Problems › Business Transformation Consulting › Professional Services
In professional services firms the partners who price transformation work are paid according to utilisation and realisation, so the first cut at the problem is already shaped by the need to protect those metrics. For professional services firms, this shows up in a particular place. The numbers that carry the answer are billable utilisation and realisation, and the complication specific to this industry is that partner compensation rationally pays people <em>not</em> to sell the highest-margin product in the firm. The general version of this problem and the one you are actually in have different first moves.
In professional services firms the partners who price transformation work are paid according to utilisation and realisation, so the first cut at the problem is already shaped by the need to protect those metrics. For professional services firms, this shows up in a particular place. The numbers that carry the answer are billable utilisation and realisation, and the complication specific to this industry is that partner compensation rationally pays people not to sell the highest-margin product in the firm. The general version of this problem and the one you are actually in have different first moves.
An engagement here merges three tasks that can stand apart: mapping which service lines actually protect engagement gross margin once costs are assigned, choosing which adjustments fit the current partner leverage model, and supplying the billable hours to carry them out. The firm prices the initial mapping near cost because the real return comes from the staffed delivery that follows, and that return depends on keeping utilisation and realisation above the threshold that sustains revenue per partner.
The same utilisation and realisation targets that drive partner pay also explain why the work rarely starts with the question of which engagements cover their cost of capital. Once the programme is framed as a set of staffed workstreams, the metrics that matter to compensation are already locked in, and any narrower diagnostic step would leave billable capacity on the bench without improving those numbers.
The test for the managing partner is whether the two or three engagements that most damage overall realisation and revenue per partner can be named with the margin impact attached. When that list exists, the requirement is additional delivery capacity. When it does not, any spend on staffed workstreams simply increases the volume of the wrong activity.
Corporate Strategy & Transformation produces the margin allocation and the ordering of changes without committing headcount. It states plainly when the numbers require a large delivery team, allowing that decision to be taken after the margin picture is clear rather than before the first invoice arrives.
These three together are the signature. One on its own usually points somewhere else.
✓ Engagement margin reports show most work clustered around average realisation while a few services drag the total down, yet no separate diagnostic line item appears.
✓ Utilisation targets are met by extending existing workstreams rather than by pausing to re-price or exit lower-margin offerings.
✓ The bench fills with people allocated to the transformation programme before any document lists the specific services whose margins must rise.
The move that usually makes it worse. Letting the partners whose compensation rests on utilisation and realisation define both the diagnosis and the delivery scope, which produces a programme sized to protect those two metrics rather than the underlying margin distribution.
It is for you if you run or finance a professional services firm and the word "transformation" is being used before anyone has agreed what is broken. It is the situation where the numbers are available but nobody has put them in an order that produces a decision.
It is not for you if Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.
Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.
Below is an excerpt from a real run of this analysis on a professional services firm. It is a sample profile rather than a customer, and it is unedited engine output — this is the format you get, on your own numbers.
The subject is Aldergate Partners, a sample company profile used for testing rather than a customer — $88M revenue, 310 people.
Excerpt from a real Percision run · Competitive Positioning · sample company profile
The move. Re-align partner economics so the diagnostic that already converts 63% of the time becomes the default first sale.
| Investment required | $0.9–1.1M total over 12 months: $0.4M for partner-success function (3 FTE), $0.3M for vertical-IP playbook development (4 FTE from existing bench), $0.2M for compensation-model simulation. |
| Expected return | Incremental EBITDA of $2.4–3.2M annually once 40 diagnostics/year achieved; payback period 4–6 months after compensation redesign goes live. |
| Revenue, year 1 | $60.5–62.0M (base case assumes 28 diagnostics sold, 65% attach rate) |
| Revenue, year 2 | $66–69M (40 diagnostics, 70% attach rate, vertical-IP packages live) |
| Revenue, year 3 | $74–78M (52 diagnostics, 75% attach rate, UK/EU regulatory playbooks optional) |
| Exit criteria | Strategy should be reversed if, within 12 months, (a) diagnostic attach rate falls below 45% for two consecutive quarters, OR (b) ≥4 partners depart (18% attrition), OR (c) partner cash-impact delta is negative for ≥50% of partners for two consecutive quarters. |
This is one move out of a full analysis. Read a complete report — every page, no email required.
This question routes to Corporate Strategy & Transformation, one of 29 engagements the platform runs. For professional services firms it works through billable utilisation, realisation, revenue per partner and engagement gross margin, then produces the sequence rather than a list of options — which move first, what it funds, and the observation that would say the sequence is wrong.
You watch the analysis get built before paying anything. Read a complete report here if you would rather see the depth first.
For a mid-market company the diagnostic phase alone is commonly £75k–£250k over six to ten weeks, and the delivery phase that follows is usually several multiples of that. Large-firm day rates run roughly £1,500–£3,500 for a consultant and £4,000–£8,000 for a partner, and a typical team blends the two so the effective rate lands somewhere in the middle. The number that matters is not the day rate, though — it is the ratio of diagnosis to delivery, because that is where the scope is set.
No, and any tool that claims otherwise is selling you something. Software cannot run a programme office, hold a difficult conversation with a divisional MD, or supply forty people for nine months. What it can do is produce the analysis that decides whether you need those things, and what they should be pointed at — which is the part that is most often rushed and most expensive to get wrong.
Buy the diagnosis separately from whoever will deliver, and write the decision down before you take delivery bids. Once the two or three changes are named and the arithmetic is on paper, the delivery tender is a procurement exercise with a fixed brief. Once they are not, the tender sets its own brief, and it is always a larger one.
Materially, yes. Partner compensation rationally pays people not to sell the highest-margin product in the firm — which changes both the diagnosis and the order of the fixes. The metrics that decide it here are billable utilisation, realisation, revenue per partner, and an answer built on industry-general benchmarks will usually point at the wrong one first.
Less than most people expect. Your last twelve months of revenue and cost split the way you already split it, plus whatever you hold on billable utilisation and realisation. The analysis is explicit about what it is assuming where your data stops, which is more useful than waiting for numbers you may never have.
Percision is the wrong tool if you already know the answer and only need execution capacity, or if the business is pre-revenue — then the constraint is evidence about the market, not analysis of your own figures. Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library. Also wrong if you need facilitation, politics, or someone to sit with a lender or buyer. Those are human jobs.
Percision is not a lawyer, tax advisor, auditor, licensed appraiser, clinical or regulatory filer, or an AI implementation shop. It does not do HR casework, creative-only brand work, or impersonate a named consulting firm. It is a strategy analysis engine — not a template library.
Describe the situation in your own words and we will tell you which analysis answers it — before you sign up for anything.
Describe my situation →Prefer to skip ahead? Go straight to the free diagnostic.
English · Español · Deutsch · Português · Français · Italiano · Nederlands · 日本語 · 한국어 · 中文 · Polski · Svenska · Türkçe · العربية · Tiếng Việt · ไทย · हिन्दी · עברית