Companies face different sets of problems all the time. To solve those problems companies engage external consultants, so that they can suggest ways through which company can operate with more efficiency. This can be accomplished by listening to own employees also. Although, I would tend to support the employment of outside consultants for specific problem solving relating to operating efficiency.
First of all, we all agree that employees who are working inside the organization are the best people to observe and suggest ways to improve. As a first step companies look internally for solutions. However, we must understand that employees who are working in organization have different point of view than an external consultant. Employees having internal focus can only suggest ways which they seem appropriate while a consultant which is an expert of the field, has better understanding and work experience visualizes the problem as a whole. Hence, an external consultant could provide better solutions from his/her experience, expertise and approach of problem solving.
It is known fact that employees are biased with regards to their organization and most of the time hold negative opinion of their organization. It might well be the case that while suggesting ways to become better in operating efficiency, employee might give a biased solution which may not be best suited for the organization. While an outside consultant can visualize and solve the problem without any bias and prejudice. Even though their solution may also fail, but they will work by remaining professional and suggest solutions which are the best.
Consultants being outside organization have little engagement with people inside the organization than in professional capacity. This way, the chances are slim for them being dragged in petty office politics, which is as damaging as biased opinions. In fact, politics can bolster the potential opinion bias with respect to any problem.
Although, consultants are highly paid. We must also take into consideration the level of expertise they bring to the table. Employees are hired for a specific role in the company and they expected to perform that particular role. Considering that companies cannot afford to engage employees for specific problem solving as well as in strategic matters. Most of the times, they are incapable of doing such things too by having less domain knowledge and time. Hence, it makes sense of company to hire consultants to solve problems.
As conclusion we can say, consultants are technically better equipped, focused, free from internal bias and office politics. These qualities are better suited to solve a problem related to improving operating efficiency. Even though consultants may cost more than regular employee but the way a consultant tackle and invest a problem, employees cannot be assumed to do that.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 261, Rule ID: ALSO_SENT_END[1]
Message: 'Also' is not used at the end of the sentence. Use 'as well' instead.
Suggestion: as well
...omplished by listening to own employees also. Although, I would tend to support the ...
^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Although” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...n bias with respect to any problem. Although, consultants are highly paid. We must a...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, look, may, so, well, while, in fact, as well as, first of all, with respect to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.4196629213 153% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 58.6224719101 92% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2438.0 2235.4752809 109% => OK
No of words: 452.0 442.535393258 102% => OK
Chars per words: 5.39380530973 5.05705443957 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61088837703 4.55969084622 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85829406062 2.79657885939 102% => OK
Unique words: 218.0 215.323595506 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.482300884956 0.4932671777 98% => OK
syllable_count: 751.5 704.065955056 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 18.0 23.0359550562 78% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 40.1746188532 60.3974514979 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 97.52 118.986275619 82% => OK
Words per sentence: 18.08 23.4991977007 77% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.64 5.21951772744 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.298569409988 0.243740707755 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0904008289689 0.0831039109588 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0584339397658 0.0758088955206 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.169185399513 0.150359130593 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0729393426818 0.0667264976115 109% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.1392134831 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 44.75 48.8420337079 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.69 12.1639044944 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.3 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 100.480337079 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 9.2 11.2143820225 82% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.