Trending Content
| +65 | Q&A: McKinsey BA | 87 | 2h | |
| +30 | FP&A -> RX Consulting | 4 | 1d | |
| +18 | Starting Fractional CFO - Consulting | 1 | 7h | |
| +15 | Imperial MSc Economics and Strategy for Business for London consulting | 17 | 6h | |
| +9 | Can I break into MBB consulting | 2 | 19h | |
| +3 | Valuable Internships for MBB | 4 | 4d | |
| +1 | PwC Deals vs Accenture Strategy | 2 | 10h | |
| 0 | MD -> MBB? | 1 | 1d |
Career Resources
MBB, Deloitte S&O,and Strategy& (and feasibly Accenture/EY/KPMG, although I think it's too crowded for them) are all moving towards the same models of "big consulting firms, with lots of sub-industry specialty, that can do end-to-end execution from strategy to implementation (with varying focuses on technology)." This will be done with several classes of consultants, with strategy/generalist being the "best" roles in the firm.
I think we'll see many firms take a similiar route to where McKinsey is going....Generalist roles for the true superstars, non-generalist track for the next tier of candidates (ops, risks, BTO, etc), and 3rd tier roles in implementation.
You can already kind of see this happening elsewhere. Strategy& handling strategy and PwC handling implementation (although Strategy& doesn't do pure strategy work). EY buying out Parthenon (which I assume they will build out and increase sectors as their strategy business). Accenture making "Accenture Strategy" for top tier MBA candidates.
There will be some difference - Bain will probably maintain pure generalist roles, strategy& doesn't even have a post-MBA generalist role.
There's really two forces working in opposing directions that seem to make this way things will play out: Clients are demanding more and more industry and sub-industry expertise, which runs counter to "generalists"mind-set, and likewise they want consulting teams that can execute on strategy. But, on the other hand, top undergrad/MBA students want a generalist experience in strategy oriented roles so they can both find their interests, and be "CEO's-in-training."
I believe big firms that have several classes of consulting roles is the only way to align these interests - although in the short-term it causes issues with recruiting...e,g, pretty much everyone who got McKinsey non-generalist (some of which McKinsey forced people into) chose Bain or BCG if that got an offer there.
Given this, would you rather be a generalist/strategy consultant at a tier 2/3 firm or an non-generalist/operations consultant at a tier 1?
I personally cancelled McKinsey non-generalist interview when I got a tier 2 offer. Other would choose McKinsey though.
I'm curious to see how this will eventually play out in compensation. Will the firms just segregate their talent by the tiers as mentioned above, or will they also start paying their "generalist/strategist" roles more? If no difference in base salary, maybe a different bonus structure?
From a candidates point of view, I think the type of work counts as a type of compensation, so I wouldn't expect to see a difference. But as someone who's working at the firm, I could see where the "generalist/strategy" guys who are working a different type of project looking at "lesser" consultants at their firms working on implementation (and getting paid the same) and saying to themselves "WTF?". I wouldn't personally, but I wouldn't be surprised if others did.
More importantly, MBB may need to get a LOT larger if they are going to start seriously playing at implementation, especially if more consolidation occurs. Are there enough "MBB level" candidates out there to maintain the aura of the firm?
Can be deleted
I don't understand why "true superstars" handle the strategy work and what defines a "true superstar". I keep reading WSO and people constantly talk about how important strategy is. I am starting out in a big 4 advisory and I am actually quite interested in learning the operations side of things for my career development. Yes, MBB teaches you how to prepare fancy slides, become an excel master and PP master. But what tells you that an operations guy can't handle that? My impression is that people automaticly assume tier-2 firm people are incapable. It is an absule bullshit and this is why you see strategy firms being acquired by larger, implementation oriented firms.
You're misunderstanding operations vs implementation. 40-60% of the work that MBB does is actually operations as opposed to strategy. So an operations guy can handle "fancy slide and become a PP master".
Strategy firms being acquired by implementation firms is more a function a size (or in Monitors case, mismanagement) than anything else. There's value in the people at strategy firms, or else the acquiring firms wouldn't be maintaining separate branding and recruiting processes.
And I don't think there's anyone on here that's going to call someone from a Tier 2 firm (Deloitte, Strategy&, etc) "incapable"
The 40-60% is funny. Try 60-80%. Pure strategy is going the way of the dodo bird...anybody can read about Porter's 5 forces online. A good buyer will take a 20% ops package with 80% back end implementation of said strategy. Just look at Bain's recent pension issues to see how well the pure strat nose turners are doing.
PS this is coming from somebody who has worked at a Tier 1 firm as a generalist, has become a SME in healthcare, worked for a Big4 doing healthcare consulting that was highly integrated between strategy and its subsequent implementation, started a boutique, and successfully exited after a PE backed merger with another firm. Not meant to be a braggart, moreso just an admonition that I've seen all sides.
@starship88
Keep in mind, operation and implementation is very different (so the value of operations work has nothing to do with implementation oriented firms buying out strategy oriented firms)...operations is, for example, telling a firm how to be more efficient. Streamlining processes, moving plants and people to lower cost areas etc. Strategy is something like growth strategy or market entry strategy.
Some people do prefer operations work, but in general, strategy work is viewed as "better" since it is better CEO-in-training (and subjectively more interesting) that top candidates want. I shouldn't have said tier 1, tier 2, tier 3 maybe, because the difference between strategy and operations work is MUCH smaller than the difference between either and implementation work.
Big Picture has this nailed. Implementation is big money. Don't all the hot shots at HBS want to make big money and have to work for it? There is also an open market for super specialized boutique implementation and ops firms that typically fall well below MBB implementation bill rates, and the consultants are typically far more pedigreed, whereas the MBB implementation arms just rebrand cut rate MBAs or tier 1 SCs who don't get it and need the name rec to sleep at night. Have fun!
The reasons are rather simple:
1) Strategy market is being crowded out. Even though we have seen more consolidation, we are also seeing way more powerful competitors to McKinsey, BCG etc.
2) Implementation work last 6 to 12 months generally, if not more. That compares to 3 months Strategy work. Companies prefer stability of cash flow, everybody does. More importantly, McKinsey lost couple bids simply because Deloitte/PwC/Accenture also offered to implement the work...putting skin in the game, sometimes giving the Strategy part for free.
3) From a consultant point of view, development will be slightly slower given that you would work on the same project for 6-12 months...promotion will take a bit longer to come as well. Outside of that, your pay will stay the same. Implementation work keeps you busy 11/12 months, while Strategy looks more like 9/12 months, so that's how they make up the difference in pricing.
Strategy and Implementation (Originally Posted: 12/09/2011)
Hi guys I'm pretty new to the consulting world. I just want to verify something about consulting industry. After doing my research, I figure out that some companies are doing or good at the strategy and some companies are good at implementation part, is that true? and I assume firms that do the strategy work are considered more prestigious. Also, in some companies they actually have strategy division or team, does it mean that this strategy division designs the plan and the Management Consulting do the implementation or maybe they do not do the implementation at all? I am quite confused @_@
From all these companies below, can anyone tell me who are actually good at strategy work and who are good at implementation ? If possible, rank them from best to worst (just do it roughly don't need to be exact though)
McKinsey - BCG - Bain - Olyver Wyman - Roland Berger - LEK - Deloitte - Accenture - Booz - Monitor - PwC (those are all I can think of)
MILLIONS THANKS IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR HELP ^.^
.
Yah, read that thread. PM me if you want to talk a little bit more about implementation in tech too.
I'm still wondering about whether the balance in the market away from strategy and towards implementation is caused by either:
Option 1: Companies are decreasing the amount of strategic work they outsource and 'strategic' shops are shifting, or Option 2: Companies are increasing the amount of implementation work they outsource due to their organization structure (less full-time staff, more temps, etc.) and becoming more 'project-based' in terms of everyday work.
I'm leaning towards option 2, but it's probably a combination of both. What this will mean is that industry or service experience is going to be that much more valuable and companies will always be looking for 'experts' in a given field, so new hires should get used to the fact that they might need to specialize earlier.
That being said, the economy is cyclical- times are good now so companies are willing to spend on big infrastructure projects (that require implementation assistance), but next time we dip I'd bet that more traditional 'cost-cutting, revenue-gaining' strategy work to come back.
Implementation versus Management Consulting (Originally Posted: 12/07/2015)
MC is quite broad; MBB's sites covers everything from Strategy - Implementation. How does the MBB structure this type of work? What functions count as Operations, Implementation, Strategy? These buzz words are thrown around so much its definition seems to vary widely. BCG (Lumped together? Change management is implementation right) McKinsey has Operations and Implementation (very different groups though) Deloitte has S&O (lumped together) Bain - no clue
change mgmt is still very high level implementation. The Big4's & the Accenture's of the world do real implementation work.
OP was right in saying that "these definitions seem to vary wildly" and abnba proved him right. "Change Management" can mean a lot of things, from writing policy to pure PM to developing TOMs (Target Operational Models) and transition plans. I know for a fact my friend at McKinsey is working on a pure implementation project, so it's not just for the "Big 4's and Accentures" of the world. In fact, I would say firms more in line with pure implementation would be Capgemini, Infosys, or IBM.
Put simply, MBB does lots of strategy, some implementation. Big 4/Accenture - it depends what group you're in Capgemini/Infosys/most of Accenture - this is where the implementation lies
Then again, even the word "implementation" is a loose definition. Do you mean system (tech) implementation? Regulatory policy implementation (which I would say is 100% change management - try and implement capital controls or a ORM at a 100,000 bank and see what I mean)? Even "strategy" implementation could mean M&A execution, which would fall on an i-bank...
bump
Deleted
I think it is neither. The real reason is, the clients do not trust the quality of a strategy until that strategy is proven to succeed in implementation. It's not about dwindling demand in outsourcing strategy. The clients definitely want good external strategies that can make them $$$. The problem is, clients have learnt the hard lessons from past engagements - pure strategies are often fancy visions that don't come true in implementation. Pure strategies are meant to be vague, allowing the birth of poorly made, unrealistic, and even fraudulent strategies that misled clients. Having the implementation arm prevents that from happening, because when the implementation teams found out that the strategy don't work as it's supposed to, the strategy teams will have to come up with a new one that DO WORK before they deliver the final results to clients. Clients have no way to confirm the true quality of a strategy until they see good results from implementation, and they have learnt the smart way to only pay for concrete results, not the pretty PPT deck
Implementation at MBB (Originally Posted: 03/27/2010)
A lot of people on this site tend to use implementation as a differentiator between MBB and some of its closest "2nd tier" competitors (i.e. OW, Monitor, etc.), but if you search MBB sites for implementation, you'll find they're really doing a lot of it themselves.
Take this example at McKinsey, "The implementation phase is crucial to the success of the project: the team will transform the strategic option into actual projects...": http://www.McKinsey.com/locations/athens/ourwork/projectphases/
And this one at Bain, "We identify the opportunities, quantify the potential, then help develop detailed solutions and implementation plans, and manage the implementation.": http://www.bain.com/bainweb/consulting_expertise/capabilities_detail.as…
So it turns out Guy Kawaski is dead wrong about the experience you get at top strategy consulting firms -- you do get the experience that comes with implementation!
@bigpicture
Agreed. I tried to emphasis these were subjective opinions of students. These opinions are pertinent to the firms though, as they need to recruit top talent. For example, based on cross-offer acceptances at my school, McKinsey Ops/BTO lost out to a lot of tier-2 firms, whereas McKinsey generalist generally was the number 1 choice (beating BCG/Bain).
As firms move away from the generalist model, they're going to lose top talent, as seems to be happening to McKinsey. (Note: "top talent" is relative, people who do McKinsey ops or tier 2 are EXTREMELY impressive compared to the normal population).
Actually implementation isn't really used to differentiate between MBB and OW, Monitor, Booz etc. as they're all strategy houses. It's sometimes used to differentiate with management consultancies like Deloitte, Accenture and so on.
i've seen it used as a justification for isolating MBB, saying they are the only "pure strategy" firms. the most important point anyway is that they're not even "pure strategy" firms! there is a lot of misinformation on this site suggesting that these firms do no implementation work when in fact it is a critical component of their value proposition. they may not do what Accenture does, and operate a part of the company for a time - that is some serious implementation. but still, i've not seen a single person on this site admit that these firms do ANY implementation work, which is factually inaccurate.
"Pure strategy" refers to the fact they don't do process and operations work, not the fact they don't do implementation.
McKinsey, BCG, and Booz all do a lot of operations work. Bain does less of it, but still does some. Partners at all of the so-called pure strategy firms try to sell operations work to their clients, often as follow on work to a strategy case, but also in many cases as standalone projects.
Sorry, I was unclear. I was just saying what people meant by "pure strategy" not what was actually the case. As far as I'm aware, there are very few "pure strategy" firms remaining, as most have diversified over the last 10 years in particular.
i am at MBB
we do quite a bit of implementation/operations work
its actually good experience....and nothing to be embarrassed of
Eaque repellendus excepturi praesentium sint accusamus architecto. Quia ratione expedita recusandae magnam omnis quibusdam cupiditate. Aspernatur quis et tenetur.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Eum alias illum ut repellat fuga repellendus odit aperiam. Dicta rem quaerat est harum. Molestias dolores amet voluptas accusamus sunt. Ut reiciendis occaecati excepturi sequi placeat quasi similique omnis. Eius ratione enim quibusdam quibusdam cupiditate omnis. Voluptate consequatur omnis vel accusantium. Praesentium deserunt similique quaerat dolores consectetur distinctio.
Nemo deserunt excepturi et eaque molestias fugit dolores. Ea qui sit error nemo rerum aut deleniti. Dolorem laborum perferendis eveniet est est sed consequatur.
Cupiditate rerum deleniti magnam blanditiis aut. Omnis quas dolorum delectus labore.
Aut at earum dolorem labore soluta. Omnis voluptas magnam nesciunt culpa repellendus iusto aperiam. Sit impedit et rerum accusamus vel totam. Eum consequatur unde eum soluta voluptatum id.