with niche firms, they have solution architects and technical architects. with larger ones - accenture, big 4 and the desi ones, they don’t. i find the projects of niche firms more successful

There are a lot of factors. I have worked as a Salesforce partner at a boutique and now at Accenture. I could probably write a 10-page essay on the differences and pros/cons, but at the highest level: Small firms: can often provide more Salesforce actual code/config per dollar spent Large firms: - have SMEs in all related areas (eg, is the client says oh we also need a completely custom mobile app built that integrates with SFDC, we can do that) - have deeper partnerships with Salesforce, which allows you to do more innovative things on the platform I wouldn’t get too hung up on solution vs technical architect in terms of title because the responsibilities vary firm to firm. At Accenture we DO have both Solution and Technical Architects- the primary difference is that solution architects do a lot of project estimation.

Agree with A1. Building on A1’s post, the main difference I see is scope and scale. Accenture/Deloitte/IBM can tackle the most complex programs from strategy, design, build, integrations and AI to global rollout and run. Architects are an absolute must to bring multiple clouds, managed packages, epics, etc. come together. The reason you probably believe niche firms have more successful implementations is because they have smaller, easier, less custom systems to build. Doesn’t mean they aren’t talented. Just means the work they deliver isn’t as challenging so it’s really not a fair comparison.

At pwc we have both, I’ve worked at boutique and gsi’s. I agree with A1’s points. I would say boutiques are more successful at meeting the scope initially set out, whether that scope is right or wrong, and they tend to do lift and shifts. So the technical implementation is successful but most of time client struggles to see the actual ROI. GSI better at reframing issues and providing genuine consultancy