Nicht fakturierte Beratungsleistungen durch fehlende Deliverable-Transparenz

Definition

Australian management consulting contracts—especially in strategy and transformation—often specify fee schedules based on phases, milestones, or discrete deliverables. In practice, projects evolve via workshops, draft iterations, and side analyses commissioned informally by client stakeholders. Without a central deliverable register linked to scope and billing terms, consultants frequently provide extra slide decks, models, or workshops that are treated as ‘relationship building’ rather than billable work. Over the life of a project this accretion of untracked deliverables creates silent scope creep. Industry analyses of management consulting margins highlight pressure from client cost‑optimisation and vendor‑rationalisation, making it harder to recover ad‑hoc effort at the end of engagements.[2][3] From a forensic perspective it is common to observe 2–5 % of project effort not invoiced due to missing linkage between deliverables, change orders, and invoices. For a firm with AUD 5 million in annual strategic advisory revenue, this implies AUD 100,000–250,000 of avoidable revenue leakage each year, concentrated in complex, multi‑stakeholder projects where deliverables proliferate across email threads and shared drives instead of a controlled system.

Why This Matters

The Pitch: Strategy‑ und Management‑Berater in Australia 🇦🇺 verlieren typischerweise 2–5 % des Projektumsatzes durch nicht erfasste Deliverables und Scope‑Creep. Automatisierte Deliverable‑ und Scope‑Kontrolle kann jährlich leicht AUD 100,000+ bei einem mittelgroßen Haus zurückholen.

Affected Stakeholders

Engagement Partner, Project Manager, Finance Manager, Client Relationship Manager, Consultants and Analysts

Related Business Risks