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%

 

In New Zealand Financial Advisers Regulation

1. There is a 2 layered approach to the regulation of financial service providers and financial advisers in New Zealand. There is a system of registration and a system for authorisation.

2. The law requires all financial service providers, including financial advisers, who operate in New Zealand to be on a public Financial Service Providers Register (FSPR). It also requires advisers to belong to an approved dispute resolution scheme or to the reserve scheme (a scheme appointed on recommendation of the Minister to perform the functions of a default scheme). This gives consumers access to an independent dispute resolution process.

Registration

3. Entities and individuals who:

(a) Live or have a place of business in New Zealand; and

(b) Are in the business of providing financial services (in New Zealand or overseas),

must register to provide that particular financial service on the FSPR.

4. The meaning of ‘financial service’ is defined in section 5 of the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008. An early stage of the process will be to identify exactly what services your client wishes to provide. We will then be able to advise on the application of the relevant legislation.

5. In terms of whether individual and entity level registration is required, Regulation 6 in the new Financial Service Providers (Exemptions) Regulations 2010 deals with ‘sole adviser practices’. The NZ’s company will not have to be registered on the FSPR in its own right as a financial service provider if:

(a) The advisor provides the financial adviser services (or a relevant connected service) on behalf of the company and they are the only director, or one of only two directors, and senior manager of the company;

(b) The advisor is personally registered (in their individual capacity) on the FSPR.

6. Applicants must also ensure they are not disqualified from registration. Individual applicants must not be undischarged bankrupts or banned directors. They must have a record clear of fraud and other criminal offences (a criminal history check will be conducted as part of the registration process).

7. All providers must pay the appropriate fees. The initial registration is approximately NZ$420 (including GST) with an ongoing annual fee of approximately $62. Registration is online and relatively simple and your client will presumably be able to register without assistance from us.

Financial Advisers

8. The Financial Advisers Act 2008 introduced minimum standards of professionalism for financial advisers and gives the Securities Commission power to regulate them.

9. The Financial Advisers Act aims to build public confidence in the professionalism and integrity of financial advisers by:

(a) Requiring competence so advisers have the experience and expertise to match a person to a financial product that meets their needs and risk profile.

(b) Requiring disclosure by advisers so that consumers can make informed decisions about whether to use an adviser and follow their advice.

(c) Making advisers accountable for the advice they give.

10. The Financial Advisers Act covers individuals and entities who provide financial adviser services to clients. Financial adviser services included in the Act are:

(a) Giving financial advice.

(b) Providing an investment planning service.

(c) Providing a discretionary investment management service.

11. Whether client need to be authorised depends on the following factors:

(a) Whether the client’s client is retail or wholesale;

(b) Whether the service to be provided is personalised or non-personalised (a class service); and

(c) Which category of product your client will advise on.

12. The Financial Advisers Act focuses the requirement to be authorised on advisers who provide personalised investment advice to retail clients.

13. The category of product, i.e. category 1 or 2, is relevant for personalised services, which are services that take into account the client's individual needs and financial situation or where a client would reasonably expect an adviser to take their particular financial situation or goals into account.

14. The clients will need to become an Authorised Financial Adviser (AFA) if you provide any of the following Financial Adviser Services to retail clients:

(a) Give personalised financial advice on category 1 products including: securities, land investment products, futures contracts and investment-linked insurance contracts. Financial advice covers any recommendation or opinion about buying, selling (or refraining from buying or selling) a financial product.

(b) Provide a discretionary investment management service in relation to category 1 products, i.e., your client decides which financial products to buy and/or sell on behalf of a client, e.g., your client is authorised to manage a client's investment portfolio.

(c) Provide an investment planning service, that is, if your client designs or offers to design a plan for an individual that:

(i) Is based on an analysis of an individual's current and future overall financial situation

(ii) Identifies their investment goals, and

(iii) Includes recommendations or opinions on how to realise those goals.

15. The requirements for authorisation and the process are fairly stringent. They require:

(a) Registration with ETITO (the organisation tasked with ensuring compliance with the educational requirements) and a competence assessment and examinations, as required.

(b) Evidence from the relevant educational institution or industry body of accepted alternative qualifications and designations for proof of competence.

(c) The provision of testimonials.

(d) Evidence of good character.

(e) The preparation of an Adviser Business Statement (ABS).

(f) Online application for authorisation to the FSPR.

16. The application fees are approximately NZ$1,200, with an annual fee of approximately NZ$600.

Ownership by barristers

Whilst ownership by barristers of interests in LDPs gives rise to the same kinds of issues and concerns as dual practice (see para 11 above), the issues here are significantly more acute. Barristers’ involvement is likely to be less obvious to clients. It is essential that such interests are disclosed to clients, where material, and disclosed to the Board so that the impact of them can be monitored as part of the Board’s general jurisdiction to ensure that barristers practice is a way that protects and promotes clients’ and the public interest above their own private interests. As explained below, in some cases ownership would require the barrister to take steps to manage or avoid conflicts that might arise. The responsibility to avoid causing prejudice to his client is, in these circumstances, that of the barrister.

Barristers are advised to consider carefully the implications of owning an interest in an LDP, either directly or indirectly, in circumstances in which they are not employees or managers of that LDP. In order to manage the risks and avoid conflicts of interest and duty from occurring, rules 209 of the Code imposes restrictions and requirements for barristers who wish to own interests in LDPs.

Managerial Capacity Barriers

Support programs for addressing internationalization barriers related with SMEs‟ limited managerial skills and knowledge are also identified in several countries. Examples of such programs include the 18-month export coaching course offered by UbiFrance, the French Agency for International Business Development; the Export Academy provided by Czech Republic; the 6-month Global Company Development Program offered by the Scottish Enterprise (a sub-national initiative); and the export managers‟ forum available to Greek SMEs.

Knowledge-related Motives.

Recent research findings suggest that knowledge assets both push and pull SMEs into international markets.There are also related findings from a number of OECD countries (Sweden, Ireland, and Canada) and non-OECD economies (Chile, India and Indonesia) on the internationalization triggering effects of knowledge aspects, including R&D investment, innovation capabilities, unique product or technology, management, and language skills; and firm resource base, as indicated by such proxies as size, age, and experience. The push ‟dimension pertains to the importance of managers”previous international experience and related management capacity factors, as observed in studies among Canadian firms, Spanish firms, and Swedish firms. Search for knowledge assets may also pull SMEs into international markets, as suggested by Kocker and Buhl's findings that firms internationalize to obtain missing know-how required to maintain their lead in technological development.