This document discusses the massive communication barriers that exist between consultants and their client organizations when collaborating on projects, despite often achieving satisfactory results. It analyzes how these barriers, which originate from different frames of reference, goals, and logics between the two groups, are overcome through the use of boundary objects and prototyping. The barriers include syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic differences that make knowledge transfer and shared understanding difficult. However, consultants and clients are able to collaborate effectively through establishing a joint project organization that acts as a temporary "contact system" between their different social systems.

1. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415613340
International Journal of
Business Communication
2019, Vol. 56(2) 249 –277
© The Author(s) 2015
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/2329488415613340
journals.sagepub.com/home/job
Article
How Consultants and Their
Clients Collaborate in Spite
of Massive Communication
Barriers
Michäas Sutter1 and Alfred Kieser2
Abstract
Managers often collaborate with members of consultancies with
the aim of improving
the performance of their organizations. It is astonishing that,
after the completion
of such consulting projects, both parties in most cases express
satisfaction with
the results. It is astonishing because, as we show in this article,
consultants and the

2. managers of client organizations, when engaging in joint
projects, have to overcome
severe communication barriers. These communication barriers
originate from
different frames of reference the collaborators refer to, different
goals they pursue,
and different logics they follow. As we demonstrate on the basis
of an empirical
analysis, the communication barriers are overcome
predominantly through the use
of boundary objects and prototyping.
Keywords
boundary objects, collaboration between consultants and clients,
communication
barriers, consulting, prototyping
Introduction
When confronted with the task of finding a solution to a
complex problem individuals
with different professional specializations often encounter
communication problems.
They use specific frames of reference, that is, specific ways of
formulating and solving
problems, of applying specific paradigms and languages (Brown
& Duguid, 1998).
1Deloitte Consulting, Munich, Germany
2Zeppelin University, Friedrichshafen, Germany
Corresponding Author:
Alfred Kieser, Zeppelin University, D-88045 Friedrichshafen,
Germany and Mannheim University,
Mannheim, Germany.
Email: [email protected]

3. 613340 JOBXXX10.1177/2329488415613340International
Journal of Business CommunicationSutter and Kieser
research-article2015
https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/journals-permissions
https://journals.sagepub.com/home/job
mailto:[email protected]
250 International Journal of Business Communication 56(2)
Specialized organizational units that collaborate w ith one
another are often confronted
with similar problems: “As these specialized units develop, each
generates its own
idiosyncratic norms, values, time frame, and coding schemes to
permit effective pro-
cessing of information” (Tushman, 1977, p. 590). Specialists
pursue different logics
and therefore live in different “thought worlds” (Dougherty,
1992; Thornton, Ocasio,
& Lounsbury, 2012).
Whole organizations can also be specialized in a way that
impedes collaboration
with organizations that are specialized in a different way. By
focusing on specific
tasks, organizations develop specific frames of reference or
specific logics. They base
their decisions on specific assumptions that determine how they
perceive events in
their environment and how they select and interpret information
on them (Shrivastava
& Mitroff, 1984; Shrivastava & Schneider, 1984). Comparable
to the logics of special-
ists within an organization, organizational frames of reference

4. or logics are “a source
of differences between organizations and consistency within
them” (Shrivastava &
Schneider, 1984, p. 802).
Paradoxically, communication problems between organizations
that follow differ-
ent logics are also present in collaborations between
consultancies and their clients,
regardless of the consultancies’ specialization on solving their
clients’ problems.
Because of communication problems consultancies not
necessarily tackle their clients’
problems in ways that correspond with their clients’ interests.
Consequently, the will-
ingness to respect “the client’s expertise, knowledge, and
skills” and to focus “on the
(client) company’s goals, not the consultant’s, were seen as
“characteristics of a good
consultant” (Wootton, 1995, p. 61). Of course, this willingness
implies readiness on
the consultant’s as well as on the client’s for intensive mutual
communication. A recent
article points to the need for consultants and their clients to
“[g]et agreement as quickly
as possible on what the scope of the communication program
should be for each phase
and work with your counterpart to clearly identify what the
communication deliver-
ables for each phase will be” (Hannegan, 2007, p. 15).
In this article, we analyze how consultants and members of their
client organiza-
tions can efficiently collaborate in spite of severe
communication problems.

5. Conceptualization
Communication Barriers
In a most instructive article, Carlile (2002) points out that
departments within an orga-
nization pursuing different functions and having to collaborate,
for example, in an
effort to create a new product, are likely to encounter profound
communication
barriers:
The characteristics of knowledge that drive innovative problem
solving within a function
actually hinder problem solving and knowledge creation across
functions. It is at these
“knowledge boundaries” that we find the deep problems that
specialized knowledge
poses to organizations. The irony is that these knowledge
boundaries are not only a
Sutter and Kieser 251
critical challenge, but also a perpetual necessity because much
of what organizations
produce has a foundation in the specialization of different kinds
of knowledge. (p. 442)
Referring to Dougherty (1992), Carlile (2002) explains that
“different thought worlds
(what they know and how they know it) make communication
difficult because indi-
viduals use different meanings in their functional setting” (p.
442). In addition, indi-

6. viduals are reluctant to replace knowledge that they found
helpful in solving problems
they had been confronted with:
When knowledge proves successful, individuals are inclined to
use that knowledge to
solve problems in the future. In this way, individuals are less
able and willing to change
their knowledge to accommodate the knowledge developed by
another group that they
are dependent on. (p. 442)
Carlile (2004) distinguishes syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic
types of barriers that
present different kinds of challenges for the organizational units
trying to establish
common understandings. Syntactic barriers are present when the
unit receiving new
knowledge needs to extend its lexica of technical expressions in
order to be able to
communicate properly with the unit that transmits new
knowledge. If in attempts of
knowledge transfer the meaning of words, measurements, or
outcomes are unclear for
the receiving side, a semantic barrier is present necessitating
the collaborators to initi-
ate processes for establishing shared meanings. Pragmatic
boundaries emerge when
any solution to the problem at hand affects the different
interests of actors involved.
Overcoming this barrier requires the renegotiation of practices
(Brown & Duguid,
2001).
In this vein, Orlikowski (2002) argues that knowledge cannot
easily be transferred

7. from one organization to another. Such a transfer necessitates
“translating” the knowl-
edge to make it understandable in the context of the receiving
organization. For exam-
ple, when consultants start a project with a client they need to
learn about the client
organization to be able to make their recommendations
understandable to members of
the client organization. The consultants interpret contexts of
client organizations on
the basis of their knowledge and thereby create new knowledge
for their consul-
tancy—knowledge that relates to different contexts of client
organizations (see also
Sturdy, Clark, Fincham, & Handley, 2009).
The most radical conceptualization of communication barriers
between consultants
and their clients has been suggested by Luhmann in his theory
of autopoietic systems
(Czarniawska & Mazza, 2012; Kieser, 2002; Kieser &
Wellstein, 2007; Mohe & Seidl,
2011). A central assumption of this theory is that social
relations in systems generally
have to be conceptualized as communication processes.
Communication in social sys-
tems is initiated by individuals but is beyond their control.
People might utter words or make particular gestures but they
have no control over the
way in which these are understood, i.e. what communication is
ultimately realized. . . .
Thus, the meaning of a message, i.e. the concrete
communication, is not produced by the

8. 252 International Journal of Business Communication 56(2)
speaker but by the listener, or more precisely: by the connecting
communications. (Mohe
& Seidl, 2011, p. 8)
For example, a presentation by a consultant in an organization
may trigger a discus-
sion among the managers focusing on opportunities and
drawbacks, whether the
changes recommended by the consultant would ultimately
improve the organization’s
position in the market. This discussion will refer to earlier
discussions in the respective
organization and to earlier decisions and their outcomes. If
quotes from the consultant
are repeated they are discussed and interpreted with regard to
the client’s organiza-
tional context. For this organization’s members that is the only
way to understand
them. Thus,
Each communication within such a system is determined with
regard to its meaning
through the network of other communications within the same
system. Because
communications within a particular system only connect to
communications belonging to
the same system (otherwise this would not constitute a system)
the communication
process becomes idiosyncratic. The same words have different
meanings in different
systems. Metaphorically speaking, every system develops its
own “logic” of
communication according to which communications are made

9. meaningful. (Mohe &
Seidl, 2011, p. 8)
In other words, social systems are highly self-referential or
autopoietic. They operate
on the basis of different frames of reference in isolation from
each other (Seidl, 2005a,
2005b; Seidl & Becker, 2005). Communication elements of
other systems cannot be
directly connected to an importing system’s communication
elements. This character-
istic is labeled operative closure, meaning that operations from
the outside cannot
directly interfere with operations within a system. External
events can be observed by
the system and taken into consideration in its communication as
it is operating in a
cognitively open style. External events may “trigger” internal
processes but they can-
not determine them. For example, an organization will react to
recommendations of a
contracted consultant. However, consultants can never
completely model processes or
structures of client organizations according to their conception.
Client organizations
will always understand and implement the consultants’
recommendations in their own
ways.
A social system might pick up utterances from outside its
boundaries, but the meaning of
the utterances, and thus the communication that is ultimately
realized, is determined by
the logic of that particular system—consequently, it is its own
product. (Mohe & Seidl,
2011, p. 10)

10. The consultants are unable to completely get the communication
within the client
systems since “[e]ven though consultants stay inside the client
firm for a certain time
and form teams with members of the client organization they
remain part of the cli-
ent’s environment” (Kieser & Wellstein, 2008, p. 504). The
members of the client
organization keep referring to the consultants as “them.” Thus,
the consultants can
Sutter and Kieser 253
never be sure having grasped the client’s problems in the same
way as the client orga-
nization’s managers themselves (see, e.g., Mohe, 2005; Mohe &
Seidl, 2011; Willke,
1987). Also, the members of the client organization do not
communicate everything
that they talk about the consulting project to the consultants in
the project team. And
even if consultants were capable of defining a solution the
members of the client orga-
nization could totally approve of they could not communicate
the solution “into” the
client system in a way that the members of the client system
could immediately under-
stand. “Any communication coming from ‘outside’ would be
reconstructed according
to the system-specific logic and thus would become a different
communication”
(Mohe & Seidl, 2009, p. 57). The members of the client
organization would interpret

11. the new solution with their organization’s vocabulary and
rhetorically link it with
existing routines. In this way, structural communication barriers
emerge that are insur-
mountable since they are caused by the systems’ self-reference.
In consulting projects,
these communication barriers are noticeable predominantly as
incidents of inadequate
connectivity. Communication from one system cannot be
connected to the communi-
cation of the partner system (Luhmann, 2005; Luhmann &
Fuchs, 1989). “The system
[the client system] decides itself which events from the
environment find entrance into
its internal communication network” (Kolbeck, 2001, p. 138).
Decisions on how to
deal with the consultant’s suggestions are taken by the
consulted system on the basis
of criteria that are based on its specific frame of reference
(Güttel, 2007, p. S287). If
the client system does not perceive an obvious advantage in a
consultant’s recommen-
dation, it tends to ignore this intrusion from the outside (Mohe
& Seidl, 2011).
Social systems constantly take efforts to maintain their
differences and boundaries:
Structurally, systems are oriented toward their environment and
could not exist without
their environment. They constitute and preserve themselves
through generating and
perpetuating a difference with respect to their environment. In
this sense boundary
maintenance is system maintenance. (Luhmann, 1984, p. 35)

12. At the same time, “closedness is a precondition for the openness
of systems” (Luhmann,
2000, p. 54).
[I]t is the operative closure that enables social systems to be
interactively open, i.e., to
re-act to the environment. Operative closure in this sense
implies that the different
systems create their own meaning from external influences and
accordingly are able to
develop their own reaction to them. If there were not such a
clear distinction between the
systems and their environments, the operations of the system
would be just the
continuation of the environment rather than the system’s own
operations. (Seidl &
Schoeneborn, 2010)
System boundaries thus serve a “double function of separating
and connecting a sys-
tem and its environment” (Luhmann, 1984, p. 52). For this
reason logics and frames
of reference cannot be harmonized between organizations since
this would resolve
the systems’ boundaries that are constitutive for the systems’
existence (Kieser, 2002,
p. 216).
254 International Journal of Business Communication 56(2)
We have already mentioned that the operational closure of
social systems does not
mean that they are ignorant vis-à-vis their environment. They
are linked to their envi-

13. ronment through structural coupling.
The concept of structural coupling refers to the case of two
systems that have adjusted
their respective structures in such a way that systematically
allows mutual perturbations.
That is, whenever one system produces an event of a particular
kind it is very likely that
this event will trigger a reaction of a particular kind in the
structurally coupled system.
(Mohe & Seidl, 2011, p. 12)
Each social system pursues special programs that define the
“rules of accepted commu-
nication” (Diekmann, 2004, p. 186; all translations from
German publications are from
the authors) according to the system’s logic or set the frame that
determines possible
communication contents. For example, consultants should not
discuss in the presence of
members from the client organization the rhetorical practices
they have developed to
make their presentations more convincing or to handle critical
responses from clients.
“Institutional logics” is a concept which has some similarities
with Luhmann’s
approach to social systems. Thornton and Ocasio (1999) define
it as “the socially con-
structed, historical pattern of material practices, assumptions,
values, beliefs, and rules
by which individuals produce and reproduce their material
subsystems, organize time
and space, and provide meaning to their social reality” (p. 804).
Institutional logics
determine the rules of communication and organizational goals

14. as well as actions and
interactions that inform and constrain organizational members
in their pursuit of these
goals (Friedland & Alford, 1991; Jackall, 1988; Ocasio, 1997;
Pache & Santos, 2010;
Thornton et al., 2012).
The two systems—consultancy and client organization—need a
specific form to
handle their collaboration. Essentially, this is accomplished
through the temporary proj-
ect organization constituted by members of the consultancy and
the client organization
that operates as a separate system in its own right, as a “contact
system” (Luhmann,
2005, p. 360). The consultants and managers from the client
system collaborate on a
temporary basis. The contact systems’ interventions in the client
organization are in
need of interpretation for the client system as well as for the
consultancy.
The question that follows from such a conceptualization is how
consultancies and
client organizations can collaborate in spite of the severe
communication barriers
pointed out above. As we will see, boundary objects and
prototyping are useful tech-
niques in this context.
Boundary Objects and Prototyping
Boundary Objects and Standardized Packages
Boundary objects are objects which are both plastic enough to
adapt to local needs and

15. the constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust
enough to maintain a
common identity across sites. . . . They have different meanings
in different social worlds
Sutter and Kieser 255
but their structure is common enough to more than one world to
make them recognisable,
a means of translation. (Star & Griesemer, 1989, p. 393)
Wenger (1998) defines boundary objects as “artifacts,
documents, terms, concepts and
other forms of reification around which communities of practice
can organize their
interconnections” (p. 105). The relevance of boundary objects
for collaborations
across different communities was first identified by the research
of Star and Griesemer
(1989) on the foundation of the University of Berkeley’s
Museum of Vertebrate
Zoology during the years 1907 to 1939. Setting up this museum
required coordinated
contributions from members of different “thought worlds”
pursuing different objec-
tives with different methods—among others “amateur
naturalists, professional biolo-
gists, philanthropists, conservationists, university
administrators, preparators and
taxidermists” (Star & Griesemer, 1989, p. 396). Parallels
between “thought worlds”
and Luhmann’s social systems are obvious. An essential finding
of Star and Griesemer’s
study is that activities of members of different thought worlds

16. can be coordinated
without members explicitly synchronizing their work:
“Consensus is not necessary for
cooperation nor for the successful conduct of work” (Star &
Griesemer, 1989, p. 388).
The two devices in the museum project that brought
coordination about without con-
sensus were standardized methods and boundary objects.
Standardized methods
allowed nonscientific collaborators to provide useful data in a
format that scientists
could work with: “Collectors do not need to learn theoretical
biology in order to con-
tribute to the enterprise. . . . The methods thus provided a useful
‘lingua franca’
between amateurs and professionals” (Star & Griesemer, 1989,
p. 407).
Star and Griesemer (1989) describe the mode of action of
boundary projects in the
following way:
In conducting collective work, people coming together from
different social worlds
frequently have the experience of addressing an object that has
a different meaning for each
of them. Each social world has particular jurisdiction over the
resources represented by that
object, and mismatches caused by the overlap become problems
for negotiation. . . .
When participants in the intersecting worlds create
representations together, their
different commitments and perceptions are resolved into
representations—in the sense
that a fuzzy image is resolved by a microscope. This resolution

17. does not mean consensus.
Rather, representations, or inscriptions contain at every stage
the traces of multiple
viewpoints, translations and incomplete battles. (pp. 412-413)
At least implicitly, Star and Griesemer (1989, p. 393) hold that
ambiguous boundary
objects can better fulfill their function than boundary objects
that convey a clear inten-
tion: Barley, Leonardi, and Bailey (2012) argue that ambiguity
increases the effective-
ness of boundary objects and even assume that Grinnell, the
director of Berkeley’s
Museum of Vertebrate Zoology strategically engineered them in
this way.
At the same time, these authors (Barley et al., 2012, p. 285)
point to weaknesses of
ambiguous boundary objects: “One problem with strategic
ambiguity is that it relin-
quishes control of interpretation. In so doing, a strategy of
ambiguity can lead a group
256 International Journal of Business Communication 56(2)
to take a path other than the one the strategist intended.”
Therefore, they assume that
actors can also intentionally engineer unambiguous boundary
objects:
To avoid the risks of losing control over meaning, individuals
may opt for an approach
that aims for clarity, not ambiguity. The goal of clear
communication would be to create

18. shared meaning, such that everyone agrees on the implication of
the message and its
purpose. (Barley et al., 2012, p. 285)
In an ethnographic study they could support this assumption:
“[P]otential boundary
objects in our study did not enter cross-boundary collaborations
as ‘tabulae rasae’;
rather, they entered as objects purposefully shaped by their
creators to achieve particu-
lar goals” (Barley et al., 2012, p. 300). In a careful study,
Rogers, Gunesekera, and
Yang (2011) analyzed two versions of a philosophy and strategy
statement to find out
which language a company used to avoid ambivalence after a
deep crisis. Kernbach,
Eppler, and Bresciani (2015) could recently show in an
experimental study that bound-
ary objects in form of visualizations of a strategy were
significantly better than text in
terms of the achieved attention, agreement, and retention. This
implies that visual
boundary objects whose ambiguity tends to be high may
increase the motivation to
jointly fathom the meaning of boundary object across
organizational units. A study by
Lewis (2000) indicates that texts on quality programs increase
their persuasive power
when representatives from different functional units get a
chance to discuss their con-
sequence as they perceive them and to implement revisions as a
result.
In a seminal study, Carlile (2002) explored how organizational
experts in sales,
design engineering, manufacturing engineering, and production

19. functions maintained
diverging understandings of the final design of a new product.
However, after the
experts of the four functions had been confronted with artifacts
like parts libraries,
standardized forms for reporting problem-solving methods,
assembly drawings, or
Gantt charts they managed to transform their differences in
understanding into a com-
mon understanding. They could coordinate their work despite
their diverging thought
worlds (Dougherty, 1992). The artifacts served as boundary
objects, providing, as
Carlile (2002, p. 452) coined it, “a concrete means for
individuals to specify and learn
about their differences and dependencies across a given
boundary.” Carlile’s (2002)
study shows that the adaptability of boundary objects enables
people working on inno-
vative designs to understand where interpretations differ and
help to create the com-
mon ground needed to identify solutions to coordination
problems that cannot be
specified in advance (Okhuysen & Bechky, 2009).
With regard to boundary objects in collaborations between
consultants and manag-
ers of client organizations one could assume that, at the
beginning of a project, consul-
tants keep their boundary objects ambiguous in order to
maintain a high motivation on
the side of the client, for example, by presenting abstract
concepts that reiterate man-
agement fashions (Kieser, 1997) but, with the passage of time,
try to reduce
ambiguity.

20. The concept of boundary objects has furthermore been applied
negotiations of proj-
ect contracts (Koskinen & Mäkinen, 2009), architectural design
(Ewenstein & Whyte,
Sutter and Kieser 257
2007, 2009; Schmidt & Wagner, 2005), computational tools
(Carlile, 2004), software
engineering (Walenstein, 2003), robotic innovation (Barrett,
Oborn, Orlikowski, &
Yates, 2012), military systems (Herndl & Wilson, 2007), and
engineering design
(Subrahmanian et al., 2003). In a recent study, Seidel and
O’Mahony (2014) found that
complementing boundary objects through other representations
of intended solutions
such as metaphors, stories, or prototypes can increase the
efficiency of coordination
attempts across different communities with different expertise,
at least for collabora-
tion for product innovation.
Prototyping. Prototyping is an iterative trial and error process
that helps aligning the
components that different specialists are working on (Iansiti,
1997; Pisano, 1996;
Thomke, 1998; Wheelwright & Clark, 1992). As a kind of
experimentation, prototyp-
ing is “trial and error, directed by some amount of insight as to
the direction in which
a solution might lie” (Thomke, von Hippel, & Franke, 1998, p.
316). A simple form of

21. prototyping is applied when, in early project phases, the
consultants or the members of
the contact unit present a concept for the redesign of a
department or a process to
organizational members who are knowledgeable with regard to
the respective unit.
The presentation can, for example, be based on a drawing or a
slide (a boundary
object). The members are asked to assess the presented concepts
along the objects of
the project and general criteria of organizational design.
Schmickl and Kieser (2008,
p. 482) call this form “mental prototyping.” The organizational
members evaluate the
adequacy of the presented concept on the basis of thought
experiments. They provide
feedback on whether they think that the presented concept is
sufficiently adjusted to
the existing ones that are not under redesign. Eventually they
suggest revisions that
they deem necessary. The presenters who receive this feedback
may modify the design
of their units. These processes require very little knowledge
transfer.
Prototypes usually exist in written form, for example, as
diagrams, flow charts, or
computer simulation, and are therefore boundary objects
(Bogers & Horst, 2014). The
members of the contact system and the organizational members
who are asked for
feedback can independently discuss the preliminary solutions
and check whether they
contain ingredients that are relevant for their groups. Of course,
in their discussion the
two groups may produce partly differing images of the relevant

22. features of the sketched
solutions.
With regard to prototyping in the process of product innovation,
computer simula-
tions and tests of completed components—virtual and real
prototyping (Thomke,
1998; Zorriassatine, Wykes, Parkin, & Gindy, 2003)—may be
carried out in addition
to mental prototyping. Virtual prototyping is based on
integrated software systems that
“are specifically designed to bridge the divisions and
discrepancies created by the
increasing functional and epistemological specialization within
firms” (D’Adderio,
2004, p. 4). Because of the intensive permeation of
organizations with IT, changes of
organizational processes can, at least to a certain degree, also
be subject to virtual
prototyping.
How are consultant’s and client managers’ knowledge
integrated into new practices
during a consulting project? Usually the consultants come up
with proposals
258 International Journal of Business Communication 56(2)
explaining what they would change in order to solve the
problems diagnosed. To
explicate their ideas consultants create boundary objects in form
of texts, PowerPoint
presentations, new job descriptions, new operating procedures,
new information sys-

23. tems, and so on. These boundary objects may be interpreted
differently by the consul-
tants and by the members of the client organization. They may
also be interpreted
differently by the representatives of the consultancy and the
client organization in the
contact system. Nevertheless, the members of the client
organization have to make
sense out of boundary objects and the new elements, which the
consultants or the con-
tact system added to their context. They have to learn new
practices or modify existing
practices. The way in which they do it can be described in
reference to Orlikowski’s
(2002) concept of “enacting a collective capability in
distributed organizing” (p. 249).
The only difference between our problem and Orlikowski’s
(2002) concept is that in
the latter a collective capability is enacted between members of
the same organization
though geographically dispersed while in our case consultants
are involved in the
enacting. In Orlikowski’s (2002) concept, capabilities
emerge from the situated and ongoing interrelationships of
context (time and place),
activity stream, agency (intentions, actions), and structure
(normative, authoritative, and
interpretive). Because these capabilities are continually
generated in recurrent action,
continuity is achieved and preserved as people interpret and
experience their doing as
“the same” over time and across contexts. (p. 253)
Research Questions and Methodology

24. Research Questions
This article derives the assumption from system theory that the
client as well as the
consulting organization are operationally closed, self-referential
systems maintaining
different frames of reference or different logics causing
communication difficulties
between the two organizations. Of course, knowledge
differences are a precondition
for constructive collaboration, since “if two people [one could
also write “organiza-
tions”] have identical knowledge there is no gain from
integration” (Grant, 1996, p.
116). Consulting presupposes knowledge differences between
consultants and their
clients. A consultant is expected to be able to contribute
knowledge to the client’s
knowledge pool that will improve performance of the latter.
However, a consultant can
only live up to this expectation if his or her knowledge can be
added in a meaningful
way to the client’s, and also contains surprising elements that
have not yet been dis-
cussed in the client organization.
These considerations lead us to the following questions:
•• Is it possible to find evidence for the existence of
communication barriers
between consultants and their clients?
•• If so, how can consultants and their clients collaborate in
spite of communication
barriers between them and feed specific knowledge in a
coordinated way into the

25. project if the system boundaries of the parties are
simultaneously maintained?
Sutter and Kieser 259
•• Is there evidence that prototyping is suited as a mechanism
for knowledge inte-
gration in consulting projects?
•• Are boundary objects used in consulting projects? If yes,
which functions do
they fulfill?
A Qualitative Study
This study is part of a larger research project on the
collaboration of specialists with
different disciplinary backgrounds (Kieser & Koch, 2008;
Grunwald & Kieser, 2007;
Schmickl & Kieser, 2008) whose different subprojects apply
qualitative studies as the
main methodology (Kieser & Koch, 2008; Schmickl & Kieser,
2008). The reason for
choosing a qualitative approach is that studying processes and
mechanisms that enable
specialists from different disciplines to collaborate with each
other means investigat-
ing cognitive processes that are very difficult to study
quantitatively (Miles, 1979).
Furthermore, in this study we were not interested in “official”
statements from consul-
tants or managers regarding the handling of the communication
problems between
them but in their actual perceptions and experiences. For this

26. purpose a qualitative
approach allows greater openness and flexibility for respondents
since it is not depen-
dent on standardized answer categories. Unexpected answers
can be taken into consid-
eration using them as triggers for further questions. In addition,
this design allows for
discussing sensitive topics like micropolitical processes or other
highly confidential
issues that almost always play an important role in consulting
projects but can hardly
be covered in a standardized, quantitative approach.
A limitation of qualitative research is that only relatively small
sample sizes can be
handled what usually leads to a lack of representativeness.
However, larger research
programs based on a qualitative design are able to compensate
for this disadvantage:
“Large sample sizes and ‘representative’ selection have to be
sacrificed in order to
obtain the requisite detailed information. Consequently, it
becomes important to
cumulate results across a series of smaller studies” (John &
Weitz, 1988, p. 351).
Using semistructured questionnaires the first author conducted
30 interviews last-
ing 60 minutes on average with 31 interviewees. Between
January 2010 and November
2011, 29 consulting projects were reconstructed and analyzed in
these interviews.
Sixteen interviewees were consultants, and five of these were
project leaders of the
reconstructed projects. Eleven consultants came from the 25
biggest consultancies in

27. Germany (based on revenues) and four of them from the biggest
five. The remaining
consultants were from small and medium-sized consultancies.
This interviewee selec-
tion well represents the German consulting market, which is
strongly influenced by
small and medium-sized consulting firms. The interviewees
came from different hier-
archical levels. Fifteen interviewees were managers from client
firms that were
actively involved in consulting projects. Seven managers were
project leaders of the
respective project described by them.
With one exception,1 in each interview, a single consulting
project was recon-
structed in which the interviewee had participated as a project
member or project
leader (see Table 1). All interviews concerned projects from
large companies because
260 International Journal of Business Communication 56(2)
Table 1. Sample of Consulting Projects.
Abbreviation Project Duration
P1/C Reorganization of planning process 6 months
P2/C Implementation of reporting system 3 years
P3/C (PL)a Process optimization
P4/C Reorganization 8 weeks
P5/M (PL) Reorganization of business processes in course of a
postmerger integration and standardization of ERP systems

28. 6-9 months
P6/M (PL) Reorganization 6 months
P7/M (PL) Reorganization 3 months
P8/M Setting up a new press plant 6 months
P9/M Project to increase customer satisfaction incl. respective
process optimization
2 years
P10/C Setting up a new business unit 1.5 years
P11/M (PL) Reorganization of controlling department 10
months
P12/C Reorganization of procurement 4.5 months
P13/M Reorganization of budget planning process 4 months
P14/M Reorganization of controlling department 3 months
P15/C (PL) Reorganization and setting up a new business unit 2
years
P16/C Reorganization including IT systems innovation 3 years
P17/M Comprehensive discussion —
P18/C Restructuring of product planning process 3 years
P19/M (PL) Reorganization of production process 3 years
P20/M (PL) Establishment of new site in middle east 6 months
P21/M Reorganization of whole company 8 months
P22/C Reorganization
P23/C Reorganization of business processes in course of an IT
transformation
2.5 years
P24/M Extension of product portfolio going along with
organizational adjustments
9 months
P25/C Reorganization 10 months

29. P26/C (PL) Reorganization of business unit 12 months
P27/C (PL) Reorganization 2 years
P28/C Process optimization 8 months
P29/C (PL) Restructuring 2 years
P30/M (PL) Postmerger integration 4 months
aPx denotes the project number; M stands for manager of the
client organization, C for consultant, and
PL for project lead.
it was assumed that more consulting projects and projects of
higher complexity are
pursued in organizations of this kind.
To ensure comparability between cases the projects had to
fulfill three criteria: (1)
The projects were targeted at reorganizations. The reasons for
this criterion are two-
fold: First, it is the most typical project category in Germany
generating 43% of the
Sutter and Kieser 261
annual consulting revenues (Unternehmensberater, 2010). Apart
from that, projects
dealing with organizational questions are complex, involving
several functional
departments and different specialists, thus allowing an analysis
of their collaboration
processes (Carlile & Rebentisch, 2003). (2) Consultants as well
as client project mem-
bers had to work in mixed teams with substantial knowledge
input from both parties.
(3) The projects had to be completed at least to a large extent so

30. that they could be
reconstructed in the interviews.
All interviews were recorded and transcribed. The analysis
followed the typical
steps of qualitative research with semistructured interviews. At
first two question-
naires were developed, one for the interviews with consultants
and one for the inter-
views with managers. The “startlist of codes” (Miles &
Huberman, 1994, p. 58)
resulted from the findings of previous research and theoretical
preliminary consider-
ations. This list, however, was modified during the study in
response to interviewees’
answers, that is, codes were added and codes that proved less
important were elimi-
nated. The codes were used to mark relevant text passages to
reduce the amount of
overall data. The codes allowed displaying relevant passages
referring to a research
question in a compact way, comparing passages, identifying
patterns, and drawing
conclusions from these comparisons. As a software tool we used
Atlas.ti.
Findings
Consultants and Their Clients Follow Different Logics
The empirical identification of communication barriers between
consultants and their
clients is a difficult task. Our interviewees tended to attribute
perceived communica-
tion difficulties to conflicts or animosity between the
representatives of the consul-

31. tancy and the client organization. However, this article’s focus
is on structural
communication barriers that are caused through diverging,
system-specific, self-refer-
ential frames of reference and therefore principally cannot be
resolved through inter-
ventions on the basis of personnel policy (e.g., through
exchanges of personnel) since
such interventions would tend to make the systems identical.
We assume that
approaches exist that provide structural solutions. For the
identification of these struc-
tural solutions for overcoming communication barriers we
developed the following
approach: We tried to find evidence for the existence of
different logics and frames of
reference for a consultant system and the corresponding client
system by recording
different conclusions that were drawn in the two systems in
response to the same situ-
ation whereby each system tried to hide its conclusions from the
respective other sys-
tem. The pursuit of different goals by the consultant and the
client system within a
consulting project can be taken as a strong indication for the
existence of different
frames of reference that are likely to cause communication
barriers. Therefore, we
tried to find out whether, in particular in the consultancy
system, goals are pursued that
deviate from the “official” project goals. If this is the case, one
can conclude that the
reference frames of the consultant and the client are different
and are likely to cause
the emergence of structural communication barriers. In the
majority of interviews with

32. 262 International Journal of Business Communication 56(2)
consultants we could identify goals on the side of consultants
that had nothing to do
with official project tasks. Some example quotes:
P4/C: This was a big, important client, what always makes a
project important.
In addition, it was one of the first projects in the respective
subject area.
Therefore—since we are always interested in establishing long-
term rela-
tionships—it somehow was an important fundament. For us,
success in
such a project is likely to establish an enduring relationship.
P25/C: An absolute prestige project, merely with respect to its
size, because it is
an absolute key client for us with a long standing relationship.
It, there-
fore, was a project with high priority for us, of high priority.
P28/C: It was a new client. For this client we did not carry out
such a project
before and not a project of this volume. There also was the
probability
that we would do other themes and projects in other countries
for this cli-
ent. Therefore it was a highly important project.
It is evident that the reasons why projects are important for the
consultant differ from
the reasons that make projects important for the client.

33. Ultimately, consultants and
clients pursue basically different, system-specific goals with
one and the same proj-
ect,2 which is likely to result in communication barriers.
Actions of the consultant are
difficult to interpret by members of the client organization if
they do not take the con-
sultant’s real motives into consideration.
Mechanisms for Generating Connectivity
Different self-referential frames of reference are linked to
different relevance criteria
that determine whether certain communications find access to
the operationally closed
communication network of a communication system or are
considered irrelevant or
are not noticed all. This is exactly the problem consultants are
confronted with. They
have to make sure that their communication is connectable to
the communication
within the client system whose self-referential relevance criteria
they do not know.
Our study indicates that prototyping and boundary objects are
important mechanisms
in this effort.
Prototyping. Prototyping describes a problem-solving process in
which participants, in a
trial-and-error process with feedback loops that enables
corrections, gradually approach a
solution. This mechanism cannot bridge different logics of
different systems but it facili-
tates the handling of communication barriers insofar as it does
not require the develop-
ment of a perfectly fitting one-shot solution by simultaneously

34. considering all relevant
aspects in one trial (Schmickl & Kieser, 2008). In particular,
consultants and members of
the client organization experiment with different elements of a
solution for the different
subsystems until a proposal is envisaged that proves acceptable
for both sides.
Goal Definitions. In order to increase the likelihood for
achieving connectivity in the
communication between consultants and members of the client
organization it is
Sutter and Kieser 263
essential to begin the prototyping process as early as possible
or, more accurately, to
make project goals objects of the prototyping process—of a
prototyping process that
expands over the whole project. In this process consultants and
members of the client
organization discuss and negotiate which goals are supposed to
be realized through
which interventions. The two sides articulate their demands.
Demands are discussed
whenever necessary and modified. Approaches for realizing
demands are discussed
and, if necessary, modified. In this way solutions for problems
identified are conceptu-
ally constructed and reconstructed until both sides are satisfied
with the overall con-
cept. The following quotes illustrate how consultants and
members of the client
organization construct agreement about common goals and make

35. goals themselves
objects of the prototyping process.
Interviewer: Was there, at the beginning of the project, a
common understanding
of problems that had to be tackled?
P23/C: Essentially yes. The understanding was present on both
sides. The
notions of what was feasible, however, at this point of time,
deviated
a lot. Many trade-offs are necessary on both sides in this
process.
I: Can you describe how this coordination proceeds?
P23/C: That’s a kind of horse-trading. The client says: “I want
the follow-
ing” and then you have to say: “Yes, you get that” or “You
can’t get
that.” And, eventually, one has to find a common denominator.
In
most cases it works quite well.
The initial definition of goals is often subjected to
modifications although, in most
cases, not radical, rather incremental ones, to integrate new
demands, new context
conditions, new knowledge into consideration in the course of
the project and thus
provide connectivity.
P26/C: Obviously, there is always some dynamic in such a
project. Priorities and
emphases change weekly.

36. I: Have goals changed during the course of the project, at least
in details?
P24/M: Yes, over the whole project time. The more knowledge
has been accu-
mulated together with the consultancy, the more new insights
emerged
that suggested new directions.
P25/C: The project’s goals permanently changed in their
details. Finally, the top-
level goals were 90 percent identical with the goals at the
beginning. The
details changed constantly until the project was finished.
Solution
Development. Prototyping also comes into play in processes of
solution devel-
opment. The consultants and the project members of the client
organization use this
device to integrate their respective knowledge into emerging
problem solutions. How-
ever, prototyping is essential for creating connectivity by
modifying prospective solu-
tions as often as seen necessary until they seem acceptable for
the relevant parties

37. involved. As soon as potential solutions are accepted they are
likely to find access to
the communications within the respective organizations for
further processing.
264 International Journal of Business Communication 56(2)