Talk:Management consulting/Archives/2011

McKinsey
McKinsey, modern managment consulting started with McKinsey. The importance of McKinsey is underplayed with this article, and that of its spin off Boston exagerated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.116.236 (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[MVV] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.116.236 (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

We
Who is the "we" in the lower half of the article? Might this be copied from somewhere else? -- 84.57.17.83 01:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Consulting
Why is Consulting redirecting to this article? There are numerous other ways of consulting, for instence: for advice. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Consulting&redirect=no --AlexTheMartian 21:04, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Why is Business Consulting redirecting to this article? It is not the same as management consulting! Management consulting in its true meaning concerns management issues (e.g. operations, marketing, finance, IT etc.) whereas business consulting concerns the overall corporate direction of the business (more akin to strategic consulting).

Links to consultancies
Princeton Consutlants was removed as a standalone Wiki article but I replaced it with a simple link. Is this wrong? User:Princeton 15:36, Dec 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * First, let me share some background. Wikipedia has had serious problems with people attempting to misuse it for advertising.  We are building an encyclopedia - nothing more and nothing less.  Unfortunately, the history of abuse has made us rather sensitive to anything resembling spam.  That's why you find evolving policy pages such as WP:CORP and WP:NOT.  Recently, we've started to find real problems with link-spam (adding irrelevant or only marginally relevant links to more popular venue such as chat rooms, bulletin boards or wikis in an attempt to boost the google-ranking of a particular site).  Link-spamming is a relatively new form of abuse - not as well-known or as readily distinguishable as traditional advertising - but one that is viewed as particularly nasty when it occurs.
 * So, with all that said, was your edit "wrong"? That's a judgment call.  If you intended it as advertising then, yes, it was wrong.  Since we don't know your intentions, good editors try very hard to assume good faith but given the history of abuse, such edits are scrutinized carefully and viewed with a bit of inevitable suspicion.
 * I removed that particular link because I didn't think it improved the article. External links should take the reader to sites which elaborate on, clarify or otherwise expand their understanding of the topic at hand.  Most often, external links are used in the way that you would use footnotes in a paper encyclopedia - to cite your sources.  The fact that you added the link without making any other changes led me to suspect that the intent was to advertise more than to cite sources.  I'll also admit that the site you added struck me as just another consulting house.  I don't mean that in a bad way but I didn't see anything which was dramatically different from every other consulting shop.  It didn't add anything to a future reader's experience.  Rossami (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Similar question: I added a link to Kennedy Information, which most who are close to consulting would recognize as one of, if not the leadning source of information specifically focused on management consulting. I have no connection with Kennedy--I am a university researcher, doing research on consulting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnealhicks (talk • contribs) 21:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Top 10
Hi. In the list of top 10 consultancies, Mercer Management Consulting, Mercer Oliver Wyman, Mercer Human Resource Consulting are all part of Mercer.

I've added the assorted brands to the Mercer Management Consulting entry, should they be merged and the next 2 on the list 'promoted'? Alternatively should they all redirect to the Mercer Management Consulting entry. GollyG 07:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


 * They should be merged on this list. The articles themselves should all redirect to the parent.  I would not "promote" the next 2 on the list, though.  It was not originally a "top 10" list but rather an arbitrary "leading firms" list.  It's only recently that we've tried to match the list to the Vault ranking.  And there's not much reason to prefer Vault over Gartner or any of the other rankings.
 * Frankly, I'm having serious doubts about the lists. We have no firm selection criteria to determine which firms should be listed and which are too small or too specialized to list.  There is no guarantee of alignment between the Vault rankings and other ranking companies.  The lists themselves have proven to be mere spam-magnets and add little value to the article.  I am more than half-minded to remove the lists from the article.  If anyone really wants to see a list of all management consulting firms with articles, they can look at Category:Management consulting firms.  We could easily provide a link to that page in the "See also" section.  Rossami (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

If you really need to list companies then those that are listed on wiki should be no problem with external links (apart from a lot of data input) perhaps for balance you could give a flavour of some of the companies such as PWC, Ernst & Young, Accenture, and then work down to say smaller one, it doesn't have to be exhaustive. --Pandaplodder 21:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism
Do you think the section on criticism needs some sources? I think it looks like it's filled with common-joe-opinions and possibly delusions about management consulting. Has there been, for example, critical articles about management consulting in late journals? I know that everyone thinks that management consultants are like the ones on Dilbert comics, but is that a fact that must stand on a dictionary? Ileppane 08:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

POV not neutral
To suggest that something is a 'considered the current leader in the field' is bringing into the encyclopedia a very subjective, non-neutral POV. 128.250.6.247 06:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was going to say sofixit but you already did. Was there anything else?  Rossami (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Links
I have added one internal to the Institute of Management Consultancy which is the UK body (part of the CMI), I also re-formatted the canadian link. Also I have inserted one external link to the UK Institute of Management Consultancy. --Pandaplodder 21:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the self-promotional link from Article World (http://www.articleworld.org/index.php/Management_consulting) in the External Links section. It is just a link to the same Wikipedia material in a Google AdSense type junk site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.63.23.238 (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Managment Consulting
I've modified the paragraph discussing the types of firms to use the more narrow term "strategy consulting" rather than "management consulting".

Managment consulting currently has a very broad meaning. IT, intellectual property management, law, and accounting all involve choices that can have a profound effect on the opportunities and resources of an organization. In current usage it seems that the term "management consulting" refers to any sort of consulting activity that


 * 1) has strategic implications for the future
 * 2) requires senior or upper level managment champions and buy in

To distinguish a Bain from a PWC we need to focus on difference between strategy and implementation. Strategic IT, strategic IP management, and management accounting and other "new" forms of consulting all have a blend of implementation and strategy in common.

I think what distinguishes a Bain from a PWC is Bain's exclusive focus on the strategic elements of a problem. Bain will tell you why you need to do something and some general ideas of how given your current resources but leave the rest to you. Firms like PWC and Proudfoot have built their reputation on taking at least joint responsibility for the implementation.

Egfrank 12:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories of Consulting and Providers
The article needs work with regard to the categories within "Consulting", which directs to this page. I agree with the other user that briefly discusses the differences that exist. A better title might be Consulting, with Management, HR, IT, etc., being subsections or discussed as types of consulting services. Also, within the four defined (and fifth emerging) consulting organizations discussion, there is no mention of the larger (or at least mid size) practices that have emerged in recent years and do not necessarily fit in the four catgeories. Firms including Navigant and FTI, for example, are both mid-size firms and, as part a newer trend, are publicly-held firms. I didn;t want to start adding or changing the article before getting some discussion going on this.

Userbox
I made this: Userbox for IT/Management Consultants

So, you know...there's that. Corsulian (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism
A book that could be used as a source MaxPont (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Consulting Firms Doing Pro-Bono Work
Any thoughts on adding a section on consultancies doing pro-bono work for NGOs, non-profits, etc? Ademkader (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Consulting Firms in the U.S.
As a published author and expert on the use of consultants I added a paragraph under 'Criticisms' which I thought was missing. All the preceding comments identify the issues with consultants, but there are also issues with how companies use consultants. This comment was deleted by ohnoitsjamie. I understand the requirement not to link to commercial sites, so happy for the citation to be removed, (as well as the reference I added in the Reference section), although I am also aware that comments on Wikipedia are supposed to be cited. So please explain your objection to the following which is not covered anywhere else in the page:

"On the other hand, for consultants to provide meaningful results and value to an organization, it is incumbent on the clients that use them to educate themselves on how to select and manage consultants. Consultants are well-trained on how to manage their clients, yet companies seldom acknowledge that their projects are less than successful, and do not train staff who work with consultants on how to get value from them." JRSouthtown (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)jrsouthtown 17 Aug 2010

Paragraph Removed by ohnoitsjamie
As a published author and expert on the use of consultants I added a paragraph under 'Criticisms' which I thought was missing. All the preceding comments identify the issues with consultants, but there are also issues with how companies use consultants. This comment was deleted by ohnoitsjamie. I understand the requirement not to link to commercial sites, so happy for the citation to be removed, (as well as the reference I added in the Reference section), although I am also aware that comments on Wikipedia are supposed to be cited. So please explain your objection to the following which is not covered anywhere else in the page:

"On the other hand, for consultants to provide meaningful results and value to an organization, it is incumbent on the clients that use them to educate themselves on how to select and manage consultants. Consultants are well-trained on how to manage their clients, yet companies seldom acknowledge that their projects are less than successful, and do not train staff who work with consultants on how to get value from them." JRSouthtown (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)jrsouthtown 17 Aug 2010
 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion or advertising. See WP:COI and WP:ADVERT. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So if this is my field of expertise - what is the best way for me to contribute to this page? JRSouthtown (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Use notable third-party references that meet reliable sources guidelines versus sites you are affiliated with. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Reliable sources" and "sites you are affiliated with" are not necessarily independant entities. If wiki is to banish all reliable sources that are associated with authors, that would eliminate most academics and professionals from publishing (most of the climate articles would be stubs for instance). Also, the item quoted is pretty bang on and should be in an article on Management Consulting. If you don't like the link, delete it and add 'citation needed'. Not sure where you are going to find citable information on management consulting that is NOT commercial though. No, I am not a management consultant.John G Eggert (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Cultural comments in History section
I just deleted a paragraph from the history section of vague, subjective, and unsourced commentary on the differences in pre-WWII management styles between Europe and the USA. Multiple 'citation needed' tags have been present since June 09, nobody has added citations because quite frankly this material is not suitable for Wikipedia. 94.142.32.114 (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)