Why client perception belongs at the foundation of strategic planning: A strategic plan describes the firm it intends to become. Client feedback reveals the reputation it is starting from.
Imagine a leadership retreat where everyone is asked to describe the firm’s brand. The words arrive quickly: innovative, collaborative, trusted, strategic. Then the client research comes back. Clients describe the same firm as reliable, responsive, and technically strong—but add that they rarely think to call it before a project is defined.
Nothing in that feedback is an insult. In fact, much of it is praise. But the difference between being viewed as an excellent executor and being invited into an early strategic conversation could shape which services the firm can grow, which relationships it must deepen, and what its leaders need to change.
A firm’s brand is not only the story it tells. It is the expectation clients carry into the next decision.
An outside view of an internal plan
Strategic planning asks a firm to make choices about its future: where to compete, what to prioritize, which capabilities to build, and what not to pursue. Those choices often begin with an internal assessment. Leaders examine financial performance, talent, project history, markets, and ambitions. The missing evidence is often external: how clients actually understand the firm and where they believe it creates value.
That is why client research belongs near the beginning of the planning process, while assumptions can still be tested. In 2025, the SMPS Foundation reported that 87% of surveyed AEC firms expected client experience to be their most effective lead-generation tool over the following three to five years. The finding reflects firms’ expectations, not proof that a particular program causes growth. It nevertheless underscores how closely AEC firms connect client experience, reputation, and future work.
Ask beyond satisfaction
A satisfaction score may tell leaders whether a client is generally pleased. It rarely explains how the firm is positioned in that client’s mind. A useful client survey—whether conducted through confidential interviews, an online instrument, or both—asks questions that reveal choices and expectations:
What is this firm known for, and where does it add the most value?
At what point in a project or business challenge would you bring the firm into the conversation?
When would you choose another firm, and what would drive that decision?
What changes in your organization or market are likely to affect what you need next?
What would make the relationship more valuable in the future?
Having conducted hundreds of client interviews, I have found that the most useful answer is often not the most flattering or the most critical. It is the answer that explains a choice. Why did the client invite the firm into one situation but not another? Why is one capability memorable while another is nearly invisible? Those distinctions turn a broad perception into strategic evidence.
Three ways the evidence can shape the future
Once leaders compare the reputation they intend with the one clients describe, the feedback usually points toward one of three strategic moves.
Move: Reinforce
What the feedback suggests: Clients already value a quality that supports the firm’s direction.
Strategic response: Invest behind that advantage, make it more consistent, and communicate it with evidence.
Move: Stretch
What the feedback suggests: Clients see credible potential, but do not yet associate the firm with the desired role or service.
Strategic response: Choose a realistic adjacency, build the capability and relationships, and earn the new association over time.
Move: Repair
What the feedback suggests: The desired position conflicts with the client experience.
Strategic response: Address delivery, communication, leadership, or process gaps before making a stronger market promise.
Turn language into decisions
The research should not end with a new tagline. If clients value the firm’s ability to create calm and clarity on complicated projects, the implication may reach beyond messaging into project leadership, training, staffing, and selection of future work. If the firm wants to be known for early strategic counsel but clients experience it primarily as a technical resource, leaders need to decide what expertise, access, and behaviors would make the desired reputation credible.
Patterns matter more than a single memorable comment. Feedback should be considered by client type, market, geography, relationship length, and project experience, with the limits of the sample made clear. The planning team can then translate the strongest findings into priorities, assign responsibility, and identify what future evidence would demonstrate progress.
Client perception should not dictate strategy. Clients may not see an emerging capability, and a firm may deliberately choose a future that differs from its past. But leaders should understand the reputation from which that change must begin. The goal is not to let the market write the plan. It is to make the plan with a clearer view of the trust, expectations, and permission the firm has already earned.
If your firm is preparing to revisit its strategy, reach out to Larisa to discuss how client research can clarify the reputation you have today and the one you want to earn next.
Source: SMPS Foundation, Moving Insights to Impact, August 14, 2025
Larisa Forester Gilday, CPSM, Assoc. AIA, is a principal consultant with Cameron MacAllister Group. With a background in architecture and an MS in Marketing, she advises AEC firms on market intelligence, marketing and business development, and strategic growth. Her perspective draws on dozens of market studies and hundreds of interviews with owners and industry professionals.