Independent IT Governance vs Big-4 Consulting
When boards need clarity, not a transformation program
Most boards approve IT spend, then ask a harder question later, where did the money go, what risk did it buy, and what changed in the business.
Big-4 firms are built to run large, multi-team transformation programs. JH Strategic IT is built for a different mandate, board-defensible clarity on IT spend, risk, accountability, and value, fast, independent, and finance-aligned.
The Core Distinction
Transformation and governance are different problems
-
Transformation changes systems, operating models, and execution capacity over quarters and years.
-
Governance clarity explains spend, risk, ownership, and value in weeks, so leaders can decide what to fund, what to stop, and what to hold accountable.
If the pressure is coming from the board, and the question is “explain the value,” clarity comes first.
Options at a Glance
Three common paths to understanding IT spend, risk, and business value
Dimension | JH Strategic IT | Big-4 Consulting | TBM / Cost Transparency Tools |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary role | Independent IT value and governance advisor | Enterprise transformation and advisory | Cost transparency and reporting platform |
Typical buyer | CEO, CFO, board, PE operating partner | Board, executive leadership, enterprise CIO | CIO, finance partners |
Speed to insight | Weeks | Months | Months, setup required |
Independence | High, no tool or delivery bias | Medium, ecosystem incentives vary | Low, tool-centric |
Typical outcome | Decision clarity, accountability, board confidence | Program execution at scale | Ongoing measurement and reporting |
Cost profile | Low to moderate | High | Moderate to high |
Best used when | Leadership needs truth and defensible narrative | Scale, compliance, execution capacity matter | Cost discipline at scale is required |
Key risk | Limited execution capacity by design | Over-engineering, cost, time | Data without decisions |
Board takeaway:
JH Strategic IT creates clarity and confidence, Big-4 execute transformation, tools operationalize measurement.
Operating Model Comparison
Scope and engagement style
Big-4
-
Multi-layer staffing model
-
Built for enterprise programs
-
Requires broad organizational coordination
-
Timelines measured in quarters and years
JH Strategic IT
-
Direct access to a former Global CIO
-
One accountable advisor, no junior layers
-
Outcome-driven governance and decision support
-
14-day, 30-day, and 90-day results
CFO interpretation:
If speed, precision, and board-ready clarity matter more than transformation delivery, the independent path fits.
Financial Alignment
How each model measures value
Big-4
-
Value defined through transformation milestones
-
Business cases often start as assumptions
-
Cost structure built around program scale
JH Strategic IT
-
Recommendations tied to P&L and cash flow
-
Value realization measured in weeks, not quarters
-
Board-level financial narrative included
-
No incentive to expand scope through delivery staffing
CFO interpretation:
If the objective is financial clarity, and spend defensibility, Big-4 delivery economics are often misaligned.
Speed and Decision-Making
Time-to-clarity
Big-4
-
Longer discovery, more review cycles
-
Message routing across teams
-
Deliverables spread across workstreams
JH Strategic IT
-
Rapid visibility and reallocation analysis
-
Direct communication
-
Decisions anchored to measurable value
-
Executive-ready artifacts, built to be reviewed in one sitting
Board interpretation:
When timelines are measured in weeks rather than quarters, independent governance becomes the practical first step.
Executive Access
Who you actually work with
Big-4
-
Partner sells, delivery team executes
-
Staff rotation is common
-
Senior guidance can be diluted by layers
JH Strategic IT
-
You work directly with the former CIO
-
No handoffs, no rotation
-
One person accountable for outcomes
CFO interpretation:
If you need a direct line to judgment and board-level translation, choose the independent advisor.
When Each Option Makes Sense
Choose Big-4 when
-
You require global transformation execution
-
You need 20–200 people driving delivery
-
You are modernizing ERP, core systems, or operating models
-
You need brand optics for enterprise-scale stakeholder management
Choose JH Strategic IT when
-
You need clarity before the next board session
-
You must explain IT ROI, risk, and accountability
-
Renewals are oversized, adoption is unclear
-
Finance cannot tie spend to outcomes
-
You want independent guidance before tools, vendors, or programs expand
Cost and Engagement Structure
Cost is not the issue, precision is
Big-4
-
Premium pricing for scale
-
Engagements often expand by design
-
Multi-month minimums, high overhead
JH Strategic IT
-
Fixed-scope advisory
-
Clear outcomes, clear timelines
-
No resource inflation
-
Built for $50M to $2B organizations
Independence and Bias
Advisory objectivity
Big-4
-
Vendor ecosystems and alliances
-
Incentives can favor platform paths and staffing
-
Risk of recommending work that supports delivery scale
JH Strategic IT
-
No vendor ties
-
No platform bias
-
No implementation revenue
-
Advice tied only to financial and operational value
For boards and CFOs accountable for spend defensibility, independence matters.
Situational Decision Matrix
Quick diagnostic for executives
Situation | Best fit | Why |
|---|---|---|
Board meeting in 14–45 days | JH Strategic IT | Rapid clarity, board-ready narrative |
Need to validate the IT budget | JH Strategic IT | Financial modeling, reallocation clarity |
CIO struggling to express value | JH Strategic IT | Business-first translation, accountability |
Oversized SaaS renewals | JH Strategic IT | Cost-to-value alignment, adoption reality |
Need an unbiased assessment | JH Strategic IT | No delivery or tool incentives |
Multi-year enterprise transformation | Big-4 | Scale, execution capacity, workstreams |
Global integration or complex M&A | Big-4 | Multi-region coordination, staffing |
Need scale beyond 50 delivery resources | Big-4 | Delivery teams available |
Summary
Big-4 firms are engineered for transformation delivery.
JH Strategic IT is engineered for clarity, accountability, and board confidence.
If you need visibility, financial accuracy, and a board-ready narrative tied to outcomes, the independent path creates more value, more quickly, with no dilution.
FAQ
How do we know if we need JH Strategic IT or a Big-4 firm?
If the mandate is clarity, spend defensibility, risk accountability, and a board-ready narrative in weeks, choose JH Strategic IT. If the mandate is multi-year transformation execution at scale, choose Big-4.
Do Big-4 firms deliver faster outcomes?
They can mobilize large teams, but their model typically requires longer discovery and multiple review layers. When leadership needs clarity quickly, independent governance is usually faster.
Are Big-4 firms more thorough?
They are broader. Governance thoroughness comes from precision, decision logic, ownership, and measurable outcomes, not team volume.
What is the cost difference?
Big-4 pricing reflects scale and staffing. JH Strategic IT pricing reflects fixed-scope outcomes and speed to clarity. If you do not need a large delivery team, the Big-4 model is often unnecessary.
Will JH Strategic IT work with our CIO and IT leadership?
Yes. The objective is to strengthen the financial narrative, governance, and accountability model, not to replace IT leadership.
Are Big-4 firms more credible to boards?
Boards recognize the logos. Boards still demand clear ROI, risk exposure, and spend justification. Credibility comes from answers that hold up under scrutiny.