When you need a management consultancy instead of us
There is a class of work that a small delivery firm should not take, and pretending otherwise would be the most expensive kind of dishonesty. Large consultancies exist because organisational change at scale is a different discipline from building software, and it needs a different kind of supplier. This page is about recognising when you are in that situation, and it does not end with us being the answer.
Facts about a management consultancy last checked 2026-08-21
- If the hard part is organisational change rather than software, you need a different supplier.
- Board-level credibility is a real product and a small firm cannot provide it.
- Programmes spanning many countries and business units need scale we do not have.
- Regulated programmes often require a supplier with audited process and insurance limits we cannot match.
- Sometimes the answer is both: they run the programme, a specialist builds one part of it.
Where a management consultancy is the right answer
Written first, and deliberately. If we could not fill this section honestly, the page would not be worth publishing.
What a management consultancy is good at
- Genuine scale: thousands of practitioners who can be assigned to one programme
- Board-level relationships and the credibility that carries inside a large organisation
- Change management as an actual discipline, which is what most large programmes fail on
- Coverage across countries, regulators, and business units simultaneously
- Institutional permanence and the insurance, audit, and compliance status that comes with it
Choose them over us when
- The programme touches many business units and the hard part is getting them to agree
- You need a supplier your board already recognises and trusts
- The work spans multiple countries and regulatory regimes at once
- Procurement requires a vendor of a size and trading history a new firm cannot meet
- The real problem is operating-model change and software is a consequence of it
Side by side
Every cell about a management consultancy is labelled with where it came from. Nothing here is inferred, and a blank is left blank.
| Reveneau | A management consultancy | |
|---|---|---|
| Scale of team available | A small team | Hundreds to thousandsVerified |
| Change management capability | None. Not what we do | A core disciplineVerified |
| Board-level credibility | None. We are new | Usually establishedVerified |
| Multi-country programme delivery | No | YesVerified |
| Institutional permanence | Unproven. We are new | Decades in most casesVerified |
| Cost | Scoped per build, quoted before work starts | Not establishedNot established |
Most comparison pages exist to conclude that the author should get the work. This one mostly does not, because the situations it describes are ones where we would be the wrong choice and taking the engagement anyway would be bad for both of us.
The distinction that matters
Ask what the hard part actually is.
If the hard part is that eleven business units disagree about a process, that four regulators have different requirements, and that six thousand people need to work differently on a Monday, the software is a consequence of the problem rather than the problem. That is change management, it is a genuine discipline, and firms have spent decades getting good at it. A small delivery team dropping a well-built application into that situation from outside does not solve it.
If the hard part is that a specific piece of software needs to exist, work correctly, and be maintainable, that is our kind of problem.
Board-level credibility is a real product
This is rarely said plainly, so: part of what a large consultancy sells is that nobody gets fired for choosing them. That has genuine value in a large organisation where a failed programme ends careers, and it is not something a new firm can offer at any price.
If your decision needs that protection, buy it. It is a rational purchase and a small supplier telling you otherwise is arguing against your interests.
Where the split arrangement works
The common arrangement that works is both. The consultancy owns the programme, the governance, and the organisational change. A specialist builds one well-defined component inside it, faster and closer to the daily work than a large programme normally moves.
That works when the interface is defined clearly and someone senior owns the connection between the two. It fails when the specialist is inserted without authority and spends the engagement in coordination meetings.
What we would say if you asked
If you describe a multi-country operating model change and ask whether we can run it, the answer is no, and we will say so on the first call. That is the whole content of this page.
Where we fit
Reveneau suits this when
- The problem is a definable piece of software rather than an organisational change
- One team can own it end to end
- Speed on a specific build matters more than programme governance
- You want the verification method to be the thing you are buying