As AEC leaders, we spend a great deal of time talking about strategy. We set growth goals,
debate markets, refine service offerings, and invest in systems meant to improve
performance. Yet many firms still feel more complex than they should, stretched across
competing priorities and struggling to understand why certain initiatives work while others
quietly stall.

Often, the issue is not effort or intent. It is clarity.

In Managing the Professional Service Firm, David Maister introduced a deceptively simple
but powerful framework: professional services firms operate across three distinct business
models, each with its own economics, leadership requirements, and risk profile. Trouble
arises when firms blur these models without realizing it. Simplicity returns when leaders
name them clearly and align their decisions accordingly.

This month’s blog explores these three business models and why understanding their
differences is one of the most practical steps AEC leaders can take to reduce complexity
and scale intentionally.

The Procedural Model: Efficiency and Repeatability

The procedural model is built on repeatable work. Success comes from standardization,
efficiency, and consistency. In AEC firms, this often shows up in well-defined services,
repeatable project types, or delivery methods that benefit from templates, checklists, and
clearly documented processes.

In this model, margin is driven by execution. The firm wins by doing the work efficiently,
managing scope carefully, and training teams to deliver consistent results. Leadership
attention is focused on process design, utilization, and continuous improvement.

The procedural model is neither less nor more basic. It plays a critical role in many healthy
firms. Problems arise when leaders expect innovation or premium advisory margins from
work that is designed to be standardized. When expectations and economics are aligned,
the procedural model creates stability and predictability.

The Experience Model: Judgment and Client Trust

The experience model depends less on repeatability and more on professional judgment.
Clients hire the firm for its track record, perspective, and ability to navigate complexity.
While there may be similarities across projects, each engagement requires interpretation,
decision-making, and adaptability.

This is where many AEC firms naturally live. The work demands strong project leadership,
client communication, and the ability to apply experience in real time. Profitability is driven
by expertise applied effectively, not simply by speed or volume.

In the experience model, leadership must focus on developing people, mentoring emerging
leaders, and preserving institutional knowledge. The firm’s value grows as its people grow.
Attempts to overly standardize this work often create frustration for both clients and staff.

The Expertise Model: Insight and Differentiation

The expertise model is built around rare insight. Clients engage the firm not just for
delivery, but for thinking. This work often involves advisory roles, strategy, or highly
specialized technical knowledge.

In this model, scale is limited by expertise, not capacity. Pricing reflects the value of insight
rather than hours worked. Leadership attention shifts toward thought leadership, talent
development, and protecting the firm’s reputation.

AEC firms often get into trouble when they treat expertise-driven work like procedural
work, expecting efficiency where insight is the real product. Clarity around this distinction
allows leaders to price appropriately, staff intentionally, and set realistic expectations
internally and externally.

Conclusion: Clarity Before Choice

The real lesson of these three business models is not that every AEC firm should operate in
all of them. It is that each model has a distinct fingerprint. Different economics. Different
leadership demands. Different definitions of success.

Most firms do not intentionally choose to run multiple models. They drift into them. A
repeatable service grows alongside judgment-based work. Advisory or specialty expertise
emerges on top of delivery. Over time, leaders find themselves managing fundamentally
different types of work as if they were the same.

That is when complexity shows up. Margins behave inconsistently. Standardization helps in
some areas and creates friction in others. Strong people thrive in one role and struggle in

another. These are not execution failures. They are signals that different business models
are being blended without clarity.

Clarity restores choice. When leaders name the model they are operating in, or choose to
operate in more than one intentionally, they can align pricing, staffing, systems, and
leadership attention with how value is actually created.

Simplicity does not come from doing less. It comes from knowing what business you are
really in.

If you are unsure which model your firm is operating in or suspect you may be
unintentionally running more than one, let’s talk. You can reach me at
info@odysseyadvisors.us.