Three options are only useful if they are real

Offering three packages can help a buyer compare approaches. It can also become a pricing trick in which one option exists mainly to make another look attractive. Professional advice deserves a more defensible structure.

Build options around meaningful differences: depth of diagnosis, implementation support, scope of coverage or allocation of responsibility. Explain what each option enables and what remains unresolved. The cheapest version should still produce a useful result on its own terms.

For example, an assessment, an assessment plus implementation planning, and a supported implementation can be legitimate choices. Three nearly identical bundles with arbitrary feature counts may obscure the actual decision.

Recommend the option that fits the situation. Presenting a menu without judgment makes the buyer do the advisory work. Explain why your recommendation is appropriate and which change in circumstances would favour another option.

More options are not always better. If only one approach can responsibly meet the requirement, say so. A false choice can make the proposal feel flexible while hiding a minimum condition for success.

Price differences should correspond to real differences in work, risk or value. When a buyer asks why one option costs more, the answer should survive scrutiny without invoking the psychology of anchoring.

The best menu helps the customer decide how much responsibility to retain and how much support to buy. It should clarify the engagement, not stage a performance designed to steer them toward a predetermined middle box.