Companies
When we are stuck on something, whether it be a project, a paper, or a leaky pipe under the sink, we are often told to take a break and come back to the problem with a fresh outlook. This new perspective allows us to see and solve the problem from a new angle. Companies face problems everyday, and I believe that for them to be able to solve those issues, they need a new perspective. This perspective is most efficent when it originates from outside consultants.
At first, it seems that hiring someone who knows nothing about the domain of the company is a bad move. Indeed, how can they find a solution if they don't understand how things happen in the first place? Yet, I would argue that coming to a problem without as much experience as a company's employee can be beneficial to the progress of the company because it allows for new ideas to flow more freely. Indeed, many industrial developments come from the spread of an idea that originated in very different field. For example, developments in the airplane and automobile industry heavily influenced how hospitals are run today. Indeed, many healthcare providers rely on closed-loop communication and error-proof systems to increase patient safety. Those strategies were first used on assembly lines and aircrafts. If a company hires a consultant, the hired person may be able to see an opportunity to transpose one solution from one field to another, increasing the operation efficiency of the hiring company more than employees from the company could have.
Additionally, even if the consultants come from the same background as the employees, the former's experience with multiple clients can be an advantage for the hiring company. Indeed, the outside consultants may have worked with similar companies on similar solutions, and can offer a faster way of solving a problem to the hiring company, which would then not have to resolve to a lengthy and costly trial and error process.
In truth, employees should consider the hiring of outside consultants as a benefit. This process allows them to focus on their work and give feedback on the functioning of the company while worrying less about the consequences of giving negative feedback. If current employees express concern about a current process of the company to a superior or peer, there might be negative repercussions. However, if the company sets up the consulting project with opportunities for the staff and the consultants to communicate about what is and isn't working in the company, honest and constructive feedback can emerge. In fact, employees are a valuable resource for consultants. For example, when Boston Children's Hospital was designing the new floors of inpatient units, they hired an outside consultant who worked with staff members to try out different configurations of the space. This collaborative work resulted in a product that satisfied the employees and fit the needs of the employer. This type of satisfactory result can come from the hiring of an outside consultant.
In conclusion, while hiring an outside consultant may seem counterintuitive, this process actually allows the company to look at its own functioning with a set of fresh eyes. If companies use this new outlook in collaboration with employee feedback, I believe it is the best way to improve the efficiency of a company's operations.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 286, Rule ID: EVERYDAY_EVERY_DAY[3]
Message: 'Everyday' is an adjective. Did you mean 'every day'?
Suggestion: every day
...om a new angle. Companies face problems everyday, and I believe that for them to be able...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 150, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...d, how can they find a solution if they dont understand how things happen in the fir...
^^^^
Line 7, column 536, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...ltants to communicate about what is and isnt working in the company, honest and cons...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, first, however, if, look, may, so, then, while, as to, for example, in conclusion, in fact, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 14.8657303371 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 33.0505617978 100% => OK
Preposition: 82.0 58.6224719101 140% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalization wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2806.0 2235.4752809 126% => OK
No of words: 553.0 442.535393258 125% => OK
Chars per words: 5.07414104882 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84932490483 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95532430946 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 269.0 215.323595506 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.48643761302 0.4932671777 99% => OK
syllable_count: 875.7 704.065955056 124% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 13.0 6.24550561798 208% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Interrogative: 3.0 0.740449438202 405% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 3.10617977528 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.3003007577 60.3974514979 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.916666667 118.986275619 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0416666667 23.4991977007 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 5.21951772744 96% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.283308375556 0.243740707755 116% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0882177888476 0.0831039109588 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.116376735459 0.0758088955206 154% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.186306916421 0.150359130593 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.102556280948 0.0667264976115 154% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 14.1392134831 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.8420337079 99% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.92365168539 39% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.42 12.1639044944 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 100.480337079 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 11.8971910112 88% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.