Limitations of McKinsey’s 7-S Strategic Planning Framework: Warnings and Implementation Risks

Before we dive in, it's important to note that while McKinsey offers various frameworks, the 7-S model is by far the most widely recognized. However, all McKinsey frameworks share similar drawbacks: they're essentially just theoretical structures—visually appealing PowerPoint diagrams—that lack robust analytics, deep dives into your organization's unique identity, creative positioning, and practical implementation strategies. In other words, they provide structure without delivering real insight or actionable guidance tailored specifically to who you are and what you need. Now let's dive in further:

Understanding the McKinsey Strategic Planning Framework (7-S Model)

In the world of business strategy, few frameworks are as renowned as McKinsey & Company’s 7-S Framework. Developed in the late 1970s by consultants at McKinsey, the 7-S model provides a structured way to analyze and align seven critical internal elements of an organization for effective strategy execution. These seven elements are Strategy, Structure, Systems, Shared Values, Skills, Style, and Staff. In essence, the model urges leaders to ensure that their company’s strategy and all supporting components (from organizational chart to company culture and people’s skills) are in harmony and reinforcing one another.

This holistic approach helps organizations identify gaps or misalignments that could hinder implementation of a strategic plan.

Each “S” represents a key area of the business:

• Strategy: The plan or course of action for gaining competitive advantage.

• Structure: The organizational setup—how teams are organized and who reports to whom.

• Systems: The everyday processes and workflows that drive operations.

• Shared Values: The core values and culture that define what the company stands for.

• Skills: The competencies and capabilities the organization and its employees excel at.

• Style: The leadership and management style, including how leaders interact with teams.

• Staff: The people in the organization and their general capabilities (hiring, training, talent management).

By examining each of these areas, McKinsey’s framework provides a diagnostic overview of organizational effectiveness. It helps pinpoint where misalignments exist – for example, a cutting-edge Strategy might fail if the Structure (organizational hierarchy) and Skills of the team are not suited to execute it. The 7-S framework is often used during major transformations or strategic shifts to ensure all parts of the business are prepared and aligned for change. In practice, a McKinsey strategic planning engagement would use tools like the 7-S model to holistically assess a client organization, then develop an action plan to realign any elements that are out of sync.

Strengths and Advantages of McKinsey’s Strategic Framework

Why do so many leaders gravitate towards McKinsey’s strategic planning framework? The answer lies in its strengths. First and foremost, the McKinsey 7-S model offers a holistic, structured approach to implementing strategy. It forces decision-makers to look beyond just formulating strategy on paper, and instead consider all factors needed to execute that strategy successfully – from the hard systems to the soft culture elements. This comprehensive lens reduces the risk of overlooking critical issues. As Prosci notes, the 7-S framework acts as a powerful diagnostic tool during transformations, helping leaders plan, execute, and manage changes more effectively by covering both tangible and intangible drivers of performance. In other words, it embeds structured implementation into the strategic plan – every change initiative is evaluated against all seven dimensions, creating a thorough roadmap rather than a piecemeal plan.

Another major advantage is the framework’s emphasis on alignment. The 7-S model makes it easier to ensure that all parts of the organization are “pulling in the same direction.” For example, if a company’s strategy calls for innovation and agility, the model prompts leaders to ask whether the Staff have the right innovation skills, whether the Systems (processes) encourage speed, and whether the corporate Values support experimentation. By revealing such misalignments, the McKinsey approach helps organizations proactively realign their structure, processes, and people with their strategic goals. This organizational alignment can lead to more coherent execution and better performance outcomes, as every part of the company is synchronized around the strategy.

McKinsey’s framework also carries global credibility and proven success. Since its introduction decades ago, the 7-S model has been applied by countless organizations worldwide, making it a longstanding, trusted theory in strategic management. Many business leaders and consultants are familiar with it, which means using this framework can lend credibility when communicating a strategic plan to stakeholders. The widespread adoption of McKinsey’s methods signals that they have been battle-tested across industries and regions. In practical terms, a strategic plan grounded in a well-known framework like McKinsey’s may inspire confidence among investors, board members, and employees, because it follows a methodology associated with one of the top consulting firms in the world. The McKinsey name itself – synonymous with rigorous analysis and high-profile corporate strategy – can reassure stakeholders that the plan has been developed with a high level of professionalism and insight.

Additionally, the McKinsey approach is comprehensive yet adaptable across industries. The 7-S framework is not limited to a particular sector; its mix of hard and soft factors makes it relevant whether you run a hospital, a manufacturing company, or a tech startup. This universality is a strength: it provides a common language for strategic planning that cross-functional teams can understand. The structured nature of McKinsey’s frameworks (often breaking problems into logical components and using data-driven analysis) means that implementation plans are typically very methodical. Leaders appreciate having a clear playbook to follow, and McKinsey’s approach delivers exactly that – a step-by-step structured methodology for moving from strategy formulation to execution. The result is a strategic plan that is both structured and systematic, leaving little to chance in implementation.

Finally, McKinsey’s strategic planning framework benefits from the firm’s extensive experience and resources. McKinsey consultants are known for bringing deep research, benchmarks, and analytics into planning. The frameworks are often backed by quantitative analysis and case studies from McKinsey’s global practice, giving them a rich foundation. For a client, this means the strategic recommendations are supported by data and best practices gleaned from similar situations around the world. The structured nature of the 7-S (and other McKinsey frameworks) encourages a fact-based, analytical culture in planning – something many business owners find valuable in reducing uncertainty. In summary, the strengths of McKinsey’s approach include its holistic coverage of the organization, its alignment-driven discipline, its reputable and globally vetted methodology, and its structured, analytic rigor in planning and execution.

Downsides and Limitations of the McKinsey Strategic Framework

No framework is perfect, and McKinsey’s 7-S model and general approach come with notable downsides. Business leaders must be aware of these potential pitfalls: what works on paper or in theory can present challenges in practice.

One commonly cited issue is the framework’s rigidity and static nature in today’s fast-changing environment. The 7-S model assumes a relatively stable context where you can methodically realign internal elements. In reality, industries can shift rapidly, and companies often need to pivot quickly – something a rigid, all-encompassing framework doesn’t easily accommodate. As one analysis points out, the McKinsey 7-S model is best suited for stable or gradually changing environments and “may lack flexibility in rapidly shifting industries”. It focuses primarily on internal factors and does not explicitly incorporate sudden external changes like disruptive technologies, market upheavals, or crises. This can make the framework feel too slow or cumbersome when an organization is facing volatile conditions. In fast-paced sectors, following the step-by-step alignment of all seven elements could be overtaken by events, leaving the company a step behind more agile competitors. In short, critics argue that McKinsey’s structured approach can become too rigid and time-consuming when quick adaptation is needed.

Another downside is the added complexity and lack of clear prioritization inherent in the 7-S framework. Because all seven elements are interdependent, attempting to change one often means examining them all, which can be a complex and resource-intensive endeavor. For a business owner, this might translate to drawn-out consulting projects with many workstreams analyzing culture, systems, structure, etc., when perhaps only a few key changes are really critical. The model itself does not tell you which of the seven factors to tackle first – there’s no built-in prioritization or roadmap for action. Without experienced guidance, organizations might struggle with where to begin, potentially diffusing their efforts. This complexity can also hinder decision-making: if every proposed change triggers a cascade of considerations across seven dimensions, teams might find it overwhelming to make swift decisions. In practice, some executives feel that frameworks like 7-S, while thorough, can become theoretical exercises that slow down execution with analysis paralysis.

Cost is another significant concern – not of the 7-S model itself, but of using McKinsey’s approach via McKinsey’s services. There’s no denying that hiring a top-tier firm like McKinsey comes with a premium price tag. Their structured strategic planning projects often involve large teams of consultants and extensive research, which can be prohibitively expensive for many organizations. For instance, public data from government contracts has shown McKinsey charging rates that translate to over $50,000 per week for a single junior consultant, far higher than competitors. One analysis noted a McKinsey business analyst (essentially an entry-level consultant) billed at approximately $56,700 per week (around $2.9 million per year) to a client. These high fees reflect McKinsey’s brand and resources, but they put the firm’s services out of reach for smaller companies and even strain big corporate budgets. Even if one only uses McKinsey’s framework without hiring the firm, there can be implicit costs: the extensive data gathering and analysis the framework encourages might require significant internal effort or external expertise. Thus, high cost and resource intensity are real downsides – a McKinsey-style strategic planning process can demand significant time, money, and personnel.

Moreover, some critics argue that McKinsey’s frameworks risk a lack of customization or a “one-size-fits-all” approach if applied without careful tailoring. The 7-S model is generic by design – it’s meant to apply to any organization. But every business has unique nuances, and strategy is as much art as science. A rigid framework might encourage consultants to fit your company into a template, rather than crafting a solution truly bespoke to your situation. Business leaders have sometimes felt that big consulting firms re-use similar playbooks or recommendations across clients. In fact, when dealing with larger consultancies, clients “can sometimes feel lost in the shuffle”, and firms may take a one-size-fits-all approach that doesn’t perfectly fit specific needs. This lack of deep customization can result in strategic plans that look good in theory but miss the mark in practice because they weren’t fully adapted to the client’s culture, market, or operational reality. In contrast, a more tailored approach might forego certain framework elements if they’re not relevant, whereas McKinsey’s method tends to be thorough but somewhat uniform.

It’s also worth noting that McKinsey’s 7-S framework has a long-term, internally focused bias that might underplay short-term wins and external dynamics. The model was conceived in an era when internal alignment was the main challenge, but today, businesses must be extremely responsive to external forces too. The framework “relies on internal factors and processes” and can be disadvantageous if external circumstances (like competitive moves or regulatory shifts) are the bigger issue. Additionally, the 7-S model, while including ‘Staff’ as one element, has been critiqued for not being truly people-centric. It considers employees as part of the system but doesn’t delve into individual change adoption or morale deeply. Modern change management emphasizes engaging and equipping people through change, something a rigid structural model might not fully address. If employees feel like cogs in a grand strategy machine, resistance can rise – and McKinsey’s framework alone might not surface those human factors until they become a problem.

⚠️ Warning: Limitations of Using the McKinsey 7-S Framework for Strategic Implementation

While the McKinsey 7-S Framework is renowned for its structured and comprehensive approach, it has notable drawbacks.

• Rigid Structure: May slow down decision-making and limit your agility.

• High Costs: Extensive analysis and consulting fees can quickly become expensive.

• Complex yet Generic: Risks becoming overly complicated without prioritizing your real needs. Let's be clear that it is VERY generic. The "strategy" is something you might find in any marketing/management 101 textbook and is not actionable.

• Internally Focused: Often overlooks critical external market changes and competitive pressures.

In summary, McKinsey’s strategic planning framework is powerful but not without trade-offs. It offers structure, thoroughness, and credibility, yet can be rigid, costly, and generic if not carefully managed. Quite frankly, any competent can use the framework, but most won't due to its disadvantages. Business owners considering this approach should weigh these downsides against the benefits and ensure they have the capacity to tailor and execute the framework in a way that fits their unique situation.

Comparing McKinsey’s Approach to Other Strategic Frameworks

It’s helpful to put McKinsey’s strategy framework in context by comparing it to other popular strategic planning models. Different frameworks serve different purposes; whereas McKinsey’s 7-S focuses on internal alignment for executing strategy, others address portfolio decisions, performance measurement, or goal setting. Below is a brief comparison of McKinsey’s approach with three other well-known frameworks.

BCG’s Growth-Share Matrix, the Balanced Scorecard, and OKRs (Objectives and Key Results).

BCG Matrix (Growth-Share Matrix): Developed by Boston Consulting Group, the BCG Matrix is a portfolio planning tool rather than an organizational alignment tool. It categorizes a company’s business units or products into four types – Stars, Cash Cows, Question Marks, and Dogs – based on market growth rate and relative market share. The BCG framework’s strength lies in its simplicity and focus on resource allocation: it helps leaders quickly visualize where to invest, develop, or divest, prioritizing businesses that can drive growth or profit. Compared to McKinsey’s 7-S, which examines internal capabilities and structure, the BCG Matrix is externally focused on market positioning of products. It’s very useful for strategic portfolio decisions (e.g. deciding which product lines to fund for growth), but it doesn’t address how to align an organization internally. One could say BCG’s matrix is narrower in scope – excellent for prioritizing investments, but not a holistic guide to implementation. Its downside is that it can oversimplify complex businesses; real portfolios may not fit neatly into four boxes, and using only market share/growth as criteria can be limiting (especially in dynamic markets). In contrast, McKinsey’s approach would dive into the organizational changes needed to support whichever portfolio choices are made.

Balanced Scorecard (BSC): The Balanced Scorecard, created by Kaplan and Norton in the 1990s, is a strategic management system for translating strategy into measurable objectives. It breaks strategic goals into four perspectives: Financial, Customer, Internal Processes, and Learning & Growth. Managers then set specific objectives and KPIs for each perspective, creating a “strategy map” that links initiatives across these dimensions. The strength of BSC is its comprehensive performance tracking – it ensures that beyond just financial outcomes, factors like customer satisfaction, operational excellence, and innovation (learning and growth) are tracked and aligned with the strategy. In practice, the Balanced Scorecard is great for strategic implementation and monitoring; it helps organizations turn high-level strategy into concrete metrics and targets at various levels. Compared to McKinsey’s 7-S, which is more qualitative in assessing alignment, BSC is more quantitative and metric-driven, asking “how will we know if we achieve our strategy?” One could even use them together: McKinsey’s framework to organize internally, and Balanced Scorecard to measure progress. However, the Balanced Scorecard can be complex to develop and maintain, requiring good data systems and regular reviews. It is somewhat rigid in structure – every objective must fit into one of the four predefined perspectives – which might not capture every nuance of a particular strategy. McKinsey’s approach, while structured, is a bit more flexible in what you choose to emphasize (7-S doesn’t dictate specific metrics, for instance). BSC also tends to be top-down and long-term in orientation, reviewed perhaps quarterly or annually, whereas today’s businesses may seek more agile methods for course correction.

OKRs (Objectives and Key Results): OKR is a more agile goal-setting framework popularized by Intel and Google. It encourages organizations to set short-term Objectives (what you want to achieve) and 3-5 Key Results (measurable outcomes) per objective, typically reviewed quarterly. The philosophy of OKRs is to drive focus, alignment, and engagement through transparent and ambitious goals. Unlike the Balanced Scorecard, OKRs are often bottom-up as well as top-down – teams and individuals set their own OKRs in alignment with company objectives, which can foster innovation and ownership. In comparison to McKinsey’s 7-S, which is a strategic planning framework, OKRs are an execution and tracking tool. OKRs shine in ensuring everyone knows the current priorities and can see measurable progress in the short term. They introduce a cadence of frequent check-ins and adaptations (often monthly or quarterly), which addresses the need for agility that the McKinsey framework might lack. However, OKRs by themselves do not provide a comprehensive strategy – they assume you have a strategy and are a way to implement it. In fact, many companies use OKRs to push forward initiatives that might have been conceived using other frameworks. The downside of OKRs is that if they are not well-aligned to a broader strategy, an organization can end up chasing metrics that don’t add up to a coherent vision. Also, setting good OKRs requires discipline; too many objectives or poorly defined key results can lead to confusion. Where McKinsey’s framework gives you a high-level blueprint of the organization to execute strategy, OKRs give you a tactical tool to drive accountability and adaptability in execution. They are highly complementary if used together: one provides structure, the other provides agility.

To summarize the comparison, McKinsey’s 7-S framework is about ensuring internal readiness and alignment for strategy, the BCG Matrix is about choosing the right strategic bets in a portfolio, the Balanced Scorecard is about measuring and executing strategy across multiple performance dimensions, and OKRs are about setting and iterating on goals quickly to drive strategy forward. Each has its place, and often companies will use pieces of several frameworks. The key for business leaders is to choose the model or combination of models that best fit their organization’s needs and culture. McKinsey’s approach is comprehensive and high-credibility, but as noted, it can be rigid – which is why some firms look to more flexible frameworks like OKRs or more focused ones like BCG’s for specific purposes.

(See comparison table below for an overview of these frameworks.)

Framework	Primary Focus	Strengths	Limitations
McKinsey 7-S (Strategy)	Holistic internal alignment for executing strategy across seven organizational elements.	Comprehensive view (hard & soft factors), ensures all parts of organization support strategy, widely recognized methodology.	Can be rigid and slow in dynamic environments; internally focused (ignores external factors); complex with no clear prioritization of elements.
BCG Matrix	Portfolio strategy – prioritizing businesses/products (market share vs. growth).	Simple, visual tool for resource allocation; highlights where to invest or divest (e.g. build Stars, milk Cash Cows).	Narrow scope (only considers market share & growth); may oversimplify multi-factor decisions; not an implementation guide.
Balanced Scorecard	Strategy implementation via performance metrics in four perspectives (Financial, Customer, Internal, Learning).	Balanced view beyond financials; links strategy to specific objectives & KPIs; improves strategic alignment and monitoring across the organization.	Can be complex to set up; requires cultural buy-in and data tracking; somewhat rigid structure (must fit objectives into four categories); typically top-down and less agile for rapid change.
OKRs	Goal-setting framework for agile execution and alignment (Objectives and Key Results).	Highly flexible and adaptive; promotes focus on key priorities; transparent and engaging for teams; frequent check-ins drive agility.	Not a full strategy by itself (needs overarching vision); if misaligned, teams can pursue conflicting goals; requires discipline to avoid too many or trivial OKRs.

Note: Frameworks can complement each other. For example, an organization might use McKinsey’s 7-S to restructure internally, the BCG Matrix to decide which products to invest in, the Balanced Scorecard to track strategic performance, and OKRs to drive quarterly execution. The best approach is often tailored to the organization’s specific context rather than one-size-fits-all.

The Orr Consulting Difference: A Better Alternative for Your Business

Given the strengths and weaknesses of these traditional approaches, you might be thinking, Is there a better way to do strategic planning and execution? At Orr Consulting, we believe the answer is yes. Orr Consulting offers an alternative that retains the rigor and holistic thinking of top-tier frameworks while addressing their shortcomings with greater adaptability, cost-effectiveness, and client-focused service. Our approach is intentionally designed to overcome the rigidity and impersonal nature of big consulting frameworks, providing a fresh, customized experience for our clients – particularly those in the healthcare industry, where our specialization gives us an extra edge.

Let’s examine how we differentiate ourselves and why our approach can drive superior results for your organization:

Adaptability and Customization

One size rarely fits all in strategic planning. Orr Consulting prides itself on a highly adaptable methodology, tailoring every strategic plan to the unique circumstances and culture of the client. Unlike the McKinsey 7-S model which is generic and can feel formulaic, our consultants start with frameworks as guides, not gospel. We understand that every organization has its own DNA, and effective strategy must flex to fit that reality. Orr’s approach is to co-create the plan with you, adjusting tools and frameworks as needed so that the outcome is practical and feels yours, not a consultant’s template. This adaptability means we can respond to changes or new insights on the fly – we are not wedded to a rigid playbook.

In fact, as a boutique consulting firm, we are inherently more agile: we can make quick adjustments without bureaucratic delays, ensuring the strategy remains relevant if conditions change mid-project. Our flexibility in methodology stands in contrast to the “do it by the book” approach of some larger firms. The result is a strategic plan that is fully customized – addressing the nuances of your market, your organizational quirks, and the challenges that keep you up at night. This customized touch vastly improves the likelihood of successful implementation, because the plan is grounded in the real world of your business.

Cost-Effectiveness and Value

Engaging Orr Consulting is cost-effective, especially when compared to the astronomical fees of mega-firms like McKinsey. We offer top-tier strategic planning expertise without the overhead of a massive global organization. Yet, you get a consultant with a PhD & MBA who has been in the industry for 25+ years instead of just an MBA with little work experience. This means you invest in results, not in paying for a big firm’s "prestige." For many clients, the value equation with ORR is compelling: you receive hands-on attention from seasoned strategists at a fraction of the cost. Our lean operating model translates to competitive pricing and efficient use of resources, as there’s less bureaucracy and bloated staffing on projects. Every dollar of your budget goes further toward actual problem-solving and implementation. Moreover, because we tailor our approach, you’re not buying some elaborate analysis you don’t need – we right-size the effort to your context, which controls costs. The high costs of a McKinsey engagement can put strategic consulting out of reach for mid-sized companies or non-profits; Orr aims to democratize access to high-quality strategic planning by being budget-conscious and outcome-focused. We measure our success not by how many consultants we deploy, but by the value we create for you. By partnering with us, business leaders can achieve robust strategic plans and implementation support with a far better return on investment than the traditional big-firm route.

Client Intimacy and Personalization

One of Orr Consulting’s core values is client intimacy – we build deep, trust-based relationships with our clients. In practice, this means you get personalized attention and a true partner in navigating your strategic challenges. Unlike large consultancies where a senior partner sells the work and a junior team delivers it, our senior experts are hands-on from start to finish. Our clients often work directly with our most experienced consultants, ensuring expert oversight and guidance at every step. As a result, we develop a nuanced understanding of your business and stakeholders. We listen first, then advise – crafting solutions that genuinely fit your organization’s ethos and people. This level of personalization is hard to come by with bigger firms, where clients can sometimes feel like just another account. As highlighted in industry discussions, a boutique firm’s smaller client base allows for more dedicated attention and a deeper understanding of each client’s needs. We live by that principle. We don’t believe in one-size-fits-all, and we certainly won’t let you “get lost in the shuffle.” On the contrary, your priorities become our priorities. We walk alongside you in implementing changes, adapting as needed, and ensuring your team is comfortable and confident throughout the journey. This client-centric approach fosters trust and leads to strategies that are not only smart on paper, but also enthusiastically adopted by your organization.

Healthcare Industry Specialization

While McKinsey and other big firms spread their expertise across all industries, Orr Consulting has chosen to develop deep specialization in the healthcare sector (along with select related industries). This focus is a game-changer for healthcare clients. The healthcare industry has its own complexities – regulatory requirements, patient-centric service models, rapidly evolving technologies, and high stakes for quality and compliance. By working extensively in this domain, our team has developed insider industry knowledge that generalist consultants simply can’t match. We understand the subtleties of healthcare delivery, insurance systems, hospital operations, and life sciences innovation.

Therefore, when we craft a strategic plan for a healthcare organization, it’s grounded in real-world insight about what works in that environment. We can anticipate challenges and opportunities unique to healthcare – from managing physician stakeholders to complying with healthcare laws – and incorporate those into the strategy seamlessly. This specialized expertise leads to more relevant and actionable strategies. A generic framework might recommend changes that look good in theory but falter in a hospital setting; our recommendations are tuned to the realities of healthcare. Even outside of healthcare, our approach is to ensure the team working with you has relevant domain experience, so they bring credibility and context to the table. Clients don’t have to spend weeks educating us on industry basics – we can dive right into higher-level strategic issues, accelerating the process and delivering value faster. In short, Orr's industry specialization, particularly in healthcare, means you get a strategy that’s not only well-crafted, but also deeply informed by what truly drives success in your field.

Modern Data-Driven Techniques and Innovation

Orr Consulting is a 21st-century firm that embraces modern, data-driven techniques and innovative tools to inform strategy (not frameworks built in the 1970's). We don’t just rely on static models from decades past; we complement classic strategic frameworks with cutting-edge analytics, technology, and real-time data insights. For example, when helping a client develop a strategic plan, we might use advanced data modeling to forecast outcomes of strategic choices, or leverage big data to understand customer behavior trends. We are also adept with modern strategy execution tools – whether it’s software for tracking OKRs and KPIs, or agile project management methodologies to implement changes rapidly. Our belief is that strategy should be a living process, supported by dynamic data and technology, not a binder on a shelf. This is a key differentiator from traditional approaches that might lean heavily on static analysis and past benchmarks. ORR’s data-driven mindset ensures that our recommendations are grounded in evidence and that we can measure impact along the way. We bring in innovative problem-solving methods too – design thinking workshops, scenario simulation, AI-driven insights – whatever best fits the client’s context. The result for our clients is a strategic plan that is not only insightful, but also actionable and measurable. We help install the dashboards or feedback mechanisms so you can see progress in real time, a practice aligned with modern management philosophies. By harnessing new technologies and data science, we give you a strategy that’s forward-looking and resilient amid change. We essentially marry the art of strategy with the science of analytics, providing a smarter path forward.

In sum, Orr Consulting offers a flexible, client-centric, and expertise-driven alternative to McKinsey’s traditional framework. We maintain a rigorous approach to strategic planning, but we do so with greater adaptability, personalized service, deep industry insight, and cost-efficiency. Our aim is not just to produce a report, but to partner with you from strategy through execution, ensuring that the plan delivers real results. We’ve built our practice around addressing the very downsides that often frustrate leaders about big consulting engagements: we’re more agile, more affordable, and more attentive to your unique needs.

For business owners and organizational leaders – especially in healthcare – who are seeking structured strategic planning without the rigidity and expense, Orr Consulting stands out as a compelling choice. We bring the best of both worlds: the structured, holistic thinking that frameworks like McKinsey’s provide, combined with the bespoke, innovative, and intimate approach of a boutique consultancy. The case is clear. While McKinsey’s 7-S and similar frameworks have their merits, the future belongs to strategies that are as dynamic and personalized as the environments we operate in. Orr Consulting is ready to deliver exactly that, helping your organization craft and execute a strategic plan that achieves lasting success in today’s fast-moving world. Let’s shape a better future for your business, together.