All too often, companies hire outside consultants to suggest ways for the company to operate more efficiently. If companies were to spend more time listening to their own employees, such consultants would be unnecessary.
Companies, once they get well established and start generating revenues from their products and services, start focussing on the efficiency of their operations to further increase the profits and turnover. Large companies are essentially big machines. Every system is interconnected while being independent in their way of performing the operations.
To perform a task like identifying the efficiency of operations in a company, it requires creation of a new team and assigning it a task of analysing the operations of the company. This in turn requires man power, compute power and other resources which might turn out to be expensive in the long run. Every company would not be able to afford this new set of expenses. There may not be enough employees who are proficient at identifying the various inefficient operations in a company and provide solutions for the same. This leads to the question of choosing the inexpensive yet efficient choice for evaluating a company.
The company can decide to hire outside consultants who are specialists in finding flaws and providing solutions to improve the efficiency. This way, the company can focus on its day to day business operations while accommodating inputs from the consultant company.
The question that now occurrs is if these consultants are really necessary. If one looks a the perspective of an employee, since they are the ones performing the operations of the company, they would have a better knowledge on which operation in a company is performing efficiently compared to other operations. The employees as a whole would be aware of the points that are dragging down the rest of the operations of a company. If the management spent time with the employees discussing about this, the company can internally improve its efficiency and effectiveness. This is slightly advantageous as the internal details and private information of the company which would have been shared with the consulting firm. The hardship with this is that now the employees are also forced to think about ways of improving the company than just doing their job which might hinder the day to day operations of the company.
The best way forward for any company is not to choose one of these choices. It is to choose a good mixture of both. In certain matters, the ideas of employees would be better and when it comes to the overall performance of the company, the consultancy firm can provide better solutions on improving the efficiency of the company.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 52, Rule ID: WHO_NOUN[1]
Message: A noun should not follow "who". Try changing to a verb or maybe to 'who is a are'.
Suggestion: who is a are
... can decide to hire outside consultants who are specialists in finding flaws and provid...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 90, Rule ID: DT_DT[1]
Message: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only 'a' or 'the' is left.
Suggestion: a; the
...ants are really necessary. If one looks a the perspective of an employee, since they ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, if, look, may, really, so, well, while
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 21.0 19.5258426966 108% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 14.8657303371 74% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 25.0 33.0505617978 76% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 58.6224719101 102% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2090.0 2235.4752809 93% => OK
No of words: 410.0 442.535393258 93% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.09756097561 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49982852243 4.55969084622 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.94195684087 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 192.0 215.323595506 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.468292682927 0.4932671777 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 663.3 704.065955056 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.7332387882 60.3974514979 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 110.0 118.986275619 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.5789473684 23.4991977007 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.31578947368 5.21951772744 44% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 5.13820224719 19% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.272695083289 0.243740707755 112% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0945839896378 0.0831039109588 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0518803694785 0.0758088955206 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.167535881916 0.150359130593 111% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.041718581944 0.0667264976115 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.1392134831 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.3 12.1639044944 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.03 8.38706741573 96% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 100.480337079 87% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.5 11.8971910112 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => 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.