Why Technical Resumes Fail in Tech Consulting

Why Technical Resumes Fail in Tech Consulting - and How to Fix Them

Tech consulting firms don’t reject candidates because they lack technical depth.
They reject them because their resumes fail to communicate business impact.

This article breaks down why technically strong resumes fail in tech consulting shortlists – and how to fix them – using a real resume review conducted during a GoCrackIt mentorship session.

Meet the Mentor

Ashish Kumar is an experienced technology leader who brings a robust background in Engineering, AI, and Data to his role as a GoCrackIt mentor. Currently serving as a Director at Deloitte, he has built a distinguished career spanning two decades across top-tier firms like SAS, Future Generali, and TCS, specializing in analytics, project management, and strategic automation. Ashish’s deep industry expertise is complemented by an MBA from IIM Bangalore and a B.E. in Mechanical Engineering, providing him with a unique blend of technical mastery and business acumen. As a mentor, he leverages his vast experience to guide professionals through complex career transitions, focusing on actionable advice that bridges the gap between technical execution and senior leadership strategy.

“Tech Consulting is solving business problems using technology.”

The mentor, Ashish Kumar, said this before touching a single bullet point.

The mentee had close to nine years of experience across leading semiconductor companies, with a resume built around architecture design, algorithm development, and performance engineering. It was a technically strong resume.

The GoCrackIt resume review that followed was not about making it stronger technically. It was about rebuilding it so that business problems, outcomes, and decision impact became visible on the resume.

From Technical Activity to Outcome-Bearing Contribution

The mentor began reading the resume as a shortlisting document. One of the early bullets read:

“Streamlined a complex 44-stage FSM to a 6-stage FSM.”

He did not comment on whether this was good technical work. He questioned what the line actually communicated.

“You simplified a 44-stage FSM. So what?”

As the mentee explained the redesign, the mentor stayed on the same line of inquiry.

“What did that change?”
“So what did this enable?”
“Why did the organization need this?”

He then made the underlying rule explicit.

“When you write something, keep asking ‘so what’ until you reach the eventual impact. In an organization, everything can be traced back to either increasing revenue or reducing cost.”

Then he translated that into a construction method.

“When you are writing a bullet, think in terms of situation, action, and result. What was the problem? What did you do? And what happened because of it?”

The point was to ensure that every bullet carried a visible outcome.

Simplifying a complex FSM was not the value. The value was what that simplification unlocked — lower complexity, easier maintenance, and more reliable long-term development.

That shift became visible in how the bullet was rebuilt:

“Streamlined a complex 44-stage Finite State Machine into a simplified 6-stage FSM, significantly reducing complexity and enhancing logic maintainability of an Adreno module.”

The technical action did not change. What changed was that the bullet now answered the mentor’s “so what.”

This questioning pattern became the working method for the rest of the resume. Every time a line described what was built, the mentor pushed the discussion one level further, until the consequence of the work was visible on the resume.

From Technical Achievement to Business Problem Framing

After working through outcome framing, the mentor moved to another issue. Some bullets mentioned improvements, but they still did not show why the organization needed that work.

One line read:

“Proposed and implemented data compression algorithm. ~60% reduction in intermediate stage memory footprint.”

The technical result was visible. The reason for the work was not.

The mentor focused on that gap, “You reduced memory usage. Why did you do this? What problem were you solving?”

As the mentee explained GPU pipeline bottlenecks and architectural constraints, the mentor continued to move the discussion upward.

“What happens when this bottleneck exists?”
“Who is impacted by this?”
“What changes when you remove it?”

He then grounded what the resume needed to communicate.

“The person funding the work does not care what algorithm you used. He cares whether it improves the business outcome.”

From that point, the rewrite concentrated on making the problem visible before the solution:

“Identified a memory bottleneck in the GPU processing pipeline and designed a data compression approach that reduced intermediate-stage memory footprint by ~60%, improving system efficiency and scalability.”

The technical details remained but the bullet now showed the constraint that existed and why the work mattered.

The same approach was applied to similar performance and optimization points. The resume began to surface the system problems that prompted the work and the outcomes that followed.

That was the shift the mentor was guiding the resume toward.

From Engineer Profile to Consulting-Ready Profile

Even after working through specific bullets, the resume was still reading like the profile of a senior engineer. That is where the mentor shifted the discussion.

“What has to come out of your resume is your transformation.” The mentor was talking about what kind of professional the resume should present.

He made the shift explicit, “You are no longer a technical architect. You are going to be a business person. Otherwise, what is the point of doing an MBA?”

Up to that point, the resume was strong in one dimension: depth. Architecture, algorithms, and performance engineering dominated the resume. What was far less visible was whether the mentee had operated in ways that consulting roles screen for.

The mentor reframed how the resume should be constructed, “If you are targeting consulting roles, start from the roles. Look at five companies you want to work for. List the skills they expect. Make sure those skills appear in your resume.”

This changed how the resume was being built. The resume was no longer shaped only around past work. It was shaped around what consulting recruiters actively look for.

That reframing changed what was pulled forward. Cross-team work was made central. Delivery-related contributions surfaced clearly. System work was positioned around ownership, coordination, and execution responsibility.

As these changes were applied, the resume began to project a different professional profile. It showed experience working across teams, driving execution, and contributing to outcomes beyond a single technical module.

The shift became visible in how experience was repositioned.

Before:
“Worked with multiple teams to conduct performance analysis studies and define areas for performance enhancement.”

After:
“Led cross-functional collaboration to diagnose system performance gaps and drove 6 performance enhancement initiatives.”

This change surfaced coordination and problem ownership.

Another example reflected the same repositioning.

Before:
“Designed and implemented multiple features across GPU architecture modules.”

After:
“Drove end-to-end implementation of multiple GPU features, coordinating across teams to support system delivery.”

After:

This change framed the work around delivery responsibility.

The technical work remained. What changed was what the resume signaled. The profile now showed ownership, coordination, and execution readiness.

That was the transformation the mentor was pushing the resume to make visible.

From Engineer Profile to Consulting-Ready Profile

One of the clearest moments in the session came when the mentor stopped at the patent and innovation points. A point was written in a way that assumed the reader already understood the process behind it:

“Lead and mentor of deep-tech patent initiatives; multiple invention disclosures; Co-author of a granted patent.”

It made sense to the mentee. But the mentor explained, “You understand this. The person reading it may not.” He then stated the shortlisting reality, “You are able to explain this to me. You will not be there when someone is shortlisting your resume.”

The issue was not the work. It was that the resume required explanation. From there, he stated the rule he wanted enforced, “Each bullet point should be unique and self-contained.”

The points were separated and rewritten so each could stand on its own.

After:
“Led the filing of multiple invention disclosures, contributing to deep-tech innovation initiatives.”
“Co-authored a granted patent, formalizing original architectural contributions.”

This change removed the need for interpretation. Each line now communicated one complete idea without background context.

The same logic was applied elsewhere. Bullets that blended multiple ideas were separated. Supporting details were repositioned. This kept in mind who the resume was made for.

Conclusion:

The resume review moved the resume out of a purely technical frame and into a shortlisting frame. Outcomes were made visible, experience was grounded in problems, and the profile was reshaped to reflect consulting readiness.

The mentor’s work focused on how the mentee evaluated his own experience and how that experience was structured for an external reader.

This is the kind of guidance GoCrackIt’s mentorship sessions are built around: structured, role-aware conversations that help candidates convert strong backgrounds into resumes that hold up in real screening situations.

Check out all GoCrackIt resources for career and interview preparation.

Get More Insights

POLICIES

CONTACT

DESIGNED & DEVELOPED BY UMANSHI

Tagged Career Guidance, Job Search, leadership strategy, One page CV, Professional Development, Resume Review, Resume Writing, Technical Resumes