packages

Boundary objects are objects which are both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and the constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites. . . . They have different meanings in different social worlds

Sutter and Kieser 255

but their structure is common enough to more than one world to make them recognisable, a means of translation. (Star & Griesemer, 1989, p. 393)

Wenger (1998) defines boundary objects as “artifacts, documents, terms, concepts and other forms of reification around which communities of practice can organize their interconnections” (p. 105). The relevance of boundary objects for collaborations across different communities was first identified by the research of Star and Griesemer (1989) on the foundation of the University of Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology during the years 1907 to 1939. Setting up this museum required coordinated contributions from members of different “thought worlds” pursuing different objec- tives with different methods—among others “amateur naturalists, professional biolo- gists, philanthropists, conservationists, university administrators, preparators and taxidermists” (Star & Griesemer, 1989, p. 396). Parallels between “thought worlds” and Luhmann’s social systems are obvious. An essential finding of Star and Griesemer’s study is that activities of members of different thought worlds can be coordinated without members explicitly synchronizing their work: “Consensus is not necessary for cooperation nor for the successful conduct of work” (Star & Griesemer, 1989, p. 388). The two devices in the museum project that brought coordination about without con- sensus were standardized methods and boundary objects. Standardized methods allowed nonscientific collaborators to provide useful data in a format that scientists could work with: “Collectors do not need to learn theoretical biology in order to con- tribute to the enterprise. . . . The methods thus provided a useful ‘lingua franca’ between amateurs and professionals” (Star & Griesemer, 1989, p. 407).

Star and Griesemer (1989) describe the mode of action of boundary projects in the following way:

In conducting collective work, people coming together from different social worlds frequently have the experience of addressing an object that has a different meaning for each of them. Each social world has particular jurisdiction over the resources represented by that object, and mismatches caused by the overlap become problems for negotiation. . . .

When participants in the intersecting worlds create representations together, their different commitments and perceptions are resolved into representations—in the sense that a fuzzy image is resolved by a microscope. This resolution does not mean consensus. Rather, representations, or inscriptions contain at every stage the traces of multiple viewpoints, translations and incomplete battles. (pp. 412-413)

At least implicitly, Star and Griesemer (1989, p. 393) hold that ambiguous boundary objects can better fulfill their function than boundary objects that convey a clear inten- tion: Barley, Leonardi, and Bailey (2012) argue that ambiguity increases the effective- ness of boundary objects and even assume that Grinnell, the director of Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology strategically engineered them in this way.

At the same time, these authors (Barley et al., 2012, p. 285) point to weaknesses of ambiguous boundary objects: “One problem with strategic ambiguity is that it relin- quishes control of interpretation. In so doing, a strategy of ambiguity can lead a group

256 International Journal of Business Communication 56(2)

to take a path other than the one the strategist intended.” Therefore, they assume that actors can also intentionally engineer unambiguous boundary objects:

To avoid the risks of losing control over meaning, individuals may opt for an approach that aims for clarity, not ambiguity. The goal of clear communication would be to create shared meaning, such that everyone agrees on the implication of the message and its purpose. (Barley et al., 2012, p. 285)

In an ethnographic study they could support this assumption: “[P]otential boundary objects in our study did not enter cross-boundary collaborations as ‘tabulae rasae’; rather, they entered as objects purposefully shaped by their creators to achieve particu- lar goals” (Barley et al., 2012, p. 300). In a careful study, Rogers, Gunesekera, and Yang (2011) analyzed two versions of a philosophy and strategy statement to find out which language a company used to avoid ambivalence after a deep crisis. Kernbach, Eppler, and Bresciani (2015) could recently show in an experimental study that bound- ary objects in form of visualizations of a strategy were significantly better than text in terms of the achieved attention, agreement, and retention. This implies that visual boundary objects whose ambiguity tends to be high may increase the motivation to jointly fathom the meaning of boundary object across organizational units. A study by Lewis (2000) indicates that texts on quality programs increase their persuasive power when representatives from different functional units get a chance to discuss their con- sequence as they perceive them and to implement revisions as a result.

In a seminal study, Carlile (2002) explored how organizational experts in sales, design engineering, manufacturing engineering, and production functions maintained diverging understandings of the final design of a new product. However, after the experts of the four functions had been confronted with artifacts like parts libraries, standardized forms for reporting problem-solving methods, assembly drawings, or Gantt charts they managed to transform their differences in understanding into a com- mon understanding. They could coordinate their work despite their diverging thought worlds (Dougherty, 1992). The artifacts served as boundary objects, providing, as Carlile (2002, p. 452) coined it, “a concrete means for individuals to specify and learn about their differences and dependencies across a given boundary.” Carlile’s (2002) study shows that the adaptability of boundary objects enables people working on inno- vative designs to understand where interpretations differ and help to create the com- mon ground needed to identify solutions to coordination problems that cannot be specified in advance (Okhuysen & Bechky, 2009).

With regard to boundary objects in collaborations between consultants and manag- ers of client organizations one could assume that, at the beginning of a project, consul- tants keep their boundary objects ambiguous in order to maintain a high motivation on the side of the client, for example, by presenting abstract concepts that reiterate man- agement fashions (Kieser, 1997) but, with the passage of time, try to reduce ambiguity.

The concept of boundary objects has furthermore been applied negotiations of proj- ect contracts (Koskinen & Mäkinen, 2009), architectural design (Ewenstein & Whyte,

Sutter and Kieser 257

2007, 2009; Schmidt & Wagner, 2005), computational tools (Carlile, 2004), software engineering (Walenstein, 2003), robotic innovation (Barrett, Oborn, Orlikowski, & Yates, 2012), military systems (Herndl & Wilson, 2007), and engineering design (Subrahmanian et al., 2003). In a recent study, Seidel and O’Mahony (2014) found that complementing boundary objects through other representations of intended solutions such as metaphors, stories, or prototypes can increase the efficiency of coordination attempts across different communities with different expertise, at least for collabora- tion for product innovation.

Prototyping. Prototyping is an iterative trial and error process that helps aligning the components that different specialists are working on (Iansiti, 1997; Pisano, 1996; Thomke, 1998; Wheelwright & Clark, 1992). As a kind of experimentation, prototyp- ing is “trial and error, directed by some amount of insight as to the direction in which a solution might lie” (Thomke, von Hippel, & Franke, 1998, p. 316). A simple form of prototyping is applied when, in early project phases, the consultants or the members of the contact unit present a concept for the redesign of a department or a process to organizational members who are knowledgeable with regard to the respective unit. The presentation can, for example, be based on a drawing or a slide (a boundary object). The members are asked to assess the presented concepts along the objects of the project and general criteria of organizational design. Schmickl and Kieser (2008, p. 482) call this form “mental prototyping.” The organizational members evaluate the adequacy of the presented concept on the basis of thought experiments. They provide feedback on whether they think that the presented concept is sufficiently adjusted to the existing ones that are not under redesign. Eventually they suggest revisions that they deem necessary. The presenters who receive this feedback may modify the design of their units. These processes require very little knowledge transfer.

Prototypes usually exist in written form, for example, as diagrams, flow charts, or computer simulation, and are therefore boundary objects (Bogers & Horst, 2014). The members of the contact system and the organizational members who are asked for feedback can independently discuss the preliminary solutions and check whether they contain ingredients that are relevant for their groups. Of course, in their discussion the two groups may produce partly differing images of the relevant features of the sketched solutions.

With regard to prototyping in the process of product innovation, computer simula- tions and tests of completed components—virtual and real prototyping (Thomke, 1998; Zorriassatine, Wykes, Parkin, & Gindy, 2003)—may be carried out in addition to mental prototyping. Virtual prototyping is based on integrated software systems that “are specifically designed to bridge the divisions and discrepancies created by the increasing functional and epistemological specialization within firms” (D’Adderio, 2004, p. 4). Because of the intensive permeation of organizations with IT, changes of organizational processes can, at least to a certain degree, also be subject to virtual prototyping.

How are consultant’s and client managers’ knowledge integrated into new practices during a consulting project? Usually the consultants come up with proposals

258 International Journal of Business Communication 56(2)

explaining what they would change in order to solve the problems diagnosed. To explicate their ideas consultants create boundary objects in form of texts, PowerPoint presentations, new job descriptions, new operating procedures, new information sys- tems, and so on. These boundary objects may be interpreted differently by the consul- tants and by the members of the client organization. They may also be interpreted differently by the representatives of the consultancy and the client organization in the contact system. Nevertheless, the members of the client organization have to make sense out of boundary objects and the new elements, which the consultants or the con- tact system added to their context. They have to learn new practices or modify existing practices. The way in which they do it can be described in reference to Orlikowski’s (2002) concept of “enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing” (p. 249). The only difference between our problem and Orlikowski’s (2002) concept is that in the latter a collective capability is enacted between members of the same organization though geographically dispersed while in our case consultants are involved in the enacting. In Orlikowski’s (2002) concept, capabilities

emerge from the situated and ongoing interrelationships of context (time and place), activity stream, agency (intentions, actions), and structure (normative, authoritative, and interpretive). Because these capabilities are continually generated in recurrent action, continuity is achieved and preserved as people interpret and experience their doing as “the same” over time and across contexts. (p. 253)

Research Questions and Methodology

Research Questions

This article derives the assumption from system theory that the client as well as the consulting organization are operationally closed, self-referential systems maintaining different frames of reference or different logics causing communication difficulties between the two organizations. Of course, knowledge differences are a precondition for constructive collaboration, since “if two people [one could also write “organiza- tions”] have identical knowledge there is no gain from integration” (Grant, 1996, p. 116). Consulting presupposes knowledge differences between consultants and their clients. A consultant is expected to be able to contribute knowledge to the client’s knowledge pool that will improve performance of the latter. However, a consultant can only live up to this expectation if his or her knowledge can be added in a meaningful way to the client’s, and also contains surprising elements that have not yet been dis- cussed in the client organization.

These considerations lead us to the following questions:

•• Is it possible to find evidence for the existence of communication barriers between consultants and their clients?

•• If so, how can consultants and their clients collaborate in spite of communication barriers between them and feed specific knowledge in a coordinated way into the project if the system boundaries of the parties are simultaneously maintained?

Sutter and Kieser 259

•• Is there evidence that prototyping is suited as a mechanism for knowledge inte- gration in consulting projects?

•• Are boundary objects used in consulting projects? If yes, which functions do they fulfill?

A Qualitative Study

This study is part of a larger research project on the collaboration of specialists with different disciplinary backgrounds (Kieser & Koch, 2008; Grunwald & Kieser, 2007; Schmickl & Kieser, 2008) whose different subprojects apply qualitative studies as the main methodology (Kieser & Koch, 2008; Schmickl & Kieser, 2008). The reason for choosing a qualitative approach is that studying processes and mechanisms that enable specialists from different disciplines to collaborate with each other means investigat- ing cognitive processes that are very difficult to study quantitatively (Miles, 1979). Furthermore, in this study we were not interested in “official” statements from consul- tants or managers regarding the handling of the communication problems between them but in their actual perceptions and experiences. For this purpose a qualitative approach allows greater openness and flexibility for respondents since it is not depen- dent on standardized answer categories. Unexpected answers can be taken into consid- eration using them as triggers for further questions. In addition, this design allows for discussing sensitive topics like micropolitical processes or other highly confidential issues that almost always play an important role in consulting projects but can hardly be covered in a standardized, quantitative approach.

A limitation of qualitative research is that only relatively small sample sizes can be handled what usually leads to a lack of representativeness. However, larger research programs based on a qualitative design are able to compensate for this disadvantage: “Large sample sizes and ‘representative’ selection have to be sacrificed in order to obtain the requisite detailed information. Consequently, it becomes important to cumulate results across a series of smaller studies” (John & Weitz, 1988, p. 351).

Using semistructured questionnaires the first author conducted 30 interviews last- ing 60 minutes on average with 31 interviewees. Between January 2010 and November 2011, 29 consulting projects were reconstructed and analyzed in these interviews. Sixteen interviewees were consultants, and five of these were project leaders of the reconstructed projects. Eleven consultants came from the 25 biggest consultancies in Germany (based on revenues) and four of them from the biggest five. The remaining consultants were from small and medium-sized consultancies. This interviewee selec- tion well represents the German consulting market, which is strongly influenced by small and medium-sized consulting firms. The interviewees came from different hier- archical levels. Fifteen interviewees were managers from client firms that were actively involved in consulting projects. Seven managers were project leaders of the respective project described by them.

With one exception,1 in each interview, a single consulting project was recon- structed in which the interviewee had participated as a project member or project leader (see Table 1). All interviews concerned projects from large companies because

260 International Journal of Business Communication 56(2)

Table 1. Sample of Consulting Projects.

Abbreviation Project Duration

P1/C Reorganization of planning process 6 months P2/C Implementation of reporting system 3 years P3/C (PL)a Process optimization P4/C Reorganization 8 weeks P5/M (PL) Reorganization of business processes in course of a

postmerger integration and standardization of ERP systems 6-9 months

P6/M (PL) Reorganization 6 months P7/M (PL) Reorganization 3 months P8/M Setting up a new press plant 6 months P9/M Project to increase customer satisfaction incl. respective

process optimization 2 years

P10/C Setting up a new business unit 1.5 years P11/M (PL) Reorganization of controlling department 10 months P12/C Reorganization of procurement 4.5 months P13/M Reorganization of budget planning process 4 months P14/M Reorganization of controlling department 3 months P15/C (PL) Reorganization and setting up a new business unit 2 years P16/C Reorganization including IT systems innovation 3 years P17/M Comprehensive discussion — P18/C Restructuring of product planning process 3 years P19/M (PL) Reorganization of production process 3 years P20/M (PL) Establishment of new site in middle east 6 months P21/M Reorganization of whole company 8 months P22/C Reorganization P23/C Reorganization of business processes in course of an IT

transformation 2.5 years

P24/M Extension of product portfolio going along with organizational adjustments

9 months

P25/C Reorganization 10 months P26/C (PL) Reorganization of business unit 12 months P27/C (PL) Reorganization 2 years P28/C Process optimization 8 months P29/C (PL) Restructuring 2 years P30/M (PL) Postmerger integration 4 months

aPx denotes the project number; M stands for manager of the client organization, C for consultant, and PL for project lead.

it was assumed that more consulting projects and projects of higher complexity are pursued in organizations of this kind.

To ensure comparability between cases the projects had to fulfill three criteria: (1) The projects were targeted at reorganizations. The reasons for this criterion are two- fold: First, it is the most typical project category in Germany generating 43% of the

Sutter and Kieser 261

annual consulting revenues (Unternehmensberater, 2010). Apart from that, projects dealing with organizational questions are complex, involving several functional departments and different specialists, thus allowing an analysis of their collaboration processes (Carlile & Rebentisch, 2003). (2) Consultants as well as client project mem- bers had to work in mixed teams with substantial knowledge input from both parties. (3) The projects had to be completed at least to a large extent so that they could be reconstructed in the interviews.

All interviews were recorded and transcribed. The analysis followed the typical steps of qualitative research with semistructured interviews. At first two question- naires were developed, one for the interviews with consultants and one for the inter- views with managers. The “startlist of codes” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 58) resulted from the findings of previous research and theoretical preliminary consider- ations. This list, however, was modified during the study in response to interviewees’ answers, that is, codes were added and codes that proved less important were elimi- nated. The codes were used to mark relevant text passages to reduce the amount of overall data. The codes allowed displaying relevant passages referring to a research question in a compact way, comparing passages, identifying patterns, and drawing conclusions from these comparisons. As a software tool we used Atlas.ti.

Findings

Consultants and Their Clients Follow Different Logics

The empirical identification of communication barriers between consultants and their clients is a difficult task. Our interviewees tended to attribute perceived communica- tion difficulties to conflicts or animosity between the representatives of the consul- tancy and the client organization. However, this article’s focus is on structural communication barriers that are caused through diverging, system-specific, self-refer- ential frames of reference and therefore principally cannot be resolved through inter- ventions on the basis of personnel policy (e.g., through exchanges of personnel) since such interventions would tend to make the systems identical. We assume that approaches exist that provide structural solutions. For the identification of these struc- tural solutions for overcoming communication barriers we developed the following approach: We tried to find evidence for the existence of different logics and frames of reference for a consultant system and the corresponding client system by recording different conclusions that were drawn in the two systems in response to the same situ- ation whereby each system tried to hide its conclusions from the respective other sys- tem. The pursuit of different goals by the consultant and the client system within a consulting project can be taken as a strong indication for the existence of different frames of reference that are likely to cause communication barriers. Therefore, we tried to find out whether, in particular in the consultancy system, goals are pursued that deviate from the “official” project goals. If this is the case, one can conclude that the reference frames of the consultant and the client are different and are likely to cause the emergence of structural communication barriers. In the majority of interviews with

262 International Journal of Business Communication 56(2)

consultants we could identify goals on the side of consultants that had nothing to do with official project tasks. Some example quotes:

P4/C: This was a big, important client, what always makes a project important. In addition, it was one of the first projects in the respective subject area. Therefore—since we are always interested in establishing long-term rela- tionships—it somehow was an important fundament. For us, success in such a project is likely to establish an enduring relationship.

P25/C: An absolute prestige project, merely with respect to its size, because it is an absolute key client for us with a long standing relationship. It, there- fore, was a project with high priority for us, of high priority.

P28/C: It was a new client. For this client we did not carry out such a project before and not a project of this volume. There also was the probability that we would do other themes and projects in other countries for this cli- ent. Therefore it was a highly important project.

It is evident that the reasons why projects are important for the consultant differ from the reasons that make projects important for the client. Ultimately, consultants and clients pursue basically different, system-specific goals with one and the same proj- ect,2 which is likely to result in communication barriers. Actions of the consultant are difficult to interpret by members of the client organization if they do not take the con- sultant’s real motives into consideration.

Mechanisms for Generating Connectivity

Different self-referential frames of reference are linked to different relevance criteria that determine whether certain communications find access to the operationally closed communication network of a communication system or are considered irrelevant or are not noticed all. This is exactly the problem consultants are confronted with. They have to make sure that their communication is connectable to the communication within the client system whose self-referential relevance criteria they do not know. Our study indicates that prototyping and boundary objects are important mechanisms in this effort.

Prototyping. Prototyping describes a problem-solving process in which participants, in a trial-and-error process with feedback loops that enables corrections, gradually approach a solution. This mechanism cannot bridge different logics of different systems but it facili- tates the handling of communication barriers insofar as it does not require the develop- ment of a perfectly fitting one-shot solution by simultaneously considering all relevant aspects in one trial (Schmickl & Kieser, 2008). In particular, consultants and members of the client organization experiment with different elements of a solution for the different subsystems until a proposal is envisaged that proves acceptable for both sides.

Goal Definitions. In order to increase the likelihood for achieving connectivity in the communication between consultants and members of the client organization it is

Sutter and Kieser 263

essential to begin the prototyping process as early as possible or, more accurately, to make project goals objects of the prototyping process—of a prototyping process that expands over the whole project. In this process consultants and members of the client organization discuss and negotiate which goals are supposed to be realized through which interventions. The two sides articulate their demands. Demands are discussed whenever necessary and modified. Approaches for realizing demands are discussed and, if necessary, modified. In this way solutions for problems identified are conceptu- ally constructed and reconstructed until both sides are satisfied with the overall con- cept. The following quotes illustrate how consultants and members of the client organization construct agreement about common goals and make goals themselves objects of the prototyping process.

Interviewer: Was there, at the beginning of the project, a common understanding of problems that had to be tackled?

P23/C: Essentially yes. The understanding was present on both sides. The notions of what was feasible, however, at this point of time, deviated a lot. Many trade-offs are necessary on both sides in this process.

I: Can you describe how this coordination proceeds? P23/C: That’s a kind of horse-trading. The client says: “I want the follow-

ing” and then you have to say: “Yes, you get that” or “You can’t get that.” And, eventually, one has to find a common denominator. In most cases it works quite well.

The initial definition of goals is often subjected to modifications although, in most cases, not radical, rather incremental ones, to integrate new demands, new context conditions, new knowledge into consideration in the course of the project and thus provide connectivity.

P26/C: Obviously, there is always some dynamic in such a project. Priorities and emphases change weekly.

I: Have goals changed during the course of the project, at least in details? P24/M: Yes, over the whole project time. The more knowledge has been accu-

mulated together with the consultancy, the more new insights emerged that suggested new directions.

P25/C: The project’s goals permanently changed in their details. Finally, the top- level goals were 90 percent identical with the goals at the beginning. The details changed constantly until the project was finished.

Solution Development. Prototyping also comes into play in processes of solution devel- opment. The consultants and the project members of the client organization use this device to integrate their respective knowledge into emerging problem solutions. How- ever, prototyping is essential for creating connectivity by modifying prospective solu- tions as often as seen necessary until they seem acceptable for the relevant parties involved. As soon as potential solutions are accepted they are likely to find access to the communications within the respective organizations for further processing.

264 International Journal of Business Communication 56(2)

Solution proposals were developed in two different ways. Either a member of the project team autonomously came up with an idea that he or she immediately con- fronted with the other specialists’ expertise by asking them for feedback which he or she then integrated in his or her concept. Or ideas were generated and coordinated in joint discussions.

P3/C: One just looks at the process and also pictures it, one visualizes the whole thing and then asks colleagues who daily work with it: “What does something like that look like in the ideal case?” And where exactly does it get stuck? Why isn’t it possible to reach the set goals with the process as it is? Basically, it is a pretty dynamic process. At some point a dynamic exchange gains momentum. One person says something, another one takes it up; they document it on the pin board and comment: “If we do it that way, it supports us in this way.” Then the next person asks: “Why do you do it as you do it?” in this way a new understanding and new knowledge emerges.

As soon as rough concepts for the solution of a problem are generated these are imme- diately confronted with the knowledge of the respective specialized departments and the knowledge of the consultancy’s specialists. These specialists evaluate the concepts on the basis of their knowledge in form of thought experiments and, if necessary, modify them. This is how these specialists feed their knowledge into emerging solu- tions. Evaluations frequently take place in form of review processes. On the basis of the reviews, concepts for solutions are, in iterative loops, gradually improved and finalized.

I: How were the results, the concepts, evaluated with regard to their quality? P16/C: On the basis of a review process. Eventually concepts have to be approved

by the different units that are affected. This approach ensures an appropri- ate quality for concepts which provides a basis for the overall solution.

I: What did the development of a concept [for the redesign of a business process] look like?

P23/C: Our task was to formulate the process documents on the basis of which the organizational changes could be implemented. We delivered the ini- tial drafts for the processes and, together with client, managed the more or less iterative review rounds.

The central advantage of prototyping in consulting projects is that this instrument not only allows integrating specific new knowledge into the overall solution but also the integration of different perspectives. The following quote demonstrates that often there is no fit between the perspectives of the consultant and that of the client, which leads to differing evaluations of alternative solutions. The project team members’ capacities—the consultancy’s and the client organization’s—are not only restricted with regard to the knowledge they are capable of absorbing but also with regard to the different perspectives they can take (Grunwald & Kieser, 2007; Kieser & Koch, 2008).

Sutter and Kieser 265

P14/M: Sure, there were proposals from the consultancy that we discussed and in which we made minor adjustments. In the end, it fitted. On the other hand there were proposals to which we remarked that they simply did not fit into our organization. We did not pursue them or completely reformulated them.

Therefore, it is essential for consultants to integrate the client’s perspectives into their proposals for securing connectivity. The consultants interpret the capability of inte- grating the clients’ different perspectives and interests into their concepts as highly important for the success of the project. The integration of knowledge and perspec- tives through prototyping in consulting projects goes hand in hand and can only be separated analytically. However, if one of these “components” is neglected in the con- sulting process it is difficult to get a solution accepted by the client organization. In the following quotes consultants point out that the integration of clients’ perspectives and interests is as important as the integration of knowledge. They also describe how alter- native solutions are confronted with clients’ perspectives and how these are gradually integrated into the solution through prototyping. An integration of conflicting perspec- tives in many cases requires compromises (see also Schmickl & Kieser, 2008).

P28/C: If a board member says: “I don’t like the idea,” then one may once again argue against it by pleading: “We did think about that and found . . .” But if you can’t convince then it gets difficult. That’s quite clear in big com- panies hierarchies exist and even if one has the feeling that one possesses wisdom in its completeness that does not help. It has to be implemented and implementation is only possible with support from the very top.

P10/C: These decision processes always consisted of one step forward and another one back. Because the project was incredibly complex, many dif- fering interests were present and these had to be slowly integrated, and this was a process in which it was crucial not only to find the appropriate solutions but also to produce consensus.

I: Was it necessary to agree to some compromises that did not make sense thematically?

P10/C: Yes, this always is somewhat difficult to keep apart. If it is not acceptable politically then, in most cases, it also does not make sense thematically. Because it has to be realized by the people [of the client organization]. Even if it looks very simple in theory, if it is not accepted in practice then it is not a good solution.

P2/C: The optimal way is that one puts a solution on the table and discusses it with the specialists. However, in most cases, the person who is responsi- ble for the area already has some kind of vision. And this one should know in advance. That means, I used to do it in that way that I, because usually my ties with the client’s project leader are quite good, I approach him and ask: “What do you think? How does it look like from your per- spective, tell me.” And then the information provided is absorbed and the context is discussed.

266 International Journal of Business Communication 56(2)

As already mentioned by Grunwald & Kieser (2007), the integration of perspectives through prototyping is limited. If it is not possible to agree on compromises between consultants and the client’s managers, the hierarchy will make the final decision. The decisions of managers in higher positions are then binding for managers and consul- tants with differing perspectives so that connectivity is secured in the client organiza- tion (Luhmann, 2000).

Boundary Objects. Boundary objects are another device for facilitating collaboration between consultants and clients and for securing connectivity between these actors’ communication. Consultants and clients establish boundary objects as external refer- ence points that are of importance for both parties. Boundary objects increase the con- nectivity of the communication within both actor groups because of the relevance that both parties assign to them as reference bases. Boundary objects are devices that increase the parties’ resonance for each other. Thereby they facilitate coordination without transferring meaning from one system to the other one. “They [boundary objects] enable coordination, but they do so without actually creating a bridge between the perspectives and the meanings of various constituencies” (Wenger, 1998, p. 107). They fulfill a double function: “[Boundary objects] both connect and disconnect” (Wenger, 1998, p. 107). Thus, boundary objects can function as coupling mechanisms (Lorentzen & Nickles, 2002) that facilitate the systems to adjust their structures for each other and to be reactive to each other (Seidl & van Aacken, 2007). The coupling function is performed by the two parties by explaining how their respective goal con- ceptions are linked to the common boundary object (Star, 1993) and explicitly not by trying to convince the respective other system that it should take over the other sys- tem’s goal conception. This means that for the understanding and cooperation between the actor groups common goals and congruent frames of reference are not necessary and therefore do not have to be brought in accordance (Star, 1993). “For boundary objects to be able to fulfill a coupling function they need to have one characteristic: they have to be weakly structured in common use, and become strongly structured in individual use” (Star, 1993, p. 103). In other words, a boundary object to which differ- ent systems refer has to have highly specific relevance for each of them. Boundary objects can only fulfill their coordinative function if they can be differently interpreted from the perspective of different systems.

In our study, we could identify five kinds of boundary objects that consultants and their clients establish between themselves: (1) jointly developed artifacts; (2) jointly agreed upon, detailed, and binding documents; (3) jointly agreed upon indicators; (4) methods and frameworks; and (5) externally binding demands.

Jointly developed artifacts. As already mentioned in some interviewees’ quotes con- cerning prototyping, in prototyping processes artifacts, mostly documents like pre- sentations, concepts, reports, and the like are often used by project members to record results. These artifacts are, as already described, often modified and developed during the prototyping process. The importance of artifacts is immense because of the imma- teriality of organizational changes. There are no physical objects that can serve as an integration medium. Artifacts serve as substitutes for prototypes.

Sutter and Kieser 267

The project members integrate their specific knowledge and in particular their per- spectives, demands, and relevance criteria with regard to a potential solution directly into the artifact. As explained above, documents are often exchanged through reviews and are then supplemented with comments and corrections by project members. In a certain way, artifacts thus “learn” until a result is achieved that all members find satis- factory and that proves connectable.

P30/M: The slides were generated by [consultancy name] and then I added a slide or more. But before they were forwarded to the Steering Committee I as the person responsible for this module checked everything, made necessary changes and gave my OK.

Thus artifacts serve as boundary objects that project members establish among them- selves and that enable cooperation at a simultaneous maintenance of system boundar- ies. “They are, in this sense, empty vessels . . .” (Sapsed & Salter, 2004, p. 1519). “ . . . that allow diverse groups to fill in content and interpretations . . .” (Yakura, 2002, p. 968). In our study, it became obvious that documents produced with MS Office and in particular PowerPoint slides are used as boundary objects, which is a reflection of the fact that they are easy to change. “Individuals must be able to draw on, alter, or manipu- late the content of a boundary object to apply what they know and transform the current knowledge used at the boundary” (Carlile, 2002, p. 452). The following quote supports this statement.

P5/M: Usually it is PowerPoint [ . . . ] because it is easy to edit and easy to understand for everybody. There are tools with which one can share PowerPoints and jointly discuss them. Also reciprocally and simultaneously work on them.

Jointly agreed upon, detailed, and binding documents. In particular, before the start of a project the client organization and the consultancy agree upon a coordinated approach through which they determine which goals should be reached in which ways and in which time. These agreements are mostly in written form and highly detailed. They serve as commonly negotiated and coordinated binding text between the parties which they can refer to in cases of doubt. The following quotes are examples for coordinated concepts with relevance for both parties. The interviewees stress that these coordi- nated texts are very important because they are binding for both sides which becomes most significant in cases of conflict.

P19 M: Yes, the [concept for the redesign of the production] is, in a certain way, the basis for the whole project. That’s why it is so extremely important that it is correct. Everything that is listed in it should be implemented. If something is forgotten, I can say: “Take care, here it is written. Please do that now. That is a specification and I do not want to hear that something is getting more expensive.” In this case the project team has done the right job. On the other hand: If I remember later that “Oh, there is something I also wanted” then I am the stupid one and have to bring in a request, a change request. P2/C: And then the client sees that [an early version of the new reporting system] and thinks by himself: “Yes, hm, that is maybe not exactly what we had in mind.” And then it

268 International Journal of Business Communication 56(2)

is of course important to prove that this is what had been requested. Therefore one needs the written agreement. As detailed as possible in form of design drafts or in the way in which it was laid down in the original concept.

Jointly agreed upon indicators. As already pointed out, it is a most important char- acteristic of boundary objects that they are highly relevant for the parties involved but can be interpreted differently by them in ways that have to do with their specific system logics. Indicators are especially suited for such a use. Therefore, whenever possible, consultants and clients try to establish a binding indicator as a reference point between them. Numbers are perceived as something very concrete, as some- thing not needing discussion to produce common understanding. It is assumed that indicators are defined in a nonambiguous way. In addition, they convey a perception of control in relation to the fulfillment of project goals. It seems possible to measure after the completion of the project to what extent set goals have been fulfilled. In spite of their appearance as nonambiguous characteristics, indicators can nevertheless be differently interpreted by the consultants and their clients. For example, the achieve- ment of a benchmark can mean for the consultants that a follow-up project is getting very likely, whereas for the managers of the client organization it means, for example, the transition to a profit zone. It is therefore not at all astonishing that in consulting projects as many goals as possible get quantified—regardless of the appropriateness of such a formulation (Armbrüster, 2000). How the agreed upon numbers are gener- ated and whether they are unambiguously measurable is of minor importance. In the following quote, with regard to communication barriers, a consultant describes the advantages of fixing a project goal as a number.

I: Were there any communication difficulties between the consultants and the client?

P3/C: No, not in this project. The reason was that they preferred speaking about numbers. This implies that there are few possibilities for interpretation. This facilitates things. If you have softer themes, then you encounter more communication difficulties, less on our side. In this case you can discuss with the client: Actually, the number looks like this: Error quote, process- ing time, whatever you prefer. And then everybody has his understanding of this number. And if you have the industry average in addition, then you know whether you are good or bad.

P27/C: Well, at the end of the day it is a project team with partial tasks and the total team is evaluated at the basis of the set project goals. And that is rela- tively unambiguous. For example, the question is how much cost reduc- tion has been achieved?

In the next quote, a project team member from the client organization points out how a number is downright looked for to use it as a common reference.

I: Is there something concrete to express the goal definition?

Sutter and Kieser 269

P9/M: Yes, two times a year customer satisfaction surveys were supposed to be run. This was already agreed at the project start. Then one saw that surveys of that kind are costly and so one took another approach: the Net Promoter Score,3 NPS, because one had seen that the survey was almost too exten- sive and therefore one desperately looked for a KPI [key performance indicator] that one could interpret and communicate and work with.

A: Was this the reference that finally was decisive? P9/M: Yes, at the end of the day, it boiled down to this Net Promoter Score.

Methods and frameworks. In consulting projects, methods and frameworks serve as boundary objects that are supposed to foster connectivity of communication. Agree- ment on a specific approach specifies the frame in which discussions about appropri- ate solutions should be embedded and thus facilitates discussions on particular topics. Through agreement on a specific approach a frame is provided that facilitates dis- cussion by excluding possibilities that are incompatible with this frame. The frame increases the likelihood that contributions can be connected with each other. Our results coincide with or complement those of Spee and Jarzabkowski (2009) on the use of strategy tools in organizations. These authors maintain that strategy tools are often not used for identifying the appropriate strategies but rather serve to facilitate communication about strategies. “This boundary object interpretation of strategy tools extends our understanding about their possible rent-earning potential and elaborates the finding that strategy tools are not always used instrumentally to attain an analytic output” (Spee & Jarzabkowski, 2009, p. 228). In contrast, boundary objects “enable social interaction about strategy” (Spee & Jarzabkowski, 2009, p. 228), that is, “[s]trat- egy tools serve conversational rather than analytical purposes” (Spee & Jarzabkowski, 2009, p. 224). Consultants are aware of the boundary-object functions of methods and frameworks and describe this function in detail with great accuracy:

I: What are the functions methods and frameworks fulfill? P17/M: From my perspective, their main function is that they provide support for

communication, i.e., a support for defining a problem more efficiently. They [the methods and frameworks] do not directly lead to a solution, they do not replace creativity, but they enable an understanding between internal and external actors who come from very different backgrounds, and also between different internal coalitions. They make it possible that a common language can be established. For example, issues pop up in the following way: “About this question that proposes itself we should now discuss. And to discuss it, three sub-questions have to be addressed.” Somehow a frame is established within which solutions can be worked on and the methods also help to make the solution plausible. Thus, they speed up the problem solution process.

P15/C: This [the framework of a consulting company] is a thought model—is a platform of the consultancy to which the client organization can connect. It makes it easier to find a common communication basis. It would have

270 International Journal of Business Communication 56(2)

been possible to work with another thought model. The chosen one is not necessarily the absolutely right one.

I: For example, a Portfolio-Matrix, what kind of function does it serve? P18/C: Yes, in our case it fulfills three things. On the one hand, we used it for our

own purposes: for understanding, for structuring and for penetrating—to get to the heart of things. Which dimensions are the relevant ones, along which ones can we evaluate? That’s one thing. The second thing is for communication, visualizing, also for convincing, i.e., as a communication tool. And in individual cases, really in exceptional cases, we count on the client to use it in a dynamic fashion.

Externally binding demands. A further possibility to make communication efficient is to refer to a generally binding external condition, for example, a law. As soon as demands are externally given, the possibilities for interpreting of a goal are reduced. In addition, since the requirements are valid for many organizations, standards can be identified with regard to how a solution should look to do justice to external require- ments.

The following quote illustrates the limited—limited because largely standard- ized—possibilities for the restructuring of a finance area after the acquisition of a company.

P30/C: This module was a bit simpler. Such an accounting system follows more or less the same structure; this is due to external conditions. The auditors have to give their blessing. A monthly statement is due, also quarterly reports. These are due at specific dates.

Discussion and Conclusion

This article is the first one to present an empirical study of communication barriers between consultants and their clients as conceptualized by system theory. Thus, it provides an answer to a question Mohe and Seidl (2011, p. 16) raised in their article on the subject of communication barriers consultants and their clients are confronted with: “[H]ow exactly and through what mechanism [ . . . ] it is possible for one system to have an effect on another.”

The danger of a system not being able to find a connection to the communication of another system because of different logics and different reference systems constitutes a basic problem in the communication between consultants and their clients. Therefore, the ability to constructively deal with this barrier is a necessary precondition for mak- ing consulting projects a worthwhile endeavor for both sides. In this article, we could identify prototyping and boundary objects as mechanisms for establishing connectiv- ity in the communication between consultants and their clients.

Prototyping describes a mechanism that allows developing a problem solution itera- tively and through feedback loops—a proceeding that offers the possibility of constantly inserting corrections. Through such a process of proceeding in small steps project mem- bers can coordinate their results by mutually interpreting their requirements for a problem

Sutter and Kieser 271

solution and by continuously implementing necessary changes. This principle supports the cooperation between consultants and their clients by ensuring mutual communica- tive connectedness in spite of severe communication barriers. Results achieved are dis- cussed, corrected, and changed again and again so that they at least partially correspond to expectations and thus enable resonance in the client system that corresponds to the consultant’s input.

This process already starts with the discussion of goals when goals become objects of a prototyping process. If necessary, prototyping of goal definition is resumed repeat- edly during the project leading to goal modifications and revisions of foci.

It is essential that the likelihood of establishing successful communication episodes is also increased by integrating perspectives into the project results. Diverging assump- tions can be discussed and integrated in a coordinated fashion that the participants find appropriate.

Boundary objects are the second basic mechanism for securing communication connectivity. They take the form of common, coordinated reference bases that consul- tants and clients establish among themselves to handle problems that result from dif- ferent logics and enable a common processing.

The different kinds of boundary objects that we have identified in our study do not represent a complete list but mark a beginning of the use of this concept in consulting projects. As long as boundary objects are of relevance for both parties they unfold a positive effect through enabling connectivity of communication between the two par- ties. Boundary projects provide a reference basis for both parties and are therefore able to couple the two systems to each other. The important point is that a boundary object has relevance for both parties but is differently interpreted by them. Therefore, bound- ary objects simultaneously separate and unite the two systems. Through the concepts of boundary objects we can explain how actors are able to define common goals and reach them without requiring a common reference basis, a common logic or a goal consensus (Strübing, 1997).

Boundary objects “provide a locus for communication, conflict, and coordination” (Yakura, 2002, p. 968). In this fashion, consultants and their clients can collaborate over a certain period of time with respect to a coordinated goal even though this goal can assume different meanings for both parties. In this way cooperation is possible without requiring a common frame of reference and without following homogeneous or identical goals.

This article’s results show that overcoming system boundaries or, to coin it differ- ently, establishing congruent reference frames of consultants and their clients are simply not necessary for a goal oriented and coordinated collaboration in consulting projects and for the integration of knowledge from both sides. Prototyping and establishing boundary objects between consultants and their clients are, as we demonstrated in this article, mechanisms that enable collaboration in spite of different frames of reference.

Limitation and Future Research Directions

As with all research, this study has its limitations. One group of limitations is due to the recording of data, another one to the qualitative approach. Qualitative interviews are generally vulnerable to biases, perhaps even to intentional ones. Even though the

272 International Journal of Business Communication 56(2)

interviewer had the impression that the interviewees answered openly, this danger can never be ruled out completely, especially in interviews concerning consulting projects.

The immense efforts that qualitative approaches require reduces the number of cases that can included in samples of this sort so that, in most cases, representativeness cannot be reached. This limitation also applies to our study. This limitation prompts further research questions and, eventually, new research approaches.

Interviews with consultants and clients who collaborated in the same projects would be of special importance because they could provide information with even higher precision on how communication barriers affect collaborations and how these are handled. Interviews in the different phases of a consulting project could reveal how communication barriers and their handling by the collaborators change during a proj- ect’s lifetime. It also appears promising to try to identify mechanisms for the provision of connectivity in addition to prototyping and boundary objects. It can be assumed that participatory observations in consulting projects could lead to the identification of additional boundary objects as they are used by the collaborators but they are not aware of them.

Implications for Practice

In principle, it is useful for consultants as well as for clients to know that communica- tion barriers exist between them. It is also useful for them to realize that more trust, more communication, and more exchange cannot change that (Nicolai, 2000). Communication barriers between different social systems are, in principle, insur- mountable. However, that does not mean that goal-directed consulting is impossible. In this article, we could show that with prototyping and boundary objects mechanisms are available that enable the constitution of a workable connectivity. Consultants are able to productively perturb their clients so that they, together with the consultants, experiment with solutions for problems they have identified. The perturbations initi- ated by the consultants help managers of the client company set in motion a directed trial-and-error process.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research on which this article is based was supported by a grant from the German Research Foundation.

Notes

1. With one manager we did not reconstruct a specific project because he had not participated in a consulting project operatively for a while. Instead, we discussed more comprehensive topics because he is very experienced with consulting projects since as a board member of

Sutter and Kieser 273

an international company he frequently oversees consulting projects in steering commit- tees. Furthermore, he used to be a partner of one of the world’s leading consultancies.

2. This is conclusive insofar as social systems are primarily interested in securing their own survival (see, e.g., Luhmann, 2004).

3. This score was developed by Bain & Company. To assess client satisfaction for a specific service, clients are called and asked whether they would recommend this service to friends, colleagues, or family members. An index is calculated on the basis of the answers.

References

Armbrüster, T. (2000). Knowledge management in Germany and Austria. In M. Kipping & T. Armbrüster (Eds.), The content of consultancy work: Knowledge generation, codification and dissemination (CEMP Report 13; pp. 57-99). Retrieved from http://www.fek.uu.se/ cemp/pdf-files/CEMPReport13.pdf

Barley, W. C., Leonardi, P. M., & Bailey, D. E. (2012). Engineering objects for collabora- tion: Strategies of ambiguity and clarity at knowledge boundaries. Human Communication Research, 38, 280-308.

Barrett, M., Oborn, E., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2012). Reconfiguring boundary relations: Robotic innovations in pharmacy work. Organization Science, 23, 1448-1466. doi:10.1287/ orsc.1100.0639

Bogers, M., & Horst, W. (2014). Collaborative prototyping: Cross-fertilization of knowledge in prototype-driven problem solving. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31, 744-764. doi:10.1111/jpim.12121

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1998). Organizing knowledge. California Management Review, 40, 90-111.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Structure and spontaneity: Knowledge and organization. In I. Nonaka & D. J. Teece (Eds.), Managing industrial knowledge: Creation, transfer and utilization (pp. 44-67). London, England: Sage.

Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13, 442-453.

Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15, 555-568.

Carlile, P. R., & Rebentisch, E. S. (2003). Into the black box: The knowledge transformation cycle. Management Science, 49, 1180-1195.

Czarniawska, B., & Mazza, C. (2012). Consultants and clients from constructivist perspectives. In M. Kipping & T. Clark (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of management consulting (pp. 427-446). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

D’Adderio, L. (2004). Inside the virtual product: How organisations create knowledge through software. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.

Diekmann, J. (2004). Luhmann-Lehrbuch [Luhmann-Textbook]. Paderborn, Germany: Fink. Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms.

Organization Science, 3, 179-202. Ewenstein, B., & Whyte, J. K. (2007). Visual representations as “artefacts of knowing.” Building

Research & Information, 35(1), 81-89. doi:10.1080/09613210600950377 Ewenstein, B., & Whyte, J. K. (2009). Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual repre-

sentations as “epistemic objects.” Organization Studies, 30, 7-30. Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institu-

tional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232-263). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

274 International Journal of Business Communication 56(2)

Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109-122.

Grunwald, R., & Kieser, A. (2007). Learning to reduce inter-organizational learning: An analy- sis of architectural product innovation in strategic alliances. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24, 369-391.

Güttel, W. H. (2007). Anschlussfähigkeit, Akzeptanz oder Ablehnung von Interventionen in Beratungsprozessen [Connectivity, acceptance, or rejection of interventions in consult- ing processes]. In V. Nissen (Ed.), Consulting research. Unternehmensberatung aus wis- senschaftlicher Perspektive [Management consulting from a scientific perspective] (pp. S281-S294). Wiesbaden, Germany: DUV.

Hannegan, C. (2007). Getting the most from consultants. Communication Management, 11(5), 15. Herndl, C. G., & Wilson, G. (2007). Reflections on field research and professional practice. Journal

of Business & Technical Communication, 21, 216-226. doi:10.1177/1050651906297171 Iansiti, M. (1997). From technological potential to product performance: An empirical analysis.

Research Policy, 26, 345-366. Jackall, R. (1988). Moral mazes: The world of corporate managers. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press. John, G., & Weitz, B. A. (1988). Forward integration into distribution: An empirical test of

transaction cost analysis. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization, 4, 337-355. Kernbach, S., Eppler, M. J., & Bresciani, S. (2015). The use of visualization in the communica-

tion of business strategies: An experimental evaluation. Journal of Business Communication, 52, 164-187. doi:10.1177/2329488414525444

Kieser, A. (1997). Myth and rhetoric in management fashion. Organization, 4, 49-74. Kieser, A. (2002). On communication barriers between management science, consultancies and

business companies. In T. Clark & R. Fincham (Eds.), Critical consulting (pp. 206-227). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Kieser, A., & Koch, U. (2008). Bounded rationality and organizational learning based on rule changes. Management Learning, 39, 329-347.

Kieser, A., & Wellstein, B. (2008). Do activities of consultants and management scientists affect decision making by managers? In W. H. Starbuck & G. P. Hodgkinson (Eds.), Oxford handbook of organizational decision making (pp. 495-516). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Kolbeck, C. (2001). Zukunftsperspektiven des Beratungsmarktes. Eine Studie zur klassischen und systemischen Beratungsphilosophie [Future perspectives of the consulting market: A study of the classical and systemic consulting philosophy]. Wiesbaden, Germany: DUV.

Koskinen, K. U., & Mäkinen, S. (2009). Role of boundary objects in negotiations of project contracts. International Journal of Project Management, 27(1), 31-38. doi:10.1016/j.ijpro- man.2007.10.006

Lewis, L. K. (2000). Communicating change: Four cases of quality programs. Journal of Business Communication, 37, 128-155.

Lorentzen, K., & Nickles, M. (2002). Ordnung aus Chaos: Prolegomena zu einer Luhmann’schen Modellierung deentropisierender Strukturbildung in Multiagentensystemen [Order out of chaos: Prologemena of a Luhmannian modelling of a non-entropy structuration in multi- agent systems]. In T. Kron (Ed.), Luhmann modelliert. Sozionische Ansätze zur Simulation von Kommunikationssystemen [Modelling Luhmann. Socionic approaches for simulating communication systems] (pp. 55-114). Opladen, Germany: Leske & Budrich.

Luhmann, N. (1984). Soziale Systeme. Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie [Outline of a gen- eral theory]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.

Luhmann, N. (2000). Organisation und Entscheidung [Organization and decision]. Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.

Sutter and Kieser 275

Luhmann, N. (2004). Ökologische Kommunikation: Kann die moderne Gesellschaft sich auf ökologische Gefährdungen einstellen? [Ecological communication: Can society adjust itself to ecological dangers] (4th ed.). Weisbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Luhmann, N. (2005). Communication barriers in management consulting. In D. Seidl & K. H. Becker (Eds.), Niklas Luhmann and organization studies (pp. 215-247). Malmö, Sweden: Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press.

Luhmann, N., & Fuchs, P. (1989). Reden und Schweigen [Talking and keeping silent]. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.

Miles, M. B. (1979). Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance: The problem of analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 590-601.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An extended sourcebook of new methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mohe, M. (2005). Generic strategies for managing consultants: Insights from clients’ companies in Germany. Journal of Change Management, 5, 357-365.

Mohe, M., & Seidl, D. (2009). Systemic concepts of intervention. In A. F. Buono & F. Poulfelt (Eds.), Client-consultant collaboration. Coping with complexity and change (pp. 47-66). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.

Mohe, M., & Seidl, D. (2011). Theorizing the client-consultant relationship from the perspec- tive of social-systems theory. Organization, 18, 3-22.

Nicolai, A. (2000). Die Strategie-Industrie. Systemtheoretische Analyse des Zusammenspiels von Wissenschaft, Praxis und Unternehmensberatung [The strategy-industry: A aystem- theoretical analysis of the interplay between science, practice, and management consult- ing]. Wiesbaden, Germany: DUV.

Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 187-206.

Okhuysen, G. A., & Bechky, B. A. (2009). 10 coordination in organizations: An integrative per- spective. Academy of Management Annals, 3, 463-502. doi:10.1080/19416520903047533

Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13, 249-273.

Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organiza- tional responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35, 455-476. doi:10.5465/AMR.2010.51142368

Pisano, G. P. (1996). The development factory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Rogers, P. S., Gunesekera, M., & Yang, M. L. (2011). Language options for managing:

Dana Corporation’s philosophy and policy document. International Journal of Business Communication, 48, 256-299.

Sapsed, J., & Salter, A. (2004). Postcards from the edge: Local communities, global programs and boundary objects. Organization Studies, 25, 1515-1534. doi:10.1177/0170840604047998

Schmickl, C., & Kieser, A. (2008). How much do specialists have to learn from each other when they jointly develop radical product innovations? Research Policy, 37, 1148-1163.

Schmidt, K., & Wagner, I. (2005). Ordering systems: Coordinative practices and artifacts in architectural design and planning. Computer Supported Cooperative Work. The Journal of Collaborative Computing, 13, 349-408.

Seidel, V. P., & O’Mahony, S. (2014). Managing the repertoire: Stories, metaphors, proto- types, and concept coherence in product innovation. Organization Science, 25, 691-712. doi:10.1287/orsc.2013.0879

Seidl, D. (2005a). The basic concepts of Luhmanns theory of social systems. In D. Seidl & K. H. Becker (Eds.), Niklas Luhmann and organization studies (pp. 21-53). Kristianstad, Sweden: Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press.

276 International Journal of Business Communication 56(2)

Seidl, D. (2005b). Organisational identity and self-transformation: An autopoietic perspective. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.

Seidl, D., & Becker, K. H. E. (Eds). (2005). Niklas Luhmann and organization studies. Kristianstad, Sweden: Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press.

Seidl, D., & Schoeneborn, D. (2010): Niklas Luhmann’s autopoietic theory of organisations: Contributions, limitations, and future prospects. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ ssrn.1552847l

Seidl, D., & van Aacken, D. (2007). Praxistext vs. Systemtheorie: Alternative Perspektiven der Beratungsforschung [Practise-test vs. system theory: Alternative perspectives of consulting research]. Arbeit, 3(6), 177-190.

Shrivastava, P., & Mitroff, I. I. (1984). Enhancing organizational research utilization: The role of decision-makers assumptions. Academy of Management Review, 9, 18-26.

Shrivastava, P., & Schneider, S. (1984). Organizational frames of reference. Human Relations, 37, 795-809.

Spee, A. P., & Jarzabkowski, P. (2009). Strategy tools as boundary objects. Strategic Organization, 7, 223-232.

Star, S. L. (1993). Cooperation without consensus in scientific problem solving: Dynamics of closure in open systems. In S. Easterbrook (Ed.), Cooperation or conflict? (pp. 93-106). London, England: Springer.

Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387-420.

Strübing, J. (1997). Symbolischer Interaktionismus revisited: Konzepte für die Wissenschafts- und Technikforschung [Symbolic interactionism revisited: Concepts for the research on science and technology]. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 26, 368-386.

Sturdy, A., Clark, T., Fincham, R., & Handley, K. (2009). Between innovation and legitimation: Boundaries and knowledge flow in management consultancy. Organization, 16, 627-653.

Subrahmanian, E., Monarch, I., Konda, S., Granger, H., Milliken, R., & Westerberg, A. (2003). Boundary objects and prototypes at the interfaces of engineering resign. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing, 12, 185-203.

Thomke, S. H. (1998). Managing experimentation in the design of new products. Management Science, 44, 743-762.

Thomke, S. H., von Hippel, E., & Franke, R. (1998). Modes of experimentation: An innovation process—and competitive—variable. Research Policy, 27, 315-332.

Thornton, P., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958- 1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 801-844.

Thornton, P., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: Foundations, research, and theoretical elaboration. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Tushman, M. L. (1977). Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 587-605.

Unternehmensberater, B. D. (2010). BDU (2010): Facts & figures zum Beratermarkt 2009/2010 [Facts & figures for the (German) consulting market 2009/20010]. Retrieved from http:// www.presseportal.de/pm/9562/1566222

Walenstein, A. (2003). Finding boundary objects in SE and HCI: An approach through engi- neering-oriented design theories. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/dow nload?doi=10.1.1.99.4204&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page=92

Sutter and Kieser 277

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Wheelwright, S. C., & Clark, K. B. (1992). Revolutionizing product development: Quantum leaps in speed, efficiency, and quality. New York, NY: Free Press.

Willke, H. (1987). Strategien der Intervention in autonome Systeme [Strategies of intervention into autonomous systems]. In D. Baecker, J. Markowitz, R. Stichweh, H. Tyrell, & H. Willke (Eds.), Theorie als Passion. Niklas Luhmann zum 60. Geburtstag [Theory as passion: Celebrating Niklas Lumann’s 60th birthday] (pp. 333-361). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.

Wootton, L. (1995). Identifying characteristics of a good consultant. Business Communication Quarterly, 58(4), 60-61.

Yakura, E. K. (2002). Charting time: Timeliness as temporal boundary objects. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 956-970.

Zorriassatine, F., Wykes, C., Parkin, R., & Gindy, N. (2003). A survey of virtual prototyp- ing techniques for mechanical product development. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Engineering Manufacture, 217, 513-530.

Author Biographies

Michäas Sutter received his PhD from Mannheim University in 2012 having completed his studies at Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, and then joined his present employer, Deloitte Consulting, Munich.

Alfred Kieser studied business administration and sociology at University of Cologne and Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh. In 1968, he received his doctoral degree in business administration from the University of Cologne, Germany. From 1974 to 1977, he was full pro- fessor of personnel administration and organizational behavior at the Free University of Berlin; from 1977 to 2011, for organizational behavior at Mannheim University; and from 2012 to 2015, he was professor of management theory and vice president research at the Zeppelin University, Friedrichshafen, Germany.

Copyright of International Journal of Business Communication is the property of Association for Business Communication and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.