Miloš Radović
The same advice, the same models, and the same knowledge can be worth millions in London, or lose all value in a system where decisions never become an obligation...
Miloš Radović
Senior Consultant
The difference we are talking about is not a difference in knowledge, but in the market that knows how to pay for that knowledge.
At first glance, advice looks the same everywhere. The same analytical frameworks, similar models, the same terminology, and often people who have gone through the same or similar global educational systems. Yet in London or the Middle East, such advice is paid in millions, while in Serbia it often does not survive even a single business quarter. The reason is not the quality of the advice, but the system that is supposed to turn it into a decision, responsibility, and consequence.
The difference in how advice is valued does not emerge in Microsoft PowerPoint presentations, but in the institutional environment in which decisions are made. Where decisions are expected and carry a cost, advice has value. Where indecision is tolerated, advice inevitably appears too expensive.
That this difference is not a matter of perception but of market structure is confirmed by global data. According to industry estimates, the global market for consulting and professional advisory services today exceeds $500 billion annually, with an average annual growth rate (CAGR) of around 5 percent. In other words, this is an industry comparable in size to the world’s largest sectors and one that continues to grow precisely where advice is used as a tool for managing risk, capital, and time.
In such an environment, high consulting fees are neither an exception nor a matter of prestige. They are the logical consequence of a market where advice is directly tied to decisions with major financial and reputational implications.
The United Kingdom represents one of the most mature consulting markets in Europe. Consultants are deeply integrated into decision-making processes in both the private and public sectors. The British government alone spends billions of pounds annually on external consulting services, while the private sector further expands the market through engagements in strategy, digital transformation, cybersecurity, and risk management.
A similar logic applies to the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. As someone who has been part of that system from the inside, I have had the opportunity to see how advice is used in practice. The consulting market in that region is measured in billions of dollars annually, with growth strongly driven by major government investment cycles and economic transformation programs. In such an environment, advice is not purchased as an opinion but as an integral part of decision-making processes that carry direct fiscal, political, and reputational consequences. In those systems, indecision is expensive - and that is precisely why advice is expensive.
When the same logic is transferred to Serbia, it quickly loses value. Not because it is wrong, but because it enters a system that operates according to different rules.
Most domestic companies, particularly in the SME sector, have highly centralized ownership structures. Key decisions are made by a single person, often without formal boards, clear divisions of responsibility, or institutional control mechanisms. In such an environment, informal power, personal relationships, and history often carry more weight than analytical arguments.
Planning horizons remain short, while the primary focus is on cash today rather than value tomorrow. Most importantly, there is no real penalty for indecision. If a decision is not made, business continues, risk is postponed, and responsibility remains diluted. In a system where no one bears consequences because advice was not implemented, advice cannot have market value.
It is precisely in such an environment that the perception of consultants begins to change.
At the same time, the experience of investors, funds, and professional managers working with companies in Serbia and the wider region indicates that external consultants typically possess broader comparative knowledge and deeper insights into strategic patterns than company owners themselves. The difference, however, is not in competence but in legitimacy. In the domestic context, strategic understanding is still primarily attributed to the person who owns the company, while the same expertise coming from outside is often perceived as theoretical or secondary.
This is why consultants in Serbia are often perceived as too expensive. Not because they are expensive in absolute terms, but because they are frequently expected to play the wrong role.
Consultants are engaged too late, when a decision has already been made emotionally, or too early, without a real intention to implement anything. Sometimes they are brought in to confirm what the owner already thinks; sometimes to serve as an excuse if things go wrong. Within such a framework, the consultant does not accelerate a decision but prolongs the process.
And a process without a decision has no economic value.
Although the domestic consulting market shows relatively strong growth in percentage terms - around 8.9%—its absolute size remains significantly smaller compared to developed markets. The total value of the consulting market in Serbia is measured in hundreds of millions of dollars, not billions, which naturally shapes the structure of engagements, client expectations, and consulting fees.
Most projects in Serbia focus on operational improvements, local transformations, or individual implementations. Major strategic decisions - particularly those with significant capital implications - are often made outside the country. And where decisions are made, that is where advice is paid for the most. In an environment where indecision has no clear price, advice struggles to retain market value.
Globally, the consulting market is dominated by large international consulting firms and professional networks. The strategy segment is led by McKinsey & Company, Boston Consulting Group (BCG), and Bain & Company, while the key players in operational, technological, and transformation consulting include Deloitte, PwC, EY, KPMG, and Accenture.
These firms have a strong and permanent presence in the United Kingdom and across the Middle East, where they work directly with boards, investment committees, and government institutions. In Serbia and the wider region, the same networks are present mainly through regional hubs and local offices, but with a significantly smaller volume of engagements and a different project structure, which inevitably affects fee levels.
This, however, says nothing about the quality of local consultants, but rather about the position of the market within the global chain of decision-making.
Global trends are further reinforcing this difference. The fastest-growing segments of the consulting market today include digital transformation, data and AI strategies, cybersecurity, regulatory, and ESG advisory. These are precisely the areas where developed markets and the Middle East invest the most, because they directly influence long-term competitiveness and system resilience.
In Serbia, these segments are only beginning to gain importance and still rarely carry the strategic weight that would justify multimillion-dollar engagements. The reason again lies not in knowledge, but in the stage of market development and institutional maturity.
“We Don’t Need Cheaper Advice, We Need More Expensive Responsibility.”
The problem of the domestic market is not a lack of intelligence, ideas, or expertise. The problem is that indecision carries no cost. As long as decisions can be postponed without consequences, every piece of advice will appear too expensive.
The moment a decision becomes an obligation rather than an option, the same advice that today cannot survive a quarter will begin to be worth what it truly is worth - millions.
Serbian(Srpski)
English(Engleski)