When Comfort Costs Business Value: A Cautionary Tale in Transformation Partnering

To highlight the misalignment between IT strategy, project scope, business outcomes, and vendor selection decisions, we examine a specific deliverable from a larger transformation project- the “Supplier Onboarding Questionnaire”. This deliverable, though small, was well-structured during the transformation program, thoroughly tested, and supported by a detailed workflow.

The final solution comprised 279 questions for suppliers, resulting in an average onboarding time of ~32 days. The unintended consequence, which was realised after many months? Frustrated users, disengaged suppliers, and a process that felt more like a compliance marathon than a strategic enabler for the business to have the agility to work with more competitive suppliers.

This outcome is not uncommon when organisations default to selecting a large, well-known consulting firm for their transformation programs and leave everything to IT and the transformation partner. The rationale often rests on three assumptions:

• Premium price guarantees premium quality
• Big names ensure predictable outcomes
• Choosing a known vendor is a safe career move for executives

Yet, the reality is far more nuanced.

Once the boardroom decision is made, the burden of delivery shifts to middle management—who must now validate those assumptions without the consulting partner sharing accountability. Regardless of the project’s success or failure, the client is locked into a premium contract with limited recourse. Is that a successful transformation—or a costly lesson?

Consider the case of a £500Mn mid-sized enterprise that embarked on a digital transformation journey with a Big Four consultancy. The expectation was clear: top-tier delivery aligned with the top-tier price. But as deadlines loomed and commercial pressures mounted, operational teams found themselves caught in a bind:

1. They provided inputs blindly, trusting the consultancy to deliver strategic outcomes.
2. They were simultaneously expected to defend the outcomes to leadership to safeguard their position, while also justifying the board’s decision to engage a Big Four firm—a decision they supported, even if it didn’t fully align with the business’s actual needs.

The project concluded with all IT deliverables technically complete. Yet, the business impact was conspicuously absent. A shadow “health-check” initiative had to be launched post-implementation, incurring an additional 30% in costs just to course-correct.

Key Learnings for Future Programs

To avoid repeating this pattern, organisations must rethink how transformation is scoped, staffed, and steered:

• Treat transformation as a business initiative—not just an IT deployment
• Engage business stakeholders from day one—not post go-live
• Define measurable business outcomes that align with process and technology
• Structure internal teams around those outcomes—not around vendor deliverables
• Choose vendors and partners who can share the responsibility to realise business value

Final Words

Transformation is not a procurement exercise—it’s a leadership commitment. The right partner doesn’t just deliver tasks; they co-own outcomes. They challenge assumptions, embed accountability, and empower internal teams to lead with clarity. Comfort may feel safe in the short term, but capability is what drives long-term value.

Are you selecting a partner to impress the boardroom—or to transform the business?

Contact us to use our framework and assistance in technology selection.

#BusinessTransformation #TransformationLeadership #ChangeManagement #StrategicExecution #ExecutiveDecisionMaking #BoardroomInsights #TransformationStrategy #ProcurementWisdom #PartnerAccountability #TransformationPitfalls #ConsultingReality #BeyondTheBigFour #ComfortVsCapability #TransformationTruths #LessonsInLeadership #TransformationFails