Figure out what they do and who their customers are, and start a company competing with them on price, because obviously his practices add a huge overhead that you can avoid.
Somewhat related mentality, I often run into this situation where I see the non-tech leaders of a company talking to each other, trying to get stuff done, and they come to an impasse because each party's trusted tech person says something that contradicts what the other tech lead at the other company said. The non-tech bosses always tend to believe that their own tech people know what they are talking about and that the tech people at the other place are wrong. Usually you have a more hackery or pragmatic one saying something is possible, or should be doable quickly, and then you have another "enterprise architect-y" one saying it's not possible, or would require some large cost/effort/time to accomplish.
Be careful with that. A lot of times, inefficiency is a cover for siphoning funds to upper management. You can get in huge trouble for pointing out "inefficiencies" that are really ways to get money out of a company.
I don't think there's a danger of it happening in this case because I'm not part of the company. The Enterprise Architect and the consulting firm are both outside companies that mine works with. I'm not gonna butt into the politics of either one.
For example, they rewrite their entire website every two years for the past 6 years, but each time the project launches with fewer features, and results in lower traffic and lower conversions. They change datacenters about every 18 months. Revenue decreases.
They were bought by a popular PE firm and taken private. Gutted, and that's when all this started. The ownership has changed hands, but I see a constant rotation of management from a network of people connected to the PE firm. The PE firm finally did some weird stuff with chopping the company into two and selling both pieces. Now the main part of the company is owned by a private bank or hedge fund (can't remember exactly, but I can look it up).
I get the feeling that if someone looked into everything that's happened they'd uncover a lot of stuff. This has gone under the radar because it's not a public company, and there is so much turnover and a level of decoupling between upper management and the regular rank & file that no one would really know where to begin with raising flags. I'm guessing it's all legal, but shady. The PE firm has a very poor reputation, so I think the general public would be interested to dissect exactly what the fate is of a company that gets acquired by them, as a case study.
Oh well. End rant.