Reflections on the Client—Consultant Relationship: Challenges and Opportunities in a Context of Organisational Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the determinants of success of the client-consultant relationship from the consultant's point of view. Ten consultants from various fields (e.g. change management, information technology, etc.) based in the province of Quebec in Canada were interviewed. They were asked to comment on issues relating to their roles in the consultancy project, expectations, and the determinants of success of the client–consultant relationship. Interview data were analysed using an interpretive frame. The research findings reveal that consultants perceive their contribution and role positively and perceive themselves as change agents and knowledge transmitters. Trust, active communication, and shared feedback were identified as the major determinants of success of the client–consultant relationship. The results support and help advance earlier research findings in the management consulting field. Consultants are conscious that a long-term relationship built on trust, active communication, and shared feedback, identified as major determinants of success in the client–consultant relationship, is essential. The qualitative findings of the study add to, and help support, earlier research findings on consultants' perception of their roles and contributions within client organisations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".