HBR shows an example comparing traditional strategic consulting firms versus the intrusion of the new models: “The share
of work that is classic strategy has been steadily decreasing and
is now about 20 percent, down from 60% to 70% some 30 years
ago, according to Tom Rodenhauser, the managing director of
advisory services at Kennedy Consulting Research & Advisory.”
Consulting Has Been Protected from
Disruption
For years, according to HBR, consulting had been immune to
disruption for two reasons... opacity and agility.
Consulting services are not transparent as are manufactur-
ing-based companies. Prestigious consulting firms evolved into
“solution shops” whose recommendations are incubated in the
black box of the team room. Being highly opaque, the real frus-
tration of their client base is the extreme difficulty in measuring
the results of the consultant’s inputs. Clients have usually relied
on brand, reputation, and other social proof (education pedi-
grees, eloquence and demeanor) as substitutes for measurable
results. This rationale set appears to be unstable in today’s in-
stant gratification climate.
Agility has been another strength that has allowed the BIG
GUYS the flexibility to respond to threats of disruption in the
past. The large-, as well as some of the medium-sized market
challengers to the big firms, are the direct opposite of Republic
and US Steel disruption cases. However, HBR says, “opacity and
agility are rapidly eroding in the current environment.”
In Part Two of this two-part series on disruption we will ex-
amine two questions: Are Consultants in danger of disruption?
and Are Clients hiring the right firm for the job? CW
Reference: Harvard Business Review, October, 2013
“Consulting services are not transparent..Being highly opaque,
the real frustration of their client base is the extreme difficulty in
measuring the results of the consultant’s inputs.”
