1/ Consulting favors inefficiency for high-leverage work. Hourly rates are constrained by silly benchmarks that signal "class" of work.
Conversation
Replying to
2/ Many newbies agonize over project-based vs. hourly vs. risk-share. Those are simple to decide among based on nature of work.
1
1
Replying to
3/ Real problem: caste system. <$150/hr signals interchangeable mass-market. $150-200 signals entry-level USP, inexperience discounted.
1
1
4
Replying to
4/ $200-$400 signals established USP along with a non-trivial track record (>3 caried clients/3 years)
1
1
3
Replying to
5/ Above $400 (for individuals, not org-backed) signals in-demand USP OR a "brand name" consultant whose very involvement can cause change
1
3
Replying to
6/ The problem with this model is that since consultants above $200 sell uniqueness, benchmarking by hourly rate is PURE posturing.
1
3
Replying to
7/ Thing is, depending on WHAT you do, your *density* of work can be extremely high. This has nothing to do with class/experience/brand
1
3
Replying to
how much of consulting is just bringing a smart, outsider perspective to the problems a firm is facing?
1
Replying to
Nominally 100% of it. But it's not "outsider" so much as somebody who can challenge decision-maker the right way. Can be internal
1
2
Show replies
Replying to
9/ In my kinda work (dense, conversations with expected rate of decision-altering insights set by 1:1 chemistry), 90% of value=10% of time
1
3
Replying to
10/ I don't have a solution, I still bill hourly. But consulting really needs an IRR type expectation setting, not deterministic value-add.
2
1
2
Show replies

