PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10174796

When consultants and clients clash.

Abstract

This fictitious case study explores the issues that surround the relationships between consultants and their clients, as well as the dynamics of a newly merged organization. Susan Barlow, a senior consultant with the Statler Group, dreaded her upcoming status meeting. She had thought it a lucky break when she got assigned to the Kellogg-Champion project. Royce Kellogg, the CEO of the newly merged firm, had engaged the Statler Group for what seemed a simple project: to reconcile the policies and practices of the two former firms now that they had become one. But once on the job, Barlow realized that the issues were much more complex than they had seemed. The new firm needed help badly-but not the kind of help that the client had led Barlow to believe it needed. What would she and Jim Roussos, her partner on the assignment, tell Kellogg at the meeting? Kellogg, for his part, was not looking forward to the status meeting, either. From his point of view, the consultants had caused more problems than they had solved. What's more, he wasn't even dealing with the consultants he had hired. Where was George Gray, the senior partner he had met with originally? Maybe Barlow and Roussos were just too young and inexperienced. Kellogg felt he was getting a raw deal. How would he approach them in the morning? Should he fire them or make an attempt at damage control? Two experts advise the consultants and two advise the client on how to handle the status meeting.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

I F Kesner, S Fowler. When consultants and clients clash.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10174796/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

UK national survey of enucleation, evisceration and orbital implant trends.

AIM: To evaluate current clinical practice in the UK in the management of the anophthalmic socket; choice of enucleation, evisceration, type of orbital implant, wrap, motility pegging and complications. METHODS: All consultant ophthalmologists in the UK were surveyed by postal questionnaire. Questions included their practice subspecialty and number of enucleations and eviscerations performed in 2003. Specific questions addressed choice of implant, wrap, motility pegging and complications. RESULTS: 456/896 (51%) consultants responded, of which 162 (35%) had a specific interest in oculoplastics, lacrimal, orbits or oncology. Only 243/456 (53%) did enucleations or eviscerations. 92% inserted an orbital implant after primary enucleation, 69% after non-endophthalmitis evisceration, whereas only 43% did so after evisceration for endophthalmitis (50% as a delayed procedure). 55% used porous orbital implants (porous polyethylene, hydroxyapatite or alumina) as their first choice and 42% used acrylic. Most implants inserted were spherical, sized 18-20 mm in diameter. 57% wrapped the implant after enucleation, using salvaged autogenous sclera (20%), donor sclera (28%) and synthetic Vicryl or Mersilene mesh (42%). A minority (7%) placed motility pegs in selected cases, usually as a secondary procedure. 14% of respondents reported implant exposure for each type of procedure and extrusion was reported by 4% after enucleation and 3% after evisceration. CONCLUSIONS: This survey highlights contemporary anophthalmic socket practice in the UK. Most surgeons use porous orbital implants with a synthetic wrap after enucleation and only few perform motility pegging.

Consultants↗