Strategy Consultants – Revealed:The Ego Index

Introduction

Over the last few months I’ve been analysing the competitiveness of strategy consultants in the UK. I’ve been using my proprietary techniques for analysing numbers (the past) and words (the future). This article really needs to be read in the context of the whole exercise which shows:

1. each company’s overall competitiveness rating

2. their competitiveness for staff, investors, partners and customers

3. one line descriptions of each company

4. an analysis of what they do, how they do it and why

6. their differentiating claims 

And of course the starting point – 22 Strategy Consultants, 2 Big Questions.

Now we’re nearing the end of this journey. My aim has been to provoke and inform. Thanks to the thousands of people who have visited this site – you have encouraged me to dedicate the considerable time it takes to provide high quality analysis.I’ll endeavour to carry out over the same period next year.

Companies Covered

ATKearney, Bain and Company, BearingPoint, Boston Consulting Group, Cap Gemini, Collinson Grant, Dunn Humby, Everystone, Inforte, Inzenka, KAE, L.E.K, Marakon, Mars and Co, McKinsey, Mercer, Monitor, OC&C, PA Consulting, Parthenon, Phrophet, PRTM, Quest World Wide, Roland Berger, SDG, Spectrum, ZS Associates. 

Throughout this series of articles I’ve concentrated on the UK strategy consulting market. Some of the companies are strategy pureplays, others come from a marketing perspective, a few from technology. They all share the basic language of strategy consulting – that’s how I identified them in the first place – which could be used by a prospect to identify a potential partner.

The Ego Index

The Ego Index has been created by classifying the analysis of what a consulting firm claims makes it different and how it claims to carry out its work. What does it talk about? Itself (high ego), or its clients (customer focus?). The classification is based on the following scale: 

input –         our people              =very high ego        

input –         our company           =high ego

neutral –       our process            =neutral        

output –       your benefit           =client orientated   

output –       your issues             =client focused

It has been illuminating to see how the natural egostism of the intellectually bright permeates many of the corporate cultures of the consultants. When this spills over to their prospect offering you can be pretty certain that business has not been difficult to come by. Little has been learnt by many about the cyclical nature of their market. At the same time there are some exceptions, most notably McKinsey, where there appears to be little sense of self-importance expressed despite their market share dominance. The index is as follows:

154   Monitor Group 

132   Bearing Point

132   Collinson Grant

132   Inforte

132   OC&C 

121  ATKearney

121  Boston Consulting Group

121  Inzenka

121  Roland Berger

110  Everystone

110  PA Consulting

110  Quest World Wide

110 SDG Europe

99   Dunn Humby

99   KAE

99   LEK Partnership

99   Mercer

99   Phrophet

88   Cap Gemini

88   ZS Associates

77   Marakon

77   Parthenon

77   Spectrum 

66   Corporate Executive Board

66   PRTM

55   Mars and Co

55   McKinsey

44   Bain and Co

There is no significant correlation between the companies overall relative competitiveness in the last full year and their degree of egotism. What this analysis does not do is examine how relevant the consultants’ propositions are – the only way to determine that is by talking to their customers and prospects. However, as a postscript to a long series of serious analysis there are some insights to be had. I still believe that companies compete with words and that not nearly enough analysis and effort goes into word analysis and ownership. 

In answer to my original two big questions:

Are the best strategic minds strong competitors themselves? There are some big brand names in serious competitive difficulty. This is during a period of considerable market growth.But on average margins are very poor. Thinking and business models are entrenched, driven by ease of new business gaining and a recruitment process that proactively promotes stereotypes and rejects fresh ideas not generated from internal ivory towers. The Oxbridge bias, responsible for the near death of British owned City institutions, is alive and kicking in management consulting. It seems that what you achieve at 18 is critical. Either that or get into a big brand business because it will get you into other big brands who are keen to recruit similarity rather than diversity.

Is strategy a commoditised offering driven by who you know, or are strategy consultants strongly differentiated? It’s not been possible to uncover obvious differences in process, although analytics is an area highlighted by several top performers. Relationships are undoubtedly one reason that recruitment is driven internally to the industry. But I’ve actually been surprised by the level of differentiation revealed by the text analysis I’ve carried out. It’s considerably better differentiated than UK advertising, for example, for which I also have the statistics.

What is clear is that many of these companies are extremely vulnerable to the new era of competitive transparency. If I’ve demonstrated one thing I hope that it is that companies can no longer control their communications and that competitive contradictions will be ruthlessly exposed. 

Thanks for keeping posted over the last five months! If you would like to contact me, you may do so via luke423@amajorforce.com.

© Luke 4:23 The analyses and comment in this blog are designed to stimulate discussion about the effectiveness and competitiveness of strategy consulting in the UK. My competitive perceptions and methodologies are up for additional peer review. However, the content is not to be distributed, reproduced, edited or quoted for commercial purposes without prior written consent. Blog links, however, are welcomed