There are numerous of people looking upon a consultant as some-thing the cat brought in after successful hunt. There are probably reasons for this, and it is surely not completely wrong, but it is partly builit on observations, partly on prejudices. The correct use of a consultant should be a cost efficient way to dimension the own staff, and not for permanent use. If the consultant is being used routine-like, the cost efficiency of course probably should be questioned.

Maybe we should not forget the origin of the word: CONSULTANT comes from latin consultus  which means 'learned in the law', 'persisting wisdom of law', of consulo 'deliberate', 'work for', 'help', 'act', 'consult'.

Persisting 'wisdom in the law' is though not the speciality of the engineer - as long as we do not talk about the laws of the nature...

Competence

According Webster Encyclopedic dictionary to be competent means "(Fr. compétent from competer, to be sufficient; L. competo, to be meet or suitable) Answering all requirements; suitable; fit; sufficient or fit for the purpose; adequate /---/ "

So  where is Problemskytten 'fit for the purpose*? With 20 years experience within product and production development mainly for ABB I presume that is a kind of core competence. Being loyal to the ABB employees I do not take any commissions which might interfere with their businesses.

- Product development

- Production development

- Process development

- Technical due diligence analysis

There is also a kind of metaphysical competence, but it is still not for sure such a competence is 'adequate' or 'suitable' why this particular competence is not in the list.