---
id: "question-long-term-obelisk-evidence"
type: "open-question"
source_timestamps: ["§ A New Wave of AI-Native Boutiques"]
tags: ["empirical-evidence", "future-trends"]
related: ["concept-consulting-obelisk", "entity-unity-advisory"]
resolutionPath: "Longitudinal studies of AI-native boutiques (like Unity Advisory) over a 3-5 year period, tracking client retention, profitability, and the quality of strategic outcomes compared to legacy pyramid firms."
sources: ["reskilling"]
sourceVaultSlug: "hbr-seg-reskilling"
originDay: 10
articleStem: "hbr-edu-44-ai-changing-consulting-structure"
sourceUrl: "https://hbr.org/2025/09/ai-is-changing-the-structure-of-consulting-firms"
sourceTitle: "AI Is Changing the Structure of Consulting Firms"
---
# Will the Obelisk Model Prove Effective Long-Term?

**Open question:** While AI clearly performs junior tasks with speed/quality gains ([[claim-ai-improves-speed-and-quality]]), the [[concept-consulting-obelisk]] is new enough that **long-term evidence of its efficacy and sustainability has not yet emerged.**

**Resolution path:** longitudinal studies of [[concept-ai-native-boutiques]] such as [[entity-unity-advisory]] over 3–5 years — tracking client retention, profitability, and strategic-outcome quality against legacy pyramid firms.

**Enrichment nuance:** current evidence is mainly case-based and anecdotal; there are no large-sample longitudinal comparisons yet. Investors and clients may demand robust quality-control and auditability before fully trusting very lean teams, which could constrain pure-obelisk adoption — see [[contrarian-ai-investment-is-not-enough]] and [[concept-embedded-ai-ethics]].