2025 Consulting Jive

December 26, 2024

Here you go. I have extracted of list of the jargon one needs to write reports, give talks, and mesmerize those with a desire to be the smartest people in the room:

  • Agentic AI
  • AI governance platforms
  • Ambient invisible intelligence
  • Augmented human capability
  • Autonomous businesses
  • BBMIs (Brain-Body Machine Interfaces)
  • Brand reputation
  • Business benefits
  • Contextual awareness
  • Continuous adaptive trust model
  • Cryptography
  • Data privacy
  • Disinformation security
  • Energy-efficient computing
  • Guardrails
  • Hybrid computing
  • Human-machine synergy
  • Identity validation
  • Immersive experiences
  • Model lifecycle management
  • Multilayered adaptive learning
  • Neurological enhancement
  • Polyfunctional robots
  • Post-quantum cryptography (PQC)
  • Provenance
  • Quantum computing (QC)
  • Real-time personalization
  • Risk scoring
  • Spatial computing
  • Sustainability
  • Transparency
  • UBMIs (User-Brain Machine Interfaces)

Did this spark your enthusiasm for modern jingo jango. Hats off to the Gartner Group. Wow! Great. Is the list complete? Of course not. I left out bullish*t.

Stephen E Arnold, December 26, 2024

McKinsey Takes One for the Team

December 25, 2024

Hopping Dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumbThis blog post is the work of an authentic dinobaby. No smart software was used.

I read the “real” news in “McKinsey & Company to Pay $650 Million for Role in Opioid Crisis.” The write up asserts:

The global consulting firm McKinsey and Company Friday [December 13, 2024] agreed to pay $650 million to settle a federal probe into its role in helping “turbocharge” sales of the highly addictive opioid painkiller OxyContin for Purdue Pharma…

If I were still working at a big time blue chip consulting firm, I would suggest to the NPR outfit that its researchers should have:

  1. Estimated the fees billed for opioid-related consulting projects
  2. Pulled together the estimated number of deaths from illegal / quasi-legal opioid overdoses
  3. Calculated the revenue per death
  4. Calculated the cost per death
  5. Presented the delta between the two totals.
  6. Presented to aggregate revenue generated for McKinsey’s clients from opioid sales
  7. Estimated the amount spent to “educate” physicians about the merits of synthetic opioids.

Interviewing a couple of parents or surviving spouses from Indiana, Kentucky, or West Virginia would have added some local color. But assembling these data cannot be done with a TikTok query. Hence, the write up as it was presented.

Isn’t that efficiency of MBA think outstanding? I did like the Friday the 13th timing. A red ink Friday? Nope. The fine doesn’t do the job for big time Blue Chip consulting firms. Just like EU fines don’t deter the Big Tech outfits. Perhaps something with real consequences is needed? Who am I kidding?

Stephen E Arnold, December 25, 2024

KPMG FOMO on AI

December 11, 2024

animated-dinosaur-image-0049_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumbThis blog post flowed from the sluggish and infertile mind of a real live dinobaby. If there is art, smart software of some type was probably involved.

AI is in demand and KPMG long ago received the message that it needs to update its services to include AI consulting services in its offerings. Technology Magazine shares the story in: “Growing KPMG-Google Cloud Ties Signal AI Services Shift.” Google Cloud and KPMG have a partnership that started when the latter’s clients wanted to implement Google Cloud into their systems. KPMG’s client base increased tenfold when they deployed Google Cloud services.

The nature of the partnership will change to Google’s AI-related services and KPMG budgeted $100 million to the project. The investment is projected to give KPMG $1 billion in revenue for its generative AI technology. KPMG deployed Google’s enterprise search technology Vertex AI Search into its cloud services. Vertex AI and retrieval augmented generation (RAG), a process that checks AI responses with verified data, are being designed to analyze and assist with market and research analysis.

The partnership between these tech companies indicates this is where the tech industry is going:

“The partnership indicates how professional services firms are evolving their technology practices. KPMG’s approach combines its industry expertise with Google Cloud’s technical infrastructure, creating services that bridge the gap between advanced technology and practical business applications… The collaboration also reflects how enterprise AI adoption is maturing. Rather than implementing generic AI solutions, firms are now seeking industry-specific applications that integrate with existing systems and workflows. This approach requires deep understanding of both technical capabilities and sector-specific challenges.”

Need an accounting firm? Well, AI is accounting. Need a consultant. Well, AI is consulting. Need motivated people to bill your firm by the hour at exorbitant fees? You know whom to call.

Whitney Grace, December 11, 2024

Surprise: Those Who Have Money Keep It and Work to Get More

October 29, 2024

dino orangeWritten by a humanoid dinobaby. No AI except the illustration.

The Economist (a newspaper, not a magazine) published “Have McKinsey and Its Consulting Rivals Got Too Big?” Big is where the money is. Small consultants can survive but a tight market, outfits like Gerson Lehrman, and AI outputters of baloney like ChatGPT mean trouble in service land.

image

A next generation blue chip consultant produces confidential and secret reports quickly and at a fraction of the cost of a blue chip firm’s team of highly motivated but mostly inexperienced college graduates. Thanks, OpenAI, close enough.

The write up says:

Clients grappling with inflation and economic uncertainty have cut back on splashy consulting projects. A dearth of mergers and acquisitions has led to a slump in demand for support with due diligence and company integrations.

Yikes. What outfits will employ MBAs expecting $180,000 per year to apply PowerPoint and Excel skills to organizations eager for charts, dot points, and the certainty only 24 year olds have? Apparently fewer than before Covid.

How does the Economist know that consulting outfits face headwinds? Here’s an example:

Bain and Deloitte have paid some graduates to delay their start dates. Newbie consultants at a number of firms complain that there is too little work to go around, stunting their career prospects. Lay-offs, typically rare in consulting, have become widespread.

Consulting firms have chased projects in China but that money machine is sputtering. The MBA crowd has found the Middle East a source of big money jobs. But the Economist points out:

In February the bosses of BCG, McKinsey and Teneo, a smaller consultancy, along with Michael Klein, a dealmaker, were hauled before a congressional committee in Washington after failing to hand over details of their work for Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund.

The firm’s response was, “Staff clould be imprisoned…” (Too bad the opioid crisis folks’ admissions did not result in such harsh consequences.)

Outfits like Deloitte are now into cyber security with acquisitions like Terbium Labs. Others are in the “reskilling” game, teaching their consultants about AI. The idea is that those pollinated type A’s will teach the firms’ clients just what they need to know about smart software. Some MBAs have history majors and an MBA in social media. I wonder how that will work out.

The write up concludes:

The quicker corporate clients become comfortable with chatbots, the faster they may simply go directly to their makers in Silicon Valley. If that happens, the great eight’s short-term gains from AI could lead them towards irrelevance.

Wow, irrelevance. I disagree. I think that school relationships and the networks formed by young people in graduate school will produce service work. A young MBA who mother or father is wired in will be valuable to the blue chip outfits in the future.

My take on the next 24 months is:

  1. Clients will hire employees who use smart software and can output reports with the help of whatever AI tools get hyped on LinkedIn.
  2. The blue chip outfits will get smaller and go back to their carpeted havens and cook up some crises or trends that other companies with money absolutely have to know about.
  3. Consulting firms will do the start up play. The failure rate will be interesting to calculate. Consultants are not entrepreneurs, but with connections the advice givers can tap their contacts for some tailwind.

I have worked at a blue chip outfit. I have done some special projects for outfits trying to become blue chip outfits. My dinobaby point of view boils down to seeing the Great Eight becoming the Surviving Six and then the end game, the Tormenting Two.

What picks up the slack? Smart software. Today’s systems generate the same type of normalized pablum many consulting firms provide. Note to MBAs: There will be jobs available for individuals who know how to perform Search GEO (generated engine optimization).

Stephen E Arnold, October 29, 2024

Gee, Will the Gartner Group Consultants Require Upskilling?

October 16, 2024

dino orange_thumbThe only smart software involved in producing this short FOGINT post was Microsoft Copilot’s estimable art generation tool. Why? It is offered at no cost.

I have a steady stream of baloney crossing my screen each day. I want to call attention to one of the most remarkable and unsupported statements I have seen in months. The PR document “Gartner Says Generative AI Will Require 80% of Engineering Workforce to Upskill Through 2027” contains a number of remarkable statements. Let’s look at a couple.

image

How an allegedly big time consultant is received in a secure artificial intelligence laboratory. Thanks, MSFT Copilot, good enough.

How about this one?

Through 2027, generative AI (GenAI) will spawn new roles in software engineering and operations, requiring 80% of the engineering workforce to upskill, according to Gartner, Inc.

My thought is that the virtual band of wizards which comprise Gartner cook up data the way I microwave a burrito when I am hungry. Pick a common number like the 80-20 Pareto figure. It is familiar and just use it. Personally I was disappointed that Gartner did not use 67 percent, but that’s just an old former blue chip consultant pointing out that round numbers are inherently suspicious. But does Gartner care? My hunch is that whoever reviewed the news release was happy with 80 percent. Did anyone question this number? Obviously not: There are zero supporting data, no information about how it was derived, and no hint of the methodology used by the incredible Gartner wizards. That’s a clue that these are microwaved burritos from a bulk purchase discount grocery.

How about this statement which cites a … wait for it … Gartner wizard as the source of the information?

“In the AI-native era, software engineers will adopt an ‘AI-first’ mindset, where they primarily focus on steering AI agents toward the most relevant context and constraints for a given task,” said Walsh. This will make natural-language prompt engineering and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) skills essential for software engineers.

I love the phrase “AI native” and I think dubbing the period from January 2023 when Microsoft demonstrated its marketing acumen by announcing the semi-tie up with OpenAI. The code generation systems help exactly what “engineer”? One has to know quite a bit to craft a query, examine the outputs, and do any touch ups to get the outputs working as marketed? The notion of “steering” ignores what may be an AI problem no one at Gartner has considered; for example, emergent patterns in the code generated. This means, “Surprise.” My hunch is that the idea of multi-layered neural networks behaving in a way that produces hitherto unnoticed patterns is of little interest to Gartner. That outfit wants to sell consulting work, not noodle about the notion of emergence which is a biased suite of computations. Steering is good for those who know what’s cooking and have a seat at the table in the kitchen. Is Gartner given access to the oven, the fridge, and the utensils? Nope.

Finally, how about this statement?

According to a Gartner survey conducted in the fourth quarter of 2023 among 300 U.S. and U.K. organizations, 56% of software engineering leaders rated AI/machine learning (ML) engineer as the most in-demand role for 2024, and they rated applying AI/ML to applications as the biggest skills gap.

Okay, this is late 2024 (October to be exact). The study data are a year old. So far the outputs of smart coding systems remain a work in progress. In fact, Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder has a short video which explains why the smart AI programmer in a box may be more disappointing than other hyperbole artists claim. If you want Dr. Hossenfelder’s view, click here. In a nutshell, she explains in a very nice way about the giant bologna slide plopped on many diners’ plates. The study Dr. Hossenfelder cites suggests that productivity boosts are another slice of bologna. The 41 percent increase in bugs provides a hint of the problems the good doctor notes.

Net net: I wish the cited article WERE generated by smart software. What makes me nervous is that I think real, live humans cooked up something similar to a boiled shoe. Let me ask a more significant question. Will Gartner experts require upskilling for the new world of smart software? The answer is, “Yes.” Even today’s sketchy AI outputs information often more believable that this Gartner 80 percent confection.

Stephen E Arnold, October 16, 2024

When Accountants Do AI: Do The Numbers Add Up?

October 9, 2024

dino 10 19_thumb_thumbThis blog post did not require the use of smart software, just a dumb humanoid.

I will not suggest that Accenture has moved far, far away from its accounting roots. The firm is a go to, hip and zip services firm. I think this means it rents people to do work entities cannot do themselves or do not want to do themselves. When a project goes off the post office path like the British postal service did, entities need someone to blame and — sometimes, just sometimes mind you — to sue.

image

The carnival barker, who has an MBA and a literature degree from an Ivy League school, can do AI for you. Thanks, MSFT, good enough like your spelling.

Accenture To Train 30,000 Staff On Nvidia AI Tech In Blockbuster Deal” strikes me as a Variety-type Hollywood story. There is the word “blockbuster.” There is a big number: 30,000. There is the star: Nvidia. And there is the really big word: Deal. Yes, deal. I thought accountants were conservative, measured, low profile. Nope. Accenture apparently has gone full scale carnival culture. (Yes, this is an intentional reference to the book by James B. Twitchell. Note that this YouTube video asserts that it can train you in 80 percent of AI in less than 10 minutes.)

The article explains:

The global services powerhouse says its newly formed Nvidia Business Group will focus on driving enterprise adoption of what it called ‘agentic AI systems’ by taking advantage of key Nvidia software platforms that fuel consumption of GPU-accelerated data centers.

I love the word “agentic.” It is the digital equivalent of a Hula Hoop. (Remember. I am an 80 year old dinobaby. I understand Hula Hoops.)

The write up adds this quote from the Accenture top dog:

Julie Sweet, chair and CEO of Accenture, said the company is “breaking significant new ground” and helping clients use generative AI as a catalyst for reinvention.” “Accenture AI Refinery will create opportunities for companies to reimagine their processes and operations, discover new ways of working, and scale AI solutions across the enterprise to help drive continuous change and create value,” she said in a statement.x

The write up quotes Accenture Chief AI Officer Lan Guan as saying:

“The power of these announcements cannot be overstated. Called the “next frontier” of generative AI, these “agentic AI systems” involve an “army of AI agents” that work alongside human workers to “make decisions and execute with precision across even the most complex workflows,” according to Guan, a 21-year Accenture veteran. Unlike chatbots such as ChatGPT, these agents do not require prompts from humans, and they are not meant to automating pre-existing business steps.

I am interested in this announcement for three reasons.

First, other “services” firms will have to get in gear, hook up with an AI chip and software outfit, and pray fervently that their tie ups actually deliver something a client will not go to court because the “agentic” future just failed.

Second, the notion that 30,000 people have to be trained to do something with smart software. This idea strikes me as underscoring that smart software is not ready for prime time; that is, the promises which started gushing with Microsoft’s January 2023 PR play with OpenAI is complicated. Is Accenture saying it has hired people who cannot work with smart software. Are those 30,000 professionals going to be equally capable of “learning” AI and making it deliver value? When I lecture about a tricky topic with technology and mathematics under the hood, I am not sure 100 percent of my select audiences have what it takes to convert information into a tool usable in a demanding, work related situation. Just saying: Intelligence even among the elite is not uniform. By definition, some “weaknesses” will exist within the Accenture vision for its 30,000 eager learners.

Third, Nvidia has done a great sales job. A chip and software company has convinced the denizens of Carpetland at what CRN (once Computer Reseller News) to get an Nvidia tattoo and embrace the Nvidia future. I would love to see that PowerPoint deck for the meeting that sealed the deal.

Net net: Accountants are more Hollywood than I assumed. Now I know. They are “agentic.”

Stephen E Arnold, October 9, 2024

US Government Procurement: Long Live Silos

September 12, 2024

green-dino_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.

I read “Defense AI Models A Risk to Life Alleges Spurned Tech Firm.” Frankly , the headline made little sense to me so I worked through what is a story about a contractor who believes it was shafted by a large consulting firm. In my experience, the situation is neither unusual nor particularly newsworthy. The write up does a reasonable job of presenting a story which could have been titled “Naive Start Up Smoked by Big Consulting Firm.” A small high technology contractor with smart software hooks up with a project in the Department of Defense. The high tech outfit is not able to meet the requirements to get the job. The little AI high tech outfit scouts around and brings a big consulting firm to get the deal done. After some bureaucratic cycles, the small high tech outfit is benched. If you are not familiar with how US government contracting works, the write up provides some insight.

image

The work product of AI projects will be digital silos. That is the key message of this procurement story. I don’t feel sorry for the smaller company. It did not prepare itself to deal with the big time government contractor. Outfits are big for a reason. They exploit opportunities and rarely emulate Mother Theresa-type behavior. Thanks, MSFT Copilot. Good enough illustration although the robots look stupid.

For me, the article is a stellar example of how information or or AI silos are created within the US government. Smart software is hot right now. Each agency, each department, and each unit wants to deploy an AI enabled service. Then that AI infused service becomes (one hopes) an afterburner for more money with which one can add headcount and more AI technology. AI is a rare opportunity to become recognized as a high-performance operator.

As a result, each AI service is constructed within a silo. Think about a structure designed to hold that specific service. The design is purpose built to keep rats and other vermin from benefiting from the goodies within the AI silo. Despite the talk about breaking down information silos, silos in a high profile, high potential technical are like artificial intelligence are the principal product of each agency, each department, and each unit. The payoff could be a promotion which might result in a cushy job in the commercial AI sector or a golden ring; that is, the senior executive service.

I understand the frustration of the small, high tech AI outfit. It knows it has been played by the big consulting firm and the procurement process. But, hey, there is a reason the big consulting firm generates billions of dollars in government contracts. The smaller outfit failed to lock down its role, retain the key to the know how it developed, and allowed its “must have cachè” to slip away.

Welcome, AI company, to the world of the big time Beltway Bandit. Were you expecting the big time consulting firm to do what you wanted? Did you enter the deal with a lack of knowledge, management sophistication, and a couple of false assumptions? And what about the notion of “algorithmic warfare”? Yeah, autonomous weapons systems are the future. Furthermore, when autonomous systems are deployed, the only way they can be neutralized is to use more capable autonomous weapons. Does this sound like a reply of the logic of Cold War thinking and everyone’s favorite bedtime read On Thermonuclear War still available on Amazon and as of September 6, 2024, on the Internet Archive at this link.

Several observations are warranted:

  1. Small outfits need to be informed about how big consulting companies with billions in government contracts work the system before exchanging substantive information
  2. The US government procurement processes are slow to change, and the Federal Acquisition Regulations and related government documents provide the rules of the road. Learn them before getting too excited about a request for a proposal or Federal Register announcement
  3. In a fight with a big time government contractor make sure you bring money, not a chip on your shoulder, to the meeting with attorneys. The entity with the most money typically wins because legal fees are more likely to kill a smaller firm than any judicial or tribunal ruling.

Net net: Silos are inherent in the work process of any government even those run by different rules. But what about the small AI firm’s loss of the contract? Happens so often, I view it as a normal part of the success workflow. Winners and losers are inevitable. Be smarter to avoid losing.

Stephen E Arnold, September 12, 2024

Consulting Tips: How to Guide Group Thinking

August 27, 2024

One of the mysteries of big time consulting is answering the question, “Why do these guys seem so smart?” One trick is to have a little knowledge valise stuffed with thinking and questioning tricks. One example is the Boston Consulting Group dog, star, loser, and uncertain matrix. If you remember the “I like Ike” buttons, you may know that the General used this approach to keep some frisky reports mostly in line during meetings.

Are there other knowledge tools or thinking frameworks? The answer is, “Sure.” When someone asks you to name six, can you deliver a prompt, concise answer? The answer, in my 50 plus years of professional services work, “Not a chance.”

The good news is that you can locate frameworks, get some tips on how to use these to knock the socks off those in a group, and become a walking, talking Blue Chip Consultant without the pain and expense of a fancy university, hours of drudgery, or enduring scathing comments from more experienced peers.

Navigate to “Tools for Better Thinking.” The link, one hopes, displays the names of thinking frameworks in boxes. Click a box, and you get a description and a how-to about the tool.

I think the site is quite good, and it may help some people sell consulting work in certain situations.

Worth a look.

Stephen E Arnold, August 27, 2024

MBAs Gone Wild: Assertions, Animation & Antics

August 5, 2024

Author’s note: Poor WordPress in the Safari browser is having a very bad day. Quotes from the cited McKinsey document appear against a weird blue background. My cheerful little dinosaur disappeared. And I could not figure out how to claim that AI did not help me with this essay. Just a heads up.

Holed up in rural Illinois, I had time to read the mid-July McKinsey & Company document “McKinsey Technology Trends Outlook 2024.” Imagine a group of well-groomed, top-flight, smooth talking “experts” with degrees from fancy schools filming one of those MBA group brainstorming sessions. Take the transcript, add motion graphics, and give audio sweetening to hot buzzwords. I think this would go viral among would-be consultants, clients facing the cloud of unknowing about the future. and those who manifest the Peter Principle. Viral winner! From my point of view, smart software is going to be integrated into most technologies and is, therefore, the trend. People may lose money, but applied AI is going to be with most companies for a long, long time.

The report boils down the current business climate to a few factors. Yes, when faced with exceptionally complex problems, boil those suckers down. Render them so only the tasty sales part remains. Thus, today’s businesss challenges become:

Generative AI (gen AI) has been a standout trend since 2022, with the extraordinary uptick in interest and investment in this technology unlocking innovative possibilities across interconnected trends such as robotics and immersive reality. While the macroeconomic environment with elevated interest rates has affected equity capital investment and hiring, underlying indicators—including optimism, innovation, and longer-term talent needs—reflect a positive long-term trajectory in the 15 technology trends we analyzed.

The data for the report come from inputs from about 100 people, not counting the people who converted the inputs into the live-action report. Move your mouse from one of the 15 “trends” to another. You will see the graphic display colored balls of different sizes. Yep, tiny and tinier balls and a few big balls tossed in.

I don’t have the energy to take each trend and offer a comment. Please, navigate to the original document and review it at your leisure. I can, however, select three trends and offer an observation or two about this very tiny ball selection.

Before sharing those three trends, I want to provide some context. First, the data gathered appear to be subjective and similar to the dorm outputs of MBA students working on a group project. Second, there is no reference to the thought process itself which when applied to a real world problem like boosting sales for opioids. It is the thought process that leads to revenues from consulting that counts.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dfv_tISYl8A
Image from the ENDEVR opioid video.

Third, McKinsey’s pool of 100 thought leaders seems fixated on two things:

gen AI and electrification and renewables.

But is that statement comprised of three things? [1] AI, [2] electrification, and [3] renewables? Because AI is a greedy consumer of electricity, I think I can see some connection between AI and renewable, but the “electrification” I think about is President Roosevelt’s creating in 1935 the Rural Electrification Administration. Dinobabies can be such nit pickers.

Let’s tackle the electrification point before I get to the real subject of the report, AI in assorted forms and applications. When McKinsey talks about electrification and renewables, McKinsey means:

The electrification and renewables trend encompasses the entire energy production, storage, and distribution value chain. Technologies include renewable sources, such as solar and wind power; clean firm-energy sources, such as nuclear and hydrogen, sustainable fuels, and bioenergy; and energy storage and distribution solutions such as long-duration battery systems and smart grids.In 2019, the interest score for Electrification and renewables was 0.52 on a scale from 0 to 1, where 0 is low and 1 is high. The innovation score was 0.29 on the same scale. The adoption rate was scored at 3. The investment in 2019 was 160 on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 defined as “frontier innovation” and 5 defined as “fully scaled.” The investment was 160 billion dollars. By 2023, the interest score for Electrification and renewables was 0.73. The innovation score was 0.36. The investment was 183 billion dollars. Job postings within this trend changed by 1 percent from 2022 to 2023.

Stop burning fossil fuels? Well, not quite. But the “save the whales” meme is embedded in the verbiage. Confused? That may be the point. What’s the fix? Hire McKinsey to help clarify your thinking.

AI plays the big gorilla in the monograph. The first expensive, hairy, yet promising aspect of smart software is replacing humans. The McKinsey report asserts:

Generative AI describes algorithms (such as ChatGPT) that take unstructured data as input (for example, natural language and images) to create new content, including audio, code, images, text, simulations, and videos. It can automate, augment, and accelerate work by tapping into unstructured mixed-modality data sets to generate new content in various forms.

Yep, smart software can produce reports like this one: Faster, cheaper, and good enough. Just think of the reports the team can do.

The third trend I want to address is digital trust and cyber security. Now the cyber crime world is a relatively specialized one. We know from the CrowdStrike misstep that experts in cyber security can wreck havoc on a global scale. Furthermore, we know that there are hundreds of cyber security outfits offering smart software, threat intelligence, and very specialized technical services to protect their clients. But McKinsey appears to imply that its band of 100 trend identifiers are hip to this. Here’s what the dorm-room btrainstormers output:

The digital trust and cybersecurity trend encompasses the technologies behind trust architectures and digital identity, cybersecurity, and Web3. These technologies enable organizations to build, scale, and maintain the trust of stakeholders.

Okay.

I want to mention that other trends range from blasting into space to software development appear in the list. What strikes me as a bit of an oversight is that smart software is going to be woven into the fabric of the other trends. What? Well, software is going to surf on AI outputs. And big boy rockets, not the duds like the Seattle outfit produces, use assorted smart algorithms to keep the system from burning up or exploding… most of the time. Not perfect, but better, faster, and cheaper than CalTech grads solving equations and rigging cybernetics with wire and a soldering iron.

Net net: This trend report is a sales document. Its purpose is to cause an organization familiar with McKinsey and the organization’s own shortcomings to hire McKinsey to help out with these big problems. The data source is the dorm room. The analysts are cherry picked. The tone is quasi-authoritative. I have no problem with marketing material. In fact, I don’t have a problem with the McKinsey-generated list of trends. That’s what McKinsey does. What the firm does not do is to think about the downstream consequences of their recommendations. How do I know this? Returning from a lunch with some friends in rural Illinois, I spotted two opioid addicts doing the droop.

Stephen E Arnold, August 5, 2024

The Key to Success at McKinsey & Company: The 2024 Truth Is Out!

June 21, 2024

dinosaur30a_thumb_thumbThis essay is the work of a dinobaby. Unlike some folks, no smart software improved my native ineptness.

When I was working at a “real” company, I wanted to labor in the vineyards of a big-time, blue-chip consulting firm. I achieved that goal and, after a suitable period of time in the penal colony, I escaped to a client. I made it out, unscathed, and entered a more interesting, less nutso working life. When the “truth” about big-time, blue-chip consulting firms appears in public sources, I scan the information. Most of it is baloney; for example, the yip yap about McKinsey and its advice pertaining to addictive synthetics. Hey, stuff happens when one is objective. “McKinsey Exec Tells Summer Interns That Learning to Ask AI the Right Questions Is the Key to Success” contains some information which I find quite surprising. First, I don’t know if the factoids in the write up are accurate or if they are the off-the-cuff baloney recruiters regularly present to potential 60-hour-a-week knowledge worker serfs or if the person has a streaming video connection to the McKinsey managing partner’s work-from-the-resort office.

Let’s assume the information is correct and consider some of its implications. An intern is a no-pay or low-pay job for students from the right institutions, the right background, or the right connections. The idea is that associates (one step above the no-pay serf) and partners (the set for life if you don’t die of heart failure crowd) can observe, mentor, and judge these field laborers. The write up states:

Standing out in a summer internship these days boils down to one thing — learning to talk to AI. At least, that’s the advice McKinsey’s chief client officer, Liz Hilton Segel, gave one eager intern at the firm. “My advice to her was to be an outstanding prompt engineer,” Hilton Segel told The Wall Street Journal.

But what about grades? What about my family’s connections to industry, elected officials, and a supreme court judge? What about my background scented with old money, sheepskin from prestigious universities, and a Nobel Prize awarded a relative 50 years ago? These questions, its seems, may no longer be relevant. AI is coming to the blue-chip consulting game, and the old-school markers of building big revenues may not longer matter.

AI matters. Despite McKinsey’s 11-month effort, the firm has produced Lilli. The smart systems, despite fits and starts, has delivered results; that is, a payoff, cash money, engagement opportunities. The write up says:

Lilli’s purpose is to aggregate the firm’s knowledge and capabilities so that employees can spend more time engaging with clients, Erik Roth, a senior partner at McKinsey who oversaw Lili’s development, said last year in a press release announcing the tool.

And the proof? I learned:

“We’ve [McKinsey humanoids] answered over 3 million prompts and add about 120,000 prompts per week,” he [Erik Roth] said. “We are saving on average up to 30% of a consultants’ time that they can reallocate to spend more time with their clients instead of spending more time analyzing things.”

Thus, the future of success is to learn to use Lilli. I am surprised that McKinsey does not sell internships, possibly using a Ticketmaster-type system.

Several observations:

  1. As Lilli gets better or is replaced by a more cost efficient system, interns and newly hired professionals will be replaced by smart software.
  2. McKinsey and other blue-chip outfits will embrace smart software because it can sell what the firm learns to its clients. AI becomes a Petri dish for finding marketable information.
  3. The hallucinative functions of smart software just create an opportunity for McKinsey and other blue-chip firms to sell their surviving professionals at a more inflated fee. Why fail and lose money? Just pay the consulting firm, sidestep the stupidity tax, and crush those competitors to whom the consulting firms sell the cookie cutter knowledge.

Net net: Blue-chip firms survived the threat from gig consultants and the Gerson Lehrman-type challenge. Now McKinsey is positioning itself to create a no-expectation environment for new hires, cut costs, and increase billing rates for the consultants at the top of the pyramid. Forget opioids. Go AI.

Stephen E Arnold, June 21, 2024

Next Page »

  • Archives

  • Recent Posts

  • Meta