Traditional Accounting Firm Model May Shift to Special Offerings

The ground beneath the accounting industry is rapidly shifting. New private equity investment is blurring the lines between “accounting firms,” “consultancies,” and “outsourced finance services,” as many traditional CPA firms expand into specialty consulting and tech-enabled offerings.

Clients stand to benefit from the shift from one-off projects to always-on advisory. However, this evolution brings both exciting possibilities and unease because the changes will have sweeping implications for long-standing accounting and advisory firm business models.

Firms will offer more services and make other obvious moves in 2026. True differentiation, however, will come from bolder shifts: Advisory work with fees tied to measurable outcomes, assurance on metrics that genuinely shape organizational narratives, and go-to-market approaches that prioritize operational strength as highly as financial performance.

That is where real transformation will happen.

Obvious Moves

Firms will integrate more add-on offerings into existing relationships—tax credit services, compliance and filing programs, valuation services, and other packaged offerings that function more like subscriptions than projects.

Using artificial intelligence to remove low-value friction will allow firms to focus more on decision-making. It will be crucial for AI-enabled activity to remain within a governed environment, meaning:

• Data usage, storage locations, and tools are transparent.
• AI proposes but humans decide; nothing proceeds to clients or regulators without human review.
• Audit trails track all actions, including assisted steps.

From the client perspective, this will appear as:

• Transactions in general ledgers being pre-classified and coded, allowing teams to focus more on outliers.
• First-pass drafts of memos, workpapers, and technical explanations arriving faster because AI helps assemble raw language for professionals to refine.
• Contracts being pre-scanned for key terms such as renewal dates, pricing mechanics, and unusual clauses.
• Routine internal inquiries resolved by AI assistants, enabling engagement teams to devote more time to substantive issues rather.

These technologies won’t necessarily reduce fees, but those fees should result in better outcomes for the investment—more speed, fewer surprises, cleaner data, and tighter linkage to outcomes.

Alongside AI, client accounting will continue shifting into a tiered, ongoing service model, with close support, forecasting, and CFO-as-a-service programs where organizations buy a program rather than hours. Support for tax credits and incentives will be delivered through more structured screening, documentation, and success-fee models.

Cyber and third-party assurance may become more standard than exceptional, and auditing’s trend toward continuous approaches will accelerate, with more touchpoints throughout the year, and fewer year-end surprises.

Providers that can’t deliver these capabilities will fall short of baseline expectations, while those who can, should keep pace where the industry is headed. The real question is what will actually move the needle?

Outcome-Based Fees

Engagement value will increasingly be tied to the outcomes that matter most—days to close, exceptions per thousand transactions, cash conversion, and similar metrics.

Pilot programs in the market have shown that outcome-linked fee structures shift discussions away from hours and toward results, improving alignment between firms and their clients.

For this to work, firms won’t need complicated structures. They’ll need:

● Clear baselines for each metric.
● Target ranges, with floors and ceilings.
● Simple formulas that define how fees move with performance.
● Data directly from organizational systems rather than spreadsheets.

If an advisory firm claims to use outcome-based pricing without requesting client data, the pricing is unlikely to be truly outcome-based.

Driving KPI Value

Strategic financial decisions often come down to a few key operating metrics. Firms must consider which three to five key performance indicators, or KPIs, best represent their story to a skeptical buyer or lender.

In 2026 and beyond, more CFOs are likely to ask for independent assurance over these non-financial metrics before anyone else requires it. Examples include:

● On-time, in-full delivery.
● Emissions intensity when customers prioritize sustainability.
● Sales cycle times and win rates.
● Uptime and predictability for recurring-service models.

For a manageable approach, firms can use a short list of KPIs clearly linked to revenue, margin, or cost of capital. They also can clarify definitions and data sources to ensure consistent calculation and conduct readiness assessments before pursuing full assurance.

Financial assurance reveals what happened; KPI assurance enables stakeholders to rely on forward-looking indicators and trust the organization’s ability to sustain performance.

Quality of Operations

Buyers should increasingly pair financial diligence (quality of earnings, or QoE) with an operational checkup (quality of operations, or QoO). The latter focuses on working capital discipline, pricing consistency, sales operations, and whether a target can execute growth plans post-close.

It’s not just about proving the numbers—it’s about showing the business can run better on day one. A strong QoO review should boost valuation, accelerate closing, and strengthen buyer confidence.

QoE has become central to sale processes and explains performance; QoO demonstrates how that performance can improve. Executed well, the latter transforms improvement assumptions into a value-creation roadmap.

A practical quality of operations framework will use leading indicators as anchor will document ownership of operational levers and targets for the first 100 days post-close and combine fixed-fee “readiness” work with outcome-linked milestones.

Questions of Independence

Expanded advisory services and outcome-linked fees invariably raise questions about auditor independence. The principle is straightforward: Audit relationships must remain fully compliant.

Audit firms can’t accept contingent fees tied to financial results. Independence rules should remain central in selecting advisory partners; adherence is essential for all involved.

Looking Ahead

In 2026, distinctive performance will come from insisting that advisers tie fees to real outcomes, stand behind key performance indicators that drive results, pair operational insights with earnings analysis, and deploy AI to remove friction.

Leaders should ask:

● Can existing providers support this approach? If not, which partners could?
● Which metrics would be suitable for outcome-linked structures?
● Have all independence considerations been addressed?

Transformation doesn’t require overnight change, but the firms that move first won’t just keep up with the market; they’ll redefine it.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

Sean Taylor is the CEO of Smith + Howard, a tax, accounting, and advisory firm headquartered in Atlanta.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines