Why One-Size-Fits-All Consulting Does Not Work

Author Introduction 

Kia ora - I’m Dan Minkin. I’ve led and advised teams across Aotearoa and abroad, and I keep seeing the same pattern: imported frameworks that look sharp on slides, but stumble on our realities - scale, regulation and community context, and thin supplier markets. This piece explores why one size fits all consulting fails here, and how to justify change now.

Outline:

• The pitfalls of templated strategies from large firms

• How offshore delivery and global oversight miss local nuances

• The risk of intellectual property and talent flight overseas

• Case evidence showing boutique firms achieve higher satisfaction and responsiveness

• Building a business case for local, outcomes-focused consulting

Introduction

Many New Zealand leaders have discovered the hard way that global frameworks do not always translate locally. What looks good on a slide deck can miss the realities of our market, regulations, and culture. The cost is not only financial. It shows up in stalled transformation, internal resistance, and initiatives that need a second pass to get them working on the ground. This article is a practical guide for leaders who need to build a business case for change - away from one size fits all consulting and toward specialist, outcomes-focused partnerships that fit Aotearoa.

The pitfalls of templated strategies from large firms

Templates are efficient for the provider, but risky for the client. Playbooks and global blueprints are designed to be repeatable, which often means they start with an assumed model of the customer. In practice, that can create three problems for Kiwi enterprises:

1. Misdiagnosis of the core constraint. When a templated framework meets a local market, it can solve for the wrong bottleneck. For example, a generic operating model recommendation might assume scale economies that do not exist in New Zealand’s regional footprints, or it might overlook the real constraint in a thin talent market. The result is a neat document that does not unlock performance.

2. Output over outcome. Templated approaches are optimised to produce artefacts. They are less effective at shaping the organisational conditions needed to implement change. You get a plan, but not the path through local realities such as union agreements, regional service levels, supplier concentration, or data residency requirements.

3. Change fatigue. Teams recognise when they are being asked to force fit an external model. Engagement drops. Local knowledge is sidelined. Leaders spend time defending the plan rather than mobilising people around it.

What to do instead

Insist on a discovery-first, context-heavy approach. Ask any consulting partner to start with a structured hypothesis and then prove or disprove it with your data, your constraints, and your customer journeys. Tie every recommendation to an operating result you care about - for example, time to value, unit cost, or risk reduction.

How offshore delivery and global oversight miss local nuances

Global oversight is meant to assure quality. In a New Zealand context it can introduce delay, misalignment, and cost. Time zones stretch decision cycles. Approvals are escalated to people who do not understand local regulatory settings, sector dynamics, or the difference between a metro footprint and a provincial network. Subtleties matter here - relationships with iwi, regional workforce patterns, the realities of logistics on two islands, and the limits of supplier choice in a small economy.

Local context is not a nice to have. It is often the key variable that determines whether a recommendation can be executed inside a realistic window without creating operational debt. When those nuances are missed, you pay twice - once for the recommendation, and again to rework it with someone who understands how the market actually functions.

The risk of intellectual property and talent flight overseas

When the centre of gravity sits offshore, there is a tendency for knowledge to move in the same direction. Methodologies, automations, runbooks, and data models created in your programme can end up residing on overseas systems or in the heads of people who rotate out of New Zealand. That weakens your ability to sustain gains, and it increases your reliance on the original supplier. In a tight labour market, the best outcome is to retain knowledge in your teams and within the local ecosystem.

What to do instead

Bake onshore IP retention into your business case. Specify that all artefacts, automations, and playbooks are documented in your tools, with your access controls. Require structured knowledge transfer, paired delivery with your staff, and a clear exit plan that leaves you better off. Ask for a post engagement capability uplift measure so you can prove the knowledge stayed with you.

Case evidence showing boutique firms achieve higher satisfaction and responsiveness

Across New Zealand, leaders report that specialist, locally owned firms demonstrate faster adaptation and tighter feedback loops. You engage directly with decision makers. Trade offs are resolved in days, not weeks. Delivery pivots can be made without a global approval chain. Satisfaction tends to rise when teams feel seen and when advice is anchored in the realities they work with every day. Responsiveness is often stronger because the provider is close to your market, your customers, and your people. (Business Consulting NZ)

This is not a claim that scale is never useful. It is a claim that fit matters most. For many mid market and regulated organisations, the best results come from senior, specialist teams with skin in the local game, aligned to outcomes you can measure. That is what your business case should test.

What to do instead

When you run your evaluation, weight criteria toward responsiveness, cultural fit, and evidence of measurable outcomes in New Zealand contexts. Ask for examples of mid course corrections. Ask who was in the room when trade offs were made. Ask how quickly a recommendation was adapted once it met reality.

Building a business case for local, outcomes-focused consulting

Your business case needs to do more than argue for a different kind of partner. It needs to show how a local, specialist model reduces risk, accelerates value, and improves the probability of sustained outcomes. The most persuasive cases do five things well:

1. Quantify the cost of rework. Identify the programmes that needed a second pass because the initial approach did not fit local conditions. Estimate the avoidable cost in time, budget, and leadership attention. Rework is the hidden line item your board will recognise.

2. Convert speed into value. Time to value is not just a project metric. It is a financial driver. Show how faster decision cycles and shorter feedback loops translate into earlier benefit realisation or reduced operational risk. If you can pull forward benefits by even one quarter, the NPV changes.

3. Evidence cultural fit. Document how recommendations will be shaped with your teams and stakeholders. Call out how the partner will work with unions, iwi, regulators, and regional providers. Cultural fit reduces resistance and cuts change friction.

4. Require outcome based governance. Tie fees to milestones that your business actually values. Insist on clear success measures at the start and independent health checks mid flight. Governance should track outcomes, not only activities.

5. Protect and grow internal capability. Specify knowledge transfer, pairing models, and internal ownership of artefacts. Make it clear that you will exit with stronger capability than you started with. That reduces dependency risk and shows strategic prudence.

Practical checklist - Building a business case for culturally aligned consulting

Use the checklist below with your executive and programme teams. Score each item High, Medium, or Low, then record actions.

Copy and adapt this table as part of your internal approval pack. Aim to secure executive sponsorship early, so the discussion is about strategic fit and outcomes, not just hourly rates.

Bringing it together - how to position the investment

When you present the business case, frame it as a risk reduction and value acceleration move, not merely a supplier change. Emphasise that:

• Fit beats template. You are investing to reduce rework and increase the probability of first pass success.

• Speed matters. Faster, local decision cycles bring forward benefits and reduce operational risks.

• Capability remains here. Knowledge, artefacts, and playbooks stay in your systems and with your people.

• Outcomes are measured. Success will be tracked against financial and operational metrics your board already cares about.

This positioning aligns the proposal with the organisation’s strategic priorities and demonstrates stewardship of both resources and reputation.

Further reading

This article is part of a five part series on improving consulting outcomes for New Zealand enterprises. It is designed to educate and equip leaders who want measurable results, faster time to value, and stronger capability retention.

Further reading on the topic of RO driven Consulting in New Zealand

Blog 1 - The True Cost of Consulting in New Zealand

Blog 2 - Why "One Size Fits All" Consulting Doesn’t Work for Kiwi Enterprises

Blog 3 - Measuring Real Consulting Outcomes - Beyond the Slide Deck

Blog 4 - The Smarter Path to Consulting - Local Specialists Delivering Measurable ROI

Blog 5 - Realising Long-Term Value - Building Trusted Consulting Partnerships Onshore