On July 1, 1863, after a full day of engaging Union forces at the onset of the Battle of Gettysburg, Confederate General Robert E. Lee issued an order to Lieutenant General Richard S. Ewell to secure position of the high ground at Cemetery Hill where Union soldiers were encamping. General Lee’s order ended with the specific directive, “Take that hill, if practicable.” General Ewell, determining that it was “not practicable,” did not engage the Union troops encamping on Cemetery Hill’s high ground.
This strategic error of battle requirements and indecision of not taking the high ground is believed to have contributed to the Confederate army losing the battle of Gettysburg, and arguably the Civil War. With the wisdom of hindsight, we can certainly say this outcome was favorable for the US, but General Ewell’s reputation was tarnished by his perceived lack of common sense. It’s easy to place the blame on Ewell’s shoulders, but I would argue that General Lee, as the commanding officer, bore the greater responsibility in this communication mishap. While General Lee certainly meant for General Ewell to take Cemetery Hill, his statement “Take that hill, if practicable” was open to the interpretation and discretion of General Ewell. In this instance, General Lee lacked communication, knowledge of his audience, and clarity of instruction, costing him the battle.
In the world of asset management, a project miscommunication and failure to know your audience can be similarly devastating in terms of project delays, opportunity cost, and financial impact. For example, it is common project partnership for business line managers and technology managers to work closely together to achieve a project’s success. In a high-pressure work environment, both managers have competing responsibilities, priorities, skill sets, and communication styles, and costly miscommunications can occur.
So how do we guard the soft skills, the communication between parties, and knowing your audience? Despite all best efforts to standardize, streamline, control, and automate the machine, the human factor remains. This specifically highlights the value-add of a third-party consultant to bridge the communication, culture, and competencies gaps between individuals. There's a unique opportunity for the consultant to take ego out of the picture, to ask the follow-up questions, the clarifying questions, the “obvious” questions which can ensure the requirements are accurately captured.
At the time of the Battle of Gettysburg, General Ewell was only two months into trying to fill the boots left by the death of Stonewall Jackson, one of Lee’s most beloved generals. General Ewell likely didn’t yet feel at ease questioning General Lee’s order, while General Lee failed to recognize he was working with a new engagement manager and failed to adjust his communication accordingly. A third-party consultant could have bridged the communication gap by taking out the ambiguity for both parties, and maybe the outcome of the Battle of Gettysburg would be different.
In theory, many managers tout that there are no silly questions, but the simple issue of perception can impede an individual’s ability to effectively probe and gather the core requirements of a project at the onset. A consultant provides aid in these examples by cutting through interpretation to derive clarity and direction. There are inevitably going to be project gaps, but the introduction of a third-party consultant can make for an immeasurable value-add as you go into battle.
