The Case for 28 Days: Why Shorter Engagements Produce Better Strategy
Constraints sharpen thinking. Time pressure forces clarity.
The advisory industry has long operated on the assumption that more time produces better strategy. The evidence suggests otherwise. Shorter, more intensive engagements consistently deliver more actionable outcomes.
There is an unexamined assumption in strategic advisory: that the quality of strategic thinking is proportional to the length of the engagement. A 16-week project must be better than an 8-week project. A comprehensive market study must produce better recommendations than a focused diagnostic.
This assumption is not supported by evidence. In practice, longer engagements often produce diminishing returns after the initial diagnostic phase. The additional weeks are spent on incremental analysis, stakeholder management, and documentation that adds volume but not clarity.
The case for shorter, more intensive engagements rests on three observations.