Are you leveraging your organization’s use of IT and Business Consultants for real results? Join host Mike Hrycyk as he delves into the realities of effective consulting with industry experts Jamie Weber (National Director of IT and Business Consulting at PLATO) and Deidre Donaldson Meyer (Vice President and Chief Technology Officer at SGI). Together, they debunk misconceptions and reveal how IT and Business Consultants provide targeted expertise and fresh perspectives to achieve business objectives. Discover practical strategies for determining when your organization needs external support, learn how SGI successfully partners with consultants, and avoid common pitfalls. This episode is a must-listen for anyone seeking to confidently leverage consulting and drive real results.
Episode Transcript:
Mike Hrycyk (00:00):
Hello everyone. Welcome to another episode of PLATO Panel Talks. I’m your host, Mike Hrycyk, and today, we’re going to talk about engaging with consultants. This is really an important topic for PLATO, and because we’re a consultancy, we like to go out and find partners and work with them to achieve their goals, but we also understand that some people haven’t engaged consultants in their careers are not really sure how that works or are scared of the entire idea of consultants. We wanted to put some truth around that and tell the story and help people understand through a conversation. So, to further that, we have a couple of guest speakers today, and I’ll let you introduce yourself. Jamie, tell us about you.
Jamie Weber (00:37):
So, I’m Jamie Weber and the National Director of IT and Business Consulting here at PLATO. I really do drive the consultant business across Canada, as well as, some managed service offerings that we provide from a PLATO perspective, but mostly focused on sales and Saskatchewan. Deidre, I’ll hand it over to you.
Deidre Donaldson Meyer (00:52):
Hi, I am Deidre Donaldson Meyer. I am the Vice President and Chief Technology Officer at Saskatchewan Government Insurance. I’ve been working here for just over three years and I’m accountable for delivering system operations for the organization. So, making sure that all of the applications and hardware and all that kind of stuff keeps running for all of our users, our partners, and brokers.
Mike Hrycyk (01:23):
And that segues great into my first question. So, Deidre, can you tell me a bit about your organization and what you do and how you can use consultants? What kind of roles do they fill?
Deidre Donaldson Meyer (01:34):
Sure. SGI, Saskatchewan Government Insurance was created in 1945 and we have really evolved to be two different business units. One is the Saskatchewan Auto Fund, which is the Saskatchewan compulsory basic auto insurance vendor alongside driver license issuing and vehicle license issuing. And then we also have SGI Canada, which is a property and casualty insurance organization. We work in five different provinces, and we sell our products through independent insurance brokers. So, that’s a little bit about us.
(02:13):
In terms of when do we use consultants, what kind of rules, those kinds of things. We use consultants to bring additional capacity for work that’s usually pretty temporary in nature. In some cases, we actually don’t have in-house expertise, and we need to go outside of our organization to find it. From a general point of view, it’s one time kind of projects and initiatives rather than enduring kinds of needs. I would also say that in addition to that kind of a context where it’s a one-time need, we don’t see it as enduring over time, we would also engage consultants in areas where we expect that the need will diminish over time. Where the need for the technology is being reduced or it’s becoming outdated and it makes sense to use outside consultants for that because having in-house skills for that don’t really provide a long-term opportunity, if you will. So, that would be how I would explain how we engage or why we engage with consultants.
Mike Hrycyk (03:28):
So, Jamie, most of our listeners are quite familiar with PLATO. I talk about us all the time. I’m not going to get you to talk about what PLATO does, but what kinds of consultants are you offering up and placing with our clients, and what types of clients do you place with?
Jamie Weber (03:42):
We have clients right across all the public and private sectors across Canada because each one of them has, we like to think unique needs, but they’re very, very similar. So, as Deidre said, we see a lot of consultants that are being asked for larger projects where potentially clients don’t want to ramp up their FTE [full-time employee] count because it’s just too costly. This way, once the project is over, the consultants can leave when the project is over. Making sure there’s always that knowledge transfer documentation there. So we don’t just leave and leave the client in a rut. And so, a lot of the roles that we’re seeing, of course, are for the quality assurance resources that we have today. Other ones coming out are around business analysis, sometimes specializing in specific software that people are using that may be hard to find, project management, and program management. Sometimes, we’re getting solution architecture, which seems to be the next big one that’s coming down the pipe. But we do get reached out for a lot of different skills, and sometimes, from a PLATO perspective, we look for those skills where our QA people can grow into and continue to grow their IT careers. Really focusing on how we help grow our own internal people through different consulting roles.
Mike Hrycyk (04:47):
So, there’s no soft or easy way to say this next thing: consultants cost more money. Consultants are expensive. That’s why a lot of people think, why would I ever hire a consultant? An FTE costs less than a consultant. And I think we’ve already covered this a bit, but maybe there’s a bit more conversation we can have. So, what are the good reasons that companies are still choosing to engage with consultants? Deidre?
Deidre Donaldson Meyer (05:10):
Well, in addition to the need being more temporary in nature, or of a skillset that we only need for at point in time, not in the long term, I think that you have to consider that there’s a cost to hiring and training staff. So, we won’t have to hire and train our own internal staff if we choose to engage with a consultant for that particular need at that particular point in time. So, yes, consultants are more expensive, but I think that sometimes it’s overlooked that the cost of hiring, the cost of training, the cost of retraining over time also has a cost associated with it. I’d also say that as our needs change, we can start and stop consultant engagement quickly, and I think that that responsiveness has value as well.
Mike Hrycyk (06:05):
And when you think about it, you might have to ramp them up on your system or your process, but the idea is you’re bringing in someone who is already an expert in the thing that we’re doing. So you don’t have to train them into that.
Deidre Donaldson Meyer (06:16):
That’s right.
Mike Hrycyk (06:17):
Okay. Jamie, anything to add there?
Jamie Weber (06:19):
So, I think another benefit of hiring a consultant is getting them to do the day-to-day. So the actual people that work in the business as an FTE actually have time to focus on the new program and the business of the project that’s happening versus worrying about the functional day-to-day stuff that realistically could be outsourced to a consultant until the project is completed and then handed back over to the team while they’re done the project.
Mike Hrycyk (06:42):
And I think that’s a really important thing that people don’t really consider. But QA people do because we always have the idea of the user acceptance testing, it’s getting the user of the application involved in the development process. So, you’re building something that will actually work, that you’re vetting that it will work, and you’re engaging them right from the start so that as soon as you roll it out, you have the expertise to do it and the involvement and the desire to do it. And so, using that consultant to backfill rather than to do the new stuff, I think that’s a really good way. And I’m pretty sure I’ve seen that SGI is doing that as well. Right, Deidra?
Deidre Donaldson Meyer (07:17):
Yes, we are, for sure. Good nuance there in terms of not just doing areas of expertise that we don’t have but allowing us to be freed up to focus on some of the new things that we absolutely need to do to drive maturity in our business.
Mike Hrycyk (07:35):
Alright, Jamie, I’m going to put you on the spot. This is a question that you probably aren’t supposed to have an answer to. Are there specific areas where it does not make sense to leverage consultants?
Jamie Weber (07:47):
I believe there is, even though we do sell consultants. If it is a new technology that you’re trying to do business processes, I’m not sure bringing an outside consultant in is always good to do business process. I think it’s always beneficial to have someone from the company that understands today and where they want to take the business, being in charge of some of that key strategic stuff. Again, I always want to sell them, as you know, Mike. But I think that’s one of the big ones, right? So just ensuring that we’re not filling in some key strategic roles where some business acumen is very important as part of the project.
Mike Hrycyk (08:22):
Excellent. Deidre?
Deidre Donaldson Meyer (08:23):
Yeah, I’d say that one of the most important things for us is to consider our long-term view. I think it’s easy to hire a consultant. I don’t know that that’s necessarily the right choice sometimes, and that would be because we anticipate a long-term need for that expertise or the business knowledge that will be acquired during that engagement. And so, we have to think about what our longer term strategic view and our long-term resource requirement is for that skillset and decide if we need to invest early versus after the fact. And if we need to have that skillset over time, I think that we should be investing upfront and maybe hiring a consultant as a bridging, a very short-term strategy, may make sense. But in the long-term, we need someone? Then we should just do it and not delay that activity to fulfill on a long-term requirement.
Mike Hrycyk (09:31):
So, as many of our listeners know, PLATO has a social mission in which we are trying to train and employ Indigenous people who have been underserved in the tech industry in the past. But the end result of train an employee is that we end up with junior consultants. And traditionally, consultants generally aren’t juniors. Generally, you’re reaching out, and you’re finding people who are experts, who have a lot of expertise, who can ramp up quickly. And so, we’ve kind of shifted – for a number of our partners, we’ve shifted the way they’ve looked at consultants, and I know that we’ve done that at SGI. So, Deidre, can you tell us a little bit about how you’re going against tradition and leveraging juniors at SGI?
Deidre Donaldson Meyer (10:07):
Well, I would just sort of level set and say that, in general, juniors don’t really fit the consulting model for sure – just echoing what you had said. I think that as a fiscally responsible organization, we want to get in, get out – have consultants, get in, get out, and get the job done and move on. But working with PLATO is different. First off, we have a managed quality assurance program in place, and so, it isn’t at point in time; it’s a little bit longer in duration. And so, there would be an expectation of people turning over and coming and going on the part of PLATO to deliver the services. I also know that there is a real requirement to provide that experiential learning for junior employees, and we have a unique opportunity to do that. So, it is a social responsibility, but I do think that it is self-serving to a certain degree as well because if there are more resources that know more about our context and if there is turnover in our longer-term relationship with PLATO, we are better positioned to have the right resources hitting the ground running when new ones come on board. So, I think that there’s two wonderful things there. The latter, it serves us if there is turnover, but the social responsibility is something that we take very seriously at SGI, and diversity, equity, and inclusion is about providing opportunities in a leg up at some point. And we were just delighted with the opportunity to do so in negotiating the arrangement with PLATO. And I would also add that PLATO doesn’t make it cost-prohibitive if you will. So, I think that it’s reasonable for us to have this model. I think we are seeing some good success with it.
Mike Hrycyk (12:04):
Cool. That’s great. I love to hear that. Jamie, anything to add?
Jamie Weber (12:07):
Yeah, that was a good question. So SGI has been one of the biggest proponents in doing some of the junior consultancies as part of their larger program and even the managed service and have been quite patient and quite accessible with some of our people as we learn and grow. But they’re really good at helping train and mentor at the same time. So, even though we do have senior resources with our juniors that are on site there, they’re still open to working with our juniors, making sure they feel supported and part of the team. So, don’t treat anyone different from a junior to a senior. And the juniors that we have that are working there today really enjoy being there. So that’s the main point for us as a partner is to make sure that we’re giving our people the right opportunity at the right clients that make them feel included. And SGI has just been fantastic for that, so thank you.
Mike Hrycyk (12:49):
That’s great. It makes me think about one of the ways when I’m talking to prospective clients, and the old way of thinking is, Hey, I need four seniors to do this. And the idea is that those four seniors can answer all the questions and move forward quickly and do all the things. And the thing that I’ve said to the people I’m trying to get to take our services is really what you need is one senior. You need one person who can answer all the questions, and then I can give you seven juniors. And the cost overall is the same, but if you think about it, your throughput will be better. And so, not every situation can a junior do all the work, but when you think about testing and test cases – we’re on one client with a health authority that there’s going to be 11,000 test cases. Using a senior to document 11,000 test cases and then to execute 11,000 test cases that’s not a good use of your money. It’s way better if you can scale up on the juniors. And then the same thing happened; those 11,000 test cases came from some near that amount number of requirements and documenting all those requirements takes a whole bunch of time. And so, a lot of the way we’ve leveraged juniors is test case, test case execution, and junior product analysts who are helping build requirements and things like that. So, it’s understanding where to leverage the talent in the right places. And the point you made earlier, Jamie, sometimes the backfill, the person who’s doing the backfill doesn’t need to be that senior either, but freeing a person with a lot of experience, there’s a lot of value.
Deidre Donaldson Meyer (14:12):
I would add too that I think that something that is really interesting about bringing on juniors is the fact that they’re super excited to be there. They may not have the experience, but they have the enthusiasm and that is really wonderful to see. And it drives a bit of excitement and life to a team because they’re excited to get out there and use their newly acquired skills, and they may approach things differently and different is good, creative.
Mike Hrycyk (14:46):
They ask the questions that make you think about things from a different direction and it’s really, really powerful. Okay, maybe a bit of nuts and bolts questions. So what’s the average duration of a consulting engagement, and how do you know when the right time is to say, okay, the consultant part is done, and we’ll end that part of our engagement? We’ll start with you, Deidre.
Deidre Donaldson Meyer (15:04):
Well, I think that this is a really hard question to answer because it just really depends. Some projects are temporary in nature, but they could be months long, or they can be years long. They’re still temporary. They’re just either really short or really long. And we have a three year project underway at SGI right now that I would look at and say, that’s a long project, but it’s a project. And it is one in which we have heavily engaged in consultants for, and when it’s over, it’s over. So, I would also say that long-term projects are the exception, not necessarily the rule. The way we look at things is we go, what is the need? Articulate what that need is. Ensure that we are building in knowledge transfer so that our own people have the skill sets when the project and the initiative is done – or the knowledge of how it delivered. And then ending the engagement happens when the scope’s done or the business outcome is delivered, whichever way the engagement has been built. So, I wish there was an answer, but it really depends on the scope and what we’re trying to do.
Mike Hrycyk (16:17):
Well, we don’t promise ever in these podcasts to give you exactly the right answers. Nothing is cookie-cutter. Jamie, anything that you’d like to add into that?
Jamie Weber (16:26):
No, I agree. It’s that ever-dreaded “it depends” answer, again, on the length of the project, but this is when it becomes really key to work with your clients super close. If it’s becoming a longer-term engagement that maybe you weren’t expecting. Maybe there’s other conversations to be had about maybe we look at this differently and how do we maybe do this as a managed service versus a consultancy. So, there’s different conversations that could be had if it’s dragging out for some unknown reason. But yeah, when you have three-year projects, they could be there for three to five years. You just never know. So the answer is always, it depends.
Mike Hrycyk (16:56):
One thing that I would like to add is don’t end it too soon. I’m not saying let it drag on. What I’m saying is make sure you allocate time within your project and your spend plan such that you’re doing knowledge transfer and you’re getting the knowledge out of your consultants so that your permanent FTEs know how to take on the responsibilities that come from that project. And if you said that everything’s done on May 31st, and then they walk out the door and the project ran right up until the edge of that, then you could be dumping a hot potato into the lap of the people who are left over. So, it’s make sure that you plan for transfer. Okay, so this is also, I am certain, going to be an “it depends,” but I think our thoughts will still be useful around it. Is it better to leverage a consultancy or an SI –systems integrator – to do the entire project? Or is it better to bring in key contributors that you can embed with your teams and do the work? Let’s start with you this time, Jamie.
Jamie Weber (17:51):
My opinion is it’s almost better, I think, to have a blend of both the client and an SI. The SI’s bring the knowledge of whatever the new system is or the new next greatest thing. But realistically, the business brings the important information on how that system needs to act and where it needs to go. So, I think 100% just being a consultant SI project probably wouldn’t be successful. I think there would definitely need to be a blend to make sure that the business has a say and the other consultants aren’t going in a way that they think they are, and the business is going in a different direction. So, I think it should be both.
Deidre Donaldson Meyer (18:24):
I would agree with that a hundred percent. I do think that one, there’s a simple oversight requirement, but then there is how do we deliver this initiative that is adequately inclusive of what we need to do from a business perspective, what our strategy is for next year, the year after, and how does this work within that strategy? There’s just a lot of collaboration if you will. Where we do see largely a consultant do an entire project, it is when we are rallying around a business outcome-centric engagement. So, the outcome is this: how you get there is your choice, in consultation with us, obviously, but you are responsible for the outcome. That’s how we gauge success. So, I do think that it can work, and we do have some experience with that, but you never get away from the need for subject matter expertise and oversight on the part of the organization that’s purchasing consulting services.
Mike Hrycyk (19:42):
Great. Sort of a continuation from the same question, I think, is what about leveraging different consulting agencies? So, PLATO partners a lot with SIs to go in and help deliver stuff. One, because our big part of our play is that we’re experts in testing and not everyone else’s experts in testing. So, we go and support that. Or it’s part of the fact that we can bring Indigenous ownership to the table, and some companies are very connected to that. You’ve probably seen good and bad from having multiple players at the table with you, but do you have any thoughts around that, Deidre? Is it better to have multiple consultants working with you, or one company is better?
Deidre Donaldson Meyer (20:21):
Well, I think weighing one against the other is – it’s all them. We see these show up – our consulting engagements are with a single organization, or they’re with a lead who has brought together a number of different experts that come from other consulting firms. I do think it’s important for us as the organization buying these that we know who to go to for accountability of the project overall. So, if it’s an ensemble of any number of different consultants, that’s fine, but we don’t want to be going to four different contacts to try to troubleshoot why we’re going offside on schedule or scope or financials. So, I think that the coordination on the part of the ensemble is important. I think that from a preference perspective, I don’t think we necessarily have a preference. We are really about delivering the outcome that we’re looking for and the scope and relying on our consultants and our due diligence process when we are deciding on which consultants to engage with. We look at that, and we move forward.
Mike Hrycyk (21:47):
Great. Anything to add to that, Jamie?
Jamie Weber (21:50):
No, I think she’s right and I think it’s what’s the right mix for the project, but I’m also with Deidre. I think there has to be – I always refer to as that single throat to choke. So, if there’s five or six partners, who’s my main partner that I’m going to be dealing with to get problems resolved, right? Easier than trying to figure out the landscape of who’s doing what and when. So yeah, no, I think she was right on.
Mike Hrycyk (22:13):
Yeah, I mean, my experience, we’ve been part of some very large federal projects that are more than a hundred million dollars and more than four or five years. And any single consultancy is going to have trouble putting the amount of staff and resources as required. So, you have to have partnerships. You have to have multiple players. But the single most essential thing in that is having a firm understanding of this is the lead, this is their responsibility, this is the lead for this area, this is their responsibility. And I might not use the term single throat to choke, but it is sort of that thing, right? Accountability. Even if you move away from the aggressive nature of that, it’s who do you go to get the answer you need? Because no person at your level, Deidre, wants to have to talk to six people before you can get an answer. You want to know which one person you can talk to, and they either have the answer or they know how to get it quickly.
Deidre Donaldson Meyer (23:09):
That’s right. It’s imperative from our perspective.
Mike Hrycyk (23:12):
Alright, for the last little bit here, we’re going to focus on how to be successful in this. And so, I’m going to start with you, Jamie. What is the best ways – the most successful ways you’ve seen of onboarding consultants? So, they ramp up quickly and are successful overall?
Jamie Weber (23:30):
There’s a different answer between existing customers and new customers. So, from an existing customer perspective, there’s usually some sort of documentation from a PLATO point of view that we have on the customer that we try and run people through before they hit the client project so they have a high understanding of who the client is and what’s important to them and kind of what the culture is of that client so they understand what it is going in. From a new customer perspective, it’s a little bit longer from an onboarding perspective. But working really closely with the sponsor of that project, making sure that the team understands and gets integrated quickly and gets what they need so the project is successful.
Mike Hrycyk (24:08):
Excellent. Deidre?
Deidre Donaldson Meyer (24:10):
Yeah, I think the most important part is that upfront definition of roles and responsibilities that we agree to upfront. I think that it’s almost like a small p project sometimes depending on the scale of the initiative. And in addition to clear roles and responsibilities, you need to have clear communication and escalation paths. You have to have some metrics, some oversight mechanisms that you agree to upfront. And then you just roll with it when things get more operational.
Mike Hrycyk (24:46):
I mean, there’s sort of this expectation, hey, I’m spending a lot on a consultant, which means that I’m getting someone who’s an expert who can come in, who can wrap up really quickly, that they can find their own answers and they can just get in and go. And I think that there’s a real balance that’s necessary between that and preparing them for success. So, yes, you’re bringing – all of those things are true, but there has to be available information. You have to have documented something sometime or you have to make experts available. And so, it’s a balance between setting people up for success and also leveraging the fact that they’re highly skilled at coming into environments with a lot of unknowns and moving forward. So, similar question, Deidre, in your experience, what are the attributes, personality-wise, that you see in your most successful consultants?
Deidre Donaldson Meyer (25:35):
Well, I think that we welcome all sorts of personalities. I think that diversity is great, and we want multiple perspectives, multiple ways of delivering that, multiple levels of humour, and all those kinds of things. But at its core, I think we look for a fit to our corporate culture, and we have a fairly unique culture that we take a lot of pride in. And that is that we are very focused on transparency, very focused on taking accountability and holding others to account. We have really formalized mechanisms for getting to an agreement; we call it alignment. And then we also have a shared accountability for speaking responsibly about things that we don’t necessarily agree on so that we can move forward with some sort of a productive plan. So, I think that all of those things are important. People need to come in with open mindsets. Multiple ways of solving a problem is an important idea to embrace as opposed to a single way and a very closed kind of mindset associated with that. And I know a lot of organizations talk about fit with their culture. In my experience, SGI’s culture is very distinctive, it is very productive, and it really stands out when someone doesn’t fit or does fit because we are just able to move along more seamlessly and get things done as a collaborative team rather than at odds with or slowing down because we can’t communicate or get to agreement.
Mike Hrycyk (27:23):
And it’s important to balance all of that somehow with the ability for them to come in with new ideas and shake things up. So fit, but still have new ideas. Alright, I’m going to shift it a little for you, Jamie. You have a unique perspective. How do you, as a person who interacts with dozens of clients, how do you look at finding a fit for those clients with the people that we’re going to bring to bear so that it is successful?
Jamie Weber (27:51):
So, my whole philosophy, I guess, is to really understand my clients and what their business models are like and kind of what their cultural fit is. So, I understand if someone approaches me and says, I’m looking for a business analyst. I know there’s certain people that I could approach and be comfortable that they could walk in there and do what they were supposed to go and do and know that they would fit the culture. And there’s certain people that just may not, and that’s just the way the personalities go. So, I really want to make sure I understand my clients, what their business acumen is and what their culture is. Then, as we work our way through, looking for new employees or contractors, making sure that they fit the client base that we have. So, that’s kind of where I look.
Mike Hrycyk (28:32):
That’s awesome. This next question, I just wanted it out there because it’s a question that people are going to ask, and it’s mostly for you Deidre. What factors do you look at when you’re choosing between onshore and offshore consultants? How do you decide?
Deidre Donaldson Meyer (28:48):
That’s an interesting question. I think that as a general statement, and this is not an exclusive statement. But generally, we like to use resources that are local, if you will, although we will use offshore resources if need be because there are times when there is a very specific skill set and technical capability that is just not found in a common kind of way. And so, you are really forced almost to look outside of Canada for some skillsets because they’re just, they’re old, they’re archaic, or they’re legacy, and we know that we’re moving away from them. But just generally, I think that we are focused on supporting Saskatchewan first and then, from a national perspective, Canada, and then, in very specific instances, we will go offshore.
Mike Hrycyk (29:51):
Jamie, has your experience given you any perspective into that question?
Jamie Weber (29:55):
I’d say it’s pretty similar to what Deidre is looking at, even from just a cost perspective. Sometimes budgets do play in about what people need to look at offshoring versus nearshoring versus onshoring even, right? There’s a whole bunch of different models. But no, I think everyone’s similar to Deidre, but sometimes I do think customer budgets fit into the map and they have to look at offshoring just to fit it within the budget.
Deidre Donaldson Meyer (30:19):
Yeah, I would agree.
Mike Hrycyk (30:20):
Well, I don’t want people to look at the budget, so that’s okay. Alright, so wrap up. One of the things that I looked at before I got into the consulting game – so this role at PLATO was my first consulting gig nine years ago. Before that, I was always product-focused, FTE focused, long-term relationships and stuff. And one of the big things that I thought about moving into a role at PLATO was I was going to get a lot of new challenges. I was going to meet a new client. They were going to have a new domain. That was interesting and exciting for me, and you’ll get that from a lot of different consultants is that they get those new challenges, and I really like that. But something that I’ve learned, or sort of embraced, in my time at PLATO is that it gives you an opportunity to meet new people and make new friends. And maybe that sounds a little happy, but it is. You get to meet great people. You get to have great conversations. You get to learn what they’re doing and what drives their passion. And that’s been really exciting to me. From that perspective, and you both are going to have your own perspectives, is there something that shines really brightly for you about engaging with consultants, Deidre?
Deidre Donaldson Meyer (31:27):
I really love hearing experts talk about what they know. And as I’ve explained, most of the time we’re bringing consultants in because we don’t have particular expertise and we’re looking for others to have that expertise, but we get to learn about that subject area as well. It’s also exciting to be involved with people that are experts and are excited about whatever they have their expertise on. I think that that sort of levels up the conversation because you’re not relegated to learning about something. You’re just – you’re learning from the expert per se versus having rudimentary knowledge yourself. So I like that.
(32:16):
I love the relationships, too. That’s part of who I am. I like getting different perspectives from different organizations and different partners within the community in which we work in. So that is fun and engaging. And just generally, I would even go so specific as to say I truly enjoy working with PLATO. PLATO brings experts to the table, very well-recognized experts in quality assurance. But working with PLATO is really nice and really distinct from working with a lot of other consultants in that I feel like SGI needs are being listened to, that there are opportunities for both of us to gain knowledge, or experience, or whatever. And it’s just truly a partnership. And I trust PLATO to deliver what we need and have transparent conversations about anything that we need to as it relates to the services that they bring.
Mike Hrycyk (33:23):
Well, thank you so much, Deidre. That was very nice to hear. Jamie, can you top that?
Jamie Weber (33:27):
No, I can’t. But from my point of view, I really enjoy dealing with consultants. I do have to interview and meet some new ones as we work our way through. And I’m with Deidre; I like learning about what they’ve done and some of the interesting projects that they’ve worked on or programs that they’ve been involved in. And sometimes, I’m shocked by some of the stuff that they’ve done, and it’s quite unique to hear some of their stories. And I find that quite exhilarating. And Mike, I’m like you. I kind of like making new friends. So, it’s nice to always meet new people and understand where their passions are and where we can help them find a new engagement when they’re looking as well. That’s also super exciting. We get to ask those hard questions. It’s like, well, what do you want to do and what does excite you? And then I get to put on my thinking cap and think maybe they could fit at SGI if I go talk to someone there. So, that kind of excites me as well to help people grow their careers a little bit.
Mike Hrycyk (34:22):
Great. Well, thank you to our panel for joining us for a really great discussion on engaging with consultants. Thank you to our listeners for tuning in. I think that I definitely learned some new things about the perspective that the places that are bringing us in are having. If you had anything you’d like to add to our conversation, we’d love to hear your feedback, comments and questions. You can find us at @PLATOTesting on LinkedIn, and Facebook or on our website. You can find links to all of our social media and websites in the episode description.
(34:51):
If anyone wants to join one of our podcast chats or has a topic they’d like us to address, please reach out. We’d love it if you could rate and review PLATO Panel Talks on whatever platform you’re listing on. Thank you again for listening, and we’ll talk to you again next time.