Knowledge Is Cheap. Judgment Is Dear.
- Bruce McMillan
- Feb 16
- 5 min read
Consulting is entering the same structural moment that reshaped retail investing.
For decades, stockbrokers sat between individuals and the market. They controlled access to information, research, and execution. When online platforms made that information broadly available, the broker’s informational advantage collapsed. Fees moved towards zero, and the profession had to re-anchor its value elsewhere. The survivors did not win by knowing more facts. They won by helping clients make better decisions under uncertainty.
Consultants and coaches are now facing an equivalent “unbundling”. Not because expertise has stopped mattering, but because the economics of knowledge have changed. Knowledge is no longer scarce. It is increasingly abundant, searchable, synthesised, and generated at speed. What remains scarce is clarity, context, and the ability to choose well when the stakes are real.
Knowledge has been commoditised. Context has not.
Traditional consulting has often been packaged as a bundle: frameworks, methods, benchmarking, templates, and the ability to translate ambiguity into an operating model or plan. That bundle held a premium because producing it was expensive and slow.
Generative AI is collapsing those production costs. Today, leaders can draft credible roadmaps, operating-model options, and change approaches rapidly. These outputs are not perfect, and they still require validation. But they are increasingly “good enough” to weaken the value of generic, repeatable consulting work that used to command significant fees.
The point is not that AI replaces consulting. The point is that it moves the baseline. When first-pass knowledge outputs are readily available, the differentiator shifts away from producing content and towards shaping decisions.
The barbell effect is real.
When knowledge becomes widely accessible, markets do not simply disappear. They polarise.
At one end, machine-enabled support delivers high-volume guidance quickly and cheaply. Research, synthesis, initial analysis, option generation, and even parts of delivery management become embedded into tools and workflows.
At the other end, human expertise becomes more valuable precisely where it cannot be commoditised. That is judgment: the ability to frame problems properly, weigh trade-offs, and make decisions that hold under organisational constraints.
The middle is where pressure builds. The traditional consulting space built on templated “best practice”, generic frameworks, and methodology-led delivery does not become wrong overnight. It becomes less defensible economically, because the same outputs can be approximated at near-zero marginal cost.
This is not an insult to method. It is a reminder that method is increasingly table stakes.
Machines will answer “how”. Humans must decide “whether”.
AI will become excellent at execution questions. How should we structure the team? What practices might improve throughput? How might we sequence a transformation? How do we communicate change? These matter, and they will continue to improve as tools incorporate more data and better models.
But the most consequential questions in organisations are not procedural. They are decisional.
Are we solving the right problem, or the loudest one?Are we optimising a broken system?Which trade-offs matter most, and who owns them?What does success mean operationally, and what are we prepared to stop doing?
Machines optimise within a defined frame. Humans are responsible for defining the frame, and for owning the consequences. This is where consulting moves from knowledge provision to decision architecture.
The consultant becomes a decision architect.
The future consultant is valued less for possessing answers, and more for shaping the quality of decisions.
Decision quality is not just intelligence. It is governance, incentives, attention, evidence, and accountability. It is also cognitive reality. People are subject to bias, overconfidence, and inconsistent judgement, especially under uncertainty. Organisations add additional friction: competing agendas, legacy constraints, hidden risks, and the fear of breaking what still runs the business.
In that environment, clarity becomes the constraint. Not effort. Not activity. Not even information.
A modern consultant earns their place by improving decision conditions, for example:
Clarifying the decision that actually needs to be made, not the one that is easiest to discuss.
Defining what “good” looks like in measurable, operational terms.
Making trade-offs explicit, including what is being sacrificed and why.
Establishing decision rights and escalation paths that work under pressure.
Separating signal from noise, and building a rhythm of review that detects drift early.
Designing accountability so decisions lead to action, not theatre.
This is the work that does not scale neatly through templates. It is also the work most organisations cannot do alone, especially when they are mid-flight in transformation.
What consultants and coaches should do next.
This shift does not reward resistance. It rewards evolution.
First, stop positioning knowledge as the product. Knowledge is abundant, and increasingly machine-mediated. If your value proposition is primarily access to methods, you are competing with a collapsing price curve.
Second, sell judgement and clarity. Not opinion, not charisma. Judgement backed by disciplined framing, evidence standards, and a track record of helping leaders navigate trade-offs.
Third, use AI as an amplifier. Treat it as a capability multiplier for analysis, synthesis, and option generation. The winning posture is not “AI versus consultant”. It is “AI plus consultant”, with the consultant operating at a higher altitude.
Fourth, move closer to consequential decision environments. Value increases with proximity to decisions that carry risk, irreversibility, and strategic consequence.
Fifth, develop deep contextual understanding. Industry nuance, organisational dynamics, leadership psychology, and the reality of incentives are not easily commoditised.
Sixth, build capability, not dependency. The strongest engagements leave clients better able to think clearly and decide well, rather than reliant on external support for every hard call.
The real opportunity.
Consulting is not disappearing. It is being unbundled.
The consultants who thrive will not be those who can generate the most content. They will be those who improve decision quality when organisations face ambiguity, constraint, and consequence.
In a world flooded with answers, the scarcest resource is not information. It is judgement.
Autor, D. H. (2015). Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29(3), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.3.3
Autor, D. H. (2014). Polanyi’s paradox and the shape of employment growth (NBER Working Paper No. 20485). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w20485
Davenport, T. H., & Ronanki, R. (2018). Artificial intelligence for the real world. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/01/artificial-intelligence-for-the-real-world
Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. American Psychologist, 64(6), 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016755
Schwab. (2025, May 1). The action that forever altered investing. About Schwab. https://www.aboutschwab.com/mss/story/the-action-that-forever-altered-investing
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
Wu, J., & Hitt, L. M. (1999). Online trading: An internet revolution (Working Paper). MIT Sloan School of Management. https://web.mit.edu/smadnick/www/wp2/2000-02-SWP%234104.pdf