See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347103577
Strategic Analysis - McKinsey & Company; How Competitive Advantage
Diminishes in the Environment of Industry Disruption
Preprint · November 2020
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17427.50721
CITATIONS
READS
0
6,244
1 author:
Andria Biggs
Texas A&M University-Commerce
9 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Marketing Analysis View project
Marketing Analysis View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Andria Biggs on 15 December 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Andria Biggs
Texas A&M University – Commerce
College of Business
November 26, 2020
Strategic Audit – McKinsey & Company
I.
Introduction to the Organization
McKinsey & Company is a global consulting firm with a primary focus in change
management, process improvement, disruption planning, and technological innovation
for business (“About Us”, 2020). McKinsey & Company began its existence as an
accounting firm who purported itself as management-by-accounting consulting firm
(“History of Our Firm”, 2020). McKinsey & Company has gone on to become a leader
in the industry, expanding both its service offerings and its well of expertise. Today it is
known as one of the most prestigious global consulting firms in the industry (Byrne,
2017).
A. Organizational Founding and History
McKinsey & Company was founded in 1926 by James O. McKinsey, a
management accounting specialist and professor at the University of Chicago. McKinsey
& Company (McKinsey) would first open as a management accounting firm, advising on
accounting tools in business management. Shortly after the founding, James McKinsey
would take on two partners, Tom Kearney and Marvin Bower. All three would play
leading roles in the early years of McKinsey, though Marvin Bower would be credited
with creating the company’s core values and business focus (“History of Our Firm”,
2020).
The competitive advantage of McKinsey & Company expertise is largely
attributed to Marvin Bower’s “up or out” policy, that promoted high performers while
thinning out low talent or under-performing associates ("Great American Business
Leaders of the 20th Century | Marvin Bower", 2020). Through a private partnership
Stovall, Wellington, & Company in 1935, it would also increase its reach and its client
base (Greiner et al., 2005). The partnership was not destined to last, however. Upon
James O. McKinsey’s death in 1937, the accounting division would be returned to
Stovall, Wellington, & Co., while McKinsey would become its own separate consulting
entity. However, McKinsey would leave the Stovall partnership with one key advantage,
a Stovall & Wellington executive, Guy Crockett, who would leave Stovall to become an
investor and managing partner of McKinsey & Company with one of the original
McKinsey partners, Marvin Bower. While Crockett was commanding the helm of
McKinsey & Co., Bower has been attributed with setting the strategy and direction
(Bhide, 1995).
B. Corporate Ownership
McKinsey & Co. Is a private company that is currently held in private corporate
partnership. A unique model that gives part ownership to McKinsey employees who have
made partner, but requires associates to return McKinsey ownership shares upon their
exit from the organization ("McKinsey & Company, Inc. - Company Profile, Information,
Business Description, History, Background Information on McKinsey & Company, Inc.",
2020).
C. Board of Directors and Top Leadership
The top executive, Kevin Sneader, who serves as McKinsey’s Global Managing
Partner, has been with McKinsey since 1989 upon his graduation from Glasgow
University with his Bachelor of Laws degree. Sneader would begin work as an analyst at
McKinsey’s London, England office then go on to lead both the UK office and Asia
regional offices. Sneader would be appointed Global Managing Partner in 2018 having
also received his terminal degree as an MBA graduate of Harvard and Baker’s scholar
(“Kevin Sneader | Profile” 2020). In an analysis of top executives at McKinsey, you will
find that a majority of their executives are Harvard graduates (“Our People | McKinsey &
Company”, 2020). While Harvard is certainly known as one of the most prestigious and
thorough universities for business graduates, it shows that leadership is primarily
homogenous in educational training (Bauer & Erdogan, 2020). Some top executives
received their end degrees from universities other than Harvard, such as Oxford,
Cambridge, and Carnegie Mellon universities, these schools also have a homogeneity of
thought similar to that that you would find at Harvard (“Our People | McKinsey &
Company” 2020).
The danger I fear this poses, is not only a homogeneity of thought, but also a lack
of diversity by virtue of the ethnic, wealth, and gender enrollment that is often seen at top
universities (Bauer & Erdogan, 2020). This theory would seem to bear out when we see
that 90%, 8 of the 9, top leadership are male and 90% are Caucasian or of Caucasian
decent. Kevin Sneader himself admits “... On diversity of gender, ethnicity, and sexual
orientation, we have a lot of work to do. I believe we’ve got to look like the clients we
serve and the societies in which we operate. And we’ve got to be relentless about
working toward that objective” (“Meet Our New Managing Partner | McKinsey”, 2018).
This type of homogeneity can create an echo chamber, create an environment of group
think, and even broaden the dangers of unethical action (Bauer & Erdogan, 2020).
D. Firm Business Model
McKinsey & Co’s business strategy is to use its prestigious name recognition,
coupled with its highly skilled and knowledgeable consultants, to bring new business
solutions, issue diagnosis and recommendation, and disruption planning to large
organizations and governments, in a forward-facing and innovative environment (Bhide,
1995).
E. Global Impact
McKinsey & Company was also a first mover in global expansion, opening its
first European office in 1959 and quickly growing from there. McKinsey would grow
across the European Union and then continue its global expansion opening its first Asia
office in 1976. As of 1984 McKinsey boasted that more than half of its consultants
carried a non-US passport. Since then, McKinsey has grown exponentially across the
globe and now has presence in North America, Canada, South and Central America,
Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. With their expansion across the globe also
came an expansion in McKinsey’s core competencies and expertise. With an early move
into global expansion and the knowledge acquired therein, McKinsey has cemented its
position as a global leader in the consulting industry (Bhide, 1995).
Though, their global success has not come without controversy. McKinsey has
taken criticism for its work supporting authoritarian regimes (Bogdanich & Forsythe,
2018). McKinsey has consulted for countries in experiencing significant civil unrest such
as Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa (Kolhatkar, 2018; Bogdanich & Forsythe,
2018). These consultancy contracts that support emerging countries is one of the reasons
McKinsey has such a global presence. The foot in the door if you will. One has to ask
though, is this the right step in McKinsey’s global expansion, particularly in an
atmosphere of greater awareness, and demand for change, in corporate social
responsibility measures.
F. The Prestige of McKinsey & Company
Many would be surprised to know that the basis of McKinsey’s prestige is an
illusion that McKinsey itself built. In the 1960’s as strategic consulting was beginning to
take shape as an industry, competitors like Boston Consulting Group (BCG) and others
were gaining a reputation for expertise that would rival McKinsey’s. In response,
McKinsey, wanting to be the premier firm, had a clever idea to create an illusion of their
own prestige. They devised a plan to send out job postings simply so they could reject
high-level candidates. “Only the Best”. These types of ads were intended to instill the
industry perception that only the top tier of consultants worked at McKinsey & Company.
It worked. BCG would soon follow suit in these mechanisms and along with Bain &
Company, create the prestige of the “Big Three” (Markovitz, 2020). The prestige these
consultancy firms created, as we will examine later in our analysis, is what could now
hinder their success in competing in new and evolving markets in the strategic consulting
industry (Christenson, Wang, & Van Bever, 2013).
II.
Industry and the Competitor Identification
Competitors:
Though McKinsey & Company, and the industry writ large, is experiencing more
market entrants and competitors, for the sake of this analysis we will focus on the three
primary competitors. Two of those competitors, Boston Consulting Group and Bain &
Company are large historical competitors that compete in the traditional model of
McKinsey & Company. The third, Accenture (“Accenture Strategy & Consulting |
Change with Confidence”, 2020), is a new and quickly growing entrant that is
challenging the traditional definition of consulting (Christensen et al., 2013).
In McKinsey’s competition within its traditional strategic group, they vie for
market share above anything else. In part due to the oligarchic nature of McKinsey’s
traditional strategic group, the “Big Three”, market saturation is high. The firms
competing in this group all have similar products, processes, and expertise. Due to the
large market share each hold, untapped market share is almost non-existent. Each firm is
competing to take business away from one of the other firms and competition is fierce
(Rothaermel, 2020).
However, the consulting industry, which has long been static and not as
susceptible to industry disruption, is beginning to see a shift in the industry and its
strategic groups. As knowledge and expertise becomes more widely accessible to
practitioners, some of that gained in the hands of McKinsey’s own alumni, new entrants
are choosing to apply the same expertise in different structures of product competition,
such as single-issue boutique services (Christensen et al., 2013).
An example of this shifting in product structure can be found in Accenture.
Accenture, founded over a half of a decade later than McKinsey in 1989, has managed
exponential growth. Financial disclosures show revenues of $44.2b in Financial Year
(FY) 2019 (“Earnings Reports | Accenture”, 2019), four times that of McKinsey’s $10.5b
(“McKinsey & Co. | Company Profile”, 2020). Accenture looks not only to be a disruptor
in the industry, but also a challenger to the strategic consulting model all together
(Christensen et al., 2013)
III.
Industry Analysis
A. Strategic Group(s)
McKinsey & Company competes in the wider Strategic Consulting industry, but
has a narrower scope of strategic group competition (Byrnes, 2017). McKinsey primarily
competes within a strategic group of other large, full-scale consulting firms such as
Boston Consulting Group, Bain & Company (Reibstein, et al., 2006). All three of the
firms offer consulting services to large commercial, industrial, and government clients
that cover many of the same areas of expertise in Operations, Processes, Logistics,
Technology, and Sustainability (Byrnes, 2017). This is where McKinsey’s primary
competitive focus is, and has been, for several decades (“History of Our Firm”, 2020).
However, new market entrants, such as Accenture, are having a significant impact
in how the strategic consulting industry and strategic groups are defined and is making it
harder for McKinsey to rely on its expertise in its traditional business model to stay
competitive. In our Accenture example, rather than try to enter an already saturated highend market, Accenture chose to siphon off market share from the lower end market of
firms that cannot afford, or do not need, large full-service solutions Accenture has
tapped a market that McKinsey, Bain, and BCG have all ignored (“The Disruption of
Management Consulting l CB Insights”, 2020). In this, McKinsey has a weaker
competitive position (Rothaermel, 2020).
McKinsey has traded on its prestige and only focuses its attention to large scale
organizations who need, and can afford, to pay the lofty price that McKinsey’s prestige
demands. McKinsey’s prestige is now hampering its move into a lower market that is
producing higher returns in bit-piece consulting services. A market that has allowed
Accenture, and other bit-piece consulting services, to capitalize tens of millions more in
annual revenue (“The Disruption of Management Consulting l CB Insights”, 2020).
McKinsey, by virtue of its multilateral industry approach to its business model,
must also compete with strategic groups within the industries in which it participates.
Other pioneers, innovators, and leaders within these business areas also is working to
develop innovations and ideas to solve the same complex problems that have been outsourced to McKinsey (Rothaermel, 2020). We will drill down on these business areas and
their strategic importance later in our report.
B. Global Reach
While all of the "Big Three” have a significant global presence, McKinsey by far
has the largest global reach, operating 137 offices in 65 countries. Boston Consulting
Group and Bain & Co. Come in at the two and three ranked spots for global reach (Bhide,
1995). It is in global expansion that McKinsey experiences its greatest competition in the
Big Three category (“The Top-10 Strategy Consulting Firms Compared”, 2020).
McKinsey has a significant advantage owning to its early entry into global markets,
which pre-dated the founding of these firms (“History of Our Firm | McKinsey &
Company”, 2020), the early entrant advantage is fading in the face of a mature market
where the full utilization of prior learning has been achieved (Rothaermel, 2020). The
Big Three all firms utilize many of the same development tools, innovation, process
management techniques, and even employees. Though each has its own product model,
the primary source of competition, is who can do it better (Rothaermel, 2020).
C. Rivalry among Competitors
Rivalry in the industry is fierce. Since the market is not in a growth stage, rivalry
among competitors is for the gaining more of existing market share (Rothaermel, 2013).
Again, we example Accenture, who rather than tap a saturated market has created a
whole new market. In this, not only has Accenture created its own market, but is also
challenging the existing structures of the consulting industry (Christensen et al., 2013).
D. Threat of new competitors entering the industry
The threat of new entrants to the market has been historically low due to the
market share being held by four large full-service consulting firms. However, the
industry is changing and new entrants that provide smaller, more focused, boutique
consultants (Bhide, 1995). Competing in the traditional “Big Three” market is not
McKinsey’s biggest threat. Accenture, the new market entrant in our analysis, and other
similar firms, poses the biggest threat due to its power in creating and challenging the
structure of traditional consulting services (Christensen et al., 2013). With new entrants
taking advantage expansion of knowledge and prior learning in the industry, new entrants
are able to start from a much better position. Additionally, new entrants under the
changing structure of bit-piece services have a lower cost to enter and a lower cost to exit
as they do not have to contend with a large complex organizational structure. These
exampled firms, utilize a contract consultant structure, that reduces labor costs and
infrastructure needs (Rothaermel, 2020).
E. Threat of substitute products or services
The biggest threat to big consultancy firms, McKinsey included, is that as access
to information and learning is more widely available, companies are bringing many of the
functions that used to be outsourced, in-house (Rothaermel,2020; Christensen, et al.
2013). Additionally, smaller firms just entering the market are offering consulting
services in a more focused structure offering single services for a lower price (“The
Disruption of Management Consulting l CB Insights”, 2020).
We turn again to our Accenture example. Accenture has been able to succeed in
creating its own market. While Accenture has a smaller product offering, it has a larger
customer base. Again, utilizing the bottom of the strategic consulting market, and
offering bit-services at a reasonable cost, has allowed Accenture to grow exponentially.
Though Accenture doesn’t offer the large-scale consulting services, the danger is that
Accenture will be able to siphon off business from larger clients from the upper market,
who need single issue solutions. As Accenture is expanding the market, McKinsey may
find that their traditional clients may choose to take advantage of new market solutions
such as Accenture (Rothaermel, 2020; Christensen et al. 2013).
F. Bargaining power of buyers
The consulting industry has historically been opaque with means and methods
being either unknown, or a result of a deep well of expertise that most individual
organizations did not possess (Bhide, 1995). However, the power of the buyer is
changing. As information and knowledge is becoming increasingly easier to access,
organizations are able to assess many of their own issues and their resolutions
(Rothaermel, 2020). Additionally, many competing firms, large organizations, and even
small boutique firms have been able to access the expertise once held only by McKinsey,
through the employment and contracting of McKinsey alumni (Rothaermel, 2020;
Christensen et al., 2013)
G. Bargaining power of suppliers; Potential Profitability of the Industry - What
organizations have succeeded and failed in the industry and why?
While there have been previous entrants in the industry, it has been a difficult one
to break into for firms without historical origins of expertise. The three largest firms,
McKinsey, BCG, and Bain gained majority market share early on, making market
entrance difficult for smaller firms. Additionally, the expertise found at McKinsey was
difficult to imitate. However, as the experience curve grows with prior learning, you see
inverted growth in dependence of even large firms for outside services (Bhide, 1995,
Rothaermel, 2020).
H. What are the Critical Success Factors for the industry?
• Expertise
McKinsey is still the premier firm for strategic consultancy service, but
contends with a wider knowledge, a fully developed learning curve in the
industry, and the expertise of McKinsey alumni being recruited in the wider
industry (“The Disruption of Management Consulting l CB Insights”). McKinsey
must continue to hone its own expertise, while also transforming the
organization’s structure to be able to compete in a changing industry structure
(Rothaermel, 2020). McKinsey must work to highlight more technological
capabilities that will be need to solve issues in an ever-more technological
environment (Blair, 2020).
•
Innovation
McKinsey’s digital labs are a step in the right direction to allow client
teams to gain hands-on experience in the process and innovation implementation
and learning of McKinsey’s services (“History of Our Firm | McKinsey &
Company”). Additionally, McKinsey has developed and is continuing to develop
a suite of enterprise software and process management systems that would allow
organizations to more easily implement and monitor basic processes improvement
(“McKinsey & Company Global Management Consulting”, 2020). McKinsey is
attempting to step into the technological arena, but need to move quicker to
address new entrants into the market that have already began tapping expertise
and markets for technology focused industry needs (Blair, 2020).
•
Diversification
McKinsey, while steeped in industry expertise, suffers from a lack of
diversification in its recruiting practices for leadership and top-level consultants
(“Meet our next global managing partner: Kevin Sneader”, 2018). Though
MBA’s are a great source of deep knowledge, they do not necessarily represent
the changing face of the industry today (Blair, 2020). Having such a homogenous
view within the organization can make it difficult to respond to diversity in the
larger environment (Bauer & Erdogan, 2020). McKinsey would do well to start
creating a larger diversity in their recruiting efforts if they expect the organization
to effectively compete in areas of technology and innovation.
•
Enterprise Systems
In enterprise technology McKinsey has historically been successful.
McKinsey is credit with developing the retail Universal Product Code (UPC)
barcodes that are now utilized world-wide (“History of Our Firm | McKinsey &
Company”). In its present initiatives, McKinsey is concentrating on developing
its own enterprise process management and monitoring programs that allow
organizations to apply McKinsey knowledge in a continuous and more
independent way. This is a great step towards cementing some of McKinsey’s
customers that may otherwise churn after the successful conclusion of a
McKinsey large-scale issue resolution.
IV.
Analysis of the Macro-Environment
A. Political/Legal
McKinsey, by nature of its business model and its private ownership, has
very little regulatory oversight. McKinsey doesn’t report to the Securities &
Exchange Commission (SEC) because they are privately held. Though McKinsey
must take regulatory measures into account when developing a solution, they are
not the ones who are ultimately responsible, from a legal standpoint, for the
compliance of issue resolutions that they create for client organizations.
B. What economic forces affect the industry?
Economic forces in the industry can be viewed from a macro-level on a
global economic scale, such as the global credit crisis or from the micro-level on a
national level, such as national unemployment rates or national investment
markets, within countries McKinsey operates. McKinsey must also take into
consideration exchange rates and monetary valuations as they relate to wider
profitability on a global scale.
C. What social forces affect the industry?
Population growth rate, income distribution, career attitudes, cultural
barriers are social forces that most firms contend with. McKinsey has a much
larger interest in these forces within separate national attitudes and demographics
of individual regions and countries. McKinsey, like many organizations, needs to
also consider the move towards corporate social responsibility and sustainability.
A good example of this would be the firm’s controversial work for authoritarian
or corrupt governments. Clients and the larger market have brought more
pressure to bear on organizations to operate ethically not only in their home
countries, but also in their global operations.
D. What technological forces affect the industry?
The level of innovation, automation, research and development (R&D)
activity, technological change, and the amount of technological learning that the
market possesses all pose significant threats to the organization that is
experiencing a shift in product and service offerings that increasingly depend on
technology.
E. What are the threats and opportunities facing the organization?
External Analysis:
▪
▪
V.
Opportunities
▫ Expanding Lower Market
▫ Technological Innovation
▫ Opportunities to recruit from a wider market of technology experts
▫ Opportunities to further expand into emerging markets
Threats
▫ Challenges to the industry structure
▫ Challenges to product structures
▫ Prior learning Utilization within the industry
▫ Greater demand for corporate social responsibility
Organization’s measurement and control system
A. Current financial position
Since McKinsey & Company is a privately held corporation, and one known to
covet proprietary information, McKinsey’s financials are extremely opaque. Analyst do
not have traditional financial filings that are required of publicly held companies. They
also do not have the type of public disclosure, however limited, of a private firm seeking
large equity capital. Much like all knowledge at McKinsey, this information is tightly
held. Primarily the information accessible to an academic analyst of the organization’s
financial success would be noted in only two measures, Revenue and Annual Growth
Rate. These available financials, is what our analysis has primarily relied on as a
measure of profitability both in the industry and in competition.
The organization, in FY 2019, posted $10.5b in revenues, which is significantly
better than its two closest competitors, Bain & Co. (8.5b) and BCG (4.5b). More
concerning, McKinsey is lagging behind its newest, and fastest growing competitor,
Accenture, at $43.2b.
Additionally, while McKinsey still continues to grow, its growth percentage has
dropped from 13.64% to just 5% in the two years between 2019 and 2019. Much of the
decline in growth is associated with the full maturity of the market, decreasing entry
barriers, comparable imitation, and a shifting market structure.
Source: Craft & Co.
B. Compare with competitors and standards.
Revenue of Traditional and Non-Traditional Competitors - FY2019
McKinsey & Co. $10.5b (FY, 2019)
Boston Consulting Group (BCG) $8.5b (FY, 2019)
Bain & Co. $4.5b (FY, 2019)
Accenture $43.2b (FY, 2019)
McKinsey & Company, still the leading firm of the big three, has managed to stay
comfortably ahead of its two largest competitors Bain & Co. And BCG, posting two
billion dollars more than its closest competitor and twice the revenue as the firm in the
third spot.
Its competitive advantage in the lower market and in the bit-piece market is weak,
however, causing McKinsey to allow tens of billions of dollars in profits to consultancy
firms in missed opportunity. In ignoring a large portion of the market, McKinsey is
allowing its smaller competitors to reap the kinds of rewards that will allow them to
become much more effective competitors in the future.
C. Use financial analysis tools
McKinsey & Co., by virtue of being privately held, can be more difficult to assess
financially due to the opaqueness of its financials: In-depth financial analysis will be
completed using what publicly disclosed financial information is available Annual
Revenue and Annual Growth.
As shown in the chart below, that McKinsey experienced average annual revenues
and weak annual growth when compared to all three of our comparable firms in the
analysis.
USD
McKinsey
FY 2016
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
Annual Revenue
Annual Growth
8.8b
5%
10.0b
14%
10.0b
10.5b
5%
5.6b
48%
6.3b
48%
7.5b
26%
8.5b
13%
2.3b
12%
3.4b
13%
4.3b
19%
4.5b
13%
32.9b
6%
34.9b
6%
39.6b
14%
43.2b
5%
-
Bain & Company
Annual Revenue
Annual Growth
BCG
Annual Revenue
Annual Growth
Accenture
Annual Revenue
Annual Growth
*McKinsey, BCG, Bain & Co. Source: Craft Enterprise Solutions
*Accenture Source: Accenture Investor Reports
D. What are the organization’s Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s)?
o Revenue
o Net Profit
o Annual Growth
o Customer Lifetime Value
o Sales per employee
o Innovation Spending
VI.
Analysis of the Organization
A. Mission
“To help our clients make distinctive, lasting, and substantial improvements in
their performance and to build a great firm that attracts, develops, excites, and
retains exceptional people.”
B. Vision
“To help create positive, enduring change in the world.”
C. Core Values and Operating Guidelines
McKinsey’s Core Values fall into three core pillars. Adhere to the Highest
Professional Standards, Improve Client’s Performance Significantly, and Create
an Unrivaled Environment for Exceptional People.
McKinsey’s Operational Guidelines are built into its core values as the
way that McKinsey will accomplish its vision and mission in pursuit of its goals.
▪
▪
▪
Adhere to the highest professional standards
Put client interests ahead of the firm’s
Maintain high standards and conditions for client service
Observe high ethical standards
Preserve client confidences, maintain an independent perspective
Manage client and firm resources cost-effectively
Improve our clients’ performance significantly
Follow the top-management approach
Pursue holistic impact
Use our global network to deliver the best of the firm to all clients
Bring innovations in management practice to clients
Build client capabilities to sustain improvement
Build enduring relationships based on trust
Create an unrivaled environment for exceptional people
Be nonhierarchical and inclusive
Sustain a caring meritocracy
Develop one another through apprenticeship and mentoring
Uphold the obligations to engage and dissent
Embrace diverse perspectives with curiosity and respect
Govern ourselves as a “one firm” partnership
McKinsey’s core values have changed very little since the beginning of its
founding, in 1937 Marvin Bower established McKinsey’s first set of “rules” for
the firm.
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
“Up or Out” employment policy
Consultants should put the interests of clients before McKinsey's revenues
Not discuss client affairs
Tell the truth even if it means challenging the client's opinion
Only perform work that is both necessary and that McKinsey can do well
McKinsey’s core values and operating guidelines perfectly exemplify the
firm itself. McKinsey strives to have the highest professional standards, to strive
to improve client performance, and employ exceptional people.
D. Organization’s Core Competencies
• Expertise
The expertise at McKinsey has long been coveted. McKinsey
alumni receive top offers and are often headhunted for their knowledge
and expertise both in the academic arena and the type of proprietary skills
that they gained at McKinsey.
•
Innovation
McKinsey has always managed on the frontlines of industry and
created many innovative solutions across a wide range of industries and
applications. Now, McKinsey is seeking to develop its own suite of basic
process solutions that can be implemented on-site and controlled and
monitored in real time with remote access by McKinsey consultants. This
is both an answer to Accenture’s bit-piece solution services and a way to
reduce churn rate of current and future clients.
•
Agility
By nature of McKinsey’s global reach, expert knowledge, and
extensive library of issue resolutions, McKinsey is quickly able to adjust
to issues within industries, organizations, and even emerging economies.
The sheer number of consultants and expertise McKinsey has to hand
makes the organization able to quickly adjust to new threats in the macroenvironment.
•
Process Creation
McKinsey has an extensive collection of prior learning, process
improvements, scaling solutions, financial knowledge, operations
expertise, transformative restructuring, and environmental disruption
plans. McKinsey has for decades been the leader in the type of process
improvements and issue resolution that has brought it to its success today.
E. Organization’s Broad and Specific Goals
“We help organizations across the private, public, and social sectors create the
Change that Matters most to them.
From the C-suite to the front line, we partner with our clients to transform their
organizations, embed technology into everything they do, and build enduring
capabilities.
With exceptional people in 65 countries, we combine global expertise and local
insight to help you turn your ambitious goals into reality.”
VII.
Analysis of the Organization – Organization-Level and Business Unit Strategies
A. Organizational Strategies
The organizational strategy of McKenzie strives to help “clients to
transform their organizations, embed technology into everything they do, and
build enduring capabilities” (Overview | About Us | McKinsey & Company,
2020).
McKinsey’s organizational strategies are applied through its business level
process solutions that include several key operational areas. McKinsey employs
its organizational strategies of key areas of competition that include Acceleration,
Digital, Mergers & Acquisitions, Marketing & Sales, Operations, Organization,
Risk, Strategy & Corporate Finance, Sustainability, and Transformation
(“McKinsey & Company Global Management Consulting”). These organizational
strategic pursuit areas can be further broken down into the individual industries
and business units they serve.
B. Business Unit Strategies
Strategic Consulting across a wide array of industry:
Source: (“McKinsey & Company Global Management Consulting”)
Industrial
•
Advanced Electronics, Aerospace & Defense, Metals & Mining, Oil &
Gas, Agriculture, Automotive & Assembly, Electric Power & Natural Gas,
Chemicals, and Semiconductors.
McKinsey, while a consultant, must ensure that it is constantly driving
innovation and sustainability in its industrial sector. McKinsey competes
with other top consultants, in-house expertise, industry leaders, and global
resource groups to provide innovation not just in coordination, but in
development of highly complex innovative technologies that must
compete with the ideas and expertise of technology giants, large utility
competitors, leaders of historical industry, and government to produce a
competitive advantage (Bhide, 1995; Rothaermel, 2013).
Financial
• Financial Services, Private Equity & Principal Investors, Capital Projects
& Infrastructure, and Real Estate
The financial business area is one where McKinsey has historically
worked within strategic groups in banking, investment, and stock
management. McKinsey, in search of greater competitive advantage
expanded its expertise into risk and capital management, and mergers &
acquisitions. In this way McKinsey expanded its strategic groups from
banking, financial, and government, to also include insurance companies,
lending institutions, and venture capital.
Commercial Goods
• Paper, Forest Products & Packaging, Pharmaceuticals & Medical
Products, Retail, Consumer Packaged Goods.
In McKinsey’s Commercial Goods sector, primarily focuses on industrial
processing, process improvement, industrial upscaling, and disruption
management. McKinsey must employ expertise in strategic areas in
logistics, supply chains, industrial mechanics, and process improvement.
Functional
• Healthcare Systems & Services, Public & Social Sector, Technology,
Media & Telecommunications, and Travel, and Logistics & Transport
Infrastructure.
Consultants in functional areas employ much of the same expertise as that
in commercial goods, including logistics, supply chains, and process
improvement while also implementing a stronger component of
technology, complex processes, governmental regulation, and
environmental policy. In this business area McKinsey must employ largescale, complex concepts to address international, country, and global
issues for world leaders and governments (Bhide, 1995; Rothaermel,
2020).
To what extent is the organizational structure compatible with the organization’s
strategies?
The firm operates in a team structure lead by firm partners and a top leadership
team. By virtue of McKinsey’s business model, the firm has expertise in a wide array of
industries, functional areas, and processes that allows them to adjust to changing
circumstances more quickly and adapt their structure as societies and economies develop
and evolve (Bhide, 1995; Rothaermel, 2020). McKinsey’s strategy is well aligned with its
purpose of being the industry leader of the big three market. The firm’s current strategy,
however, may make it difficult to respond to new and emerging challenges to the
structure of the industry (Christensen, 2013).
How are the strategies aligned with the goals?
Here, again, we see good alignment with McKinsey’s goals and its strategy.
McKinsey strives to create exceptional solutions for its clients and to use its local and
global expertise to apply gained knowledge in a global environment. It strives to imbed
technology and innovative ideas into the client processes that will ensure continued
success (“McKinsey & Company Global Management Consulting”).
Compare strategies with those of competitors
In competition in the traditional large-scale consultancy firms, McKinsey, BCG,
and Bain & Co., McKinsey finds itself well placed as the undisputed industry leader
(“The Top-10 Strategy Consulting Firms Compared”). However, BCG and Bain & Co.
have had consistently higher growth when compared to McKinsey & Co. Though the
firm is still more profitable than its traditional counterparts, it is beginning to show signs
of a declining market (Rothaermel, 2020). If McKinsey cannot figure out how to “reinvent” itself to compete on a new plain, it may find itself soon overtaken (Christensen et
al., et al., 2013; Rothaermel, 2020).
While McKinsey has traditionally the most prestigious full-service consulting
firm in the industry, it finds the consulting industry shifting. With wider access to
information and learning, much of the information and processes that used to be opaque,
or proprietary, are no longer the value creators they once were (Rothaermel, 2020;
Christenson, 2013). As economies contract, firms have begun to search for options that
allow them to employ target services to issue resolution. rather than employing costly
full-service firms. We can see this highlighted in the success of Accenture (“The
Disruption of Management Consulting l CB Insights”).
SWOT analysis & Gap analysis to suggest strategies
•
•
•
•
Strengths
o Brand Recognition
o Expertise
o Global Reach
o Emerging Markets
Weaknesses
o Static Structure
o Market Neglect
o Technological Expertise
o Prestige
Opportunities
o Lower-market Expansion
o Smaller Scale Solutions
o Enterprise Systems Market Growth
o Emerging Markets
Threats
o Challenges to the industry structure
o Challenges to product structures
o Prior learning Utilization within the industry
o Greater demand for corporate social responsibility
Strategy Application
Lower-market expansion is a strategy that has the possibility of high returns.
McKinsey has traditionally, and still is, ignoring this market. This could be a fatal
mistake. The growth potential exampled in lower-market competitors, such as
Accenture, is well documented. Lower-market concentrations are showing better returns,
higher profits, and higher growth potential than McKinsey’s annual revenues or growth
have in three of the last four years. The biggest obstacles to this strategy are McKinsey’s
brand prestige and corporate culture (Bhide, 1995; Markovitch, 2020). It would be
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to turn the firm significantly in this direction.
McKinsey has significant workforce, infrastructure, and operations costs and
concentrating on lower-markets would likely not meet the cost-benefit benefit that would
allow the firm to compete effectively in this way. The best implementation of this
strategic path would be for McKinsey to back into the market incrementally as it shifts its
core competencies and strategic focus (Rothaermel, 2020).
Smaller-scale solutions is a strategy that would help McKinsey back into a lowermarket expansion. While McKinsey does not have the type of small-scale product line
that other new entrants in this area do, McKinsey does possess an extensive collection of
decades of full-service portfolio solutions (Bhide, 1995). McKinsey has an opportunity
to take its current full-scale solutions, break them apart into smaller-single issue
resolutions that could be then analyzed and refined into single product offerings.
However, this strategy cannot rely on simply piecemealing its current solution. While
this strategy could help them back into the market more quickly, it would need to be
coupled with considerable and immediate current and future investment in innovation
spending that will allow McKinsey to begin upscaling its enterprise small-scale product
offerings (Rothaermel, 2020).
Enterprise systems market growth has seen significant growth in the past ten years
and looks to continue the trend. McKinsey has taken steps to begin development of its
own enterprise systems to implement, control, and monitor client performance, but it is
geared more towards its existing clients and market rather than targeting new ones
(“McKinsey & Company Global Management Consulting”). This problem with this
strategy, is that McKinsey doesn’t possess the necessary expertise and prior learning in
IT that is being employed by smaller piecemeal competitors (Christensen et al. , 2013;
Evans, 2003). In this strategic path, McKinsey would need to significantly increase its
innovation spending and create a much wider recruiting pool of expertise (Rothaermel,
2020).
Emerging markets, in the global sense, is where McKinsey excels. However, it is
not the emerging economy, but rather emerging technology and product markets that
McKinsey should focus its efforts on in this strategic path. McKinsey has become static
and homogenous in its singular pursuits and a partial shift in market focus could allow
McKinsey to get ahead of the game. However, as we have noted before, expanding or
shifting focus of such a large-complex, static firm would be difficult at best (Rothaermel,
2020). Again, in this strategic path, we would have to see a significant shift of resources
into innovation spending Evans, 2003; Blair, 2020).
Key performance indicators (KPI’s)
a. Annual Revenue
b. Annual Growth
Some other KPI’s that are relevant, but not subject to public analysis, would include:
a. Net Profitability
b. New Relative Market Share
VIII.
c. Innovation Spending
d. Product Innovation
Analysis of the Organization – Functional Strategies
Functional Strategies
Marketing of the organization is not necessary to any large extent due to
brand recognition and prestige. Marketing primarily concentrates on generating
B2B interest by publication of prior innovative strategy implementations and how
McKinsey can bring similar success to those organizations (Bhide, 1995).
Marketing could be better utilized to advocate its enterprise software solutions to
the wider and lower-markets of strategic consulting. Finance is primarily
concerned with recruitment and innovation teams that can move with agility in
both issue resolutions and disruptive environments (Murray, 2015). Operations
are somewhat static in its original state. McKinsey, while expanding into global
markets, still relies on corporate structure with satellite expertise (Bhide, 1995).
This can make it slower to change the direction or focus of the organization as
whole, due in part to the complexity of such a large structure (Rothaermel. 2020).
Human Resources seems concentrated too heavily on one subset of universities
and candidates. Though that subset is top tier, it still has the effect of restricting
diversity in thought and demographics that will likely hinder success (Murray,
2015; Bauer & Erdogan, 2020).
Functional Strategy Alignment
Functional Strategies are aligned well with McKinsey’s strategic focus.
McKinsey’s strategic focus is on client success, innovative solutions, and global
expertise (“McKinsey & Company Global Management Consulting”). In these,
McKinsey’s functional strategies align with its current strategic goals (Rothaermel,
2020). This may not be so true of the greater market (Christensen et al., 2013). As
we highlighted previously, McKinsey’s strategic goals and values have not diverted
significantly from its original form, as such, their functional strategies of central
control, team-based solutions, and recruiting expertise.
IX.
Analyze organization’s improvement/change initiatives
One of the pillars of McKinsey’s success is its use of high-performance work
teams (Bhide, 1995; “Meet our next global managing partner: Kevin Sneader”).
McKinsey has made it a strategic priority to ensure their teams are agile, able to work in
fluid and changing situations, and include a varied set of skills and knowledge that can be
combined into a team structure to address dynamic, complex issues. In this, McKinsey
excels, as high-performing teams account for the majority of its workforce (Bhide, 1995;
“Meet our next global managing partner: Kevin Sneader”).
McKinsey’s leadership, however, seems to be lacking many of the key
components for true strategic leadership. Several factors that hinder McKinsey is the
corporate governance and board structures, legacy owners, and a complacency in
strategic path identification (Rothaermel, 2020). By virtue of McKinsey’s corporate
governance policies, top leadership is only elected by three-year terms (Bhide, 1995).
While many top leaders have served several terms, it makes the individual change efforts
of a three-year managing partner much more difficult. The firm leadership has been
privately held since its inception (Bhide, 1995). While the smaller share junior partners
come and go, senior leadership and controlling shares has been tightly held my legacy
employees, as have decisions about strategic direction. The homogeneity of top
leadership makes it difficult for any outside analysis or criticism to have any significant
voice as it relates to strategic objectives (Rothaermel, 2020; Bauer & Erdogan, 2013).
Many of the key components of strategic competition have given way to the philosophy
of “continue doing what has always been successful” (Rothaermel, 2020). However, as
McKinsey’s annual revenues and annual growth has shown relative to its competitors, it
isn’t working as well as it has historically (“The Disruption of Management Consulting l
CB Insights”).
McKinsey is missing some of the key areas of focus as it relates to Total Quality
Management (TQM) principles (““Total Quality Management Strategy, Implementation
& Systems | ASQ”) of ISO 9000 (ISO) objectives (“Quality Management Principles |
ISO”), and in the standards contained in the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award
criteria (“What is the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA)”). We see
McKinsey’s leadership weaknesses in ISO principles in key areas of customer focus,
leadership, and process approach (“Quality Management Principles | ISO”). As it relates
to expanding its market base and increasing revenue and market share through ISO
Customer Focus, McKinsey has shown itself to have a weak position in the areas of
lower-market competition. McKinsey leadership’s failure to read the shifts in expanding
and changing industry structures is highlighted in McKinsey’s failure in developing and
improving the capability of the organization. In areas of process approach, McKinsey
fails at enhanced ability to focus effort on key processes and opportunities for
improvement (Christensen, et al., 2013’ “Quality Management Principles | ISO”;
Rothaermel, 2020).
In our examination of the Malcolm Baldridge Award criteria, we see very similar
weaknesses in several of the award’s key criteria and core values. Leadership, while
successful in its aims to achieve the firm’s stated goals, has failed to effectively respond
to strategic opportunity in its environment (“What is the Malcolm Baldrige National
Quality Award (MBNQA)”). Weaknesses in McKinsey’s Innovation Management can
be found in McKinsey’s failure to recognize and respond to an innovative disruption in
the industry, as exampled in our analysis by Accenture (Rothaermel, 2020; Christensen,
et al., 2013). McKinsey has also failed, and continues to fail, in the criteria of customer
focus by largely ignoring lower-market opportunities and not actively working to expand
and compete in these rapidly emerging business areas of strategic consulting (“What is
the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA)”; “The Disruption of
Management Consulting”; Rothaermel, 2020).
These failures can be seen in benchmarking of McKinsey with its highest and
lowest-level of competitors. Though McKinsey is profitable, it is not competing
effectively with its competitors in these arenas. Bain & Co and BCG growth rates have
been double that of McKinsey in recent history, even if revenue is be slightly lagging.
Accenture, while having modest growth, has still succeeded in outperforming
McKinsey’s growth and significantly outperforming McKinsey’s revenues (“BCG |
Company Profile”; “Bain & Company | Company Profile”; “McKinsey & Company |
Company Profile”; “Earnings Reports | Accenture”) .
A. Previous & current impact/success of improvement initiatives.
McKinsey’s efforts at improvement initiatives as well as their success rates are,
much like the rest of the firm, very opaque. We do have generalities of direction of
previous Managing Partners at McKinsey, and we will address those here. McKinsey
followed its core values structure, originally created under Marvin Bower, up until
Bower’s retirement in 1967. In only a few years, McKinsey experienced declining
revenues and increased competition in new entrants Bain & Company and BCG (Bhide,
1995).
In 1971, McKinsey would create a commission focused on the aims and goals of
the organization. This commission would turn McKinsey’s direction towards a greater
focus on expertise and a decrease in global expansion priorities. In 1976 under the new
leadership of Ron Daniel, who would lead McKinsey from 1976-1988, McKinsey would
structure itself away from generalized consulting services, bringing its product offerings
into several key strategic groups, including Strategy, Operations, and Organization.
Much of these key strategic group classifications are still in use today (Bhide, 1995).
These strategic areas would further divide into business areas under the leadership
of managing partner Fred Gluck. Gluck served as McKinsey’s managing partner from
1988-1994 and would establish “islands of activities” that would categorize McKinsey
services into seven industry areas and seven functional areas. Though McKinsey was
highly profitable under Gluck’s tenure, some of the unintended consequences of the
further dividing categorical and functional divisions, was a bloated bureaucracy and an
even more complex and disconnected organization. In 1994, the new leadership would
continue the trend of dividing and expanding categorical business areas under Managing
Partner Rajat Gupta, who would further divide McKinsey’s expertise by creating sixteen
industry groups to study market trends (Bhide, 1995).
It seems, that improvement efforts were largely on market and expertise
expansion. This focus would change in 2003 when Ian Davis became Managing Partner
and promised a return to the company’s core values. It is here that we see McKinsey
return to the same place it began (Bhide, 1995).
B. Alignment of improvement initiatives and integration into strategic management of
the organization.
McKinsey’s current improvement initiatives, even more so than its historical
ones, is opaque as well. We can only strive to identify the mechanisms towards
improvement that are visible through its public actions. McKinsey’s primary focus has
continued to focus heavily on its founding principles and core values (Bhide, 1995;
“Meet our next global managing partner”, 2018). In this, McKinsey is successful in
aligning its improvement initiatives towards core values with its strategic goals to Adhere
to the Highest Professional Standards, Improve Client’s Performance Significantly, and
Create an Unrivaled Environment for Exceptional People (“McKinsey & Company
Global Management Consulting”).
C. Comparison of improvement initiatives with other organizations within and outside
the industry.
The analysis of improvement and strategic integration, while successful in the
firm’s stated goals, may not be as successful in the wider market. Firms like Bain &
Company and BCG are improving their strategic initiatives to take advantage of the
piecemeal market by designing their own knowledge and skills systems as products.
Accenture is an industry leader in highly-targeted client solutions (“The Disruption of
Management Consulting”). Additionally, McKinsey, on average, charges a 25%
premium on its services than its two traditional competitors Bain and BCG, allowing
those competitors and new entrants a greater market share of lower-end markets. New
market entrants are also placing a greater importance on technologically innovative
solutions and products (“Is management consulting about to get 'Amazoned'?”).
Technological single process or single-issue resolution are not McKinsey’s strongest
areas and with low scaling and entry costs, this could well prove to be their weakest
competitive position (Christensen, et al.; Rothaermel, 2020).
X.
Conclusion and Future of Organization
In my analysis of McKinsey & Company I found the firm to be one of the most
prestigious brands in the consulting industry. The name McKinsey brings a hefty price
for their service. McKinsey is the leader in their field, both nationally and globally (“The
Top-10 Strategy Consulting Firms Compared”). While these are all admirable qualities,
you cannot pay the bills on prestige alone. In McKinsey’s return to their core values, the
firm is further cementing itself in the past, while other firms are focusing on the future.
McKinsey, while profitable, is lagging in growth behind its top three competitors and
leads only in revenues by only a slim margin to its two largest traditional competitors,
Bain & Company and BCG (“Bain & Company | Company Profile”; “Boston Consulting
Group | Company Profile”). When compared to new market entrants such as Accenture,
McKinsey is lagging in both measures (“McKinsey & Co. | Company Profile”; “Earnings
Reports | Accenture”). McKinsey’s lack of innovative focus and failure to recognize and
respond to emerging market disruptions, creates a much weaker competitive position
when looking to the future (Christensen, et al., 2013). In McKinsey’s self-created
historical prestige, they have made it more difficult to refocus strategy to fit the changing
needs of consultancy clients. McKinsey’s current strategic focus of returning to the past
makes even more ill-equipped to compete in the future. If the firm isn’t careful, it will be
consigned to the history books as case study in failure to respond to industry disruption
(Christensen et al., 2013; Rothaermel, 2020).
Resources:
Accenture Strategy & Consulting | Change With Confidence. Accenture.com. (2020). Retrieved 7 November 2020, from
https://www.accenture.com/us-en/about/consultingindex?c=acn_glb_brandexpressiongoogle_11613500&n=psgs_1020&&c=ad_usadfy17_10000001&n=psgs_Brand-%7cUS-%7c-Exact_accentureconsulting&gclid=CjwKCAjwz6_8BRBkEiwA3p02VdlmKg5FBY4SyQMSinmcq1w4DxKKLZNyuYgUuUZz4VGkulWi
_wUPlxoCgr8QAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds.
About Us. (2020). Retrieved 3 November 2020, from https://www.mckinsey.com/about-us/overview.
Bain & Company. Bain. (2020). Retrieved 6 November 2020, from https://www.bain.com/.
Bain & Company | Company Profile. Craft. (2020). Retrieved 16 November 2020, from https://craft.co/baincompany.
Bauer, T., & Erdogan, B. (2020). Essentials of Organizational Behavior. Flatworld.
Bhide, A. (1995). Building the Professional Firm: McKinsey & Co.: 1939-1968. Hbs.edu. Retrieved 6 November 2020,
from https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/95-010_a0b1e5db-f200-470a-aa97-7f38c7b10986.pdf.
Blair, F. (2020). Is management consulting about to get 'Amazoned'?. Managementtoday.co.uk. Retrieved 9
November 2020, from https://www.managementtoday.co.uk/management-consultingamazoned/innovation/article/1683934.
Boston Consulting Group | Management Consulting | BCG. BCG Global. (2020). Retrieved 6 November 2020, from
https://www.bcg.com/.
Bogdanich, W., & Forsythe, M. (2018). How McKinsey Has Helped Raise the Stature of Authoritarian Governments
(Published 2018). Nytimes.com. Retrieved 15 November 2020, from
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/15/world/asia/mckinsey-china-russia.html.
(Bogdanich & Forsythe, 2018)
Boston Consulting Group | Company Profile. Craft. (2020). Retrieved 16 November 2020, from
https://craft.co/boston-consulting-group.
Byrne, J. (2017). How The Top Consulting Firms Rank: From Prestige To Life/Work Balance. Linkedin.com.
Retrieved 10 November 2020, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-top-consulting-firms-rank-from-prestigelifework-balance-byrne/.
Christensen, C., Wang, D., & van Bever, D. (2013). Consulting on the Cusp of Disruption. Harvard Business
Review. Retrieved 6 November 2020, from https://hbr.org/2013/10/consulting-on-the-cusp-of-disruption.
(Christensen et al., 2013)
Deshler, R. (2019). The Formula for Assessing Organization Change Success. HRPS Blog. Retrieved 14 November
2020, from https://blog.hrps.org/blogpost/The-Formula-for-Assessing-Organization-Change-Success.
Earnings Reports. Investor.accenture.com. (2020). Retrieved 5 November 2020, from
https://investor.accenture.com/filings-and-reports/earnings-reports/2019.
Evans, N. (2003). The Need for Enterprise Innovation | Business and IT Trends | InformIT. Informit.com. Retrieved
16 November 2020, from https://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=30424.
Great American Business Leaders of the 20th Century | Marvin Bower. Hbs.edu. (2020). Retrieved 6 November
2020, from https://www.hbs.edu/leadership/20th-century-leaders/Pages/details.aspx?profile=marvin_bower.
Greiner, L., Olson, T., & Poulfelt, F. (2005). Casebook for teaching The contemporary consultant. Thomson/Southwestern.
History of Our Firm. (2020). Retrieved 3 November 2020, from https://www.mckinsey.com/aboutus/overview/history-of-our-firm.
Jones, S. (2018). Who is McKinsey's new global managing partner Kevin Sneader?. Managementtoday.co.uk.
Retrieved 5 November 2020, from https://www.managementtoday.co.uk/mckinseys-new-global-managing-partnerkevin-sneader/food-for-thought/article/1458053.
Kivestu, K. (2019). How to read a Bain & Co. relative market share chart. RocketBlocks. Retrieved 15 November
2020, from https://www.rocketblocks.me/blog/relative-market-share.php.
Kolhatkar, S. (2018). McKinsey’s Work for Saudi Arabia Highlights its History of Unsavory Entanglements. The
New Yorker. Retrieved 16 November 2020, from https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/mckinseys-workfor-saudi-arabia-highlights-its-history-of-unsavory-entanglements.
MacDougall, I. (2019). How McKinsey Helped the Trump Administration Carry Out Its Immigration Policies.
Nytimes.com. Retrieved 16 November 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/us/mckinsey-ICEimmigration.html.
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. NIST. (2020). Retrieved 19 November 2020, from
https://www.nist.gov/baldrige/baldrige-award.
McKinsey & Co. | Company Profile. Craft. (2020). Retrieved 6 November 2020, from https://craft.co/mckinsey.
McKinsey & Company Global Management Consulting. (2020). Retrieved 3 November 2020, from
https://www.mckinsey.com/.
McKinsey & Company Organizational Profile. Bloomberg.com. (2020). Retrieved 10 November 2020, from
https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/13143Z:US.
Meet our next global managing partner: Kevin Sneader. McKinsey & Company. (2018). Retrieved 3 November
2020, from https://www.mckinsey.com/about-us/new-at-mckinsey-blog/meet-our-next-managing-partner-kevinsneader.
MOVES-McKinsey elects Asia boss Sneader as new global managing partner. Reuters. (2018). Retrieved 5
November 2020, from https://www.reuters.com/article/mckinsey-moves-sneader/moves-mckinsey-elects-asia-bosssneader-as-new-global-managing-partner-idUSL4N1QF0MQ.
Murray, S. (2015). Inside View: McKinsey & Company. Businessbecause.com. Retrieved 4 November 2020, from
https://www.businessbecause.com/news/inside-view-top-jobs/3246/inside-view-mckinsey-company.
Our People. (2020). Retrieved 3 November 2020, from https://www.mckinsey.com/businessfunctions/organization/our-people.
Profile | Kevin Sneader. (2020). Retrieved 3 November 2020, from https://www.mckinsey.com/our-people/kevinsneader.
Quality Management Principles. Iso.org. (2015). Retrieved 19 November 2020, from
https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/store/en/PUB100080.pdf.
Reibstein, D., Bendle, N., Farris, P., & Pfeifer, P. (2006). Relative Market Share and Market Concentration |
Marketing Metrics: Understanding Market Share and Related Metrics | InformIT. Informit.com. Retrieved 14
November 2020, from https://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=463943&seqNum=3.
Rothaermel, F. (2020). Strategic Management. [VitalSource Bookshelf]. Retrieved from
https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781264103713/
Sambit, K. (2020). Global Due Diligence Investigation Market Size 2020 Industry Share, Growth Opportunities |
Key Manufacturers PwC (Price Waterhouse Coopers Consulting), Boston Consulting Group, McKinsey &
Company, Bain & Company, Alvarez & Marsal, KPMG (Peat Marwick International (PMI) & Klynveld Main
Goerdeler (KMG)) – PRnews Leader. Prnewsleader.com. Retrieved 14 November 2020, from
https://prnewsleader.com/uncategorized/709367/global-due-diligence-investigation-market-size-2020-industryshare-growth-opportunities-key-manufacturers-pwc-price-waterhouse-coopers-consulting-boston-consulting-groupmckinsey-company/.
The Disruption of Management Consulting l CB Insights. CB Insights Research. (2020). Retrieved 9 November
2020, from https://www.cbinsights.com/research/disrupting-management-consulting/.
The Top-10 Strategy Consulting Firms Compared | CaseCoach. CaseCoach. Retrieved 16 November 2020, from
https://casecoach.com/b/the-top-10-strategy-consulting-firms-compared/.
Total Quality Management Strategy, Implementation & Systems | ASQ. Asq.org. (2020). Retrieved 19 November
2020, from https://asq.org/quality-resources/total-quality-management/implementing-tqm.
What is a PESTEL analysis? - Oxford College of Marketing Blog. Oxford College of Marketing Blog. (2020).
Retrieved 14 November 2020, from https://blog.oxfordcollegeofmarketing.com/2016/06/30/pestel-analysis/.
What is the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA)? | ASQ. Asq.org. (2020). Retrieved 19 November
2020, from https://asq.org/quality-resources/malcolm-baldrige-national-quality-award.
View publication stats