Technical Assistance, Adaptive Systems Problems, and Coaching Assignments

All the consulting assignments I’ve been engaged in so far I can divide into three categories - straight technical assistance, adaptive systems problems, and systems improvement coaching.  Each has its kicks, but I’ve enjoyed the adaptive systems work best.

Straight technical assistance is what happens when they call you in to implement a known solution to a known problem. You’re like Chuck Norris parachuting in, solo or with your team, getting the job done badda-bing badda-boom, then getting exfiltrated. Oh, don’t forget to get paid. 

In this kind of assignment, the problem and the objectives are clearly defined, there’s a standardized, and there is a by-the-numbers solution. If there’s any uncertainty or variation, it’s usually in with personalities and the political economy of the project site. If that can be handled by project managers, the consultant can very much function as The Mechanic.

Samples of straight TA assignments are helping an LGU to make a Comprehensive Land Use Plan, or update their Schedule of Fair Market Values, or put up a GIS Unit, or map roads and selected infrastructure.

Adaptive systems assignments are less structured. In this kind of assignment, the problem might not even be defined - that could be your first task. You are asked to study a system (which constantly adapts to external and internal changes, such as your presence) and then discern what’s wrong with it, define its critical constraints, and propose ideas for improvement.

In some of the adaptive systems projects I worked on, the key questions were, “what’s wrong with the way public investments are being made for roads, and what can be done about it?”, “what’s keeping most Philippine LGUs from completing their Land Use Plans?”, and “”how do you get 8-10 million parcels of public A&D land titled over the next few years? 

Coaching for systems improvement combines elements of straight TA and adaptive systems problems. You coach clients through a standard process for improving their own systems, but they have to figure out the key questions for themselves - then find the answers that are best for them. 

I’ve coached several LGUs through the process of improving their business permits issuance and renewal services. All LGUs go through the exercise of defining their performance standards for these services, and right away differences become clear. For one LGU, the cost-to-collection ratio is the most important performance standard (cost of issuing a business permit compared to amount of taxes and fees collected for the permit), while for another LGU customer satisfaction is king. As I walk them through our standard systems improvement process - Document, Analyze, Design, Implement - they go through the same activities, use the same tools - and come up with different answers. 

Straight TA work builds mastery - and in practice you do learn something new, so it’s not entirely true that you're doing the same technical interventions over and over again. It’s a form of specialization.

Adaptive systems work expands the horizon. You build the capacity to think in terms of systems, and your interventions tend to be strategic. When issues become clear enough, more interventions can be tested. 

Over time certain interventions are proven to work - so much so that a standard way of delivering the intervention is developed. At this stage manuals and guides are written for a known solution to a known problem, and the intervention turns from theory to straight TA work in a ritual usually called “rolling out”.

While coaching produces several models of improved systems, there is always pressure to find the “one best way”.  Somebody will eventually compare systems, then decide that this or that system is best for all. This usually culminates with a National Government Agency imposing a standard method for all LGUs to follow- and the inevitable deviation by LGUs from that standard as they cope with local technical and political realities.

Straight TA, adaptive systems problems, coaching - each has its own rewards and challenges. Colleagues in the consulting business have their preferences. Those who like certainty and structure tend to go for TA work; those who like to explore go for adaptive systems problems; while coaching attracts those who are more interested in helping others make the best decisions for themselves. 

What’s your preference?