[wafriedemann]

I think there is a misconception what 'advising' means. Seems to be like a marketing term that consultancies came up with to describe their work. I'd argue consultancy don't need a lot of expertise. They don't advise in the sense of 'sharing ones wisdom'. They are highly qualified temps with strong work ethic.

[badcppdev]

I would rephrase that as: 'They are meant to be highly qualified temps with strong work ethics and experience but sometimes they are not so qualified or experienced and sometimes their hard work is not aligned with the company that is ultimately paying them to do something'

[SturgeonsLaw]

Their real value prop is being able to provide cover for execs. They can act (emphasis on the word act) as a neutral third party who can lend credibility to an idea, and also become a scapegoat if it fails.

[i_dont_know_]

This too.

I've seen consultants hired for projects where everyone on the team (including leadership) basically knew what to do or what needed to be done, but they were only, say 75% certain about it. In a normal startup, they would've just done it, failed fast, moved on. But in a bigger corporate (non-startup) environment where they didn't know if their jobs would be on the line for taking risks, they could bring in consultants to verify but mostly echo back what they already wanted to do. Plus they come with certificates and stuff so everyone in the chain assumes that's worth something.

[terminal_d]

They exist to propagate good feelings amongst management and to ensure a fat paycheck keeps coming though, even if it means sabotaging the company.