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%

 

Solicitors code of conduct

It is however now possible for a barrister to become a manager of SRA-regulated LDPs, alongside solicitors, other qualified lawyers and non-lawyers. Most barristers who become managers and employees of recognized bodies are therefore likely to be in SRA-regulated firms. A barrister can also be a manager of a CLC-regulated LDP but as such cannot conduct litigation or exercise rights of audience.

As such, and by virtue of the Act, they will be subject to the whole of the SRA’s Code of Conduct, save to the extent that this is expressed to apply only to solicitors or trainee solicitors. Barristers practicing in SRA-regulated entities will therefore be amenable to the jurisdiction of the SRA and the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in the event of breaches of the SRA rules of conduct. The practicalities of managing disciplinary procedures, when individuals are subject to the regimes of more than one Approved Regulator, will be addressed through the development of Memoranda of Understanding between the relevant Approved Regulators.

Barristers practicing in SRA-regulated entities will remain subject to certain parts of the Bar’s Code of Conduct. These are the provisions that are regarded as necessary or fundamental to all practicing barristers. The provisions of the Code that apply to barristers so practicing are identified in rule 105C.1 of the Code. Barristers practicing in recognized bodies are strongly advised to ensure that they are aware of the provisions of the Bar’s Code that will remain applicable to them. The cab-rank rule does not apply to barristers who are managers or employees of recognized bodies, as it does not apply to employed barristers generally. It is a disciplinary offence under the Bar’s Code for a barrister to be convicted of a disciplinary offence by another approved regulator, such as the SRA. A barrister so convicted therefore is liable to further disciplinary action by the BSB (rule 901.8) so far as necessary in the public interest and proportionate.

LDP Restrictions

In due course, possibly as early as 2011, the restrictions on who can own or participate in LDPs, and on the services that they can provide, may disappear. These are generally known as ABSs. The Legal Services Board is planning to enable the licensing of bodies under Part V of the Act that can be externally owned and supply other services as well as legal services. Some LDPs (those that include non-lawyer managers) will have to become ABSs after a transitional period has expired after the start of the licensable body regime. A decision on whether barristers will be permitted to become either managers or employees of ABSs will be addressed by consultation during 2010/11. The BSB is also conscious of the need to resolve the position of those who are employed within those LDPs that will become ABSs in advance of the anticipated start of the ABS regime in October 2011, so that transitional arrangements could, if necessary, be made in good time. Any barrister wishing to become a manager of such an LDP must understand that the BSB has not yet considered whether or not it is in the public interest for barristers to be managers or employees of ABSs that go beyond the current model of LDPs, i.e. those that are partly or wholly externally owned and/or that provide services other than legal services, and that therefore remains an open question at this stage. This, too, will be addressed in the consultation.

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.

Barristers as managers of recognized bodies

The opportunity for barristers to become managers of recognized bodies means that barristers may be exposed, for the first time, to business practices that are unfamiliar to them. In particular, the SRA rules make all managers of recognized bodies responsible for (and entitled to deal with) client monies. Similarly those with managerial responsibility for handling clients’ money should ensure that they are familiar with the relevant Rules. Entitlement to handle client monies is, however, a matter for the SRA as regulator of the entity and subject to that for the regulated entity, and not for the BSB as the professional regulator of the individual barrister. This is something that barristers have not previously been entitled to do. In order to qualify, a solicitor has to pass examination papers in accounting for client monies. Any barrister managers of LDPs are strongly urged not personally to deal with client monies until they have received adequate training and have acquired a sufficient understanding of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules.

The amendments to the Code give barristers who are managers of recognized bodies the right to conduct litigation (employed barristers already have this right), subject to complying with the Employed Barristers (Conduct of Litigation) Rules (Annex I of the Code) and the Approved Regulator’s rules. Rule 1(b) of the former requires a period of practice under the supervision of a qualified person who has been entitled to conduct litigation for the previous 2 years unless the BSB grants an exemption on the grounds of relevant experience.

Both the SRA Code (para 1.05) and the Bar’s Code (paras 606.1, 701(b)) contain rules that require a barrister not to act beyond his professional competence. Any barrister acting as manager of a recognized body should ensure that he/she does not infringe this rule.

The new rules 407, 505 and 507 replace rule 307(f) on client money. For self-employed barristers and all employed barristers, the existing prohibition on receiving and handling client money is maintained, but the prohibition does not apply to managers of recognized bodies. They will therefore be able to be responsible for client money, subject to the rules of the Approved Regulator for the entity of which they are a manager. Such rules may include requirements as to training and they will, in any case, be subject to the Code requirements not to undertake any task which they are not competent to handle.