Skip to content

Posts from the ‘Clients’ Category

Detailed Statistical Analysis of Client Profiles

Our placement rate for the Sep/Oct 2012 recruiting period was 68.3% ~ 68%. This number only includes candidates pursuing McKinsey, BCG & Bain. If we include firms like Roland Berger, Oliver Wyman, Booz, AT Kearney etc, the number moves up to 71.6% ~ 72%.

This post is a detailed analysis of this placement rate. Clients who worked with us know we ask for a lot of information throughout the interaction. We ask that every interaction be shared with us, and preferably a copy of any networking emails sent, be mailed to us as well. Basically, we want to know as much as the candidate. Read more

What a consultant feels travelling to new hotels weekly. It is not fun.

This article by Tatiana de Rosnay could easily have been my life with a few well placed changes to the words, dates, names and times.

One of the worst experiences for me personally, was arriving in Tokyo on assignment on an overnight flight, and then being taken straight to a client, without time to sleep, shower, eat or change. That meeting lasted well into the wee hours of the next morning. I only returned back to my room by around 2am. Set the alarm for 9am and dozed off.

However, curtains were set to electronically open onto a glorious morning, facing the sunrise, at 7am, while the TV also came on. The worse part is that I could not find the controls and needed to call the butler. So travelling can be annoying. Read more

One of Marvin Bower’s best speeches…from 1964

Annual McKinsey & Company Partners’ Conference

Tarrytown, New York October 16 and 17,1964

MR.MARVIN BOWER: Since our last conference, since we last met together in this conference, we have lost by death two directors. Howard Smith, in the sunset of his career, died of cancer and Bob Hall, in the high noon of his career, was snatched out of the sky. These two men have made great contributions to the good things that we have here, and I’d like to pay tribute to them by simply saying that; but more specifically, to illustrate in some of the remarks that I make the contributions that they made so that they would be more real than just words. In these discussions that I’ve carried on over the years I’ve tried to pull together these meetings in terms of a single theme, and that theme is the role of the firm and the individual and what the firm’s program means to the individual. As I did that a good many years ago, I used to prepare very thoroughly for it: I would write it out and get it thoroughly in mind, and then I found that as the session went on everybody was saying everything I had planned to say. So I got wise to that and I don’t prepare any longer. What I do is to make some notes—if I showed you the pack of notes that I’ve got you’d surely be staggered—and I try to tie the things that have been said into the total theme of the meaning of the firm to the individual, and I found that that works better. Read more

Observations from the frontlines: foreign students recruiting for BBM face unusual troubles…

As the dust begins to settle on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounds of interviews in Canada, Australia and parts of Europe, we have noticed some very worrying trends about the manner in which foreign students are treated. Read more

Playing The Waiting Game

Max (not his real name) is an aspiring consultant who is looking to secure an analyst role with one of the top firms for the upcoming recruitment cycle in September 2011. His interest in management consulting was sparked by a failed McKinsey interview last year. In this series of blogs, he will be sharing his background, case preparation process, useful resources, and any breakthroughs or setbacks that he experiences.

All of my applications have been sent off and I’m now nervously checking my e-mail frequently throughout the day. The firms I ended up applying to are: Read more

Resume and Interview Tips from Oliver Wyman

Max (not his real name) is an aspiring consultant who is looking to secure an analyst role with one of the top firms for the upcoming recruitment cycle in September 2011. His interest in management consulting was sparked by a failed McKinsey interview last year. In this series of blogs, he will be sharing his background, case preparation process, useful resources, and any breakthroughs or setbacks that he experiences.

I would like to take a quick break from my series of posts regarding case preparation, and share some information which I acquired during an Oliver Wyman (OW) information session a few weeks ago. An OW partner, who is an alumnus of my university, came to campus to talk about opportunities at OW, as well as resume/interview tips. Read more

Oliver Wyman vs. Roland Berger vs. Marakon

Hi there Michael,

I have recently graduated from university, and I just saw your “What are considered the best consulting firms?” post on Quora and found it really useful. I was wondering if you could help me though.

I have been invited to interview at both Marakon and Roland Berger, while Oliver Wyman (GMC) have invited me to sit their numerical test. I’m having some difficulty in deciding which of these firms I’d prefer, assuming I get more than one offer.

I have been told my some that Oliver Wyman would be my best bet, although according to the list you compiled, it’s not as good as the other two. More specifically, I was wondering if you knew much about Marakon’s current situation – i.e. after their failed merger and subsequent bankruptcy last year. Are they still as highly regarded as they once were?

I am applying to the London office of all three firms, if that makes much of a difference.

Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance.

Best, xxx

***

Hi xxx,

Thanks for the email. I am very glad you are giving this serious consideration and thinking about your choices. As I tell my readers, having the right consulting firm on your resume is the equivalent of having HBS on your resume. It has that amount of impact and can open many doors for you.
Here is the unvarnished truth about these firms:
OW – OW is part of Marsh Mclennan. An giant insurance and risk conglomerate. OW partners typically move into senior management positions but in their niches of risk, transport etc. I have yet to meet an OW partner running a firm as CEO. They exist but are rare.
Furthermore, OW is totally at the mercy of its parent which could cut funding or have a scandal taint its name. This happened about 3 years when Marsh was caught engaging in fraudulent pricing activity. The subsequent fall-out led to Marsh pulling back funding and merging all the consulting units since it could not fund as many seperate businesses. So Marsh went from having about 7 consulting companies (Mercer, Nera, Lippincott Margulies, Delta etc) into just 3. Nera is a top economics advisory unit.
Now in terms management consulting, they are not at the top. Do not dilute your pedigree at a weaker firm. I can guarantee you will pine about McKinsey, BCG or Bain within 12 months of joining OW. Working for a consulting firm owned by a corporate is not fun. How do you tell Marsh’s biggest client they are doing something wrong? Will Marsh even allow that since it could jeapardise their fees? OW will tell you otherwise but I can assure you it is a problem on a daily basis.
Marakon – Marakon was a rising star in management consulting. For a firm of that size to have so much clout in the Harvard Business Review, have a Noble Laureate on their board etc. is impressive. There is nothing wrong with Marakon. It is a great firm.
But be aware of this. If you join Marakon and it never returns to its former glory, then you will for the rest of your life have to explain to people who Marakon is? If you join Marakon, you will need to stick it out and help turn it into a star again or the name will mean nothing on your resume. Furthermore, Marakon is not a major European player. If Europe is your aspiration then the Marakon name will not help you.
Roland Berger - In my opinion, RB is the only firm which has the potential (although some way to go, but getting there) to topple McKinsey. RB has a number of things going for it.
  • The most competitive consulting market in the world is not NYC or London. It is the German market. Partners from McKinsey etc from the German offices are typically the best. The competitive German market leads to enormous innovation from these consulting offices. The fact that RB dominates this market, is a very good sign.
  • Furthermore, RB has been very successful at cracking the Eastern European markets. If you want to be in Europe, thats where all the exciting work will be.
  • The brand is good, people are strong and they are growing.
  • Dr Prof. Roland Berger is still alive and will continue to influence the firm even though he stepped down.
Finally lets talk about the value system. This may not be apparent to you right now, but I can assure you that in 5 years it will be. Especially if you stay in consulting. Any consulting firm which talks about its clients, salaries and growth is not a true consulting firm. The best firms talk about there values. Last month RB walked away from a multi-billion dollar acquisition by Deloitte which would have significantly enriched the partners. That shows commitment. I cannot think of such a significantly important act in management consulting in the last 30 years. To be a great firm, you must be independent.

My advice is to aim for RB, but interview with the rest as a backup.
Hope this helps.
Michael.

What Vale should be doing besides chasing us

Scandal

Image by net_efekt via Flickr

Imagine my surprise getting off a late flight into Dublin and finding the saga of Vale clogging up my iPhone: their legal advisors sent letters to Firmsconsulting.com. Frankly, I would have responded differently to this after receiving the legal letters. However, what’s done is done. The letters where polite and non-threatening. Thank you. The documents are deleted but I want to point out the following to set the record straight: Read more

Don’t let your client down when they need you the most

We Stand Alone

Image via Wikipedia

We were involved in a very interesting situation last week, hence our sparse postings on the blog. Our consulting back-office was hired by another consulting firm to conduct some rather data-intensive analyses. We were the sub-contractor to the primary contractor. We normally work behind the scenes but in this particular case, our client – the primary contractor, wanted us to be actively involved. We joined very early conference calls, engaged the client on their behalf and helped craft the hypotheses and analyses. This was a mega-client. A multi-billion dollar behemoth ranked second in its sector and creating a storm as it expands internationally. The engagement was to develop a business case to reduce overhead across their printer business. When you consider they spend $8.6B/annum on operating costs in just one division, you will understand these are not small numbers. This particular project focused on the rationalization of the sales staff within the overhead costs.

The client employees working on the project belonged to an internal pseudo-consulting team called the Costing Unit. There job was to ensure the operating divisions had sufficient sales teams working on the accounts and worked with external staffing companies to get the best sales staff at the lowest cost. They had been tasked with reducing the sales staff cost contribution to total overhead. The current contribution was about 40% but the client believed that should be brought down to 33%.

With the benefit of being a late entrant and having no baggage, we could observe things outside-in. We noticed an interesting dynamic at play.

  1. The Costing Unit had already “decided” that the sales staff costs were too high.
  2. They had hired the primary sub-contractor (our client) to help develop the business case for reducing costs.
  3. The Costing Unit was not at all interested in determining if the sales force costs could be lowered. They simply wanted to develop any business case which showed the value of lowering costs.
  4. The primary contractor was more than happy to help with this.

No one was willing to ask the obvious questions:

  1. Was sales force costs the correct area to lower operating costs?
  2. Was there even a business case for pursuing sales force costs?
  3. By focusing on the sales force, was a bigger, potentially catastrophic problem overlooked?

Ignoring these types of questions is typical if the team is not familiar with management consulting. However, when they start fudging the analyses to obtain their business case you have to think twice.

Our analyses showed that sales force costs had dipped 27% from 2008 to 2010. This was largely driven by the recession and the drop in commissions. Costs are expected to remain low until 2011 and only reach their 2008 levels by 2013. In fact, in 2015, sales costs will only be 8% higher than their 2008 levels.

Showing such a graph certainly does not help the Costing Unit. The graph clearly shows that sales force costs have plummeted, and are expected to remain low and slowly climb out of the dip until they meet pre-recession levels in 2015. This graph clearly shows that sales force costs are not the problem. They have been dropping and at the very least flat-lining when all other costs have been increasing. This story was not what they had in mind.

So the Costing Unit took the analyses and chopped off the 2008-2009 data. They now have a graph showing a rising cost curve all the way up to 2015. The primary contractor endorses this and it was sent to the board.

The primary contractor should have stepped up and said that by blindly pursuing this one avenue they have potentially ignored the real cost problem. Worse than this, they have created a margin problem. By hitting the sales force they will cut down on the revenue generating side of the business. Revenue could drop. By not targeting the true cost drivers they have allowed costs to creep up. Squeezed from both sides, the margin will drop.

Clients rely on consultants to be independent. That’s because someone independent should be willing to stand up and point out the real issues. Clients trust consultants to do what is correct, not what will earn their next pay check. The consultant who used our analyses will likely continue doing more work at the client. However, by ignoring the real issues they have possibly passed on more work which could have had a larger impact at the client.

They have also lost some integrity.

How do you break into a new client, sector or geography without misleading the client and without prior experience?

This evening we had dinner with the founders of a boutique firm of management consultants. As former colleagues we were interested to know how they were doing. Invariably the question of growth came up and the question above was posed. It is an intriguing and very common question. If you are starting a new firm by yourself this question would also come up, or like my former colleagues, if you are growing and need to break into new areas this also comes up. To win new work you cannot mislead clients since that goes against the core of management consulting ethics. So you need to find a way which works but does not misrepresent yourself. This is what we would recommend you do.

Conduct a mini-study.

In our own experience this works really well. It does not always work, but it definitely positions you well for future work. Let’s use an example to explain how you could do this.  

Imagine you knew that Toyota was interested in reviewing their dealer network in the US and wanted to appoint a consulting firm to do the work.  You have never done dealer strategy work, never done work in the automotive sector and your only chance of getting the work is due to the client awarding the work who knows of you and is willing to meet you.

First read the general stories about dealer networks and their problems. Read about problems across brands and across price segments. From reading these stories and over a long enough time period, you can pick up the common themes in the sector. Read broadly and across publication of quality; such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

Second, visit the sites of firms which have strong automotive practices. Roland Berger, Oliver Wyman and AT Kearney are particularly strong here. Read their reports which are free on their sites, or possibly on this site, summarise the key issues they have identified and the frameworks they have used. As a result of this process you can speak about the subject with some authority, learn the language and start building a list of potential problems in your mind.

Third, from this research develop a set of hypotheses that you think may be the problem with Toyota’s dealerships. Come up with no more than 5 or 6 good hypotheses. Write them down, think about them and improve them. All these hypotheses must collectively help you answer ONE fundamental problem in Toyota’s dealer network. This one fundamental problem is likely the key question in the minds of Toyota executives, the reason they are doing the study. Remember, Toyota would not be doing the review unless they felt something could be done better or needed to change. You need to think about that key reason why they want to do the study. What is the problem they are trying to solve? Do not worry if your key question or hypotheses are wrong at this stage – no one knows the answer, that’s why Toyota is doing the review! This process is meant to make you start thinking about the right problem. Make sure your hypotheses are collectively exhaustive (they cover every part of the key question) and are mutually exhaustive (the hypotheses do not overlap). Below are some examples.

Key Question: How can Toyota help its dealerships to improve customer service without raising the cost per a customer? (Remember, your key question is based on all your research thus far)

Hypotheses 1:  Dealerships incur higher costs since they have full-time staff throughout the year rather than the peak periods.

Hypotheses 2:  The dealerships have lower margins since their scale and inventory does not qualify them for lower rates from commercial banks, thereby forcing them to take on more expensive financing at smaller banks.

You get the picture?

One thing to note about hypotheses; always write the hypotheses out in the following format:

What is the event or action examined? H2 – cost of financing

What caused the event or action? H2 – lack of scale of the dealership or lack of a guarantee

What is the result of the event or action? – H2 – higher credit costs and lower profits which results in the dealership raising support service fees to recover lost earnings

This is a very powerful way to write the hypotheses. It focuses you on finding the right data and allows you to quickly eliminate problems which may turn out to be no problem at all.

Forth, armed with your background knowledge, key question and hypotheses you need to find a way to speak to a few Toyota dealerships to test your thinking. If you do this for several dealership and offer to share the full results without divulging the identities of the participants, very, very few companies would say no. It is a simple and powerful way to share ideas and test your thinking.

So let’s recap what you have:

  1. Broad list of the themes affecting US car dealerships
  2. List of problems/solutions/frameworks from other consulting firms
  3. Potential key questions and hypotheses for Toyota
  4. Verified (or discredited) hypotheses based on your discussions with focus interviews
  5. Information from the focus interviews

Overall, that is quiet a powerful list.

Based on this list you could easily assemble a very compelling 10 slide presentation with the following:

Slide 1: Themes in US car dealerships

Slide 2: Similar problems faced by other dealerships around the world (Notice how you turned someone else’s experience into your advantage. You should not take credit for the information, but mention the details.)

Slide 3: How they handled it (Notice again how you turned someone else’s experience into your advantage. You should not take credit for the information, but mention the details.)

Slide 4 – 8: Present the key information from your focus interviews with the dealers.  (Text is boring. Use bar charts, graphs and other data to make your case. Present discredited or disproved ideas since these are also very useful)

What were the main problems the dealerships listed?

How many listed them?

Do they think they need help?

What were the quick wins they outlined?

Slide 9: Based on all your work, write down your final draft of the key question to be answered and hypotheses.  (You need to share this with the client so you can ensure you are both on the same page)

Slide 10: How you would go about helping them with the problem (Present your approach at a high level)

We have done this before many, many times so we know it works. Notice how it deflects attention away from your lack of prior experience and forces you to prepare a well thought-out document which shows you have attempted to understand the problem. Such an approach is a good basis to get a small project, which should you manage well, could turn into a major project. You cannot always succeed in this way, but at the very least:

  1. You have shown the client you understand his/her problems,
  2. You can think through business problems,
  3. Likely created a reason for him/her to invite you for future work,
  4. Your focus interviews may have opened up more potential work, and
  5. You now have a study which you can take to potential clients or share in the media.

This approach forces you to create high quality material which can be reproduced. This can all be easily done in 2 weeks.

If you tried this, let us know your results, and upload a copy of your presentation for us to read.

Team Lillilooloo

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 939 other followers

%d bloggers like this: