Talk:PA Consulting Group

NPOV
Hi, please excuse this anonymous comment -- I am doing this from a hotel room on a business trip and am a total Wiki talk page newbie.

My company was recently solicited by PA as a prospect (one reason for presently remaining anonymous) and I have been doing a web search to find out more about them. I concur with many of the comments below: this page reads like a marketing and recruiting piece from the company itself with a few minor nuggets about things that happened years ago inserted solely to do the absolute minimum required to appear neutral.

I'd love to know about how this company is managed if it is truly "employee owned." The company history is still very unclear: how exactly did the Butten Trust exit the scene and what did they get for doing so? It never really is explained in any way I could figure out. Why didn't PA suffer as much as its competitors in the 2001-4 downturn and how do they know they did better than their competitors (who are presumably also private) anyhow? Come to think of it, who exactly ARE these competitors? These are just a few of the questions I was left with after reading the article.

Thanks for everyone's great efforts, and sorry if I commented out of form, please feel free to modify this comment in that event. 86.115.12.52 19:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The recent edits appear to have come straight from the mouth of marketing at the firm, there are no independent sources for any of the claims.

It leaves a lot to be desired and comes across as NPOV.

Looking at the main editors history it appears that it has come from their marketing department! Our Company Logo and changes requested by ..... look highly dubious to me.

ALR 18:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree,
 * the "references" largely come from PA publications.
 * There is also a fair amount of "now", "currently", "latest" sort of :language - it suggests that it is a company talking about itself. In any case events described in an encyclopedia article should be dated.
 * statements about corporate dynamics have no independent references - for example the assertation that PA's failures were due to management, not skillset.


 * I've added an  tag. Egfrank 04:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi BaseballBaby
Thanks for your balanced and constructive advice in these 'banners':


 * To meet Wikipedia's quality standards and comply with our Neutral Point of View policy, this article or section may require cleanup. The current version of the article or section reads like an advertisement.


 * This article or section does not cite its references or sources. You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations.

I'm not new to editing (having been 30-odd years in commercial, retail and professional services publishing ;-/ ) - but am new to the ways of Wikipedia, so your guidance is appreciated. Looks like I need to do two tranches of work:


 * 1) provide as many sources as possible for the existing text, then -


 * 2) for any remaining text that is not supported by sources, edit for 'balanced point of view'

This may take a while so bear with me !

Summilux 18:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:NOT in particular:


 * Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for guidelines on corporate notability.

Whilst PA Consulting is sufficiently notable, the article should not read like an advertisement.ALR 18:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

History
The History section violates NPOV and is also entirely unreferenced except for one newspaper article that supports some of the history. It could do with improvement along the lines of PA ventures, Introduction and Awards. 24.62.4.98 (talk) 08:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

'Recruiting' section added
In style of Boston Consulting Group and Bain & Co

Summilux 14:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * this section also has NPOV problems -


 * and it needs references. For example, how do we know that "approximately 1% of applicants" for analyst positions are hired. 24.62.4.98 (talk) 08:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose deleting this section. As noted above, it has NPOV problems, and what little information is present is not verifiable. In short, it adds no significant value to the article. Does anyone object? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.228.200 (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. 69.86.228.200 (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright violation
This article has several times had copyrighted ("© PA Knowledge Limited 1997 - 2006 . All rights reserved.") non-GFDL content copied and pasted in it. I've reverted to the latest non-infringing version, which was a version by User:Beland from 2005-07-24, and restored the infobox and categories. Do not copy and paste copyrighted web pages into Wikipedia. Uncle G 19:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added back in history & office locations sections, whilst I review the rest of the article in light of your comment.
 * Timpharrison 13:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added back in the 'Awards' section, previously deleted by Uncle G due to a perceived breach of copyright. Footnote 4 of that section removes this concern
 * Summilux 14:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added back in the 'PA ventures' section, previously deleted by Uncle G due to a perceived breach of copyright. The footnote previously numbered 4, and now numbered 9, clarifies the copyright status of this text.


 * Summilux 16:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've reinstated the standfirst introduction section, previously deleted by Uncle G due to a perceived breach of copyright. The footnote previously numbered 9, and now numbered 4, clarifies the copyright status of this text.


 * Summilux 16:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately your note 4 doesn't meet the needs of the guidance on reliable sources, WP:RS, as it stands without independent verification it's just an assertion that the firm has waived copyright. Not my field, but someone from the copyright review shop might have a view.ALR 17:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks ALR - bit of a 'Catch 22' situation here ;-)


 * The person named in footnote 4 is a representative of the copyright holder, and I am too. The bold text on this Talk page says: 'Do not copy text from other websites without permission'. We have conformed to this requirement and granted ourselves permission, as stated in footnote 4. As PA is a notable company, I'd have thought this statement is sufficient warranty for Wikipedia. Because PA and Wikipedia are the only principals involved in this understanding, there is per se no reason - and no mechanism - for a third party to independently publish a verification of this self-granting of permission.


 * Summilux 19:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * hmm ok, well I'm not a legal beagle. However from my assessment, again not from one of the copyright people, we've only got your assertion that you're a representative of the firm, so the assertion that you have permission is inherently unreliable.ALR 19:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK - so it seems the solution would be for A. Adams, Global Head of Marketing and Communications, PA Consulting Group, to send a letter on PA stationery to Wikipedia HQ confirming that the copyright information in footnote 4 is correct. Yes ?
 * Summilux 14:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've posed the quesstion at WP:RS and WP:C, Reliable Sources and Copyrights respectively, WP:V verifiability applies as well.ALR 07:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * People write articles and upload pictures all the time on Wikipedia and Wikicommons, often asserting that the editor/uploader created the original article and grant a suitable license. There is no mechanism to verify the editor/uploader is the real creator, or is really authorized to grant the license. So I don't see why the website permission should be different.
 * That said, the footnote 4 intermingles copyrights, trademark rights, and domain name rights, in a way that leads one to suspect that the person who wrote it does not know a whole lot about intelectual property law. This makes one further wonder why a major consulting firm would authorize a person who does not understand intelectual property law to give copyright permissions. I'll leave it to someone more familiar with Wikipedia's copyright policy to say if the copyright holder must specifically agree to the GDFL or if a more free-form permission is acceptable. --Gerry Ashton 16:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting question, but why would this matter? Generally self-published information isn't a reliable source, and so shouldn't be used to build an article. That goes for press releases as well. I'd also point potential in-house contributors to WP:AUTO and the unfortunately-named WP:VAIN. We're an encyclopedia, not BusinessWire. William Pietri 16:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The Reliable sources guideline contains a definition of self-published source: "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses."


 * This definition seems to mean that a self-published source is published by a person. A source published by a corporation does not appear to be self-published. Would we refuse to allow anything published by Microsoft to be used in an article about Windows XP? --Gerry Ashton 21:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that corporate material is generally self-published; corporations of my acquaintance almost never use "independent fact-checking" before publication. That goes especially for press releases and other marketing communication, which seek to put the company in the most favorable light possible.


 * I think there are some circumstances where you could use Microsoft statements about their products. For example, we could grant some of their technical documentation the presumption of trust. But we couldn't take at face value many other claims. E.g., if they say Windows XP is the best operating system in existence, we would never print that directly. The closest we'd come is, "Microsoft claims that....". William Pietri 05:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I separate the issue of being reliable from being self-published. If a corporation has a system for having several people within the company check over a press release before issuing it, then it isn't really self-publication. Of course it is apt to be biased since press releases exist to promote the success of the companies that issue them, but that just means they are often unreliable, not self-published. --Gerry Ashton 06:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Got it. It sounds like we're using different words for the same meaning, so I have no quibble with that. So you'd agree that the article here shouldn't be based so heavily on press releases and other information published by the article subject? Thanks, William Pietri 08:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Gerry Ashton wrote:


 * '...If a corporation has a system for having several people within the company check over a press release before issuing it, then it isn't really self-publication.'  Thanks Gerry - that's correct. PA does that for the reasons outlined below.


 * '...press releases exist to promote the success of the companies that issue them, but that just means they are often unreliable...' I beg to differ Gerry. PA's credibility with leading newspapers such as the Financial Times, The Times, Wall Street Journal, etc, has been built over many years on the veracity of its communications. Their specialist business journalists - and PA's competitors - would be the first to spot and publicise any factual errors in press releases. Hence I'd argue that our press releases are especially reliable because they have to pass the scrutiny of the world's most incisive journalists, editors and sub-editors at the top of their profession. And that's how most of their stories about PA are conceived: http://www.paconsulting.com/news/business_news/
 * Summilux 10:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that press releases are reliable sources for what PA Consulting says, and I'm sure you take great care in their production. If particular journalists verify something in your press release and print it, then Wikipedia can use it as a reliable source. But press releases on their own are not reliable sources for anything other than the opinions of the organization writing the press release. Consider this recent Microsoft press release. Does this prove that "the future is bright"? Or that Zune has "powerful software" that "provide[s] a strong foundation"? No. Here we can use this to write, "Microsoft claims that Zune has 'powerful software'". But because the power of the software has not been verified by independent experts, the press release proves only the opinion, not the fact. William Pietri 16:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is confusing the medium with the message. Woolly phrasing in one company's press release is not a sound basis for claiming that all press releases are ipso facto woolly. Extend that same reasoning to other media such as books, tv, Web sites, etc and you can see that this stance is not supportable.


 * Summilux 07:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of phrasing. Press releases have a point of view. They are supposed to have a point of view, that of the issuing organization. If a press release writer told the complete and unvarnished truth all the time they would be fired. ("Our new software is basically ok. It's not as good as our competitor's, but we hope to catch up. In the meantime, we have gone for checklist compliance, so if you look at the feature lists on the back of the box you won't notice much big missing. With a good marketing push, that should get us enough market share so that we can afford to write something pretty good next year. But please write a nice article about us anyhow.") That is different than what journalists or academics write about the same topic, where they strive for objectivity and balane, analyzing claims critically. See press release for more on this.
 * In sum, press releases are only a reliable source for a company's views, not for actual facts. That's not to say that they aren't full of facts, but only that they cannot be relied upon to be so. To work only from press releases violates the core policies of verifiability and neutral point of view. William Pietri 08:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyright waiver
Quoting: PA Consulting Group has waived the copyright it may have owned in descriptive texts in the above paragraphs, excepting trading names, trademarked names, registered logos and domain names, for use in Wikipedia.

According to GFDL, this vaiver is insufficient, because the content of Wikipedia may be copied anywhere provided GFDL terms are observed. Therefore either please update the vaiver, or the verbatim text will be deleted soon. A suggested extesion of the waiver can be something like "...in Wikipedia and derived works withing the scope of GFDL licence". Talk to your lawyer :-) `'mikka (t) 22:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this constructive suggestion mikkalai - will do
 * Summilux 09:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

'PA ventures' section reinstated with sources
This section, previously deleted by Uncle G due to a perceived breach of copyright, is reinstated. Eight additional source footnotes have been added, as well as the footnote that clarifies the status of this text's copyright.

Summilux 16:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * ProcServe entry revised for accuracy. Latest new venture company Aditon added


 * Summilux 18:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

'Introduction' text reinstated with sources
This section, previously deleted by Uncle G due to a perceived breach of copyright, is reinstated. Three additional source footnotes have been added, as well as the footnote that clarifies the status of this text's copyright.

Summilux 16:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have the various press releases on the web it might be useful to provide links to them in the references, clearly not critical but from a marketing perspective it allows people to trace them through.ALR 17:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

'Awards' section reinstated with sources
This section, previously deleted by Uncle G due to a perceived breach of copyright, is reinstated. Three source footnotes have been added, and the fourth footnote waives copyright in this text.

Summilux 14:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:800px-Office 1 002.jpg
Image:800px-Office 1 002.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Pain in the ass bot. I inserted a fair use rationale at the image page. Summilux, up to you if you want to get something official from PA.

72.229.3.111 (talk) 07:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pa logo2.gif
Image:Pa logo2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

A fair use rationale for this image has now been added.

72.229.23.211 (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Notification of page updates planned for next week
Notification of intention to update page to make it more factual, objective and add proper referencing:
 * Re-ordering structure to reflect more what the company actually does, with history and office locations secondary. Proposed new order:
 * 1 Areas of expertise
 * 2 PA ventures
 * 3 Awards
 * 3.1 Management Consultancies Association (MCA) Management Awards
 * 3.2 UK IT Industry Awards
 * 4 History
 * 4.1 1940s
 * 4.2 1950-1970
 * 4.3 1970-1992
 * 4.4 1992-2000
 * 4.5 2001-2009
 * 4.6 2010 - present
 * 5 Principal offices
 * 6 See also
 * 7 References
 * 4.3 1970-1992
 * 4.4 1992-2000
 * 4.5 2001-2009
 * 4.6 2010 - present
 * 5 Principal offices
 * 6 See also
 * 7 References
 * 5 Principal offices
 * 6 See also
 * 7 References
 * 6 See also
 * 7 References
 * 7 References


 * Adding proper formatting to existing references and links, and adding more references where possible
 * Amending wording where it appears promotional to make it more neutral and objective.

Changes will be made on 11/02/2013 if no objections are made. AChatburnPA (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

COI problems
This article has been edited by representatives of the company for years and is a complete mess in terms of WP:V and WP:NPOV. Very brief research shows that the majority of independent articles about PA aren't half as rosy as this article makes out. E.g. this and this about their involvement in ID cards. Until these problems are fixed, the coi template should remain in place to alert readers to these problems. SmartSE (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello SmartSE,
 * In response to your post above about COI problems...the article has been edited by PA Consulting employees - those who work for PA (myself included) have tried to be as transparent as possible by including the company name in their profile names.
 * Could you please advise what we would need to do to get the COI flag removed from the page? Not all contributors to the page are involved with PA. If PA staff didn't edit the page it would (as it has now) become out of date and not a true representation of the company. I have tried to leave it to the community as much as possible but updates and structural improvements are needed.
 * I am keen to follow the Wikipedia guidelines and will attempt to update the page using factual content and strong references. I welcome suggestions from yourself and other editors.
 * Thanks,
 * Anna
 * AChatburnPA (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks,
 * Anna
 * AChatburnPA (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Anna
 * AChatburnPA (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * AChatburnPA (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

NPOV flag
I am going to remove the NPOV flag as it's no longer relevant. None of the contributors listed as having a close connection with the subject of the page have edited the page for months/years. I am the only editor who has contributed this year who has a connection with the subject (a connection I've declared) and my changes were reverted in May when the page was stripped back to a very old version. AChatburnPA (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I've replaced the tag. First, as you have a COI, you certainly shouldn't be the one to decide whether the article is written neutrally. Secondly, the article has gotten even worse since I added the tag, rather than better. Sorry for not replying to your note in July, I have been very busy IRL and hadn't noticed it until now. To put it as simply as possible, the article needs to be rewritten almost entirely, using independent sources such as newspapers. It is much more important to us that the article is neutral and verifiable (which it is not now) rather than being 'up to date' or a 'true representation' of the company - that is what your own website is for, not Wikipedia. I'm afraid I can't offer any more assistance than that for now, but you can seek help from someone else at WP:COIN or WP:CO-OP. SmartSE (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Why are newspapers seen as more reliable than formally audited and recorded company records? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.18.166 (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Rebrand
I note from PA website they have a new logo etc. I would update this page but don't know which best format to upload, etc. Can someone check and add correct new logo and anything else needed to tweak article? Aaronboardley (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This appears to have been fixed. Thanks. Aaronboardley (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on PA Consulting Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150823001919/http://www.brunel.ac.uk/about/people/honorary-graduates/honorary-graduates-1990/professor-gordon-edge to http://www.brunel.ac.uk/about/people/honorary-graduates/honorary-graduates-1990/professor-gordon-edge

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

NPOV
This article, specifically the "Technology and Innovation" section looks like a company brochure. 2601:18F:107F:BA80:5910:DCBA:E9D2:3E91 (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Update the history section
Hi, I work for PA Consulting Group. The company recently announced a new CEO, and I would like to add the following sentence to the end of the 2015-present subsection of the History section:
 * In 2023, Christian Norris was named as CEO.

Additionally, in the infobox, under Key people, I would like to replace Ken Toombs with Christian Norris as CEO.

Thank you for your help. Sunnyday825 (talk) 11:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Spintendo  23:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Updates to Lead and History sections
Hello, I am requesting updates to the lead and the history sections of this article.
 * In the third paragraph of the lead, the second sentence says: "It operates in these industries from offices across the UK, US, Nordics and Netherlands." Please add Ireland to this list, so that the sentence reads:
 * It operates in these industries from offices across the UK, Ireland, US, Nordics and Netherlands.
 * The source for this is:.


 * Next, In the last paragraph of the lead, it says: "The company is privately held with 65% of shares owned by Jacobs Engineering Group". Please change the name of this company to Jacobs Solutions, as that is now the correct name.
 * The name should also be changed to Jacobs Solutions in the 2015-present subsection of the History section where it says: "In November 2020, PA’s Board announced its recommendation to accept a proposal by Jacobs Engineering Group to acquire a 65% stake in PA."
 * Lastly, in the 2015-present subsection, in the paragraph that says: "Most recently, in November 2020, PA acquired San Francisco- and Boston-based Cooper Perkins, a technology development and engineering company.", please add the following lines to end of that paragraph:
 * In 2022, they acquired Design Partners based in Ireland, and the Cambridge Group based in Chicago.

Thank you for your help, Sunnyday825 (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Reply 22-SEP-2023
Regards, Spintendo  22:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) ✅ Ireland was added to the lead.
 * 2) ✅ Jacobs Solutions was substituted for the company's previous name in the lead and in the 2015-present section. (Please note that the Wikilink was only added to the first instance of the name being mentioned in the lead, per MOS:LINKONCE).
 * 3) ❌ The information regarding the acquisition of Design Partners and the Cambridge Group was not added, as those companies do not appear to be independently notable in Wikipedia.


 * Thanks for your help, ! Sunnyday825 (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Update to infobox
Hello, I am requesting further updates to the article:
 * In the infobox, please change the number of locations from 21 to 19 - this information is supported on the company's website in the fast facts section, and should fall under WP:ABOUTSELF: https://www.paconsulting.com/about.
 * In the lead, in the second sentence of the second paragraph, it says: "It has also acquired seven specialist consultancies since December 2017...". Please change this to nine specialist consultancies, and delete the rest of the paragraph since the companies are not independently notable on Wikipedia. 7 of these are companies are already sourced in that paragraph, and the last 2 sources can be found here:
 * In the history section, in the last paragraph of the 2015-present subsection, where it says that Will Lamb is the CFO, please change this to Guy Rudolph, as he replaced Will Lamb..

Thank you for your help, Sunnyday825 (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The lead and infobox sections were updated. The information regarding Will Lambe was not changed, because it does not state that Will Lambe is the CFO, it merely states that he was appointed CFO in 2022, which is not factually inaccurate. Regards, Spintendo  20:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you again for your help, and for cleaning up the article. It certainly appears to be much improved. Given that the non-neutral language has been deleted, would you consider removing the two tags that are currently on the page?
 * Regarding the CFO- you are correct, Will Lamb was in fact CFO for a time. In that case, would it be possible to update the text with the current CFO, Guy Rudolph, as well? You can find that information here.
 * I appreciate the time you are taking to improve the page. Sunnyday825 (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)