Ok, I admit it, the title of this article is deliberately dramatic to get more people to read it. Not all consultants suck, and some are worth their weight in gold. But I did it because I just read yet another newspaper article about universities spending a fortune on expensive consultants on projects that went nowhere, and another about consultants behaving badly (or even illegally), and it made me cross.

Cross because it doesn’t have to be this way. Cross because the good guys get tarred with the same brush, and cross because universities deserve better.

If you agree, perhaps this story will resonate with you. 

‍

Monday morning déjà vu

It’s Monday. You’re a senior leader at a university. You’ve just left a two-hour steering committee meeting where another major ‘transformation project’ was discussed.

The consultants were there. An army of well-dressed, super-smart 25-year-olds and a couple of very smooth older types dropped in to give gravitas and a sense of mature calm.

They brought slides. Lots of them. Diagrams, pyramids, process flows, new acronyms and an abundance of matrices and formulas that probably do work in the corporate world. They talked about ‘activating transformational catalysts’ and ‘future-ready ecosystems’. They mentioned a ‘target operating model’. You nodded. Everyone nodded. Because that’s what we do. Because we want to believe that university challenges are just like regular business challenges. And that solutions that work in the business world will work in our world.

Then they recommended something game-changing: a restructure and a new martech stack or maybe some agentic AI.

Perhaps they didn’t call it a restructure. Maybe it was an alignment or realignment. Or a workforce simplification. Or, my personal favourite: a sustainabilisation (not sure if that’s really even a word).

And perhaps they didn’t call it martech or AI. Maybe it was a digital transformation. An omnichannel growth system. A predictive intelligence layer. An agentic ecosystem. A cradle-to-grave platform. A digital revolution. A magically-solve-every-problem-you’ve-ever-had-or-ever-will-have system (after a short, five-year implementation of course).

And is it all really game changing? Transformation means ‘a complete or dramatic change in the form, appearance, nature or character of someone or something’. Have you ever seen a university transform into anything other than what looks like exactly the same university, just a little better.

Why some consultants suck

Let’s be clear. Not all consultants suck. Just a very specific breed of jargon-slinging, slide-deck–wielding, metric-manipulating types who thrive on the complexity they help create. They’ve usually never worked in a university before. They’re the ones who sell transformation using a PowerPoint deck followed by a seven-figure implementation plan. These ones suck.

Why?

Because what they’re selling as transformation is often actually just rearrangement: Move people into new boxes. Move the chairs around. Rename teams. Rename faculties. Merge faculties. Put functions together because they have similar-sounding names. Separate functions because they were put together in the last restructure. Create a new layer of management. Remove a layer of management. Introduce a new tool that nobody really knows how to use. Promise results in five years (by which time everyone currently involved has moved on). Talk about the J curve – how things are going to get worse and worse until they suddenly get better at some stage in the distant future.

In the end, you’ve got:

• a new structure with a few less people sitting in different chairs, mostly doing the same work they did before
  
• embittered staff, beleaguered by disruption
  
• a shiny new system with 3 out of 78 features being used
  
• a permanent ‘Phase Two’ that never arrives
  
• a bill the size of Africa.

And still … Disengaged students. Burnt-out teams. Minimal actual improvement.

The human cost

These projects are sold as bold visions for the future, but they are mostly a few org chart changes, some new names for old stuff and some new tech. Teams are anxious for months. Good staff leave or opt for redundancies. Institutional memory disappears. The people who actually know how things work are too exhausted or disillusioned to speak up.

And the consultants? They’re on a plane to the next job. Probably using you as their case study.

What to do about it

So, what’s the alternative?

Stop hiring consultants who only want to transform your org chart. Start engaging experts who want to improve your outcomes and empower your institution.

Think about why you want to engage a consultant.

‍
Here are some situations that warrant a consultant:

✅ You’re seeing symptoms but can’t diagnose the root cause.
Something’s not working – applications are down, student satisfaction is slipping, recruitment isn’t converting – but you’re not sure why. A consultant brings a fresh perspective and structured diagnosis.

✅ You know exactly what needs to be done, but there’s no time to do it.
The strategy is clear, but your team is already at capacity. A consultant can act as skilled hands to turn big ideas into actionable plans, laying the groundwork for faster execution. 

✅ The problem is big, messy and uncertain.
You need someone to help untangle complexity, map a way forward and keep momentum going when internal energy is flagging.

✅ You’re managing multiple stakeholders with competing agendas.
A neutral third party can help facilitate difficult conversations, build consensus and keep the focus on shared goals.

✅ You need external credibility to get a decision made.
Sometimes internal recommendations get ignored, but when a consultant does their due diligence and backs the same advice, it gets attention and traction.

✅ The expertise just doesn’t exist in-house.
Whether it’s market benchmarking, data strategy or a specific international recruitment challenge, sometimes the knowledge simply isn’t on the team. A great specialist consultant makes it their business to have deeply focused, up-to-date expertise so they can fill these kinds of knowledge gaps effectively. 

And here are some examples of when not to use a consultant:

❌ You’re using a consultant to avoid making a hard decision.
If leadership is stalling and hoping a consultant will validate a predetermined view, it’s often a waste of time and money. Toughen up and make the call.

❌ You’re under pressure to ‘spend a budget’ before it disappears.
Rushing to hire a consultant based on a use-it-or-lose-it budget approach often introduces secondary problems. If you’ve got a project that you’ve waiting to do, that’s great. But don’t make one up just to keep your funding.

❌ You want to outsource blame or accountability.
If the consultant is a shield rather than a solution, the results – and staff morale – will suffer.

❌ There’s no real intention to change.
Bringing in a consultant without the institutional will to act on their advice is a recipe for wasted effort and frustration on both sides.

Consultants can bring a lot of value, but only if you’re clear on the role they’re needed for and what you want to achieve. The more clarity you can bring to the problem, the better a consultant can help you. And if you don’t yet have clarity, good consultants will usually spend a little time with you for free to help you clarify your challenges and aspirations.

‍

Once you’ve decided you do need external support, here are five steps to make it work for you:

1. Choose practitioners, not theorists‍

Work with people who’ve done the job, who’ve done your job, who understand the complexity and politics of your world, not just read the case studies. Hire people who’ve actually improved something in a university. If their hands aren’t dirty, they won’t fix your plumbing.

2. Demand outcomes, not outputs

Don’t let anyone wow you with ‘deliverables’. Ask them: what real change will this create for students, staff or revenue? Then measure it. (And no, a workshop doesn’t count as impact.)

3. Focus on tasks, not titles

Before you redesign the org chart, figure out what actually needs doing. What are the tasks that improve student experience? Boost enrolments? Reduce attrition? Help staff thrive? Build from that. Design for the work, not hierarchy.

4. Software last, not first

If a consultant shows up talking about platforms before processes, run. Technology should enable change, not define it. First, solve the problem. Then, pick the tool. (Also, leveraging AI is not a strategy.)

5. Win now, build for later

Real transformation needs a long-term roadmap, and it also needs early wins. Ask for both. Look for the changes that would make a big difference now with little effort, and act on them while the bigger strategy takes shape. Quick wins build momentum and confidence, and they buy time and goodwill for the harder, longer work. 

‍

Final thought

Universities are complex. Change is hard. But that doesn’t mean you need to outsource your common sense.

Next time someone proposes a major transformation plan, ask them to walk you through the first week. What happens in week one? What will students notice? What will staff be doing differently? What will your local community see?

If they can answer with clarity and practical detail, you’re on the right track. Because real change isn’t just about vision – it’s about action.

Your organisation deserves the best. So do your students, your staff and your community.

‍

Written by:

Mark Pettitt
Founder and CEO
mark@edified.com.au