Great point. Key to that is understanding the risk of being risk-averse - I'm concerned a lot of consulting firms are so focused on the risks of making a mistake, damaging reputation, or impacting their margins that they may get side-swiped by more innovative or technically-capable firms. How many have learnt from Blockbuster, or Kodak?
Balancing the people-pleasing approach of "but this is what the client wants / asked for" vs the tough love and honesty of "but what you really need is…" has arguably been what separates the good from the great consultants since time immemorial, imho.
“The best thing for you is for us to finish up and step out of your way now” isn’t in enough playbooks.
It’s certainly interesting times for how firms’ leadership, and the consultants on the ground, navigate the changing landscape.
I’ve always had mixed feelings about the consulting world — especially the tendency to focus heavily on recommendations without owning implementation. In fact, some firms even deliberately avoid implementation projects, which limits the real impact they can have.
I’m a strong believer in the DOGE methodology. I truly think that in the coming months, we’ll see a framework built around the DOGE approach being adopted by more consulting firms. What sets DOGE apart is that it comes with a mandate — the authority to act, to implement, and to drive outcomes. That’s where most consultants, whether internal or external, fall short: they simply don’t have the mandate, and without it, their influence is inherently limited.
That mandate is a key difference. I also think the risk profile for many consulting firms (and the Partners in them) is fundamentally different and the DOGE model can't be replicated. The idea of DOGE-as-a-Service I find interesting though - using similar methods in an explicit short-term focused exercise.
Thanks for sharing the thoughts in this article.
And kudos for pitching a neutral set of observations on such a politically charged topic.
How far consultants might take this goes back to the age-old trade-offs on risk.
At so many levels: individually, organisationally, financially, politically (in the stakeholder sense), technically, systemically.
Great point. Key to that is understanding the risk of being risk-averse - I'm concerned a lot of consulting firms are so focused on the risks of making a mistake, damaging reputation, or impacting their margins that they may get side-swiped by more innovative or technically-capable firms. How many have learnt from Blockbuster, or Kodak?
Good points.
Balancing the people-pleasing approach of "but this is what the client wants / asked for" vs the tough love and honesty of "but what you really need is…" has arguably been what separates the good from the great consultants since time immemorial, imho.
“The best thing for you is for us to finish up and step out of your way now” isn’t in enough playbooks.
It’s certainly interesting times for how firms’ leadership, and the consultants on the ground, navigate the changing landscape.
I’ve always had mixed feelings about the consulting world — especially the tendency to focus heavily on recommendations without owning implementation. In fact, some firms even deliberately avoid implementation projects, which limits the real impact they can have.
I’m a strong believer in the DOGE methodology. I truly think that in the coming months, we’ll see a framework built around the DOGE approach being adopted by more consulting firms. What sets DOGE apart is that it comes with a mandate — the authority to act, to implement, and to drive outcomes. That’s where most consultants, whether internal or external, fall short: they simply don’t have the mandate, and without it, their influence is inherently limited.
That mandate is a key difference. I also think the risk profile for many consulting firms (and the Partners in them) is fundamentally different and the DOGE model can't be replicated. The idea of DOGE-as-a-Service I find interesting though - using similar methods in an explicit short-term focused exercise.