McKinsey & Company
McKinsey & Company
Case Analysis
Mckinsey is a company that has grown into a global partnership, which is serving 3 of the five largest companies and two thirds of the fortune 1000. There are several reasons as to why the accounting and engineering advisors firm has been able to grow into a prestigious consulting firm for the past years. Some of the reasons are their development into a sense of professionalism, particular strategy and organization, early commitment to consultant training, recognition in a niche of top management consulting, the power of the one firm culture, and their focus on general management problem. The one firm concept has had an immense contribution in the success of the company.
The daily operation and cultural values of the company lie the one firm concept that was put in place by Bower (Bartlett, C 1996). This concept was able to provide the firm with a competitive advantage. The company has been able to use its integration in building a strong internal capability. The firm has been treating its clients as the wide responsibility of the company. The company makes sure that there is a consistent consulting philosophy and a high standard of work. Through developing and recruiting consultants into the firm, it has ensured there are people of high quality who are transferable. It is extremely essential for the company to stick to one plan and be focused when achieving their goals. The company had a competitive advantage as their profitability was not their only motive. They provided the clients with continuous improvement services and ensured that they were satisfied.
Under the leadership of Daniel, the process of change took place as he initiated many changes. One of the initiatives that he took was appointing one of the company’s respected and productive directors who was to head internal training. This allocation of a highly productive director to the role of consultant development was extremely powerful. The structural changes creating functional based and industry based groups were strong signals. The changes become McKinsey repositories for expertise like in financial services, organization or strategy (Bartlett, C 1996). These changes acted like affiliation groups from consultants who were trying to develop their knowledge as it was required by the new guidelines in the firm. Daniel saw that the changes were institutionalized in a formal redefinition of the mission of McKinsey. When Bower focused immensely on client service, the new mission put equal weight on building a large company.
The recognition that developing, exciting, attracting, and retention of exceptional people is the centre of the company’s mission. This is a representation of a key step in the development of the company intellectual capital. Fred Gluck made a contribution to the changes. He contributed in the centre of competence, where he created 15 centers of contribution. This could help consultants, and it would also ensure that the intellectual resources for the company are renewed (Bartlett, C 1996). Gluck also contributed to knowledge infrastructure where he built a common database of knowledge accumulated from the work of the client and developed in the practice area. Each of the mini case reveals the limitations and strengths of the systems, structures, and the processes that the leaders of McKinsey have developed. The case of Sydney office proves that in the last 2 decades of management there has been varying difference in change.
The project’s client was impressed with the value added in access to knowledge. This was one of the objectives of the management. Stuckey had a large amount of resources and was thus able to organize a team with diverse members. This was a difficult process, finding associates to complete the team. Stuckey knew that even though the system knowledge was helpful, it was essential for the company to focus on new ideas. The decade change process had some positive effects on the firm. However, in the three mini cases there are some areas where the plan was not able to succeed. For example, in the development of information system for the emerging industries, personal development and growth issues among the specialists, and the lack of willingness to trying new ideas instead of relying on the internal knowledge database driven by the company. It would be much beneficial if the firm had loosened the reign in London and Sidney in spite of the potential risks. In regards to the career path, it should have provided better development for specialists and personal growth opportunities.
Gupata’s approach about knowledge development and application in McKinsey rotate around the following key elements. Rajat believe in investing in the future even if it will be five to ten percent less client work today. Rajat want to capitalize on the historical expertise and knowledge of the company, while he continues using the present infrastructure knowledge of FPIS and PDnet so as to continue supporting FCG and CIS groups. In his approach, he wants to use new mechanisms and channels for organizational learning and knowledge development. The advice that I would give him is to create pools of dedicated resources that is protected from the daily pressure and the demands of the clients. He should also focus on long term research agendas.
Reference
Bartlett, C (1996). Case Analysis – McKinsey & Company: Managing Knowledge and LearningHarvard Business School
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
