Management consulting: competitor comparison
Use this competitor comparison exercise to compare alternatives against the buyer’s requirements without attacking another provider. You are discussing a focused operating-model review with a CEO dealing with a stalled operational initiative. The point of the practice is to make a useful decision together, including recognising when the offer is not a fit.
Produce a comparison with evidence, open questions and a clear decision criterion.
The situation
In this fictional brief, teams disagree about who owns the next decision. The buyer wants an agreed decision map and a practical implementation sequence. Your offer is a focused operating-model review, but you must first establish whether its scope addresses the actual need.
A relevant delivery constraint is that the client team has limited time for interviews and workshops. Treat that as a fact in the exercise; do not remove it to make the sale easier.
| Your counterpart | a CEO dealing with a stalled operational initiative |
|---|---|
| Offer under discussion | a focused operating-model review |
| Evidence available | a worked example of roles, decision rights and escalation paths |
| Terms to clarify | Define access to stakeholders, deliverables, decision owners and handover. |
How to approach competitor comparison
A useful question for this stage: “What would you need to verify before deciding that either option meets the requirement?” Ask it when the conversation creates a reason for it, rather than reciting every question in order.
- Build a like-for-like comparison. Mark unknowns as unknown. Ask the buyer to rank the criteria before discussing your strengths.
- Ground the discussion in the buyer’s work. Ask: “Which unresolved decision is holding the initiative back today?” Listen for a concrete example before making a claim.
- Use evidence relevant to the decision: a worked example of roles, decision rights and escalation paths. Explain what it demonstrates and what remains unverified.
- Produce a comparison with evidence, open questions and a clear decision criterion.
An industry-specific concern
Buyer: “Consultants leave us with slides and no execution.”
Possible response: “Let us define the decisions, owners and implementation artefacts you need, and make handover a named deliverable.”
Why this response helps: it acknowledges the concern, brings the discussion back to a verifiable requirement and leaves room for a different decision. Adapt the wording to what the buyer actually said.
Run the practice
- Prepare for two minutes. One person takes the seller role and one plays a CEO dealing with a stalled operational initiative. Read the offer and constraint separately from your preferred answer.
- Have a five-minute conversation focused on compare alternatives against the buyer’s requirements without attacking another provider. The buyer should answer consistently with the brief and ask for evidence when a claim is vague.
- Add this challenge: The buyer quotes a feature or price you cannot verify. State the limit of your knowledge and compare documented terms.
- Pause for feedback. Quote one useful question and one missed opportunity. Repeat the difficult exchange using a different response.
- Finish by writing the actual agreement. A sensible option, when it fits, is to map one cross-team process and test the proposed ownership with its participants. A clear decision to pause is also a useful outcome.
What to avoid
| Common mistake | Claiming the competing provider cannot do something without current evidence. |
|---|---|
| A stronger direction | I do not know their current terms. Here is what our proposal includes and what we should verify in both offers. |
| Scope and claim boundary | Separate your recommendations from outcomes that depend on client execution. |
| What to measure in real work | the number of blocked decisions resolved with named owners. Establish a baseline and definition before interpreting a change. |
An example conversation
Which differences between the two options matter most to your team?
Our concern is that teams disagree about who owns the next decision. Also, the client team has limited time for interviews and workshops.
Which unresolved decision is holding the initiative back today?
Consultants leave us with slides and no execution.
Let us define the decisions, owners and implementation artefacts you need, and make handover a named deliverable.
What would you need to verify before deciding that either option meets the requirement?
Your working sheet.
Make the exercise your own. Notes are saved in this browser when storage is available. Download a copy to keep; avoid confidential information on a shared device.
Example: teams disagree about who owns the next decision; the client team has limited time for interviews and workshops.
Example: What would you need to verify before deciding that either option meets the requirement? Industry question: Which unresolved decision is holding the initiative back today?
Example: a worked example of roles, decision rights and escalation paths. Separate your recommendations from outcomes that depend on client execution.
Example: Propose a clear next step, such as: map one cross-team process and test the proposed ownership with its participants. Confirm the owner and date.
Review your work
This is a reflection checklist, not an automated assessment.
Questions
Who is this management consulting exercise for?+
Can I use the example as a script?+
How should I assess the result?+
Fictional training scenario. The dialogue illustrates response choices; it is not a customer testimonial or a record of a real sale.
Explore more sales resourcesTake the conversation further.
Read a practical guide to structuring your sales practice, or explore the current London sales masterclass.
Plan your sales practiceExplore Jordan Belfort in London