consulting-proposal-structures

name	consulting-proposal-structures
description	Select and apply the optimal proposal narrative structure (McKinsey Conclusion-First vs. Boston Storytelling) based on audience psychology, time constraints, and objectives. Use when presenting strategic solutions, recommendations, or proposals to clients, executives, or stakeholders.

Consulting Proposal Structures

When to Use

Use this skill when:

• Presenting a solution or proposal to a client or stakeholder
• Creating executive pitches or strategic presentations
• Need to persuade an audience to accept recommendations
• Facing time constraints or audience resistance
• Audience is in crisis mode or on a mission-driven project

Prerequisites

• Completed analysis of the problem
• Defined conclusion/recommendation
• Identified the "suffocation point" (key obstacle preventing solution)

Selection Framework

Step 1: Evaluate Your Context

Assess these factors before choosing a structure:

• Audience psychology: Are they impatient, skeptical, resistant, or collaborative?
• Time constraints: Do you have limited time (elevator pitch) or extended engagement?
• Objective: Is this creating urgency, building consensus, or driving action?
• Cultural context: Does the audience prefer direct or indirect communication?

Step 2: Choose Structure Type

McKinsey Style (Conclusion First) - Use when:

• Audience is impatient or pressed for time
• Direct answers are expected
• Creating urgency is necessary
• High stakes with need for clarity

Boston Style (Storytelling/Puzzle Solving) - Use when:

• Audience is resistant to direct recommendations
• Building ownership and consensus is critical
• Long-term organizational change is the goal
• Cultural preference for collaborative discovery

Execution: McKinsey Style

Structure

1. What: Start with the conclusion (Governing Thought)
2. Why: Provide supporting reasons
3. How: Outline specific actions
4. Why not yet: Address the Suffocation Point (obstacle)

Steps

1. State your conclusion immediately and clearly
2. Present the Governing Thought structure
3. Explain why this conclusion is correct
4. Detail how to implement the solution
5. Critical: Address the Suffocation Point - why hasn't this been done yet?
6. Present obstacles and how to overcome them
7. Conclude with clear call to action

Effect

• High risk, high return
• Can shock the audience or provoke resistance
• Best for creating urgency or when time is limited

Execution: Boston Style

Structure

1. Questions: Pose probing questions about the situation
2. Evidence: Present data and insights sequentially
3. Discovery: Guide audience to their own conclusion
4. Ownership: Frame solution as audience's insight

Steps

1. Do NOT state the answer initially
2. Ask questions that highlight the problem
3. Present evidence piece by piece
4. Allow audience to connect the dots
5. Let the audience experience "epiphany" (I discovered it myself)
6. Frame the conclusion as their insight
7. Build on their ownership for implementation

Effect

• Builds consensus and ownership
• Lower resistance to implementation
• Best for resistant audiences and organizational change

Decision Tree

Is the audience impatient or needs shock?
├─ YES → Use McKinsey Style
└─ NO → Is the audience resistant or needs ownership?
    ├─ YES → Use Boston Style
    └─ NO → Consider hybrid approach

Key Concepts

Suffocation Point

The critical obstacle preventing the solution from being realized yet. This is the core issue to solve in the McKinsey approach.

Audience Profile Categories

• Impatient: Wants direct answers immediately
• Resistant: Needs to feel ownership of the solution
• Crisis mode: Requires urgent, clear direction
• Collaborative: Prefers discovery and consensus-building

Constraints and Considerations

• Cultural differences may affect which style is preferred
• Real-time audience feedback may require switching approaches
• Both styles require completed analysis and clear conclusions
• The "suffocation point" must be identified for McKinsey style