A note on independence: why no platform partnerships

It is reasonable for clients to ask: why no platform partnerships? The honest answer is that platform partnerships, vendor commissions, and SaaS resale margins all create incentives that compromise the value of the advice.

Where the conflict lives

A practice that earns commission on a vendor it recommends has, structurally, two clients: the visible one (the firm engaging the practice) and the invisible one (the vendor paying the commission). When their interests diverge – and they often do – the visible client’s interest is the one diluted.

This is not a comment on integrity. It is a comment on incentive design. The cleanest way to ensure vendor recommendations are advisory in fact, not just in language, is to remove the second client.

What this means in practice

• Vendor shortlists are produced against the client’s actual operating constraints, not the practice’s commercial relationships.
• Recommendations to switch vendors carry the same weight as recommendations to stay – there is no commercial pressure to favour either.
• Procurement support extends to contract negotiation. The vendor knows the practice has no skin in the game; the client gets the better deal.

The cost

The cost of independence is that engagements are funded by the client alone. Fees reflect that. For most clients in our segments, that is a feature: they would rather pay a slightly higher fee for advice they can trust than a lower one underwritten by a vendor they don’t see.