Blue Chip Consulting: An Interesting Question with a Painfully Obvious Answer
November 30, 2022
I read “Why Is Booz Allen Renting Us Back Our Own National Parks?” The author is asking a BIG question with what may be a tiny answer.
The essay states:
Today I’m writing about how the giant government contracting firm Booz Allen and 13 government agencies have been renting back to the public access to our own lands by forcing us to pay junk fees to use national parks.
The essay runs through some historical information about land. Interesting, but I tuned that type of information when I had to take a class in US history as a freshman at the third-rate outfit which accepted me as a student. Sure, the professor became a US congress person and had influence. But the lectures about land, Henry Clay, and Manifest Destiny did not compute. (In 1962 I was trying to figure out how to get an IBM computer to accept a program to index Latin sermons. Land was a fungible, and I was and remain on the intangible side of life.)
A US government Web site becomes a point of reference in the essay. Now you may think that US government Web sites are no big deal. Rest assured that in preparing annual budgets, Web sites are indeed a big deal. Did you know that US national laboratories want traffic because click data let’s some labs say to a Congressional committee: “We are pulling in eyeballs because our research is Number One with a bullet.” Believe me. Some people’s jobs depend on getting an elected official to see Web traffic as germane to pulse weapon funding or more esoteric activities.
The Web site referenced is not involved in nuclear research information. Recreation.gov becomes a way for a government agency to demonstrate that it is [a] serving citizens, [b] demonstrating that it is operating as a business, not a service organization, and [c] in step with hip digital trends. The write up points out that my former employer Booz Allen does a great deal of business with the Federal sector. The write up points out that Booz Allen has been involved in interesting and often big dollar projects. Some of these projects are so-so; others not so so-so; and a number of them are home runs. Booz Allen is an organization of hitters, not sitters.
I noted this passage in the write up:
In 2017, Booz Allen got a 10-year $182 million contract to consolidate all booking for public lands and waters, with 13 separate agencies participating, from the Bureau of Land Management to the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration to the National Park Service to the Smithsonian Institution to the Tennessee Valley Authority to the US Forest Service. The funding structure of the site is exactly what George Washington Plunkitt would design. Though there’s a ten year contract with significant financial outlays, Booz Allen says the project was built “at no cost to the federal government.” In the contractor’s words, “the unique contractual agreement is a transaction-based fee model that lets the government and Booz Allen share in risk, reward, results, and impact.” In other words, Booz Allen gets to keep the fees charged to users who want access to national parks. Part of the deal was that Booz Allen would get the right to negotiate fees to third party sites that want access to data on Federal lands.
Then the essay notes:
Yes, Booz Allen gets to steal some pennies, but we have a remarkable system of public lands and waters that are broadly available for all of us to use on a relatively equal basis. And we can still see the power of George-ism in the advocacy of hikers and in the intense view that members of Congress had when they passed the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act in 2004, which strictly regulated fees that Americans would have to pay to access our Federal lands.
Then the essay includes a statement which baffles me:
We are in a moment of institutional corruption, but these moments are transitory as institutions change.
Now let’s answer the question, “Why is Booz Allen renting us back our own national parks?”
My answer is my personal opinion, and you may choose to disagree:
- Government professionals directly or indirectly created a statement of work designed to help a unit of a government agency meet its annual objectives; for instance, cost recovery so citizens benefit without the agency spending government money. Remember that Booz Allen gets paid to create a fee generation system which pays Booz Allen and makes users of Recreation.gov really happy. At the same time, the agency officials get credit for a job well done and possibly some power or money related benefit.
- Booz Allen (in its present form) was shaped in the mid 1970s specifically to capture government contracts of any type. The purpose of the capture is to generate fee based revenue from professional services and in some cases by creating a fungible thing like a cartridge ejection mechanism. The object is to bill in accordance with the tasks set forth in the statement of work and implement applicable scope changes in order to respond to the client agency’s needs.
- The projects — whether Recreation.gov, the structure of the US Department of Navy, or providing inputs to space warfare analysts — give the professionals working in US government agencies a wide range of interesting work tasks. These tasks include, but are not limited to, attending meetings, meeting with sub-contractors, coordinating with other government entities, and in the case of national park projects, a field trip, maybe many field trips.
Thus, the answer to the question is that Booz Allen does not rent back national parks. Booz Allen plus a small number other blue chip consulting firms create work for Federal employees and for those paid directly by Booz Allen. Think of Booz Allen as the engine room of the government machine.
The march through history, the precedents for land use, and the other History 121 topics are completely irrelevant to making an essentially unmanageable and functionally impaired national park system appear to work reasonably well.
I would ask the author of the essay: What would be a better method? Would it be possible to find an optimally performing government agency and transport those systems and methods to those entities involved in Recreation.gov? How about using the Internal Revenue Service as a model? What if one snags the Social Security Agency or Health and Human Services as a model? We can jump branches and emulate the Senate sergeant at arm’s management methods? Do any of these provide a model?
To answer these questions my thought is that some government agencies will hire either Booz Allen or a similar firm.
Why? Booz Allen can do work, give government professionals tasks to complete, and send invoices.
The BIG question has a small, simple answer. Plus one can reserve a space for vanlifers whose rides conform to the National Park guidelines. That’s a deliverable.
Stephen E Arnold, November 30, 2022
Ommmmm, the Future
August 29, 2022
Everyone wants to predict the future, but no one and nothing can do that with 100% accuracy. When it comes to the future of technology and its relationships with humans, tech journalist Om Malik shared his thoughts: “The Future of Tech As I See It.” Malik discussed four points on the future and technology.
In the first, Malik explained he tried to find the inherent value in all technology. He believes people focus too much time trying to figure out what will be the next big tech boom to make a buck. Focusing too much on the “next big thing” distracts from the current use and value of technology. In other words, Malik wants people to concentrate more on the present. He could also try using TikTok.
M1 computer chips will give users more powerful computers equivalent to 25% of IBM’s Watson output. This will allow users to interact with computers in a manner different than anything we currently know. Malik states kids are being trained for a brand new world we can only conceptualize in the likes of the new Star Wars films, not the old sci-fi classics like 2001: a Space Odyssey.
Malik makes a good point that authenticating your identity will be how companies like Google and Facebook make their revenue in the future:
“What’s one thing you’ve barely noticed about living in the mobile phone world? How often do you “Login with Facebook” or “Login with Google” because it’s more convenient than setting up an account? There is a lot of value in whichever company makes authentication easy in this world.
What if Apple offers a Metamask-like product as an authentication system and in-exchange charges a small subscription fee? I would happily pay for the convenience alone. Authentication and payments can be critical to a post-app store world. Facebook, too, is hoping to ride the payments and authentication gravy train to the future.)”
The bigger question is how will technology authenticate people? Blood samples? DNA?
Malik ends on the point that the United States no longer shapes the entire world when it comes to technology. India, China, Africa, and Russia are bigger players than most western nations realize, but that is not new information. People who aren’t ostriches are aware of this.
Whitney Grace, August 29, 2022
The Metaverse? Not This Dinobaby
August 15, 2022
How many hours a day will this dinobaby spend in the metaverse? The answer, according to a blue chip consulting firm, is four hours a day. Now the source of this insight is McKinsey & Co., a firm somehow snared in the allegations related to generating revenue from a synthetic compound. I am not sure, but I think that the synthetic shares some similarity to heroin? Hey, why ot ask a family which has lost a son or daughter to the alleged opioid epidemic?
The McKinsey information appears in “People Expect to Spend at Least 4 Hours a Day in the Metaverse.” I learned:
Gen Z, millennials, and Gen X consumers expect to spend between four and five hours a day in the metaverse in the next five years. Comparatively, a recent Nielsen study found that consumers spend roughly five hours a day watching TV across various platforms.
If we assume that an old-fashioned work day is eight hours, that becomes about 1,000 hours a year of billable time plugged in or jacked in to the digital realm. I don’t know about you, but after watching students at a major university, I think the jack in time is on the low side. The mobile immersion was impressive.
The write up points out that an expert said:
“[Current AR smart glasses] give you a metaphor that looks like an Android phone on your face. So rectangles floating in space. That’s not enough for [mainstream smart glasses] adoption to happen,” Jared Ficklin, chief creative technologist at Argodesign, a former Magic Leap partner, said.
This dinobaby respectfully refuses to prep for digital addiction.
Stephen E Arnold, August 15, 2022
Now We Know Why Consultant Reports Are Long, Wordy, and Just So-So
July 26, 2022
I noted the research findings (allegedly spot on and reproducible) in “Experts Don’t Always Give Better Advice—They Just Give More.”
Here’s the killer statement:
Top performers didn’t write more helpful advice, but they did write more of it, and people in our experiments mistook quantity for quality…
Several observations:
- What is “helpful”? Maybe helpful means that the person listening was sufficiently intelligent to pick out the important bits?
- Why more output? Maybe more reflects what the individual thinks he she it knows?
- Why fiddle with experts in the first place? Maybe when one needs brain surgery, the doctor should have a bit of a track record whether he she it can talk coherently or not?
How about a simple crowd sourced test? Ask a question on Instagram, TikTok, or YouTube. Pick a short answer. Apply it. Let me know how that works out for [a] tattoo removal, [b] investing in NFTs about psychologists, [c] where to purchase contraband via a Telegram group, or [d] working for a dinobaby who wants a person who thinks, is reliable, and has a good attitude.
Not appealing? Okay, just guess like many MBAs working in high-tech market sectors or blue-chip consulting firms.
Stephen E Arnold, July 26, 2022
How to Point Out a Consulting Outfit Is Often Full of Beans
July 19, 2022
I read a write up in the UK online publication The Register. The article was “IT Departments Often Regret Technology Buying Decisions.” I immediately thought about Google’s mantra that organizations did not need information technology departments. I think the reasoning behind the statement was, “Let Google do it because we are smarter and have scaling, analytics, smart software, etc., etc.” I first heard this mantra in the 2002, maybe 2003 period. I wondered if the article was just recycling Google-type fluff-a-roo?
Yes because I have heard this before. Nope because the mid tier consulting firm is probably unaware of the world before checking TikTok in the last 10 minutes.
The write up pivots on a mid tier consulting firm which has “reinvented” the Google-type mantra with a bit of the rap music beat.
I learned:
Fifty-six percent of organizations said they had a high degree of regret over their largest tech-related purchase in the last two years, according to a new survey of 1,120 executives in North America, Western Europe, and Asia/Pacific.
Ok, almost 60 percent are faced with a persistent problem. This is not technical debt; this is here-and-now craziness.
I found this passage a slightly nicer way of saying what the Google-type mantra arrogantly implied:
… For anyone left picking up the technical pieces, 67 percent of people involved in technology-buying decisions are not in IT, which means that anyone could be a tech buyer for their organization. This is the so-called lines of business phenomenon where someone in marketing, for example, uses the corporate credit card to buy a product or service that IT admins then have to help manage.
Who is best qualified to make technology decisions for an organization? The answer is obvious:
- MBAs who can use Excel
- Accountants who can use a pencil and paper
- Lawyers who can use Word and maybe a time reporting system
- Marketing professionals who can use gym equipment, acrylic paints, and art museum audio tour gear.
The outfit creating this report is a mid-tier consulting firm.
Now here’s the way to put the obvious into a for fee report:
Whether anyone has experienced buyer’s remorse after shelling out thousands of dollars for a Gartner report is a question upon which The Register cannot comment.
Bingo. Very obvious report. An expensive mid tier report which could have been summarized by talking to a Googler more than a decade or more ago. And the remarkable inability of experts to perceive that their expertise is a reflection of the present technology environment. Score: Mid tier zero. Register one.
Stephen E Arnold, July 19, 2022
The Cost of Cyber Security Misconfiguration
July 18, 2022
The numbers tossed around about the cost of a security breach are interesting. I have formed the opinion that the cost estimates are a result of what I have called spreadsheet fever. Plug in numbers, make them flow, and go, baby, go. I read “Razer Seeks $7m from Capgemini for 2020 Data Breach.” The write up explains:
The Singapore-born gaming firm is seeking compensation of nearly US$7 million in damages, which also includes a US$2,000 reward to the security researcher who discovered the breach under the company’s bug bounty program.
What outfit is the target of the litigation? The write up says:
In its lawsuit, Razer alleged that the security breach was the result of a misconfiguration of the “ELK Stack,” caused by one of Capgemini’s employees.
The ELK is not the majestic animal. The ELK in the cyber context represents open source software glued together to deliver a range of security features. The trick is the configuration. Get a setting wrong, and the ELK is less healthy than some observers suspect. An unhealthy ELK can be problematic. This is not a big dead animal in the climate changed world. This creature puts revenue and others at risk of catching a bad disease themselves; for example, standing in the unemployment line, working the phone to reclaim their identity, and apply for a job at one of the booming cyber security vendors. Well, maybe not that particular angle.
The outcome of the lawsuit may provide some more data about the cost of a cyber screw up and details about the how of the alleged misstep.
Stephen E Arnold, July 19, 2022
Enterprise Search: Bold Predictions and a Massive Infowarp
July 12, 2022
Writing about enterprise search was a “thing” in the mid to late 2000s. There were big deals. Microsoft bought Fast Search & Transfer as an investigation in the firm’s financial methods. Then the Autonomy acquisition happened, and, as you may know, that sage continues to unfold. Vivisimo was acquired by IBM, and it’s rather useful clustering and metasearch system disappeared into the outstanding management environment of Big Blue. Enterprise search vendors flipped and pivoted: Some became customer support systems. Others morphed into smart news. A few from the Golden Age of Search hung in, and these firms are still pitching enterprise search but with a Silicon Valley, New Era spin.
I read “Enterprise Search Market to Witness Massive Growth by 2028: IBM Corporation, Lucid Work Incorporation [not the well funded name of the outfit, however], Microsoft Corporation, Dassault System” [not the correct spelling of the firm’s name]. How much can one trust a write up which misspells the names of the companies subjected to an intensive analysis process?
My answer is, “Not at all.”
Let’s take a look at some of the information in the write up.
The list of vendors included in the report is:
Attivio Software Incorporation
Coveo Corporation
Dassault Systems S.A. [The accepted spelling is Dassault Systèmes]
IBM Corporation
Lucid Work Incorporation. [Wow, the name of the company is LucidWorks. Pretty careless.]
Microsoft Corporation
SAP AG
Oracle Corporation
X1 Technologies Inc.
Okay, the names of some of the companies is incorrect. Bad.
Second, I loved this passage:
The research covers the most recent information about current events. This information is useful for businesses planning to produce significantly improved things, as well as for customers gaining an idea of what will be available in the future.
I have zero clue what this quoted passage means. Current events to me and many others involves the financial crisis, Russia’s non war war, and assorted pandemics. Monkeypox. Boo!
Third, did you notice that the vendor providing search and retrieval to numerous companies and to many vendors is not included in the report. I am referring to Elastic, cheerleader for the widely popular Elasticsearch. Why omit the vendor with many installations. I can see skipping over Algolia, Sinequa, and Yext, among others. But Elastic? Yikes.
Here’s my take on this report:
- I am not sure it will be useful
- I don’t see an indication that the features of the specific search engines are compared, contrasted, and evaluated. Oracle has a number of search solutions. Will these be evaluated or will the analysts focus on structured query language, ignoring Endeca and other systems the firm owns?
- Misspellings are easy to make with smart software helpfully replacing words automatically. However, getting the company names wrong is a red light.
Net net: Enterprise search will indeed witness – that is, be an observer of rapid growth in certain software sectors – I just think that enterprise search is now a utility. More modern methods of fusing and locating high value information are available. Buying a report which describes ageing dinosaurs may not be a prudent use of available funds.
Stephen E Arnold, July 12, 2022
Allegations about McKinsey & Company: Blue Chip Black Eye or CRISPR-Proof Genetic Defect?
July 5, 2022
Fungible documents can be informative. “Documents Reveal McKinsey’s Role Increasing Opioid Sales Until 2019” – if the documents are “real” real—appear to illustrate what might be described as errors in judgment. What I call the opioid moment may attract like fly paper other names.
The write up states:
McKinsey & Company found opportunities to boost opioid manufacturers’ sales amid the addiction crisis from 2004 to 2019, new documents published by the University of California at San Francisco and Johns Hopkins University show.
The fact that the documents are in the hands of educational institutions and not “real” newspapers adds some risk to McKinsey. Academics have colleagues with specialized skills, computer resources, and those ever helpful graduate students. Some graduate students enjoy assisting senior academics. Others, like myself, wanted to either get paid or be exempted from often useless required courses. (Does anyone benefit from the student of economics? Answer this question whilst stepping over street people in San Francisco.
The write up notes that there are 114,000 pages of documents. McKinsey’s advice may have been the application of what I call billing logic. The idea is that one bills. If a blue chip consultant can offer advice which yields more billable hours, good things happen for the blue chip consultant. The client? Well, in this case, the alleged correlation of the death of “half a million people” as a result of certain actions by McKinsey and its clients. Cited in the article are the estimable outfits Purdue Pharma, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, and Mallinckrodt.
McKinsey, according to the article, shifted gears and allegedly “recognized the terrible consequences of the opioid epidemic.” Yep, recognizing and taking action after the fact are interesting approaches to billing. The article also states that a McKinsey professional spokesperson who presumably did not have a child die of a synthetic opioid overdose, acknowledged “our role in serving opioid manufacturers.”
Not a peep about billing nothing about the incentives in place to allow certain engagements to be accepted and expanded over a period of years. Blue chips are unregulated. Some MBA and analytic types self regulated. Perhaps a different approach is needed? Would one of those killed by diffusion of synthetic opioids have been able to offer a new approach?
Not even McKinsey’s whiz kids can ask a dead person a question in an interview designed for fact finding.
Stephen E Arnold, July 5, 2022
Blue Chip Opioid Advisers Turn Their Attention to Designers
May 2, 2022
The world of blue chip consulting is intensely competitive. High fliers can go to work and be terminated before lunch. Reason? Often pretty vague if the wife of one nuked blue chipper is to be granted credibility.
McKinsey & Co., a firm which has been associated with some non life threatening interactions with people allegedly involved in opioid distribution, has turned its attention from Big Pharma to the art and craft world of “designers.”
“McKinsey Report: Designers Are Critical to Business Performance, But There’s a Big Catch” reveals:
McKinsey also found that companies that have successfully integrated their design teams don’t simply see financial rewards, including revenue growth, increased share price, and overall profitability; they also score better in trickier metrics, such as employee satisfaction, environmental and social impact, innovation, adaptability to COVID-19, user-centricity, and innovation. Designers who are closely integrated with corporate functions also are far more likely to stay at a company for more than five years.
Imagine, please, individuals with pottery residue on their hands and books about Victorian wallpaper in their backpacks contributing to product engineering at a nuclear weapons manufacturing company. I can see these hard working, serious professionals contributing to miniaturized proximity detonators for use with microdrones in war zones.
My take on this type of study and the references to millions of designers and “100,000 design departments” is to laugh. Having worked for a big blue chipper, the notion of millions and hundreds of thousands requires lots of cash or hundreds of interns.
It will be easier to hit one’s sales and revenue objectives if the blue chippers focus on the Fortune 1000, preferably those with deep pockets. Convincing some firms to include a person who worked a year in the Vatican museum to leave the realm of Photoshop and think munitions is downright onionesque.
Stephen E Arnold, May 3, 2022
Consultants and Conflicts of Interest: Fast Action
April 7, 2022
My recollection is that a Northwestern graduate named Edwin Booz cooked up big chunks of modern consulting. Was this a year ago? Maybe three years? Nope. Mr. Booz helped Sears become a high-value resource in 1914. Eddie had a master’s in psychology, not business. Think about that. What modern consulting has become began in the climate wonderland of Chicago. You remember. The city with big shoulders.
Flash forward to 2022. “Citing ProPublica’s Reporting on McKinsey, Senators Propose Bill Addressing Contractors’ Conflicts of Interest” stated, after patting itself vigorously on its / thems back:
Yet the consultancy [McKinsey], which is known for maintaining a veil of secrecy around its client list, never disclosed to the FDA that other McKinsey consulting teams were simultaneously working for some of the country’s largest pharmaceutical companies. McKinsey’s commercial clients at the time included companies, such as Purdue Pharma and Johnson & Johnson, that were responsible for manufacturing and distributing the opioids that decimated communities nationwide. In some instances, McKinsey consultants working for drug makers even helped their clients ward off more robust FDA oversight.
McKinsey is one of the heirs to Eddie’s insight that clueless outfits would pay big money for reports written in summary format with lots of bullet points, horizons, and snappy aphorisms. BCG, another blue chip consulting firm, must be credited for taking General Eisenhower’s quadrant diagram and pioneering the era of easy to understand graphics and simple words like “dog” and “star” and “cash cow.”
From pop psychology to snazzy charts, the blue chip consulting business has been roaring along for more than a century. Now the opioid thing combined with the blue chip consulting firm “we’re special” thing may result in meaningful regulation.
Note I wrote “may.” Does anyone believe that government agencies can regulate the firms upon which the very same government agencies depend for advice, guidance, and a reason to have meetings.
Get real.
Here’s the wrap up to the article:
Jessica Tillipman, an assistant dean and government procurement law expert at George Washington University Law School, called the legislation a welcome development. As government contractors have merged in recent decades, the industry has grown more concentrated, increasing the risk of conflicts of interest, and the federal contracting industry, Tillipman said, could use clearer guidance on disclosure requirements tied to the private-sector work of government contractors. “Any attempt to address these growing problems is a good thing,” Tillipman said, “and important to ensuring that we reduce these risks in the government procurement system.”
What? Fix procurement? Let’s see. I estimate that another century will pass before draft regulations emerge from joint meetings between an executive branch agency and Congress. That time estimate may be too optimistic.
Think of the consultants needed to work on the issues related to regulating consultants. Think of the meetings. Think of the revolving door opportunities. Think of the inputs from law firms and accounting firms which must be obtained.
Think of the meetings. Psychology, not business acumen, fuels consulting as it did from the git go. What did that unusual poet say in “Chicago”? This sticks in my mind:
And they tell me you are crooked and I answer: yes…
Proud of it too.
Stephen E Arnold, April 7, 2022
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
