Ranking McKinsey, Bain, BCG…
The library of individual firm reports is made available at the sole discretion of Firmsconsulting.
Method
After a brutal recession, consulting hirings are picking up again. BCG, McKinsey and Bain have all announced bumper hiring seasons across freshly minted MBA’s, analysts and experienced hires. That has left aspiring consultants scrambling for the rankings. What bothered us most was the anecdotal method that went into ranking consulting firms. Everyone praises McKinsey, but many seem to have very little understanding of what truly drives a great consulting firm. It’s not just the salary, client roster and credentials. Those things, although important, are an outcome of doing several other things consistently well over a long period.
Our ranking is unique in two ways. We went out and collected lots of facts to compile the rankings. We explain the sources and, if needed, you are welcome to replicate our analyses. Second, we crucially distinguish between the health and performance of a consulting firm. We are the first ranking of any kind to do this. Performance is the current outcome of doing things correctly in the past. Healthy decisions are the things done today to keep up great performance in the future. Why is this important? Firms who do things to keep up their health, at the expense of performance, were sometimes punished in others rankings. On the flip-side, firms who aggressively discounted fees or did work loosely related to management consulting simply to meet revenue targets were punished in other rankings. Not distinguishing between performance and health would have led to us making the same mistakes as the rating agencies and commending good performance when the health of a business could be suffering. Any ranking worth its weight needs to look at both – performance and health. Like all rankings, there is subjectivity. However, many criteria are far more accurate than previous rankings and so are our data sources. We went straight to employees and clients. In many cases, we collected public data. We also shared our criteria.
Results
In this new ranking by FirmsConsulting, BCG came out on top from the 19 firms we ranked. It was followed by the new triumvirate of Bain, McKinsey and Roland Berger, who displaced the traditional fast-followers of Deloitte, Booz and Monitor Company. With the exception of Roland Berger, this was clearly an All-American show as no other foreign firm in the top 5. Even so, the gap between the top 4 and the rest is substantial.
This FirmsConsulting ranking is based on a review of 33 criteria which, based on our own experience and discussions, distinguishes great firms. For example, we carefully examine whether or not a consulting firm is a true global partnership like BCG or a set of loose affiliations like PWC or Deloitte. We also look at whether a consulting firm licences its brand like Capgemini. We also assess if firms test all competencies during interviews or are swayed by fancy degrees into making nice offers on the spot. We even measured how long a firm takes to respond to candidates after an interview! Surprisingly, McKinsey was punished on this criterion as we have heard stories from around the world of delays from at least 15 separate offices: in some cases a delay of up to 8 months before candidates receive any feedback. We are talking to you McKinsey Singapore.
Veterans of management consulting will hardly be surprised to find McKinsey, Bain and BCG at the top. After all, they make up the famous MBB acronym littering countless bulletin boards. However, most rankings up to know have not really analysed these firms in any quantitative detail. They have simply presented surveys and then provided rankings to support pre-conceived ideas. Based on our ranking it is clear there is a difference between Bain and BCG. Clients certainly see the difference and actually will not pay Bain as much as BCG. McKinsey is seen on par with BCG but in the halls of government, McKinsey easily wins the day. Booz is also strong in government, but not likely to be called in when it really counts – especially for issues reported in the media. Roland Berger has until now never received much attention. It had always been seen as the regional player. Sort of like a LEK for Germany. That is certainly not what we are seeing from the executives we interviewed. Moreover, Roland Berger’s decision to remain private said much about the strength of its value system.
Despite the rise of emerging markets, we could not find a single major consulting firm originating from these regions. We found a handful of small players with less than 100 employees but none whom we could identify as a potential breakout player. Europe remains the next logical area, after the US, for producing leading consulting firms. Roland Berger, OC&C and LEK all speak to this. And for the first time ever, a non-London or Paris based player is challenging the US – Roland Berger. In Asia we were surprised to find no trans-national players. A fair number of ex-McKinsey partners have set up regional shops in Vietnam, China, Korea, India and Japan. Yet, none have managed to win substantial relationships outside their borders. The same applies to regional players in Chile, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa. Australia was the exception where we found several regional players serving clients across South-East Asia. One outfit, Partners-in-Performance seemed to have their network from the icy offices of Vale Inco Sudbury to the depths of the mines in South Africa. Yet, they are far from being a global challenger to any of the established firms. Time will tell if they make our main ranking.
Coming out of the worst recession was particularly brutal for many firms. Many candidates described being wined and dined at far less prestigious restaurants in London, New York or even hot emerging markets like Jakarta. Hiring bonuses all but disappeared. That has now changed as candidates have been receiving bonuses of up to 20% of their salaries at BCG.
McKinsey is rumoured to have increased knowledge management expenditure by 23% this year and is planning a new Asian Studies research centre out of Beijing. McKinsey’s formidable alumni network which reaches into government, commerce and academia grew far quicker than usual as several high profile alumni like Diana Farrell entered government. In fact, during the recession, 67% more McKinsey alumni accepted, reported, senior government positions versus the same two year period before the recession.
Dominic Barton, McKinsey’s new Managing Partner has not yet crystallised his focus for the firm. Given his roots in having built the Seoul office and his Canadian heritage, we can predict a custodianship with far less limelight than the likes of Rajat Gupta, and a laser focus on Asia. Although, there are rumours that several powerful senior partners are advocating stronger focus on Eastern Europe as well. Surprisingly, despite the heritage of Marvin Bower, and his focus on ethics, McKinsey did suffer a tainted image as an influential partner, Anil Kumar, was indicted for insider trading. The firm was quick to respond, but it is fair to say this caused more than the usual hand-wringing and appointment of PWC to conduct a risk audit. Rajat Gupta’s fall from grace and specifically founding a consulting firm while at McKinsey says much about the firms lack internal control systems.
Either way, clients are starting to buy again and very soon it’s going to be like 2004 all over again when consulting firms the world over were buying up talent to win work. The Middle East, which took the most ungraceful hit, seems to be back as well. Booz, E&Y, McKinsey, Bain, BCG, E&Y, Deloitte and PWC have all stepped up hiring. Have they all learnt from past mistakes? One definitely did not. Deloitte Dubai is purely an office focused on doing feasibility studies of hotels and other planned construction projects. Their increased hiring means they assume these projects are coming back. So much for diversification! Bain is now entering the South African market for the third time. Or is it the fourth time? Anyway, the bottom-line is that Bain sees an uptick in work and will jump in, only to jump out again when things look shaky.
“The ramp-up has definitely started. We are seeing more consulting partners reaching out to us with dinner invitations in the last month than we saw all of 2009. It’s going to be a bumper year.” So says a prominent SAB Miller member.
The Ranking
| 1 | BCG | 96.0 |
| 2 | Bain | 90.5 |
| 3 | McKinsey & Company | 90.0 |
| 4 | Roland Berger Strategy Consultants | 86.0 |
| 5 | AT Kearney | 71.0 |
| 6 | Booz & Company | 70.0 |
| 7 | Monitor Company | 67.0 |
| 8 | Oliver Wyman | 67.0 |
| 9 | Deloitte Consulting | 67.0 |
| 10 | PWC Consulting | 60.0 |
| 11 | LEK Consulting | 58.7 |
| 12 | Accenture Management Consulting | 57.5 |
| 13 | Capgemini | 56.9 |
| 14 | AD Little | 56.3 |
| 15 | IBM Global Services | 56.0 |
| 16 | Hay Group | 55.6 |
| 17 | OC&C | 55.4 |
| 18 | PA Consulting | 55.3 |
| 19 | E&Y Strategy | 48.6 |
Criteria used
(Criteria in bold signifies a higher weighting)
| Criterion | Rationale | Method | |
| 1 | Is the firm international? | This means the firm can serve multinationals who are usually spread between countries and need consultants who can understand the local environment. If the firm is not international, it is unlikely to be very successful at serving multinationals. It is probably a niche firm. | Counted the number of multinational clients by reviewing firms websites and media references |
| 2 | Does it have multiple offices? | This means the firm has grown and understands the challenges of managing a global business. It probably is capable of working across cultures and views that as a strength. | Counted the location of a firm’s offices. Affiliate offices were scored almost zero and multiple offices in the same country and continent were scored less than those between continents. |
| 3 | Is it a single partnership? | This is one of the most important criteria. Single partnership firms can make tough decisions, ensure consistency and enforce quality. Where partnerships are legally separated, there is no way to enforce quality. | Confirmed with the firm |
| 4 | Does it have a strong and consistent value system? | The firms which are highly admired see their profits as an outcome of having strong values. Less prestigious firms crassly talk about growth and profits | Based on a survey of up to 50 current/former employees and an absolute minimum of 20 current/former partners |
| 5 | Is it willing to apply that value system at the loss of revenues? | Look for firms which have turned away work when it has gone against their values. Very, very few firms turn away work. | Based on a survey of up to 50 current/former employees and an absolute minimum of 20 current/former partners |
| 6 | Does the firm market itself too aggressively or underplays the challenges of consulting to recruit? | Less prestigious firms need to try harder to recruit quality candidates. They market the firm too heavily and underplay the tough expectations. | Based on a survey of a minimum of 10 interview candidates per a firm. In the case of the smaller firms, we only interviewed 3 candidates. |
| 7 | Is quality between offices/regions the same? | This is a very important criterion. If quality is not uniform, it implies the core partnership is unwilling or unable to enforce high standards. | Based on a survey of up to 50 current/former employees and an absolute minimum of 20 current/former partners |
| 8 | Is the firm dominated by one or two regions/offices? | A firm of equals never has one or two dominant offices. Dominant offices change over time as trends change and global issues change. If one office dominates and you are not a member of that office, it will impact your career development. | Based on a survey of up to 50 current/former employees and an absolute minimum of 20 current/former partners |
| 9 | Does it have a consistent and distinguishable brand? | Inconsistency in the branding or poor branding is a problem. It speaks to poor quality control and a lack of understanding of how to position a premium business. | Based a survey of 50 clients who have bought consulting services. 32 were American clients, 6 Canadian, 6 UK and the rest in Asia |
| 10 | Are its stars home-grown or recruited? | Join a firm which knows how to produce stars. A firm which mostly recruits stars does not know how to produce them and therefore cannot develop you. | Based on a survey of up to 50 current/former employees and an absolute minimum of 20 current/former partners |
| 11 | Are its senior people home-grown or recruited? | Consulting values are passed from senior partner to senior partner. They usually have extensive tenure. Recent senior hires are unlikely to preserve the values since they do not necessarily have them. | Based on a survey of up to 50 current/former employees and an absolute minimum of 20 current/former partners |
| 12 | When recruited do you join an office, region or the entire firm? | This is important. If a firm is truly global, then you may have joined the Paris office but can seamlessly work anywhere. If you cannot, it is warning sign about the strength of the partnership. | Based on a survey of up to 50 current/former employees and an absolute minimum of 20 current/former partners |
| 13 | Are performance metrics heavily skewed towards sales and profits? | No matter what a firm says, if it rewards you purely on sales and profits, then it has the wrong values. You need to make sure that partners are measured for the value they bring to clients. Not on profits. | Based on a survey of up to 50 current/former employees and an absolute minimum of 20 current/former partners |
| 14 | Is it large and/or is it proud of its size? | There are just not enough smart people in the world to staff a very large management consulting firm. If a firm is touting its 20,000+ workforce, that should generate serious warning bells about the type of work it is doing. | Based on a review of recruiting and advertising literature. |
| 15 | Does it have an up-or-out policy? | Not everyone can make it, even if they come from Harvard, and that’s okay. However, the firm must be willing to let them go. It must have, and must enforce, an out-or-out policy. Otherwise, it is willing to keep people purely for their résumé and not their performance. | Based on a survey of up to 50 current/former employees and an absolute minimum of 20 current/former partners |
| 16 | Are competencies tested in the interviews via case studies? | The best firms do not place value in where you worked before. They place value in your ability to solve business problems. They test this ability. The best firms will have strenuous tests both written and oral in the form of math and case questions. | Based on a survey of a minimum of 10 interview candidates per a firm. In the case of the smaller firms, we only interviewed 3 candidates. |
| 17 | Is the quality and approach consistent between offices and regions? | The quality must be the same across all offices and regions. All consultants must be trained in the same way and to the same standards. Without this, staffing international teams will be impossible since it is unclear what to expect. | Based on a survey of up to 50 current/former employees and an absolute minimum of 20 current/former partners |
| 18 | Is it easy to get access to knowledge, experts and required IP? | Consulting value is largely underpinned by the ability to find, understand and extract the key nuggets of information from earlier work. A powerful and easily accessible knowledge management system is essential. Hoarding between offices is a sign of immaturity – despite the excuses the offices will likely make. | Based on a survey of up to 50 current/former employees and an absolute minimum of 20 current/former partners |
| 19 | Is the firm actively investing in key developing markets? | This is another important criterion. If a firm decides to enter a market, it must be willing to invest for the long-term to build a sustainable base. Markets like Brazil, Dubai, Bucharest, Moscow, Kiev, Santiago and Buenos Aires are important for long-term growth. Firms chasing short-term profits will eschew these investments. | Based on a survey of up to 50 current/former employees and an absolute minimum of 20 current/former partners and a review of efforts to open offices in emerging markets |
| 20 | Is the firm noted for producing Fortune 1000 executives? | True management consulting firms are training grounds for future executives. If you struggle to find a large number of alumni who are executives at Fortune 1000 firms, then this is not a management consulting firm. | Based on a review of the board of director biographies of the 1000 largest listed companies. |
| 21 | Does the firm produce recognized intellectual property? | An influential firm produces ideas and analyses which are highly sought after. If you cannot name the major thinkers, research platforms and appearances in the influential media, then this firm is not élite. | Based a survey of 50 clients who have bought consulting services. 32 were American clients, 6 Canadian, 6 UK and the rest in Asia. |
| 22 | Does the firm appear in the Harvard Business Review? | The HBR is the most influential business publication. Unless a firm appears here, it is not an élite consulting firm. | Based on a count of the number of articles, per a firm, appearing between 2005 and December 2010. |
| 23 | Does the firm have a defined problem solving approach? | If you can join the firm and it also allows you to apply your own methods to solve a business problem; that is a major warning sign. No amount of education is enough to equip you solve complex business problems. This needs to be taught. A firm not doing this is taking a huge risk. | Based on a survey of up to 50 current/former employees and an absolute minimum of 20 current/former partners |
| 24 | Does the firm define itself by whom it is not? | Firms who can only articulate their value when mentioning a competitor usually do not have a distinctive value. They can only tell you who they are not. Be wary of firms who say “There is only McKinsey and us in the market” This shows an enormous amount of immaturity. Also worry about firms who say “we play in the space between McKinsey and Accenture.” | Based on a survey of up to 50 current/former employees and an absolute minimum of 20 current/former partners |
| 25 | Does it hire from the best schools and universities? | The best firms hire from Harvard, Wharton, Sloan, Booth, Stanford, Columbia, Yale, Oxford, Ivey etc | Based on a survey of up to 50 current/former employees and an absolute minimum of 20 current/former partners |
| 26 | Does it pay a premium salary? | If a firm wants you, but is unwilling to pay you a premium salary, then it is not commanding premium rates and its work is not valued. Walk away. | Based on a survey of up to 50 current/former employees and an absolute minimum of 20 current/former partners |
| 27 | Does it consistently command premiums fees in the market? | The market decides who the best is. If the rates are low, then it is an average firm. Think of a firm’s billing rate as its stock price. | Based on a survey of up to 50 current/former employees and an absolute minimum of 20 current/former partners |
| 28 | Are its ideas, work and samples heavily trafficked on the internet? | No matter what anyone says, if a firm is producing influential work, its ideas are usually, illicitly, trafficked on the internet. The one exception to this rule is likely to be Bain & Company who keeps an iron grip on documents. | Based on a Google Search of Key Consulting Document key words and phrases. |
| 29 | Does the firm produce recognized research? | If a firm needs to explain its publications to you then it is a problem. Does the McKinsey Quarterly, Strategy + Business or BCG Perspectives need an introduction? No. | Based a survey of 50 clients who have bought consulting services. 32 were American clients, 6 Canadian, 6 UK and the rest in Asia. |
| 30 | Is the advertised research/work produced by the same unit/team? | This is an important point and widely overlooked. Some firms hire a few smart people to sit in a nice office and produce research. Avoid these firms. You want to join a firm where it trains everyone to do great work and eventually write great articles. You want to join a firm which can train you to do this. | Based on a review of all published research by a firm between January 2010 and November 2010 |
| 31 | Is the firm quoted in prominent publications like Forbes, WSJ, and NYT etc? | Leading business publications work with the best firms. | Based on a review of said publications between January 2010 and November 2010 |
| 32 | Does the firm advertise? | The best firms do not advertise since they are unwilling to make promises to the market. | Based on a review of major business publications during 2010 |
| 33 | Were they professional in the interview process? | If they took weeks to get back to you, were rude or forgot about the interview, then run for the hills. The best firms manage all parts of their reputation well, including interviews. | Based on a survey of a minimum of 10 interview candidates per a firm. In the case of the smaller firms, we only interviewed 3 candidates. |
Related Articles
- All-time, Top 10 most popular articles on McKinsey, BCG, Bain, Deloitte, Monitor, Booz, AT Kearney, Oliver Wyman & Roland Berger (firmsconsulting.com)
- Why consulting case interviews are only half the battle (firmsconsulting.com)
- Oliver Wyman vs. Roland Berger vs. Marakon (firmsconsulting.com)
- How Gemini Consulting, the one-time McKinsey killer, shot itself in the foot (firmsconsulting.com)
- Top Management Consulting Firms: Use our exclusive scoring system to identify the best firms (firmsconsulting.com)
- Is McKinsey still top dog? (blogs.freshminds.co.uk)
Michael,
The analysis is great. Can you please share the link of the PDF/PPT report. Also it will be great if you can provide details on rankings for the various criteria discussed in your post.
Thanks,
Shashank
Hi Shashank,
We will release it soon.
Michael
This might be an offbeat question but have you heard of Kurt salmon Associates? They are growing their practice in NY area specifically in areas of CIO advisory and seem quite upbeat. Any insights into their firm would be helpful
Heard of them, but we only focus on the Big 3 so my information may be a little outdated.
Hi, I was wondering if I could get your opinion on something. From a long term value perspective, do you think it would be better to be at a Brand Name firm which doesn’t have as much of a presence in a particular region vs a “lesser” brand with a better presence in the same region. Specifically, all else being equal, would you say Booz & Co would be a better option in the Middle East than McKinsey? I know this is subjective and I am happy to provide more specifics about my situation if needed.
Thanks.
Hi Jmu,
At the end of the day it will come down to you. If you are good, it will not matter which firm you join.
Michael
This may be a silly question, but is this ranking more recent than the other popular post “Annual rankings 2010/2011′? I ask because OC&C has a massively different score in that ranking (72.0 or thereabouts) vs this one (55.0).
Hi KMP,
We realised that OC&C provided incorrect data and changed their ranking. Only OC&C has moved in the update. This is not the latest ranking which we will soon release.
Michael
Hi Michael,
Is there a way to know which firms are best known for their work in a given industry? For example, if I want to know the strongest firm that operates in the energy sector [who does work with international energy companies. major oil companies (both upstream oil & gas and downstream refining), major utilities, energy developers, etc] where would I go to find that out? Any advice?
There are too many variables here to provide a clear answer: how is best defined, firms use different industry classifications, define strong.
The best thing to do is read the website and then apply the criteria you would like to apply.
After reading some previous comments below, people seem to underrate RB except in Europe. As far as I know, RB is very prestigious in Europe.
RB is recently opening many new offices in South East Asia countries. I am just wondering, will I carry this “prestige” thing if I work at RB outside Germany / Europe ? The problem is it’s not in Europe region so it might be a little bit unknown and it’s relatively new firm.
What do you think about working in less prestigious firm but already well-established in that particular country (for e.g. PWC consulting, rank 11th based on your ranking) ?
Wang, RB is not a new firm. It was founded several decades ago. It is just not well known in the US and US business schools. And since the world uses the US as a benchmark for business, not well known much.
It is very prestigious in Europe and more so as it expands internationally, especially in the US. Forums will tell you RB is weak, but those forums are written by people who know little or nothing about management consulting. RB’s trajectory for the future is strong and positive. Since Gemini Consulting, it is the first firm to come along which can truly challenge McKinsey and BCG. Bain likes to consider itself in the top 3, but McKinsey and BCG are in a different league.
If you ignore their names, Bain and RB are almost exactly the same. Except RB grew in Germany, the worlds toughest consulting market, and is light-years ahead of Bain in the emerging markets. If RB had been a firm in Boston, with the same characteristics as they have now, we would not be having this discussion.
RB is a great firm.
The rankings will change soon.
I think Ivygrad has a point – and people do not seem to understand this.
MCs who have implementation capability to implement what they advise will deliver more value in the long run. Over a period of time they will have better reputation than MBB who just do the advisory bit and leave the implementation side of things for others. There will be a huge re-positioning exercise in the industry in coming years – trust me.
The only problem is that the skills which make you good at implementation, make you bad at providing advice. The client needs both, but the economics are different.
interesting — can you elaborate on this skills statement and the economics? thanks
Please explain the question.
you say above — “the skills which make you good at implementation, make you bad at providing advice. The client needs both, but the economics are different.” — can you explain the reasoning behind this? thx
Simple – with implementation you are mostly involved with setting up implementation milestones, tracking targets, working with client employees to bank the benefits, working on change management issues etc. There is far less analyses and working with senior clients. There is some, but the objective, intensity and ability to influence the senior levels are reduced. By far, you are focused on getting the client to learn the skills to succeed once you leave. The level of the intensity of work and analyses is limited by the pace at which your client co-worker can follow you. These skills are very useful, but not what makes you a great strategy or operations consultant.
Is everis, a 300 management consultant spanish firm (and 9.000 technology consultants) included in the survey?
No – they are too small to be included.
I have been in the strategy consulting industry for over 20 years now, during which I worked at 3 of the top 8 firms you ranked. OK, fine, I was at McKinsey, Bain, and LEK, but not in that order. Further, I transitioned to ‘industry’ for a few years, where I worked as the Chief Strategy Officer for a company that was my previously a client of mine. When I was in industry, I requested for proposals for services from many firms on your list, not just the ones that I worked for, and objectively assessed them, along with my colleagues, who were a top notch executive team. Many consulting firms were pitching us left and right and I saw many of my competitors from the other side of the table. I have friends at probably every firm on your list. Among us, who are at the top of our respective organizations, and have clients who are no lower than the board or the c-suite levels, the hierarchy of consulting firms is pretty obvious. While I applaud your methodology, I think it’s not necessarily accurate. Let me list for you how influential leaders, both in consulting and not, rank consulting firms on prestige, sheer brilliance, polish, and results.
Tier 1 – the Elite
1. McKinsey
2. BCG
3. Bain
4. Booz & Co
5. Monitor
Tier 2 – the Damn Good
6. Deloitte
7. Oliver Wyman
8. Roland Berger
9. LEK
10. AT Kearney
Tier 3 – the Good
11. OC&C
12. AD Little / Alvarez & Marsal
13. PWC
14. Parthenon
15. Dean & Co / Huron
16. Accenture Management Consulting
17. IBM Global
18 E&Y Strategy
19. PRTM / Simon Kutcher
20. PA Consulting / KPMG / FTI
Thanks for your opinion! This seems like the historical way of ranking things and based on your “experience”. American’s never rank RB in the top group just because they do not know the firm. BAH’s departure from Booz should effect Booz’s rankings. I am not sure how you could “objectively” rank the quality of a firm based on its proposals.
Can we get a breakdown of how each firm performed in each category?
Albert – that will be be available on the new site.
Hi can we get access to the full ranking? i would be interested to see how LEK and monitors ranks in detail.
Thanks
Guillaume,
All this and more will soon be released with the new website.
Michael
Never mind the rankings, my company (which is 50 Bn plus, #1 company in the sector) has tried BCG, McKinsey and Deloitte – to find that all of them are equally useless. They kinda compete with each other in incompetency. We stopped hiring the parasites for last 2 years and have got better results with our internal resources.
It would be interesting to know why the consulting advice failed.
First, what was the consulting firms’ written briefs and how did they perform against these briefs?
Second, was it poor advice, was the advice poorly implemented by the company or where there other factors? Please elaborate if you could.
Very questionable. Management consulting is one of those areas where if you know what you want to accomplish, you do it on your own. If you don’t, you get consultants. Some companies grow strange ideas from time to time and try to standardize consulting projects and tender them like any other. This is almost always a stupid thing to do because no one knows in advance what problems will be found. And if the brief of the tender is not according to the problems found (most likely, because again if you knew you wouldn’t get consultants), things get ugly.
Here’s how your company probably wasted its money and consultants’ nervous systems.
Respectfully – This makes no sense!
why does this ranking sounds like 1995? The future is technology!!! It’s 2011 and anyone who doesnt have technology is not the future. Everyone can talk strategy BS. The whole world has recently seen how much strategy consultants really add value( cough mckinsey ‘s CEO and partners)
The future is tech Google, IBM and Apple. It’s 2011
LEK? Monitor ? R U kidding me? Ask any top CEO what’s his biggest concern and he will tell you technology and E commerce. Not brand mgmt! Its not 1997
Even technology companies need a strategy! We are not saying the technology sector is not important, we do not even loosely comment on that, but we are talking about the management consulting sector.
I dont think you understood my point. Any strategy without a technology component is irrelevant today. Many of your so called “prestigious consulting” firms have no technology background or experience. And that is why Mcksiney is expanding its BTO practice ( to stay on top) Many of the others on your list have nothing to do with technology either in terms of delivering a strategy or even thinking about technology based ideas.
This list is ideal for 1997. Yes if I was a CEO in 1997, I could call firm X and ask for an analysis of my brand and they would do it. Today I need social media analytics and anyone who doesnt have it can’t give it to me.
The “prestigiousness” of a consulting firm should be which firm are most fortune 500 CEO’s calling. Today, I am sure the list would be very different as every CEO wants a tech /ecommerce strategy which most of the firms on your list cant deliver baring a few with technology emedded in them
with all respect, I would beleive this list in 1997. It’s 2011, I can bet 100% most CEO’s dont have many of the firms listed on the top of their mind.
As any consultant firm should know, change is enevitable and I think this list needs to be relevant for today
The criteria listed are very weird, size is neagtive, HBR mentions are a positive?
why not WSJ mentions , why not twitter feed mentions?
As a consultant, it should be ” who TOP CEO’s are calling” and not theoertical criteria
Please stay relevant for 2011
I respectfully do not think you are familiar with what a Fortune 500 CEO is thinking about or know anything about management consulting or business. The list is not theoretical. It is what is considered core criteria for assessing consulting firms. For example, WSJ reports news. HBR features articles based on considered analyses. You can drive Twitter feed mentions and WSJ mentions without saying anything meaningful or important. That’s why it is excluded. Volume is less relevant than value.
BTW – who do you think decides the technology strategy of the top firms? It is BCG, Bain and McKinsey. Who do you think developed NewsCorp’s (owner of WSJ) technology strategy? It was McKinsey. Who do you think is advising P&G right now on their e-commerce strategy? It is McKinsey. Who do you think is advising Pfizer on their technology strategy? It is BCG.
So, who in your opinion should be on the list of top management consulting firms? Please don’t tell me Accenture or Deloitte’s technology practice! Business is more than technology!
Your opinions are unsubstantiated and, frankly, cannot be substantiated. You sound like someone who was rejected by a consulting firm because they did not “appreciate” your engineering degree.
1. I am not an engineer but I respect them.
2. You should be disclosing which firm is working with who in public forums. Maybe B school might help!
the fact that you chose to so vehemently attack my comment personally substantiates the relevancy of my argument. Obviously, I said something which hit the nail
No stand alone brand consulting firm is on the mind of any CEO especially when not backed by technology that can analyze the data. I can bet on that
Keep up with your elitist ” strategy” attitude and hope your blog stays relevant
and live in your “prestige” bubble while the world uses hard data and analytics and not animal matrixes. It’s a new world but of course most people dont like change!
I am not sure what you are saying in point 2, but why you think MBB are brand consulting firms?
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/10/02/0216_best_places_for_leadership/
Best Places for Future leaders by a respected business publication
I see Infosys, IBM, Accenture and HP listed
I do not see any of the non MBB firms ( or even MBB firms ) you listed.
Again, hard data triumphs it all.
With that I rest my case
Thanks for the insights
Got it. Since you never heard of the firms, then they cannot be the best.
I do not think you should disclose which firm is working with which client
Other than MBB many on the top are specialized
I could pull up this list in 1997 and it would be more or less the same
So no big changes ?I find it hard to believe that most CEO’s feel the same. Technology and data is driving every business decision and many of the firms dont have the any competitive advantage in that space
Ivy Grad,
The information we divulge is publicly available, or made available by another public source.
By your own admission “you find it hard” you believe top executives feel the same way. But they do. Look at the executive lists of most companies, including technology companies, and they are full of MBB people.
Google’s management team had 4 McKinsey people before it was reshuffled last month, and Shona Brown (http://ecorner.stanford.edu/author/shona_l_brown) was responsible for Google’s culture and was a former McKinsey partner. Yes, technology is important, but management consulting firms are helping those top technology firms set the agenda for the future.
They are not irrelevant. BTW, McKinsey’s BTO is very old. It is not a new initiative.
Michael
The list of businessweek is about companies that are players in some field – produce a drink, medicine or other product – and doesn’t consider a management firm or a private equity fund or other of this kind.
Not a good argument for technology…
BA,
I am not sure I understand the comment. Could you please clarify?
Michael
Buddy if you’re under the impression McKinsey’s competency is brand management, you need help.
Actually IVY, you sound like one of those techie guys telling the business how to design a product because their system cannot do it as they want it to be. Tech only supports business and needs to be flexible enough to do that. Tech is NOT the business, nevermind how important a COMPONENT you perceive it to be. Tech needs to get it done, but by all means NOT decide WHAT gets done.
Do you think Steve Jobs hires a consultant from MBB to decide on Apple’s strategy? Do you think Google’s strategy is decided similarly? Do you think Facebook’s strategy is defined through the McKinsey way?
Old schools – yes, they will continue to use MBB.
Truly innovative companies – no.
That’s why companies like Microsoft is going downhill. Because Balmer started to get those consultants to define the way forward. Same as Yahoo, HP, Cisco and the likes.
There is an understanding that needs to be clearly established here. For non-tech companies. techies definitely play a supporting. But for tech companies, techies actually take the driver seats.
You make some sense. Although Google is littered with ex-management consultants at the executive level. Same for Facebook. And let’s forget the jargon of truly innovative companies. Look at companies generating the highest Total Shareholder Return. I know what you are saying, but you have a very poor way of expressing yourself. I will follow-up with a podcast to elaborate on your post.
By the way, techies do not rule. Just Steve Jobs!
Steve Jobs may or may not have hired consultants, but the point is null because he did not act like a techie most of the time (strike the times when he denied product flaws and was unhappy about other products being better and his time running out to beat them).
Steve Jobs had very much a business perspective, not an “engineering” one. Otherwise his phone would’ve had a lot more buttons.
Yah. Infosys, IBM, and Accenture should all be higher on this list.
This is a very nice work !
How can we have access to the pdf file ?
Best regards
I will email it to you or simply load the link here. It will come up in a few minutes!
PDF attachment is now loaded. We will start loading the detailed responses later tomorrow. If you wanted to do a joint launch, let us know and we will send you the material for translation!
I would be happy to speak of your ranking on my website.
The detailed responses and the material for translation would be very useful, thank you for sending them to me !
Great job. Here are my comments and suggestions:
1. I think it is very important that you formally describe the sample used in this survey / ranking. Which were the “demographics” of the sample?
2. You presented very interesting findings in the introductory paragraphs. I think they deserve being presented in a more clever way (e.g. using bullet-points, graphs, figures, maps, etc.)
3. You said, “(Consulting firms’) increased hiring means they assume these projects are coming back.” Is this a conclusion for the entire world, or only for U.S.A.?
4. I understand that the format you use in this blog is posting. However, due to the importance of this ranking, I wonder if it is more convenient to have it in a PPT or PDF file. A glowing ranking may reach more people and companies, in a more professional way.
5. To minimize subjectivity (natural to any ranking), I suggest including a listing of all the assumptions you made.
6. For better presentation of the criteria table, I suggest labeling its 3 columns: “Criterion”, “Description”, and “Survey Methodology”.
7. Although some recommendations are already included in the description column of the criteria table, I suggest you provide a “so what?” section that explains the implications of this ranking for aspiring consultants, candidates, clients, etc.
8. There is a little inconsistency: The criterion, “Is it a single partnership?”, is said to be “one of the most important criteria”. However, it is not marked with bold font.
9. I think the MECE principles should be checked on the criteria. For example, criteria 1, 2, 12 seem to be non-mutually-exclusive. The same for criteria 3, 7, and 17. And the same for criteria 10 and 11. And so on. MECE principles will avoid a skewed ranking.
10. I suggest you add “analyses frameworks” to criterion 21.
11. I think criterion 23 is debatable. What about consultants coming from top-tier consulting firms? Do they need to be taught?
12. In my experience, branding goes hand in hand with advertising. So, I think criteria 9 and 32 contradict each other.
13. As a personal opinion, I do not advocate the up-or-out policy. In my opinion, firms should build their talent as most of their clients do. It talks about strong values rather than performance-and-profits seeking.
Best regards,
Luis R. Villegas H.
Mexico.
Hi Luis,
Great points. Here are my responses:
1 – This will be made available in the PDF version which will soon come out.
2 – Yes – in the PDF version and the charts will appear in this posting as updates.
3 – We have seen increased hirings across all regions. USA, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Brazil, France, UK, Germany, Middle East, South Africa, India, Japan and Australia.
4 – Agreed – coming soon.
5 – Agreed – in the PDF format.
6 – Sounds good to me.
7 – Great idea. We will do so.
8 – Oops. Will be fixed.
9 – Our method of collecting data ensures they are exclusive.
10 – Good point
11 – Yes – they need to be taught. Even an engagement manager from McKinsey needs to be taught to become a principal at another top firm. Training is needed at each and every level.
12 – Not really. Advertising is the process of placing a PAID advert in the market for the consumer to observe. A great brand can be developed with NO paid advertising.
13 – I agree. This is a point of debate. Even within the top firms, some do not agree with this policy. Our view is that if you are unable to grow, then you should leave. If people are unable to contribute, should they be allowed to stay?
We will shortly make updates with your great suggestions.
Michael
Michael,
Thank you for these responses. I am looking forward to reading the PDF version of the ranking.
Luis.