ChatGPT Prompts for Consultants

<context> My client [CLIENT], a [INDUSTRY] company, describes their problem as: [PROBLEM]. This is the vague version they gave me in the kickoff. I need a precise, answerable question to anchor the engagement. </context> <task> 1. Restate the problem as a single, decision-oriented key question that starts with 'How should', 'Should', or 'What is the best way to'. 2. List the implicit assumptions baked into the client's framing and flag any that look risky. 3. Propose 3 alternative framings (broader, narrower, reframed-from-a-different-stakeholder) and note what each would change about the scope. 4. Recommend one framing and justify it in 2 sentences tied to what [CLIENT] can actually decide and act on. </task>

<context> Engagement for [CLIENT] in [INDUSTRY]. The core problem is [PROBLEM]. I need a Situation-Complication-Question setup to open the kickoff deck and align stakeholders. </context> <task> 1. Write the Situation: 2-3 sentences of stable, agreed-upon context no stakeholder would dispute. 2. Write the Complication: the change or tension that makes the situation no longer acceptable. 3. Write the Question: the single question that naturally follows and that the engagement will answer. 4. Add a one-line 'so what' that previews why answering it matters financially or strategically to [CLIENT]. </task>

<context> I am scoping an engagement for [CLIENT], a [INDUSTRY] firm, on [PROBLEM]. Decisions here are political as much as analytical. </context> <task> 1. List the likely stakeholder roles involved (sponsor, budget owner, blockers, influencers, end-users). 2. For each, infer their stated goal vs. their likely private incentive. 3. Rate each on a 2x2 of influence vs. support for change. 4. Recommend who to interview first, who to co-opt early, and one risk per high-influence/low-support stakeholder. </task>

<context> Engagement for [CLIENT] in [INDUSTRY] on [PROBLEM]. Scope creep is my biggest risk and the SOW is not signed yet. </context> <task> 1. Draft an in-scope list: the specific questions and deliverables this engagement will cover. 2. Draft an explicit out-of-scope list of adjacent things the client may assume are included but are not. 3. Identify 3 grey-zone items likely to trigger creep and propose how to handle each (change order, fast-follow, parking lot). 4. Write one sentence I can say in the kickoff to set the boundary diplomatically. </task>

<context> Before committing the team to [PROBLEM] for [CLIENT] in [INDUSTRY], I want to pressure-test whether this is even the right problem to solve. </context> <task> 1. Apply 5-whys to the stated problem and surface the likely root cause. 2. Ask 5 disconfirming questions a skeptical partner would ask in a problem-validation review. 3. Identify what evidence would prove the problem is real and material vs. anecdotal. 4. Conclude: proceed, reframe, or push back to the client, with a one-line rationale. </task>

<context> I need to size the market relevant to [PROBLEM] for [CLIENT] in [INDUSTRY]. I have limited data and need a defensible estimate fast. </context> <task> 1. Build both a top-down and a bottom-up sizing approach, listing the inputs each needs. 2. State the assumptions for every input and flag which ones are weakest. 3. Produce a base / low / high estimate range and explain the driver of the spread. 4. List the 3 data sources I should chase to tighten the weakest assumptions. </task>

<context> I ran stakeholder interviews for [CLIENT] in [INDUSTRY] about [PROBLEM]. I will paste raw notes below. I need synthesis, not a summary. </context> <task> 1. Cluster the notes into 4-6 themes and name each theme as an insight, not a topic. 2. For each theme, cite which interviewees support it and note any dissent. 3. Flag the 2 most surprising or counter-consensus findings. 4. List the open questions the interviews did NOT answer and who could answer them. [PASTE NOTES BELOW] </task>

<context> [CLIENT] competes in [INDUSTRY] and is wrestling with [PROBLEM]. I need a structured competitive view to inform strategy. </context> <task> 1. Identify the 4-6 most relevant competitors and the basis on which they compete. 2. Build a comparison across dimensions that matter for [PROBLEM] (positioning, pricing, GTM, capability gaps). 3. Highlight where [CLIENT] has a defensible edge and where it is exposed. 4. Recommend the single competitive move that would most change [CLIENT]'s position, with the trade-off. </task>

<context> [CLIENT] in [INDUSTRY] is dragging on [PROBLEM]. I need to quantify the cost of doing nothing to create urgency. </context> <task> 1. List the mechanisms through which inaction costs money (lost revenue, churn, inefficiency, risk exposure). 2. For each, build a simple estimation formula and plug in placeholder assumptions. 3. Total an annualized cost-of-inaction range and identify the single biggest driver. 4. Phrase the headline number as a one-line statement I can use to open the recommendation. </task>

<context> Engagement for [CLIENT] in [INDUSTRY] on [PROBLEM]. I have the key question and now need a plan for what analyses will actually answer it. </context> <task> 1. Decompose the key question into the 3-5 sub-questions that must be answered. 2. For each sub-question, specify the analysis required, the data needed, and the source. 3. Sequence the analyses by dependency and effort, flagging the critical path. 4. Identify the one analysis most likely to be the 'answer-first' driver and prioritize it. </task>

<context> Key question for [CLIENT] in [INDUSTRY]: how to solve [PROBLEM]. I need a MECE issue tree to structure the analysis. </context> <task> 1. Decompose the key question into first-level branches that are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. 2. Break each branch into a second level of sub-issues, keeping MECE at each node. 3. Flag any branch that overlaps or leaves a gap, and fix it. 4. Mark which leaf nodes are likely the highest-impact to investigate first. </task>

<context> [CLIENT] in [INDUSTRY] faces [PROBLEM]. I want to run a hypothesis-driven engagement instead of boiling the ocean. </context> <task> 1. Propose 5-7 candidate hypotheses that could explain or solve the problem, phrased as testable statements. 2. For each, state what evidence would confirm or kill it. 3. Rank them by likelihood x impact and recommend which 2-3 to test first. 4. Note the single fastest, cheapest test that could disprove the leading hypothesis. </task>

<context> I am analyzing [PROBLEM] for [CLIENT] in [INDUSTRY] and want to avoid forcing the wrong framework onto it. </context> <task> 1. List 4-5 frameworks that could plausibly apply (e.g., Porter, value chain, 3C, jobs-to-be-done, profit tree). 2. For each, state what it would reveal and where it would fall short for this specific problem. 3. Recommend the single best-fit framework and one supporting framework. 4. Sketch how the recommended framework maps onto [PROBLEM] with the actual branches filled in. </task>

<context> [PROBLEM] for [CLIENT] in [INDUSTRY] is fundamentally about a financial metric (e.g., profit, margin, CAC). I need a quantitative driver tree. </context> <task> 1. Decompose the target metric into its mathematical drivers, level by level, keeping the math exact. 2. At each leaf, note whether [CLIENT] can realistically move it (high / medium / low control). 3. Identify the 2-3 leaves with the best impact-times-controllability score. 4. Translate those leaves into the specific analyses needed to quantify the opportunity. </task>

<context> I already built a structure for [PROBLEM] at [CLIENT] in [INDUSTRY]. I will paste it below. I want a rigorous MECE critique before I present it. </context> <task> 1. Check every level for mutual exclusivity and flag overlapping buckets. 2. Check for collective exhaustiveness and flag missing categories. 3. Point out any bucket that mixes levels of abstraction or that is a solution masquerading as a category. 4. Propose a corrected version that keeps as much of my original as possible. [PASTE STRUCTURE BELOW] </task>