|
|
|
|
|
by alexpotato
99 days ago
|
|
They generally hire smart people who are good at a combination of: - understanding existing systems - what the paint points are - making suggestions on how to improve those systems given the paint points - that includes a mix of tech changes, process updates and/or new systems etc Now, when it comes to implementing this, in my experience it usually ends up being the already in place dev teams. Source: worked at a large investment bank that hired McKinsey and I knew one of the consultants from McK prior to working at the bank. |
|
I don't view them as top-tier experts in their own right, whether it be statistics or technology, but they have a knack for corporate maneuvering. I often question their overall value beyond the usual "hire the big guns to legitimize a change" mentality. Maybe a useful tradeoff? I'd rather see herd-like adoption of current trends than widespread corporate ignorance and insularity.**
A huge selling point for M&Co is kind of a self-fulfulling prophecy based on the access they get. This gives them a positive feedback loop to find the juiciest and most profitable areas to focus on.
For those who know more, how do my takes compare?
* I interviewed with them over 15 years ago, know people who have worked there, and I pay attention to their reports from time to time.
** Of course, I'd rather see a third way: cross-pollination between organizations to build strong internal expertise and use model-based decision making for nuanced long-term decisions... but that's just crazy talk.