Do Strategy Firms Still Lead the Thinking?

Do Strategy Firms Still Lead the Thinking?

By Fiona Czerniawska

The intellectual high ground of management consulting, or ‘thought leadership,’ has traditionally been held by the strategy firms. But is this still the case in today’s highly fragmented and dynamic consulting market, where the competition for white space is fierce?

The forty largest consulting firms have around 3,500 reports, articles, white papers, and books on their Web sites which can be considered as thought leadership. Around a third of the bona fide material addresses strategy-related issues—studies of new or emerging markets, planning tools, and so on—and another third focuses on more operational topics such as business process efficiency, technology, procurement, and outsourcing. The remainder covers a whole host of topics, from leadership to cost control.

Strategy firms usually take a generic approach to thought leadership, focusing on emerging issues and their widespread application rather than applying them to specific sectors. They tend to be ‘experimenters’ and ‘architects’ of new ideas and concepts rather than ‘builders’ and ‘fixers’ who tailor their material to the particular needs of sectors.

The typical profile of a strategy firm’s thought leadership consists of economic and market studies and thinking on strategy formulation. Whilst the smaller firms are often better at finding ways to make their material topical and relevant for their audiences, they often lack the resources for the underlying research required to develop enduring thought leadership.

McKinsey produces by far the most material with 9 per cent of the thought leadership market; its nearest strategy competitor is PA Consulting Group with 5 per cent. Booz Allen Hamilton scores highest overall when it comes to distinctive, opinionated and interesting thought leadership, much of which appears in its magazine, strategy+business.

McKinsey has long been one of the most substantial investors in thought leadership in the consulting sector, as even a cursory glance at the McKinsey Quarterly will testify. Its output continues to be enviably well-researched. However, Bain leads the field in terms of ‘appeal’ with an ability to pick hot issues and find topical messages in more familiar material. It is an approach unquestionably helped by the way Bain publishes its material. While almost 90 per cent of consulting thought leadership is self-published, Bain prefers to place articles and expert opinions into magazines and newspapers.

Bain, Boston Consulting Group, and AT Kearney are all good at finding ways to make their material topical, accessible, and relevant to their intended audiences but are less concerned with creating a link in their readers’ minds between the ideas discussed and potential consulting opportunities. Others such as McKinsey place great store on pulling together in-depth and potentially long-lasting research to support their suppositions.

In terms of both quantity and quality of material, the strategy houses face competition on a number of fronts. Accenture produces the same volume of thought leadership as McKinsey, and is followed by PricewaterhouseCoopers, IBM, and PA, each with 5 per cent. In terms of quality, the Big Four audit firms have the potential to challenge the strategy firms as they strengthen their ‘trusted advisor’ role with clients.

The strategy firms certainly can’t afford to be complacent. In a crowded market it’s important to be a thought leader rather than a thought follower—to find the topics or angles that others haven’t considered—the white space.

```````````````````
Fiona Czerniawska is the author of White Space 2007, a research report that evaluates the latest thought leadership published by the top global consulting firms, identifying those that produce the most, the best, and the worst material across a range of subject areas and sectors. For more information, go to www.arkimeda.com.