MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183292324 · doi:10.19030/jber.v2i2.2856

The Client-Consulting Relationship: A Case Study Of Critical Success Factors At MQ Telecommuniques

2011· article· en· W2183292324 on OpenAlexaff
Steven H. Appelbaum, Anthony Steed

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Business & Economics Research (JBER) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsBell (Canada)Concordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFontStyle (visual arts)PsychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span class="Heading2Char"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-style: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold;">The primary intent of this study then, is to examine recent projects involving external management consultants at MQ TeleCommuniques, from the employees’ point of view, to </span></span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">measure the extent to which the aforementioned “critical success factors” were perceived as being evident. A secondary purpose was to examine <span class="Heading2Char"><span style="font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: normal; mso-bidi-font-weight: bold; mso-ansi-font-size: 10.0pt;">which, if any, of these factors differ between more or less successful consulting projects with a view to building a model to predict employees’ perceptions of the level of the projects’ success. A third objective was to gather employee opinions on other factors that might contribute to the success of consulting projects. A fourth, and final, objective was to gather general employee opinions on the use of management consultancy at MQ TeleCommuniques. </span></span><span class="Heading2Char"><span style="font-weight: normal; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-style: normal; mso-ansi-font-size: 10.0pt;">A total of 102 employees responded to a questionnaire consisting of 59 questions. </span></span>A model including six independent variables was able to predict overall rating of project success, with an adjusted R<sup>2</sup> =0.68, F=27.81 (p<.0001).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>The significant variables, in order of importance, were:</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.5in; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 1in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">                   </span></span></span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">the solution took into account our internal state of readiness;</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.5in; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 1in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">                   </span></span></span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">the project included prototyping new solutions;</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.5in; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 1in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">                   </span></span></span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">the project deliverables were clear;</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.5in; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 1in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">                   </span></span></span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">the consultant partnered with the project team throughout;</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.5in; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 1in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">                   </span></span></span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">the consultant was professional; and </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: -0.5in; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt 1in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">6.<span style="font: 7pt "Times New Roman";">                   </span></span></span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">the consultant understood our sense of urgency. </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; margin: 0in 0.5in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">There were substantial differences seen on most measures between projects judged “successful” and projects judged “not successful”. Nevertheless, it is encouraging that many of the success factors suggested in the literature, and proposed under “an ideal client-consultant engagement”, were judged as present in management consulting projects at MQ TeleCommuniques, to one degree or another. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>General opinions of management consultants were mixed and somewhat negative. Employees at MQ TeleCommuniques certainly do not agree with the traditional benefits of management consultants promoted by the industry.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Finally, the results of this study certainly support the anecdotal and theoretical models in particular those emphasizing the importance of process issues, the client-consulting relationship and their impact on project outcome.</span></span></p>

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.507
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.017 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Business & Economics Research (JBER)Same topicConstruction Project Management and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207