McKinsey Says 25% of Its Fees Are Now Outcome-Based — Here's What That Means for Your Consulting Firm

McKinsey disclosed in May 2026 that 25% of its global fees are now outcome-based — priced against agreed, measurable client results, not hours delivered. If you own a 5-20 person consulting firm and you still price by the hour, that number is the most important signal you'll read this month.

This isn't McKinsey experimenting at the margin. One in four dollars of revenue at the world's largest consulting firm now flows from a fundamentally different pricing contract. And the reason they moved isn't a philosophical shift about client alignment — it's math.

What McKinsey, BCG, and Bain Actually Disclosed (And Why Now)

The TheStreet report from May 2026 captured three simultaneous moves at the top of the consulting market:

• McKinsey: 25% of global fees now outcome-based
• BCG: Targeting 40% of revenue from AI-related work by 2026, up from 20% in 2024
• Bain: Invested directly in OpenAI's Deployment Company in May 2026

These aren't separate trends. They're three firms responding to the same underlying pressure at the same time.

The AI Compression Mechanism: When Hours Shrink, Hourly Billing Breaks

McKinsey's internal AI assistant, Lilli, now runs 500,000+ prompts per month across the firm. Consultants report 30% time savings on knowledge work — research synthesis, document drafting, analysis compilation, presentation building.

When AI removes a third of the time-on-task, charging clients for that time becomes economically incoherent. Not just in theory — in practice, on a specific engagement. If a strategy memo used to take 40 hours and now takes 28, the client doesn't benefit from paying for the extra 12 hours McKinsey used to need. And increasingly, enterprise clients know this.

McKinsey couldn't continue selling time when the unit of value delivered wasn't changing. So they changed what they sell.

500,000 Prompts a Month — The Internal AI Usage That's Forcing the Change

The Lilli number matters because it's not aspirational — it's operational volume. McKinsey isn't testing AI on pilot projects. It's embedded in daily workflow at scale. That adoption rate is why the pricing model had to move: the old model was built on the assumption that human hours and client value were proportional. They're no longer proportional.

BCG's target of 40% AI revenue by 2026 is the same signal from a different direction. When AI work becomes nearly half your revenue base, the pricing model that optimized for labor inputs stops describing what you're actually selling.

This Is Not a Trend. It's a Client Expectation in Formation.

Here's what typically happens after the Big Three move: mid-market clients notice.

A CFO who approved a McKinsey outcome-based engagement in Q1 2026 is now calibrated to that pricing conversation. When they bring in a smaller firm for the next project, they have a new reference point. "We just worked with a firm that priced this against the outcome. Can you do that?"

That question doesn't arrive everywhere at once. It arrives first in industries where McKinsey's clients are also your clients — financial services, healthcare, technology, real estate. And it arrives with faster-moving, more cost-conscious buyers who watched their larger competitors negotiate outcome-based contracts and want the same.

The consulting firms that get caught flat-footed aren't the ones who refused to consider outcome-based pricing. They're the ones who hadn't done the internal work to understand what their outcomes actually are — and had no answer when the client asked.

What It Means for a 5-20 Person Consulting Firm

Let's be direct about what this doesn't mean: you don't need to flip your entire pricing model by next quarter.

McKinsey took years to get to 25%. They have the infrastructure, the client relationships, and the internal tooling to manage the complexity of outcome-defined contracts at scale. You don't have that infrastructure yet.

What you do need is to start building the muscle before the pressure arrives.

You Don't Need to Move Now — But You Need to Know When to Move

The trigger for a smaller consulting firm isn't when the Big Three announce a number. The trigger is when a specific client asks the question directly, or when you lose a competitive evaluation because a competitor offered a fixed-outcome price and you didn't.

If you haven't received that question yet, you probably have 12-24 months before it becomes routine in your market. That's your runway to run one or two experiments, learn where your scope assumptions break, build the language, and have the pricing conversation fluently before you're forced to have it defensively.

The Three Consulting Firm Types Most Exposed to the Shift

Management and strategy consultants are most immediately exposed. If your primary deliverable is recommendations — roadmaps, strategy documents, organizational assessments — AI compresses exactly that work. Research synthesis, competitive analysis, and executive presentation drafting are all high-prompt-volume tasks. Your clients can see the output quality hasn't dropped; the question of whether they should pay the same for faster delivery is already forming.

IT consulting firms sit in a naturally outcome-oriented structure: system implementation complete, integration live, platform migrated. Clients are already accustomed to milestone-based contracts in technology delivery. Outcome-based pricing is a short extension of the milestone logic they already accept. The risk here is that clients will begin requesting fixed-outcome pricing as a default rather than negotiating it as a preference.

Marketing agencies have the clearest performance anchors: qualified leads generated, conversion rates moved, cost per acquisition reduced. If you're billing hourly for campaign management and strategy when your outputs are measurable, you're leaving both money and differentiation on the table. The agencies that move first to outcome-anchored pricing capture the clients who want accountability over activity.

The One Experiment: Pick Your Highest-Repeatability Project

The mistake most consulting firms make when they think about outcome-based pricing is trying to design a new pricing model from scratch. Don't.

Pick one project type. It should meet three criteria:

1. You've run it at least five times with different clients
2. You can describe the outcome (not the deliverables) in one sentence
3. Scope has been relatively predictable — you haven't had major overruns

This is your test case. You know the work. You know where scope typically expands. You know what the client has at the end. That's enough to price against a result instead of against your time.

For a strategy consulting firm, this might be a competitive landscape assessment. For IT consulting, a specific system integration you've completed before. For a marketing agency, a lead generation campaign for a defined client segment.

The goal of the first experiment is not to earn more — though you probably will. The goal is to scope, price, deliver, and close an engagement priced against an outcome, and learn where your assumptions were wrong.

How to Calculate Your First Outcome-Based Price

The math is simple:

1. Start with your typical cost for this project at your standard rate. Be honest — include all the hours, not the optimistic version.

2. Add 40% for scope risk. You've run this project before, but you've never run it on a fixed-outcome basis. You'll carry some risk the client used to carry. Price for it.

3. Define one measurable outcome milestone. Deliverable complete. Client sign-off received. System live. Make it binary — either it happened or it didn't.

4. Price the engagement against that milestone, not against the calendar or the effort. Write the contract language to match.

5. Run the engagement once before you change your standard rate card.

Your first outcome-based price for a project you'd typically charge $10,000 for hourly should be roughly $14,000 — the original estimate plus 40% for scope risk. If the engagement runs cleanly, your effective margin improves. If scope expands, you absorb it, learn, and recalibrate the next price.

That's not a risk — it's tuition. And it's much cheaper than getting the question from a client and having no answer.

---

For the full 90-day transition roadmap — how to convert each service line, how to have the client conversation, and what to do with existing contracts — the step-by-step guide is here: How to Move Your Consulting Firm Off Hourly Billing: A 90-Day Transition Framework.

This post is the why. That post is the how.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

Are McKinsey, BCG, and Bain really moving away from hourly billing?

Yes, and they're doing it explicitly because of AI. McKinsey disclosed in May 2026 that 25% of its global fees are now outcome-based — priced against agreed client results rather than hours or days delivered. BCG is targeting 40% of its revenue from AI-related work by 2026, up from 20% in 2024. Bain deepened its OpenAI partnership with a direct investment in May 2026. The stated driver at McKinsey is internal: their AI assistant (Lilli) runs 500,000+ prompts per month, with consultants reporting 30% time savings on knowledge work. When AI removes a third of the time-on-task, charging by the hour for that time becomes incoherent. (Source: TheStreet, May 2026)

Why does McKinsey shifting to outcome-based pricing matter for small consulting firms?

Because enterprise clients are now getting comfortable with outcome-based fee structures from the world's most prestigious consulting firms. That familiarity doesn't stay at the top of the market — it filters down through client expectations. A mid-market client who has seen McKinsey pitch outcome-based pricing will increasingly ask smaller consulting firms the same question: "what are you pricing against?" The risk for small firms is not that they need to move immediately, but that being the last firm in their market to have the conversation exposes them to client attrition as outcome-based pricing becomes the expectation rather than the exception.

What types of consulting firms are most exposed to the outcome-based pricing shift?

Three firm types are most exposed: (1) Management and strategy consultants whose primary deliverable is recommendations — AI can compress research and drafting time significantly, making hourly billing harder to justify to cost-conscious clients; (2) IT consulting firms where delivery milestones (system implementation, integration complete) are naturally outcome-oriented and clients increasingly expect fixed-price or milestone-based pricing; (3) Marketing agencies where campaign performance metrics (leads generated, conversion rates) provide natural outcome anchors. Firms where output is highly repeatable and measurable face client pressure soonest.

How do I calculate an outcome-based price for my first consulting project?

Start with your highest-repeatability project type — the engagement you've run 5+ times and can scope with confidence. Calculate your typical cost for this project at your standard rate. Your initial outcome-based price should be 1.3–1.5x that estimate to account for scope variation risk on your end. Define one measurable outcome milestone (deliverable completion, client sign-off, implementation go-live). Price the engagement against that milestone, not the hours. Run one engagement at this price before adding complexity. The goal is not to earn more on the first engagement — it's to build the muscle of scoping and pricing against results rather than inputs.

Does this apply to law firms and accounting firms, not just consulting?

Yes. The same AI compression mechanism applies across professional services. In accounting, 79% of firms report client pressure to shift from hourly billing (Bloomberg Tax, 2026), with Bronze/Silver/Gold subscription tier pricing emerging as the accounting-specific outcome model. In law, AI-compressed document review and contract drafting are forcing similar conversations. The Big Three management consulting shift is the most visible public disclosure, but the underlying dynamic — AI reduces time-on-task, making hourly billing economically incoherent — applies to any professional services firm where AI is now doing significant work on billable outputs.

---

The Crossing Report is a weekly intelligence newsletter for professional services firm owners navigating the AI transition. Subscribe here for weekly field reports from the front lines.