Spend enough time talking with leaders inside large enterprises, and a pattern starts to emerge.
It usually sounds something like this:
“We’re working with one of the big firms… but the team keeps changing.”
“We’re getting a lot of junior resources.”
“The work just isn’t landing the way we’d hoped.”
These aren’t one-off complaints. They’re coming up consistently across industries and organizations, and often from teams that are otherwise well-resourced and deeply experienced working with large consulting partners.
To be clear, this isn’t a blanket critique of large firms. They are built to solve very specific problems at very large scale. Enterprise-wide transformations, global rollouts, multi-year programs – those are their domains, and they’re structured accordingly.
But that structure also creates a gap. And increasingly, enterprise teams are starting to feel it.
The Mismatch Isn’t About Capability, It’s About Fit
When large enterprises look for consulting support, their default motion is often to engage a large firm. That seems to make sense at the corporate level. But inside those same enterprises, the work is rarely experienced at that scale.
It happens at the level of a business unit, a function, a product team or a specific initiative. And those teams often have very different needs than the enterprise as a whole. They’re not typically trying to transform the entire organization (yet), but are more often trying to:
Validate An Approach
Stand Up A Capability
Test Something New
Move Quickly in One Area
That’s where the mismatch starts to show up.
Where Large Firms Struggle (and Why)
Large consulting organizations are optimized for scale, consistency, repeatability, and global coordination. That’s what allows them to execute massive programs effectively.
But those same strengths can become constraints when the problem is:
- Narrowly scoped
- Time-sensitive
- Exploratory or
- Evolving in real time
In those situations, teams often experience:
- Rotating resources
- Less senior attention than expected
- Slower iteration cycles
- Difficulty prioritizing smaller initiatives within larger programs
- Recommendations that feel generic or templated
- Output that leans heavily toward presentations and meetings rather than owned outcomes
- Limited knowledge transfer, creating ongoing dependence on the consultant
- Teams that are strong in analysis, but less experienced in actually running or operating a business
Again, none of this is necessarily a failure of capability. It’s a question of alignment.
The Rise of “Surgical” Engagements Inside Enterprise
What we’re seeing more frequently now is a shift in how enterprise teams think about external partners. Rather than defaulting to a single large firm for everything, they’re starting to assemble a more targeted mix of partners, depending on the need. For large-scale initiatives, large consulting firms still play a critical role. But for more focused efforts, teams are increasingly looking for partners who are:
- Optimized for speed and iteration
- Comfortable operating within a defined scope
- Able to stay close to the work and
- Aligned to outcomes, not just delivery
This is especially true in areas like AI.
Why AI Is Accelerating This Shift
AI initiatives rarely start as enterprise-wide programs. They begin as isolated use cases, department-level experiments, proofs of concept, or targeted process improvements.
They require:
- Fast cycles of testing and refinement
- Close collaboration with business stakeholders
- Ability to adapt quickly as assumptions change
These are not conditions that favor large, scaled delivery models. They favor focused, hands-on engagement models—where progress matters more than process, and outcomes matter more than structure.
This is where firms built for the mid-market are starting to play a different role inside enterprise organizations. Not as replacements for large firms, but as complements.
How to Evaluate the Right Partner for Focused Engagements
A few characteristics tend to separate partners who perform well in these environments:
Continuity and seniority of the team
Consistent, experienced resources who stay close to the work – not constantly rotating teams.
Orientation toward outcomes
A focus on moving something forward, not just producing artifacts or recommendations.
Ability to operate within constraints
Comfort working within defined scope, timelines, and budgets without overengineering the solution.
Hands-on collaboration style
Teams that work alongside internal stakeholders rather than abstracting away from the problem.
Practical experience, not just analysis
A balance of strategic thinking and real-world execution experience.
These characteristics often show up more naturally in firms that are structured for the mid-market, but they can be evaluated regardless of partner size.
What This Means for Enterprise Leaders
For leaders inside large organizations, this shift creates an opportunity. Instead of asking: “Which large firm should we engage?” A more useful question might be, “What kind of partner fits the specific problem we’re trying to solve?”
That may still lead to a large firm. But increasingly, it may lead to a more focused engagement, a different operating model, or a partner optimized for a different scale.
The most effective enterprise organizations aren’t choosing between “large” and “small” partners. They’re choosing the right partner for the shape of the problem. As more work shifts toward faster, more iterative, and more targeted initiatives – especially in areas like AI – that definition of “right fit” is evolving. The most common thing we’re doing for enterprise teams/divisions/departments (essentially mid-market entities within large orgs) right now?
Discover our Mid-Market AI Blueprint Approach.
