List of top consulting firms 2012

Following is a list of the top consulting firms around the world with such details as ranking, company name, website url, headquarters, year founded, approximate number of employees, male to female ratio, and other statistics. Being a top consulting firm do not means always prestige and do not bring quality and values automatically, but clients and job seekers of the consulting profession may be interested by these statistics.

Purpose: To summarize and provide beneficial statistical information about the consulting industry and provide quick access gateway to a list of the top consulting companies and websites.
Serving: Researchers, students, professionals, job seekers in the consulting industry and all who seek information about top consulting companies.

 

Disclaimer: We are not claiming any rights, responsibilites or ownership pertaining to creating, developing, designing, or programming any of the websites listed on this page. All websites listed on this page are publically available for viewing on the internet.

Rankings: Any ranking information regarding the listings above have been made by 3rd parties, organizations which make their ranking info available on public viewable pages free of charge. For this particular listing we have gathered inforamtion from various sources on the internet, including, cnn.com, vault.com, fortune.com and linkedin.com.

The 2011 Best Firms to Work For (according to Consulting Magazine):

 

The Best Consulting Firms to Work For 2011

1. Bain & Company
2. The Boston Consulting Group
3. North Highland
4. Point B
5. Deloitte Consulting
6. Slalom Consulting
7. McKinsey & Company
8. PwC
9. Booz Allen Hamilton
10. Huron Consulting Group
11. Ernst & Young
12. Accenture
13. Crowe Horwath
14. Monitor
15. A.T. Kearney

The Best Small Consulting Firms to Work For 2011

1. Stroud Consulting
2. Impact Advisors
3. Cask
4. Vynamic
5. Infinitive
6. Fitzgerald Analytics
7. Lenati
8. Jabian Consulting
9. PeopleFirm
10. HiSoft (formerly Nouveon)
11. Plus Consulting
12. Meridian Compensation Partners
13. Marakon
14. SEI
15. IBB Consulting Group

 

 

 

Rank	Consulting Firms	HQ	Industry	Type	# of employees	Year founded	Med age	Male	Fe- male
1	McKinsey & Company	Greater New York City Area	Management Consulting	Partnership	15000	1926	29	67%	33%
2	The Boston Consulting Group, Inc	Greater Boston Area	Management Consulting	Partnership	6000	1963	28	67%	33%
3	Bain & Company	Greater Boston Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	10000	1973	28	65%	35%
4	Booz & Company	Washington DC Metro Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	22000	1914	32	64%	36%
5	Deloitte Consulting LLP	Greater New York City Area	Financial Services	Partnership	168000	-	29	61%	39%
6	Monitor Group	Greater Boston Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	1500	1983	29	63%	37%
7	PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP	Greater New York City Area	Accounting	Partnership	17500	-	29	59%	41%
8	Mercer LLC	Greater New York City Area	Human Resources	Public	18000	1937	34	51%	49%
9	Ernst & Young LLP	Greater New York City Area	Accounting	Partnership	144000	-	29	59%	41%
10	Oliver Wyman	Greater New York City Area	Management Consulting	Public	1001	-	30	70%	30%
11	Accenture	Greater Chicago Area	Management Consulting	Public	177000	1989	30	67%	33%
12	IBM Global Business Services	Greater New York City Area	Information Technology and Services	Public	300000	1911	34	76%	24%
13	KPMG LLP	Amsterdam Area, Netherlands	Accounting	Partnership	137000	-	30	60%	40%
14	Towers Watson	Greater Philadelphia Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	6400	1934	34	52%	48%
15	AlixPartners, LLP	Greater Detroit Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	900	1981	35	77%	23%
16	A.T. Kearney	Greater Chicago Area	Management Consulting	Partnership	2700	1926	30	68%	32%
17	Braxton Consulting	Eurpe & Latin America	Management Consulting	Privately Held	250	1996	31	54%	46%
18	The Parthenon Group	Greater Boston Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	200	1999	28	62%	38%
19	Towers Watson	-	Financial Services	Public	14000	-	34	53%	47%
20	L.E.K. Consulting	London, UK	Management Consulting	Partnership	900	1983	28	70%	30%
21	FTI Consulting, Inc.	Washington DC Metro Area	Management Consulting	Public	3500	1982	32	71%	29%
22	Alvarez & Marsal	Greater New York City Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	1600	1983	33	73%	27%
23	NERA Economic Consulting	Greater New York City Area	Management Consulting	Public	600	1961	27	61%	39%
24	Capgemini	Paris Area, France	Information Technology and Services	Privately Held	91000	1967	32	77%	23%
25	Navigant Consulting, Inc.	Greater Chicago Area	Management Consulting	Public	2500	1983	32	62%	38%
26	Huron Consulting Group	Greater Chicago Area	Management Consulting	Public	2000	2002	30	61%	39%
27	Hewitt Associates	Greater Chicago Area	Outsourcing/Offshoring	Public	25000	1940	32	55%	45%
28	Roland Berger Strategy Consultants	-	Management Consulting	Partnership	2100	1967	28	72%	28%
29	ZS Associates	Greater Chicago Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	1400	1983	27	72%	28%
30	CRA International, Inc.	Greater Boston Area	Management Consulting	Public	800	1965	33	65%	35%
31	Arthur D. Little	Paris Area, France	Management Consulting	Privately Held	1000	-	30	75%	25%
32	Kurt Salmon Associates	Greater Atlanta Area	Management Consulting	Public	700	1935	33	63%	37%
33	LECG	San Francisco Bay Area	Management Consulting	Public	1200	1988	34	69%	31%
34	Gallup Consulting	District of Columbia	Management Consulting	Privately Held	2000	-	27	60%	40%
35	Aon Consulting Worldwide	Greater Chicago Area	Management Consulting	Public	6300	1983	36	52%	48%
36	BraxtonTechnology	Europe, Asia & Latin America	Technology Consulting & Services	Privately Held	219	2005	26	74%	26%
37	Cornerstone Research	San Francisco Bay Area	Legal Services	Privately Held	201	1989	27	61%	39%
38	Corporate Executive Board	Washington DC Metro Area	Management Consulting	Public	2000	1979	28	50%	50%
39	Hay Group	Greater Philadelphia Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	2600	1943	32	47%	53%
40	Analysis Group, Inc.	Greater Boston Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	500	1981	30	62%	38%
41	Milliman, Inc	Greater Seattle Area	Insurance	Privately Held	2000	1947	35	62%	38%
42	Zolfo Cooper	Greater New York City Area	Financial Services	Privately Held	75	-	31	67%	33%
43	Mars & Co	-	-	-	-	1979	-	-	-
44	The Advisory Board Company	Washington DC Metro Area	Hospital & Health Care	Public	1000	1979	28	43%	57%
45	Putnam Associates	Greater Boston Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	50	1988	26	64%	36%
46	First Manhattan Consulting Group	Greater New York City Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	51	1980	26	76%	24%
47	IMS Health Incorporated	Greater Philadelphia Area	Pharmaceuticals	Public	10000	1954	34	57%	43%
48	Buck Consultants	Greater New York City Area	Human Resources	Public	1900	1916	38	55%	45%
49	Giuliani Partners LLC	Greater New York City Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	11	2002	45	79%	21%
50	Archstone Consulting	Greater New York City Area	Management Consulting	Privately Held	250	2003	34	63%	37%

 

Protocol of the barrister

As said by internet Attorneys, the barrister must agree in advance with each of his employers or with each recognized body a written protocol, under which the barrister and the employer or body agree how, consistently with maintaining the confidentiality of clients’ affairs, conflicts will be avoided or will be resolved if they exist. The Board would regard it as quite wrong for a self-employed barrister to refuse to act further for a pre-existing client on the basis that his employer or recognised body has subsequently been instructed by someone whose interests conflict or potentially conflict with the interests of the first client. It would equally be wrong, save in extreme circumstances of greater prejudice to a client being caused by refusing to act, for the barrister and the employer or body to continue to act for persons whose interests conflict.

Accordingly, before acting in two or more capacities, a barrister will need to ensure, by the terms of some written protocol agreed with his employer or recognized body, that such conflicts can be avoided or can be resolved if they arise without causing prejudice to either or any clients concerned. The Board does not intend to draft a standard protocol for these purposes, since no one agreement can possibly suit the greatly variable circumstances that may arise. Clearly, this is likely to involve the barrister either himself being involved in decisions that his employer or body takes relating to conflicts of interest, or at least in reviewing client lists so that any apparent conflict of interest may be resolved in accordance with the terms of the protocol agreed. It is the responsibility of the barrister considering practicing in more than one capacity to address these issues and reach a satisfactory, written agreement with his employer or body in a way that preserves client confidentiality and avoids or resolves conflicts of interest and duty without prejudicing the interests of clients. On request, a copy of any such protocol must be provided to the Board.

Social Ties Driving Internationalization for SMEs from Azores Islands, Portugal

Social Ties Driving Internationalization for SMEs from Azores Islands, Portugal

A recent study of a small fish exporter from the Azores Islands, an autonomous Portuguese archipelago in the North Atlantic, some 900 miles from the European mainland, offers useful insights on the key drivers of internationalization for companies based on small islands. It illustrates the critical role of social ties in guiding and supporting island-based SMEs towards successful internationalization. Often challenged by „isolation‟ and distance from the core economies, and by dis-economies of scale and high transportation cost, these SMEs from small islands tend to exhibit relatively low international involvement. The resultant economic weakness associated with such islands often fuels emigration.  In the case of the small fish exporter from the Azores Islands investigated by Camara and Simeos (2008), this meant access to major emigrant communities in Canada (British Columbia and Quebec) and the United States (California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island) among others. There is evidence, however, that some island-based SMEs leverage the network of family and social ties existing between those remaining on the islands and those that emigrated to compete in international markets.
Source: Camara and Simeos (2008)

Growth Motives.

Growth Motives.

Growth opportunities associated with international markets were identified as a key driver of firm internationalization in several recent studies. Orser et al. (2008), for example, reports say that after allowing for the impacts of firm size and sector, Canadian legal firms whose owners had expressed growth intentions were more than twice as likely to export, than those whose owners did not indicate growth ambitions. Firms‟ overseas venturing decision also seems to be motivated by a need for business growth, profits, an increased market size, a stronger market position, and to reduce dependence on a single or smaller number of markets. The possibility of growth in other markets and increased profit opportunities from international expansion were highlighted as key stimuli for exporting among the Australian, British, Spanish, Swedish, and US firms investigated in recent studies.

Notification to the barrister

The fact of practice in more than one capacity must be notified to the Board in writing and in advance (rule 207(b)(i)). Note that this is an additional requirement going beyond the requirements of rule 202(d) to notify the Board of the identity and contact details of any employer or recognized body. If the Board requires further information about the capacities in which the barrister is supplying legal services, the barrister must then supply such information as the Board requires.

Working in only one capacity at the same time on the same matter

Working in only one capacity at the same time on the same matter.

Potential regulatory issues arise where the barrister works on the same matter in more than one capacity. Firstly, the potential for client confusion is self-evident. Secondly, in many circumstances it is unlikely to be in the best interests of the client.

The Bar Standards Board considered prohibiting a barrister from acting in more than one capacity in the same matter, but in the event has decided that such a prohibition would not be proportionate. A barrister licensed to carry out public access work may give preliminary advice as a self-employed barrister and subsequently (subject to his doing so being in the client’s best interests) may refer the matter to the law firm which employs him when the matter becomes litigious, so that the client can have the benefit of the firm’s resources in the litigation, with the barrister conducting the litigation in his or her capacity as an employee or manager of the firm (or working under the supervision of the person doing so). There will be some circumstances where it may be appropriate for a barrister to act in more than one capacity at different stages of the case. For example, the barrister may work on the case whilst employed by the solicitors’ firm, but subsequently the firm may wish to instruct him as a self-employed barrister as advocate at trial. Such an arrangement has the advantage, from the client’s perspective, that the client does not pay the firm’s overheads when the barrister is carrying out work that can be done on a self-employed basis but does so only when the barrister’s role involves work of a sort that can and should properly be done in their capacity as a manager/employee of the firm.

Dual Practice of the barrister

Under the amendments made to the Code, a barrister may now practice in more than one of the ways identified in paragraph 1 above at the same time. That is to say, a barrister may practice in the self-employed model from chambers but work part time as an employed barrister for the Government, or for a law firm regulated by the SRA; or may practice part time in the employment of the Serious Fraud Office and part time as a manager of an LDP. A common example is expected to be that of young barristers who wish to practice self-employed in publicly-funded criminal or family work, but who may need to be employed part-time in complementary work for a law firm or a Government body.

Although such dual practice may be complementary and beneficial, both to the barrister and in the public interest, there are also increased risks of conflicts of interests and duty and added risks that the confidentiality of a client’s affairs may be compromised. This is particularly an issue in a case where a barrister conducts a self-employed practice at the same time as working for an employer or recognized body, or where the barrister works for more than one employer or recognized body. That means that conflicts of interest and of duty for the barrister will be harder to identify and manage in advance of their arising, in ways that barristers in self-employed practice are used to dealing with and barristers hitherto employed by firms of solicitors may not have had to deal with. The barrister will not be free to disclose to his employer or the body details (or the existence) of clients from his/her self-employed practice or another employer’s or body’s practice. On the other hand, in many cases of dual practice, the likelihood of a conflict of this kind will be extremely small, e.g. because the kind or level of work done in self-employed practice is different from the work done for an employer. Barristers considering dual practice should review carefully the risks of conflicts and in relation to maintaining confidentiality of clients’ affairs, and should ensure that by one means or another such risks are avoided or dealt with in advance of their arising wherever possible.

In order to manage these risks and prevent avoidable conflicts from occurring, rules 207 and 208 of the Code impose restrictions and requirements for barristers who wish to practice in more than one capacity.