In most business disciplines where the stakes are high, independence is a given. Financial auditors must not own stock in the companies they evaluate. Investment advisors are required to disclose conflicts of interest. Attorneys operate under strict rules against divided loyalties. Yet in one of the most consequential areas of corporate decision-making – technology strategy – independence remains strikingly rare.
This fact should trouble corporate leaders. Information technology now underpins not only operations but growth itself. Choices about platforms, architectures, and vendors lock companies into paths that shape competitiveness and enterprise value for years. And yet, the majority of firms hired to provide “strategy” in this area do so with financial entanglements that compromise neutrality…!
Following the Money
The most direct question a board should ask of any IT advisor is also the most revealing: who pays you? For Managed Service Providers (MSPs), systems integrators, and most consultants, the answer extends far beyond the client. Hardware and software vendors supplement their revenues through commissions, rebates, and tiered “partnership” incentives.
The economics of this system are well understood. Vendors want to expand market share, and MSPs want higher margins. But for the client, these conflicts cast a long shadow over strategic advice. When an advisor’s profitability hinges on which vendors are chosen, neutrality is lost.
Strategy or Sales?
The implications are not theoretical. Consider the following – in each of which, what is presented as strategy is inextricably linked to sales. In short, the fox is guarding the henhouse.
- A cloud partner advising on whether to migrate workloads from on-premises systems while holding a quota for the very provider under consideration.
- A reseller recommending one cybersecurity platform over another, with commission rates differing sharply between the two.
- An integrator promoting a “single vendor suite” approach, while standing to gain substantial implementation revenue.
Why Independence Is Scarce
Why is independence so uncommon? The answer lies in the economics of the consulting market. Vendor partnerships subsidize the cost of advisory services, allowing firms to offer seemingly lower fees. What looks to the client like efficiency is, in reality, the effect of back-channel third-party revenue streams.
History plays a role as well. Many service providers grew out of sales and implementation rather than advisory work. Their DNA is commercial, not neutral. Strategy has become a bolt-on rather than a discipline in its own right.
The Consequences of Compromised Advice
The distinction between independent and vendor-aligned guidance is not abstract. Organizations that have engaged both often describe the difference as “night and day.” Independent advisors are free to:
- Evaluate the full range of options, rather than a pre-approved vendor list.
- Align solutions with business objectives, not commission structures.
- Consider total cost of ownership and long-term value, not short-term incentives.
- Recommend a cautious pace of change when appropriate, rather than one dictated by vendor sales cycles.
These differences translate into real financial outcomes. A decision steered toward a less-than-optimal platform may carry hidden costs for years, through licensing, lock-in, or misalignment with business priorities.
Why Executives Accept the Status Quo
Why, then, do so many organizations tolerate conflicted advice? The reasons are understandable:
- Lack of Awareness – Many leaders do not realize how deeply vendor incentives shape recommendations.
- Illusion of Cost Savings – Subsidized consulting appears cheaper, even if long-term costs rise.
- Trust in Scale – Familiar names and large provider networks create a sense of security.
- Convenience – The promise of a “one-stop shop” appeals to busy executives, even if it blurs accountability.
But these explanations do not erase the risks. In fact, the most critical decisions – those with multi-year impact – are precisely where independence matters most.
What Independence Provides
True independence is rare, but when secured, it transforms the conversation. Advisors who answer only to the client can recommend delaying a migration, right-sizing license purchases, or choosing a less glamorous but more resilient architecture. They can examine vendor claims with equal skepticism, weigh trade-offs transparently, and focus exclusively on enterprise value. Most importantly, independent, vendor-neutral consultants consider all questions from the perspective of what’s best for the client – not for their employer.
In other industries, this is standard practice. No board would accept an auditor paid by the company’s largest creditor, nor an attorney compensated by opposing counsel. Yet in IT strategy, similar conflicts are widely normalized.
A Standard Worth Demanding
Independence in IT strategy should not be an exception. It should be a requirement. Organizations that engage advisors without scrutinizing their incentives risk more than wasted dollars; they risk steering their technology roadmaps down paths designed to benefit others.
The stakes are too high. Digital transformation, cybersecurity resilience, and AI adoption are not peripheral issues. They are core to survival. At these junctures, only truly independent advice can ensure that strategy serves the enterprise, not the channel.
So Now…. You Know
The scarcity of independence in IT strategy services is not a minor industry quirk – it is a systemic blind spot with profound implications for corporate decision-making. The lesson for executives is simple: when choosing advisors, independent vendor neutrality must be treated as non-negotiable.
Advisors who depend solely on client fees, without commissions, rebates, or vendor subsidies, will inevitably offer different, and better, guidance than those whose revenue is tethered to the very vendors under evaluation.
In a domain where billions of dollars in enterprise value are at stake, that difference is not academic. It is pivotal.
