Why technical resumes fail in tech consulting roles—and practical fixes to align them with consulting expectations.
Read More
Udayan Satyarth is a Strategic Programs Manager at Accenture and an alumnus of IIM Bangalore, with deep experience across technology consulting, enterprise transformation, and solutions roles at organizations including Accenture, KPMG, and HCL. He has worked across varied industries and problem contexts—from risk and architecture transformation to large-scale programs and pre-sales solutioning—giving him a grounded view of how consulting work is executed and evaluated. As a mentor, Udayan is known for his structured, high-clarity approach. He helps candidates understand how consulting roles actually function, what recruiters and managers screen for, and how to position their experience around problem-solving ability, business context, and delivery ownership.
In technology consulting, work rarely remains confined to a single problem space. A consultant may spend one month supporting a large bidding engagement and the next diagnosing system risks for an airline or stabilizing a failing client platform. Because of this, recruiters are not shortlisting narrow specialists. They are shortlisting professionals who can change gears quickly, work across unfamiliar contexts, and solve different kinds of problems.
This shortlisting reality is where many strong engineering resumes fail.
They describe systems, platforms, and features in detail, but they do not make consulting relevance easy to recognize. The resume may be accurate, but it does not answer the first question a technology consulting recruiter is asking: what kind of problem-solver is this person?
This was the challenge addressed in a GoCrackIt resume review session with Mentor Udayan Satyarth. The mentee, a student from a top tier B school, had spent nearly six years at Qualcomm working in semiconductor security roles. His background was strong and his resume was detailed. But much of what technology consulting recruiters look for was buried under technical framing.
The session focused on restructuring the resume so a technology consulting recruiter could understand, within seconds, how this candidate had operated—not just what systems he had worked on.
The review began at the very top of the resume, with the professional summary. It was written as a dense paragraph.
Before:
“6 years of experience in the Semiconductor industry specializing in Software and Hardware Security features in Snapdragon Processors. Worked in various Business Units for Smartphones, Laptops, AR/VR headsets and IOT devices. Technical proficiency in Security domain such as Cryptography, ARM Trust zone, Content Protection, DRM…”
The mentor stopped immediately, “You must separate it into pointers.”
His concern was how this would be read in the first brief resume scan. The mentor explained, “When I look at a resume for consulting, I look at it from this lens. Is it showing that you can change gears, understand business, and solve different kinds of problems?”
The summary introduced Qualcomm and semiconductor security, but it assumed a technical reader. It did not help a consultingrecruiter quickly understand how the mentee’s experience translated into consulting work.
The first correction was structural. The paragraph was broken into short, scannable bullets. The opening signals were reorganized so that arecruiter would first encounter the nature of the work and exposure before the domain itself.
Instead of opening with platforms and security terminology, the revised summary began surfacing points such as:
After:
• Experience working across multiple product environments and business units, including smartphones, laptops, and emerging hardware platforms
• Exposure to global teams and external stakeholders, supporting live programs and customer-facing problem resolution
• Progression from individual contributor work to driving and coordinating project tracks in security programs
The professional summary was reshaped to function as an early-review layer—making it easier for a consulting recruiter to understand how the candidate had worked before asking what technologies he had worked on.
Next, the mentor moved into the experience section. Here, the issue was that several bullets were carrying multiple jobs at once: describing internal capability building, listing security technologies, and referencing customer work in a single sentence.
One example he paused on was:
Before:
“Developed expertise and enhanced System Security features and OS isolation techniques like ARM Trustzone, Secure Bootup and assisted OEMs like Samsung and Google launch these solutions bundled in their smartphone.”
This one line was trying to communicate three different things at once: technical specialization, system development, and external implementation work.
The mentor’s intervention was about separation and hierarchy, “I’m not saying don’t mention the technical terms. But start with something any consulting recruiter would understand.”
His guidance was to stop stacking different signals into one bullet, and instead structure such points so that:
The line was split accordingly.
After:
The mentor then addressed the candidate’s leadership experience. In technology consulting, mentors are not just trainers; they are “force multipliers” who ensure the team can scale and deliver under pressure.
Before:
“Mentored 14 Engineers and built a high performing team that scaled the overall productivity by 20% of various projects in the platform security domain”
The mentor suggested that while “building a team” sounds good, a consultant needs to show they can drive measurable team improvement through structured guidance.
After:
By shifting to a specific, quantified outcome (driving a 20% improvement), the bullet now signals that the candidate is capable of managing not just tasks, but the professional growth and delivery standards of a project team.
Instead of treating the resume as a formatting problem, the review worked backward from how technology consulting resumes are actually read — what gets noticed, what gets ignored, and what helps a recruiter classify a profile in seconds.
That shift is difficult to make alone. Candidates are too close to their own work. They describe what they built because that is what they know. What this session surfaced is how differently the same experience has to be framed when the goal is getting a consulting shortlist.
This is the kind of intervention GoCrackIt is designed for: sessions where experienced mentors expose the mental filters behind hiring decisions and help candidates rebuild their profiles around them.
For candidates preparing for technology consulting roles, that perspective often matters more than another resume template.
Why technical resumes fail in tech consulting roles—and practical fixes to align them with consulting expectations.
Read MoreA practical guide to mastering risk management for MBA students and professionals in business and finance.
Read MoreUse structured thinking to navigate career transitions with clarity, confidence, and actionable steps.
Read MoreWhatsApp us