Vault 2011 prestige rankings: Top consulting firms

Employment and careers portal Vault.com released the 2011 prestige rankings for consulting firms - The Vault Consulting 50 - in late August in an attempt to determine the best consulting companies to work for.

The rankings were determined by a formula that factored in the results of Vault's Management and Strategy Consulting Survey, conducted annually between March and July. More than 4,500 consultants were asked to rate the prestige of their peer consulting firms on a scale of 1 to 10 as well as their own firm's quality of life.

"We went out and asked consultants what mattered most to them in choosing an employer and prestige, while important, was not the biggest determining factor," said Brian Dalton, managing editor at Vault.com. "According to consultants, company culture was the most important factor, followed by practice strength, prestige and compensation, along with several other factors."

The Top 10 Firms from the Vault Consulting 50 Rankings for 2011 are:

1. Bain & Company
2. The Boston Consulting Group
3. McKinsey & Company
4. Analysis Group
5. The Cambridge Group
6. Deloitte Consulting
7. Oliver Wyman
8. A.T. Kearney
9. Triage Consulting Group
10. Censeo Consulting Group

Respondents note that Bain "set the bar (with McKinsey) in terms of prestige” and noted that the firm was “great for management consulting."

In terms of quality of life, one strategy consultant at Bain & Company said of the firm: "There is no other company I’ve seen in my 10 years of professional experience with a stronger, healthier culture." A Toronto staffer added, "It is a demanding career, but yes, I have been able to live a very rewarding personal life over my last 10-plus years at Bain."

Boston Consulting Group also received high praise. Said one health care consultant: "BCG is a fantastic place to work. They go the extra mile to invest in their consultants. The work is interesting, the people are brilliant, and the compensation and benefits are second to none."

Other smaller, more niche firms that were recognized for their quality of life, include Analysis Group (No. 4), The Cambridge Group (No. 5), Triage Consulting Group (No. 9), Censeo Consulting Group (No. 10), and West Monroe Partners (No. 11).

As an example of why these smaller niche firms are succeeding, one senior consultant at The Cambridge Group said, "I feel very lucky to have found TCG. I am constantly challenged and enjoy the work and the people. As a testament to the great experience I have had, I'm the only one of my friends from business school who has not switched companies since leaving school."

According to Mr. Dalton, more jobseekers are discovering the benefits of joining these niche consulting companies. "These firms often get overlooked in the prestige rankings in favor of the more well-known firms," he said, "but they shine in the quality of life areas that many consultants care most about, leading to some deserved recognition in our Vault Consulting 50 Rankings."

"Bain & Company, and Boston Consulting Group for that matter, historically dominates many of our quality of life categories, in addition to carrying a lofty reputation in the industry," added Dalton. "McKinsey, which is perennially the most prestigious firm, slips due to lower firm culture and work/life balance scores areas - where smaller firms tend to have the advantage."

View the entire Vault Consulting 50 Rankings for 2011.

'Global economy to drag on Korea'

A noted global consultant said that Korea should keep its key interest rate at the record low level for the time being to ensure a sustainable economic recovery, citing the global economy, a rapid rebound of the won and household debt as the biggest obstacles to the Korean economy.

His advice comes amid concerns growing over a double-dip recession of the global economy after the triple tremors from the banking crisis in Spain, crumbling confidence in the U.S. and a setback in China's leading economic indicator has jolted the global market.

"Korea is generally in good shape. The exception is that household debt levels are still high. Keeping interest rates low should reduce the risk from debt levels and also the risk that the won rebounds too fast," Richard Dobbs, director of The McKinsey Global Institute, told The Korea Times.

The institute is McKinsey's business, economics, and technology research arm, and is funded by the partners of McKinsey & Company.

"The government needs to ensure the won does not rebound too fast against the Chinese yuan and Japanese yen in particular. It was also clear that the country had insufficient reserves during the crisis. Building up reserves can stop the won rebounding and allow Korea to be ready," he added.

He pointed out that Korea should realize that it will take longer than expected for the global economy to complete the de-leveraging process.

"The real challenge is that the global economy has high levels of debt, which typically takes three to five years to pay down. In addition, it has high unemployment, which again is going to take ages to work through. The global economy will be a drag on Korea."

Regarding the sluggish real estate market, the Seoul-based consultant said that the government should opt for micro measures rather than macro policies. "It is better to manage real estate bubbles through loan-to-value ratios rather than interest rates," he said.

But he downplayed concerns over inflation, saying, "A gradual strengthening of the won should offset the risk," he added.

The global consultant stressed that Korea should seek to capitalize on the opportunity arising from the global financial crisis.

"Korea needs to seize the opportunity from the fast rebound. I would hope that Korean companies can build regional leadership positions at a time when competitors from the U.S. and Europe are distracted."

Source: Korea Times

The McKinsey 7S Framework

The McKinsey 7S Framework

Ensuring that all parts of your organization work in harmony

How do you go about analyzing how well your organization is positioned to achieve its intended objective? This is a question that has been asked for many years, and there are many different answers. Some approaches look at internal factors, others look at external ones, some combine these perspectives, and others look for congruence between various aspects of the organization being studied. Ultimately, the issue comes down to which factors to study.

While some models of organizational effectiveness go in and out of fashion, one that has persisted is the McKinsey 7S framework. Developed in the early 1980s by Tom Peters and Robert Waterman, two consultants working at the McKinsey & Company consulting firm, the basic premise of the model is that there are seven internal aspects of an organization that need to be aligned if it is to be successful.

The 7S model can be used in a wide variety of situations where an alignment perspective is useful, for example to help you:

• Improve the performance of a company.
• Examine the likely effects of future changes within a company.
  
• Align departments and processes during a merger or acquisition.
  
• Determine how best to implement a proposed strategy.

The Seven Elements

The McKinsey 7S model involves seven interdependent factors which are categorized as either "hard" or "soft" elements:

Hard Elements	Soft Elements
Strategy Structure Systems	Shared Values Skills Style Staff

"Hard" elements are easier to define or identify and management can directly influence them: These are strategy statements; organization charts and reporting lines; and formal processes and IT systems.

"Soft" elements, on the other hand, can be more difficult to describe, and are less tangible and more influenced by culture. However, these soft elements are as important as the hard elements if the organization is going to be successful.

The way the model is presented in Figure 1 below depicts the interdependency of the elements and indicates how a change in one affects all the others.

Let's look at each of the elements specifically:

• Strategy: the plan devised to maintain and build competitive advantage over the competition.
  
• Structure: the way the organization is structured and who reports to whom.
  
• Systems: the daily activities and procedures that staff members engage in to get the job done.
  
• Shared Values: called "superordinate goals" when the model was first developed, these are the core values of the company that are evidenced in the corporate culture and the general work ethic.
  
• Style: the style of leadership adopted.
  
• Staff: the employees and their general capabilities.
  
• Skills: the actual skills and competencies of the employees working for the company.

How to Use the Model

Now you know what the model covers, how can you use it?

The model is based on the theory that, for an organization to perform well, these seven elements need to be aligned and mutually reinforcing. So, the model can be used to help identify what needs to be realigned to improve performance, or to maintain alignment (and performance) during other types of change.

Whatever the type of change - restructuring, new processes, organizational merger, new systems, change of leadership, and so on - the model can be used to understand how the organizational elements are interrelated, and so ensure that the wider impact of changes made in one area is taken into consideration.

You can use the 7S model to help analyze the current situation (Point A), a proposed future situation (Point B) and to identify gaps and inconsistencies between them. It's then a question of adjusting and tuning the elements of the 7S model to ensure that your organization works effectively and well once you reach the desired endpoint.

Sounds simple? Well, of course not: Changing your organization probably will not be simple at all! Whole books and methodologies are dedicated to analyzing organizational strategy, improving performance and managing change. The 7S model is a good framework to help you ask the right questions - but it won't give you all the answers. For that you'll need to bring together the right knowledge, skills and experience.

When it comes to asking the right questions, we've developed a Mind Tools checklist and a matrix to keep track of how the seven elements align with each other. Supplement these with your own questions, based on your organization's specific circumstances and accumulated wisdom.

Here are some of the questions that you'll need to explore to help you understand your situation in terms of the 7S framework. Use them to analyze your current (Point A) situation first, and then repeat the exercise for your proposed situation (Point B).

Strategy:

• What is our strategy?
  
• How do we intend to achieve our objectives?
  
• How do we deal with competitive pressure?
  
• How are changes in customer demands dealt with?
  
• How is strategy adjusted for environmental issues?

Structure:

• How is the company/team divided?
  
• What is the hierarchy?
  
• How do the various departments coordinate activities?
  
• How do the team members organize and align themselves?
  
• Is decision making and controlling centralized or decentralized? Is this as it should be, given what we're doing?
  
• Where are the lines of communication? Explicit and implicit?

Systems:

• What are the main systems that run the organization? Consider financial and HR systems as well as communications and document storage.
  
• Where are the controls and how are they monitored and evaluated?
  
• What internal rules and processes does the team use to keep on track?

Shared Values:

• What are the core values?
  
• What is the corporate/team culture?
  
• How strong are the values?
  
• What are the fundamental values that the company/team was built on?

Style:

• How participative is the management/leadership style?
  
• How effective is that leadership?
  
• Do employees/team members tend to be competitive or cooperative?
  
• Are there real teams functioning within the organization or are they just nominal groups?

Staff:

• What positions or specializations are represented within the team?
  
• What positions need to be filled?
  
• Are there gaps in required competencies?

Skills:

• What are the strongest skills represented within the company/team?
  
• Are there any skills gaps?
  
• What is the company/team known for doing well?
  
• Do the current employees/team members have the ability to do the job?
  
• How are skills monitored and assessed?

7S matrix questions

Using the information you have gathered, now examine where there are gaps and inconsistencies between elements. Remember you can use this to look at either your current or your desired organization.

, which contains a matrix that you can use to check off alignment between each of the elements as you go through the following steps:

• Start with your Shared Values: Are they consistent with your structure, strategy, and systems? If not, what needs to change?
  
  
• Then look at the hard elements. How well does each one support the others? Identify where changes need to be made.
  
  
• Next look at the other soft elements. Do they support the desired hard elements? Do they support one another? If not, what needs to change?
  
  
• As you adjust and align the elements, you'll need to use an iterative (and often time consuming) process of making adjustments, and then re-analyzing how that impacts other elements and their alignment. The end result of better performance will be worth it.

Key Points

The McKinsey 7Ss model is one that can be applied to almost any organizational or team effectiveness issue. If something within your organization or team isn't working, chances are there is inconsistency between some of the elements identified by this classic model. Once these inconsistencies are revealed, you can work to align the internal elements to make sure they are all contributing to the shared goals and values.

The process of analyzing where you are right now in terms of these elements is worthwhile in and of itself. But by taking this analysis to the next level and determining the ultimate state for each of the factors, you can really move your organization or .

Source: http://fmoo3860.blogfa.com

Consulting firms among choice employers for US students

Google is the #1 overall IDEAL Employer for the fourth year in a row among US undergraduate students; McKinsey maintains #2 spot.


Consulting firms among choice employers for US students

Among US undergraduate students, Google is perceived as being an IDEAL Employer at 14.76%, according to year’s IDEAL Employer Survey from Universum USA.

Based on the frequency of being selected as an ideal employer, Universum produces an ideal employer ranking, dubbed the Universum Top 100. This year’s results are based on more than 163,246 employer evaluations, reflecting the opinions of approximately 56,900 Undergraduate students. The rankings reflect the level of employer attractiveness that companies or organizations have on the recruitment market, and consequently the strength of their employer brands.

Top 10 IDEAL Employers for undergraduate students, segmented by their main field of study are:

Business: 1. Google, 2. Ernst & Young, 3. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 4. Deloitte, 5. Walt Disney Company, 6. KPMG LLP, 7. J.P. Morgan, 8. Apple Computer, 9. Goldman Sachs, 10. Nike

Engineering: 1. NASA, 2. Lockheed Martin Corporation, 3. Google, 4. Boeing, 5.General Electric, 6. Microsoft, 7. U.S. Department of Energy, 8. BMW,9. Exxon Mobil Corporation, 10. Apple Computer

IT: 1.Google, 2. Microsoft, 3. Apple Computer, 4. IBM, 5.Cisco Systems, 6. Intel, 7. FBI, 8. Electronic Arts, 9. Sony, 10. NASA

Google, McKinsey & Company and Goldman Sachs take top 3 spots among US MBA students

Top 20 IDEAL Employers for MBA students are:

1. Google
2. McKinsey & Company
3. Goldman Sachs
4. The Boston Consulting Group
5. Apple Computer
6. Bain & Company
7. J.P. Morgan
8. Walt Disney Company
9. Nike
10. Johnson & Johnson
11. Amazon
12. Deloitte
13. The Blackstone Group
14. Morgan Stanley
15. Microsoft
16. General Electric
17. Procter & Gamble
18. IDEO
19. The Coca-Cola Company
20. Credit Suisse

Source) http://www.consultant-news.com

Big Think In the Boardroom

As a business journalist and former editorial director of the Harvard Business Review, Walter Kiechel has had the unenviable task of spending much of his life hanging around with management theorists. These are the folks who bring out book after book of business advice that readers find unreadable and managers find unmanageable. Yet by some miracle Mr. Kiechel has remained immune to the maladies of the genre. His "The Lords of Strategy" is a clear, deft and cogent portrait of what the author calls the most powerful business idea of the past half-century: the realization that corporate leaders needed to abandon their go-it-alone focus on their company's fortunes and instead pursue policies based on a detailed study of the competitive environment and of broader business trends.

The "strategy revolution" began in the 1960s when the Boston Consulting Group upended the industry. Rather than take the usual tack of just cozying up to individual chief executives for a bit of corporate kibitzing and calling it consulting, BCG produced a series of elegant intellectual models that could be broadly applied across the business world. BCG's model for the "experience curve," for instance, taught companies that they could reduce their costs as they expanded their market share, thanks to the accumulation of know-how. The "growth share matrix" encouraged companies to view themselves not as an undifferentiated whole but as a portfolio of businesses that make different contributions to the bottom line ("cash cows" vs. "dogs," for example). Nowadays that sort of thinking might be unexceptional, but it was a radical development in the stagnant, inward-looking world of 1960s corporate America.

The 1970s and the decades that followed saw the institutionalization of the revolution. One of BCG's main competitors, McKinsey & Co., shook itself out of a complacent torpor and began enthusiastically running out its own management-strategy models. Bill Bain and several other BCG executives left the company in the 1970s and started a rival enterprise, Bain & Co. Meanwhile, Michael Porter brought strategy to the heart of the business establishment, the Harvard Business School. He added a powerful tool to the discipline's arsenal, the notion of the "value chain," which helped managers break down a business into its component parts, from raw materials to finished products, and then subject those parts to the rigors of cost-benefit analysis.

Yet success brought intense scrutiny and self-examination. In 1982, Tom Peters and Robert Waterman—McKinsey stars at the time—argued in the best-selling "In Search of Excellence" that the obsession with strategy was leading managers to ignore the human side of things. The year before, Richard Pascale, another McKinseyian, said in "The Art of Japanese Management" that the Japanese, who were then sweeping all before them, regarded the West's newfound passion for strategy as strange, much "as we might regard their enthusiasm for kabuki or sumo wrestling." And an army of young thinkers began shifting attention to more nuts-and-bolts matters, such as business processes (which could be re-engineered) and "core competencies" (which needed to be cultivated).

Today the status of strategic thinking in the business world is somewhat confused: An idea that owed its appeal to the seemingly hard truths presented by models is becoming ever more nebulous. The lords of strategy are now given to happy talk about "people"—on the grounds that people are the key to innovation and innovation is the key to long-term success. Such concerns can easily degenerate into bromides about the need to treat employees well. Perhaps it is no coincidence that, at least before the current financial crisis wreaked its havoc, young business hotshots were turning their attention to financial engineering. About a third of former McKinsey and BCG consultants currently work in the private-equity business.

"The Lords of Strategy" is at its best describing and explaining the evolution of an influential idea in American business. The book is less successful as the "secret history" it claims to be. Mr. Kiechel has the habit of pulling aside the veil on the darker side of the management business only to pull it back again. He says that management gurus are known to hire ghost-writing outfits such as Wordworks to produce their books—but he refrains from telling us the gritty ( perhaps disgraceful) details of the marketing and packaging process. He notes that a worrying number of consulting engagements end in tears—McKinsey had a long-term relationship with Enron, for example—but he skimps on evidence.

Mr. Kiechel makes up for this coyness, though, with his enthusiasm for telling the bigger story at the heart of his book: the intellectualization of business. Back in the days of the "organization man" in the 1950s, business people tended to be affable types—pleasant, easy to get along with, but hardly rocket scientists. Since then an ever greater amount of brain power has been applied to business as more and more graduate students pursue MBAs (150,000 annually in the U.S., up from 3,000 a year in 1948), and the brightest MBAs often go on to become business consultants.

The story that Mr. Kiechel tells does not have a particularly happy ending: The "quants" who would supposedly take business to a new level of intellectual sophistication designed financial tools such as the credit default swap that instead took the world economy to the brink of catastrophe. But Mr. Kiechel is surely right that we cannot begin to understand the world that we live in unless we grasp how corporate intellectuals came to have such a dramatic influence on the business world—and how old-fashioned virtues, such as judgment and common sense, were side-lined in the process.

Mr. Wooldridge is The Economist's management editor and the author of its Schumpeter column.

Source: WSJ