Comments on: In McKinsey We Trust.. oh oh http://gigaom.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/ Tracking the Internet Evolution Thu, 16 Oct 2008 07:28:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU hourly 1 By: Software 2006: Questioning the McKinsey Study| Zoli’s Blog http://gigaom.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-858512 Software 2006: Questioning the McKinsey Study| Zoli’s Blog Mon, 28 Jan 2008 05:54:19 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-858512 <p>[...] In McKinsey We Trust.. oh oh [...]</p> [...] In McKinsey We Trust.. oh oh [...]

]]> By: dax http://gigaom.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-514206 dax Tue, 04 Sep 2007 15:45:39 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-514206 <p>hmmm.. interesting that mckinsey is howing such blunders. come to think of it, since IBM is having its consultancy arm, how would you think it affect the business of mckinsey?</p> hmmm.. interesting that mckinsey is howing such blunders. come to think of it, since IBM is having its consultancy arm, how would you think it affect the business of mckinsey?

]]> By: Tom http://gigaom.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-47262 Tom Wed, 31 May 2006 16:13:31 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-47262 <p>If I hire business consultanting firm, I will only get facts from them, not the opinions.</p> If I hire business consultanting firm, I will only get facts from them, not the opinions.

]]> By: fred flinstone http://gigaom.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-47261 fred flinstone Sun, 14 May 2006 19:46:33 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-47261 <p>I think the major concern of all of the readers in this blog,isnt so much about McKensey factors,Ebay,or Google. The biggest threat of course is the telecommunications companies,such as AT&T,Time Warner,etc. As they currently are in possesion of most of the communications lines that transferrs all the data over the internet. They have also recently been testing,and planning perhapes should I say contriving the means of controlling what data is going to be processed,whether a page will be made available or not,as an example if Ebay is a good customer of AT&T,then the data associated with Ebay will be available at (should I say?)blazing speeds,while other smaller competitor's data will either be slow,or unavailable. All to the benefits of the corporate giants. Unfortunanly what this will do is allow the companies to create censorship of the free media information,and make their parteners and themselves wealthier,while creating antio-trust in the likes weve never seen before. Of course all those law suites will most likely not succeed primarily because of the lack of laws that prevent the corporate giants from stopping competition. There has to be an equal balance in a free market place,placing a partner with an advantage over other competitors whom ultimatly cannot win the highest bid,is anti-trust,but sadly not regulated.</p> I think the major concern of all of the readers in this blog,isnt so much about McKensey factors,Ebay,or Google.
The biggest threat of course is the telecommunications companies,such as AT&T,Time Warner,etc.
As they currently are in possesion of most of the communications lines that transferrs all the data over the internet.
They have also recently been testing,and planning perhapes should I say contriving the means of controlling what data is going to be processed,whether a page will be made available or not,as an example if Ebay is a good customer of AT&T,then the data associated with Ebay will be available at (should I say?)blazing speeds,while other smaller competitor’s data will either be slow,or unavailable.
All to the benefits of the corporate giants.
Unfortunanly what this will do is allow the companies to create censorship of the free media information,and make their parteners and themselves wealthier,while creating antio-trust in the likes weve never seen before.
Of course all those law suites will most likely not succeed primarily because of the lack of laws that prevent the corporate giants from stopping competition.
There has to be an equal balance in a free market place,placing a partner with an advantage over other competitors whom ultimatly cannot win the highest bid,is anti-trust,but sadly not regulated.

]]> By: ZF http://gigaom.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-47260 ZF Tue, 02 May 2006 13:49:57 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-47260 <p>Meg Whitman, eBay CEO, was for several years a corporate strategy consultant herself, at what was then and is today one of McKinsey's main competitors (Bain & Company).</p> Meg Whitman, eBay CEO, was for several years a corporate strategy consultant herself, at what was then and is today one of McKinsey’s main competitors (Bain & Company).

]]> By: Frank Daley http://gigaom.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-47259 Frank Daley Tue, 25 Apr 2006 00:32:36 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-47259 <p>A student of history will know:</p> <ol> <li><p>eBay would be crazy to align itself with Microsoft, because Microsoft has shown time and time again, it cannot be trusted. It has a consuming passion to look after itself, and at the appropriate time would cast eBay aside once it had achieved critical mass of its own.</p></li> <li><p>Microsoft attained its market dominance by anti-competitive (that means illegal) tactics.</p></li> <li><p>After being found guilty of anti-competitive behavior by the U.S. Government in 2001, it promised to 'change'.</p></li> <li><p>We are still waiting for that change. Microsoft continues to act strenuously to kill open standards and time and time again has partnered with companies, only to later cast them aside, broken and irrelevant.</p></li> <li><p>eBay has done the world a great service. Sure there are areas where it can improve, but overall, it achieved what it has achieved by hard honest work. Let's hope it chooses any future partners based on a strategic perspective (that includes knowing history).</p></li> </ol> A student of history will know:

  1. eBay would be crazy to align itself with Microsoft, because Microsoft has shown time and time again, it cannot be trusted. It has a consuming passion to look after itself, and at the appropriate time would cast eBay aside once it had achieved critical mass of its own.

  2. Microsoft attained its market dominance by anti-competitive (that means illegal) tactics.

  3. After being found guilty of anti-competitive behavior by the U.S. Government in 2001, it promised to ‘change’.

  4. We are still waiting for that change. Microsoft continues to act strenuously to kill open standards and time and time again has partnered with companies, only to later cast them aside, broken and irrelevant.

  5. eBay has done the world a great service. Sure there are areas where it can improve, but overall, it achieved what it has achieved by hard honest work. Let’s hope it chooses any future partners based on a strategic perspective (that includes knowing history).

]]> By: Paul http://gigaom.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-47258 Paul Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:00:47 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-47258 <p>The main problem of eBay is that it never saw itself as a technology Company, but as a Community Trading Company.</p> <p>Thus product development is slow, product managers work on micro chunk features nobody cares about (à la Microsoft Word), innovation is barely exisiting (apart from PayPal) and eBay is barely using the enormous collection of data it gets (for segmentation purpose etc…). When you think about the lost opportunity of an easy to use eBay Mobile. And I am not mentionning the bozo explosion (quoting Mr Kawasaki) inside with all these MBA 5 year consulting coming to eBay to discover operational work :-)</p> <p>That said, I think ebay still has strong traction among Mom and Pop shops, low tech America, Germany, France, UK…</p> The main problem of eBay is that it never saw itself as a technology Company, but as a Community Trading Company.

Thus product development is slow, product managers work on micro chunk features nobody cares about (à la Microsoft Word), innovation is barely exisiting (apart from PayPal) and eBay is barely using the enormous collection of data it gets (for segmentation purpose etc…).
When you think about the lost opportunity of an easy to use eBay Mobile.
And I am not mentionning the bozo explosion (quoting Mr Kawasaki) inside with all these MBA 5 year consulting coming to eBay to discover operational work :-)

That said, I think ebay still has strong traction among Mom and Pop shops, low tech America, Germany, France, UK…

]]> By: Poopmaster http://gigaom.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-47257 Poopmaster Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:46:57 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-47257 <p>What does this mean for the end user? Nothing as far as I can tell. I only care if Ebay goes away, because there goes a way to buy neat stuff. Search != auction, guys. Google's big, but their success rate is spotty. Bore me later…</p> What does this mean for the end user? Nothing as far as I can tell. I only care if Ebay goes away, because there goes a way to buy neat stuff. Search != auction, guys. Google’s big, but their success rate is spotty. Bore me later…

]]> By: Francesco Cardi http://gigaom.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-47256 Francesco Cardi Sun, 23 Apr 2006 09:43:06 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-47256 <p>I was working for years for a top management consulting company, and I can confirm that this kind of consultancies usually fail when trying to crack down strategy issues in innovative, fast changing industries as Internet. I see two main reasons for that:</p> <p>a) General conservative attitude, no orientation to innovation</p> <p>The top management consulting approach is generally highly analytical and structured. But innovation happens in unforeseeable, not linear ways. As much as you are smart analysing the past and the present trying to forecast the future, you don’t visualize disruptive changes. This is something you grab with intuition, not with analyses.</p> <p>b) Lack of specialists in the organization</p> <p>Innovative industries don’t usually generate a stable stream of projects. That´s why you don’t find in top management consultancies people specialized in innovative industries. This is something for venture capitalists and entrepreneurs. Think as a partner of a consulting company who wants to make millions of dollars per year out of managers and consultants. Would you keep resources idle getting up to speed in a new industry, waiting for one project each x months, or staff them as much as possible in many different projects, making them generalists? Sure, today Internet is a big industry, generating many projects to consulting companies, but in 2003, after the 2000 melt down, it wasn’t clearly the case.</p> <p>I tend to discard another potential reason mentioned by other readers of the blog, that sometimes the studies commissioned to management consultants are biased by client expectations. You are a CEO or a top director of a multi-billion company, and you are not paying someone to write down what you already know, especially if you are paying millions of dollars for a 3-4 months study to McKinsey. Also, to be fair with McKinsey, I’m sure they are not easily “biasable” too.</p> I was working for years for a top management consulting company, and I can confirm that this kind of consultancies usually fail when trying to crack down strategy issues in innovative, fast changing industries as Internet. I see two main reasons for that:

a) General conservative attitude, no orientation to innovation

The top management consulting approach is generally highly analytical and structured. But innovation happens in unforeseeable, not linear ways. As much as you are smart analysing the past and the present trying to forecast the future, you don’t visualize disruptive changes. This is something you grab with intuition, not with analyses.

b) Lack of specialists in the organization

Innovative industries don’t usually generate a stable stream of projects. That´s why you don’t find in top management consultancies people specialized in innovative industries. This is something for venture capitalists and entrepreneurs. Think as a partner of a consulting company who wants to make millions of dollars per year out of managers and consultants. Would you keep resources idle getting up to speed in a new industry, waiting for one project each x months, or staff them as much as possible in many different projects, making them generalists? Sure, today Internet is a big industry, generating many projects to consulting companies, but in 2003, after the 2000 melt down, it wasn’t clearly the case.

I tend to discard another potential reason mentioned by other readers of the blog, that sometimes the studies commissioned to management consultants are biased by client expectations. You are a CEO or a top director of a multi-billion company, and you are not paying someone to write down what you already know, especially if you are paying millions of dollars for a 3-4 months study to McKinsey. Also, to be fair with McKinsey, I’m sure they are not easily “biasable” too.

]]> By: Vinnie Mirchandani http://gigaom.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-47255 Vinnie Mirchandani Fri, 21 Apr 2006 22:51:30 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-47255 <p>on McKinsey and tech you may find this interesting</p> <p>http://dealarchitect.typepad.com/deal<em>architect/2006/03/mckinsey</em>and_te.html</p> on McKinsey and tech you may find this interesting

(link) architect/2006/03/mckinseyand_te.html

]]> By: John B http://gigaom.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-47254 John B Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:14:15 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-47254 <p>By the way, since this thread is about Google, Yahoo!, and ebay, we might as well point out that Google's founders are "talents" from Stanford, Yahoo! was also founded by "talents" from Stanford, and Jeff Skoll at ebay came from Stanford GSB.</p> <p>As Stu mentioned, might be prudent to look at both sides, although that rarely makes for interesting print.</p> By the way, since this thread is about Google, Yahoo!, and ebay, we might as well point out that Google’s founders are “talents” from Stanford, Yahoo! was also founded by “talents” from Stanford, and Jeff Skoll at ebay came from Stanford GSB.

As Stu mentioned, might be prudent to look at both sides, although that rarely makes for interesting print.

]]> By: John B http://gigaom.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-47253 John B Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:09:32 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-47253 <p>Intelligence is overrated; I love it. Distinction being that companies that hire plane refuelers are probably in need of slightly different skill sets than those that write software.</p> <p>Also companies that are run like monarchies behave like monarchies. The more compliant the employees the better. I love the Southwest argument as well…tenure is a better system than performance. Wow.</p> Intelligence is overrated; I love it. Distinction being that companies that hire plane refuelers are probably in need of slightly different skill sets than those that write software.

Also companies that are run like monarchies behave like monarchies. The more compliant the employees the better. I love the Southwest argument as well…tenure is a better system than performance. Wow.

]]> By: pipervin http://gigaom.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-47252 pipervin Fri, 21 Apr 2006 20:04:13 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-47252 <p>If the whole Web 2.0 means anything, it tells us there is "strength in numbers." Google is huge, but a combination of eBay and friends can potentially isolate Google in a preemptive way. A partnership like that plays to the strenghts of both eBay and Yahoo!.</p> If the whole Web 2.0 means anything, it tells us there is “strength in numbers.” Google is huge, but a combination of eBay and friends can potentially isolate Google in a preemptive way. A partnership like that plays to the strenghts of both eBay and Yahoo!.

]]> By: Rob http://gigaom.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-47251 Rob Fri, 21 Apr 2006 19:14:08 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-47251 <p>might have been on the same bandwidth today … I posted similar thoughts this morning. </p> <p>End of the day, I blame management, not McKinsey for eBay's woes. McKinsey provided bad intel, eBay accepted and acted on it. Most consulting engagements work hand in hand with clients. McKinsey is a nice scape goat, but eBay management was the one with a finger on the button. </p> <p>Most fortune 500 companies have no idea how to use management consultants. I've always been a proponent of some kind of central control over all consulting engagements in a company, but very few companies have done something like that</p> might have been on the same bandwidth today … I posted similar thoughts this morning.

End of the day, I blame management, not McKinsey for eBay’s woes. McKinsey provided bad intel, eBay accepted and acted on it. Most consulting engagements work hand in hand with clients. McKinsey is a nice scape goat, but eBay management was the one with a finger on the button.

Most fortune 500 companies have no idea how to use management consultants. I’ve always been a proponent of some kind of central control over all consulting engagements in a company, but very few companies have done something like that

]]> By: DaveMc500Hats http://gigaom.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-47250 DaveMc500Hats Fri, 21 Apr 2006 19:00:50 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-47250 <p>on the contrary, plenty of folks at eBay were aware of Google and watching their every move for several years. however, that doesn't mean they chose to take action until relatively recently.</p> <p>specifically, several of us at PayPal tried to initiate efforts to both a) work with Google to combine AdWords & PayPal for small biz, as well as b) work on several initiatives to take PayPal in directions that Google wasn't headed towards (yet, anyway).</p> <p>at one point i also had also suggested using eBay's advantages in knowledge of point of transaction to develop alternative advertising options based on sales rather than clicks (more qualified, plenty of eBay impressions to monetize).</p> <p>however, awareness doesn't always lead to action. much of eBay's complacency came from ever-rising stock prices and seemingly unassailable market share in auctions & payments… that is, until Q1 05. </p> <p>after that correction, my understanding there was much more significant effort to come up with actionable plans.</p> <p>(as for me personally however, i left in Q4 04 ;)</p> <ul> <li>dmc</li> </ul> on the contrary, plenty of folks at eBay were aware of Google and watching their every move for several years. however, that doesn’t mean they chose to take action until relatively recently.

specifically, several of us at PayPal tried to initiate efforts to both a) work with Google to combine AdWords & PayPal for small biz, as well as b) work on several initiatives to take PayPal in directions that Google wasn’t headed towards (yet, anyway).

at one point i also had also suggested using eBay’s advantages in knowledge of point of transaction to develop alternative advertising options based on sales rather than clicks (more qualified, plenty of eBay impressions to monetize).

however, awareness doesn’t always lead to action. much of eBay’s complacency came from ever-rising stock prices and seemingly unassailable market share in auctions & payments… that is, until Q1 05.

after that correction, my understanding there was much more significant effort to come up with actionable plans.

(as for me personally however, i left in Q4 04 ;)

  • dmc
]]> By: Chetan http://gigaom.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-47249 Chetan Fri, 21 Apr 2006 18:35:36 +0000 http://gigaom.wordpress.com/2006/04/21/in-mckinsey-we-trust-oh-oh/#comment-47249 <p>I forget the name of the Bar in Bay Area where young folks sit and talk about their abstract ideas. Someone then told me that it will be the first Trillion $ company ;-)</p> I forget the name of the Bar in Bay Area where young folks sit and talk about their abstract ideas. Someone then told me that it will be the first Trillion $ company ;-)

]]>