| Topic Name: |
Monitor vs Accenture vs Marakon |
| Message Name: |
Accenture |
| Date Posted: |
03/22/2001 |
| In Reply To: |
The perception is that Andersen is not in the same league as Monitor or Marakon. In fact, so many clients came to detest their cookie-cutter pulled-out-of-a-box solutions that negative client perception was a significant factor in changing their name... the divorce was a convenient excuse. Moreover, my perception from working in industry alongside Andersen is that even in the strategy competency, you'll be in the trenches working with middle managers, not CEOs like at Mkn or Monitor.
I'm not sure about Monitor, but Marakon generally promotes people straight through to Consultant and Manager without going to b-school. Of course, many do, but it isn't required like at other places.
Monitor and Marakon, on a rev/consultant basis, are leagues above Andersen. Monitor is generally considered near the top among second-quartile firms, and Marakon is generally in the top quartile, usually right behind McKinsey. |
| Message: |
Accenture is clearly the best of all three firms.
First it has the size, even in strategy, to be aware of and to compete for the best projects. Apart from AT&T, who is Monitor working for?
The thing is Monitor is too small to provide a full range of services. They may be individually competent, but they do not have the competencies and resources to match Accenture Strategy in terms of strategy of work. As for the people you deal with in Accenture Strat, they are the CEOs of the clients, clearly. Those who work with middle managers are in the PRocess, Techno. and Change management competencies.
As for Marakon I would be less reserved, for I worked in two strat boutiques prior to Accenture Strat. I think you can find really impressive people there, and clearly learn a lot from them. On the other hand they may lack the size and capabilities Accenture has (ie possibility to compose a team of worldwide experts in less than two days on virtually any subject).
|
|
