171–180 of 328 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also /s/moral/morale, although they can be closely related: People imposing immoral policies definitely create bad morale!
Thanks. At this point I should probably go ahead and hire an editor to review my comments before publishing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are many projects where the build vs buy decision itself is politicized. Political rifts between business and IT is a story that is just as old as business software itself. Super common scenario: * The business thinks IT is too slow to implement, and doesn't understand business needs * IT thinks the business changes priority too much and doesn't even understand their own business processes, and it's leading to…
Two years later, the outsourced work is half-finished and what has been delivered is near-total garbage. All the best engineers have left the team and the business is scrambling to hire someone competent to cleanup the mess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This entirely misses the forest for the trees. And granted the author's bias gets in the way of his attempt to point out that forest. Their bias aligns with mine, but with less editorialization IMO the following would be more clear: It's not that the work is or isn't valuable, or where that value is. It's that McKinsey charges 72% more than a competitor for the same consulting, and that there's a massive perverse inc…
> there's a massive perverse incentive for public servants in charge of awarding contracts to pick the most expensive one. I'm not quite following your logic here, could you elaborate a bit more? There's nothing prohibiting well-funded competitors from similar GSA approval, is there? My understanding is that this method is used to streamline contract awards...being listed on a GSA schedule means you've gotten a stamp…
They get to ghost write their own assignment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This ! In france, its a classic move by big companies to have mbb formalize what they already know: a need to restructure which unfortunately involves firing people. Its easier to justify restructuring because mbb said so than because the company says so for some reason ^^
Companies trust capital expenses more than operational expenses for some strange reason. I don't know why.
[1] http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This entirely misses the forest for the trees. And granted the author's bias gets in the way of his attempt to point out that forest. Their bias aligns with mine, but with less editorialization IMO the following would be more clear: It's not that the work is or isn't valuable, or where that value is. It's that McKinsey charges 72% more than a competitor for the same consulting, and that there's a massive perverse inc…
> there's a massive perverse incentive for public servants in charge of awarding contracts to pick the most expensive one. I'm not quite following your logic here, could you elaborate a bit more? There's nothing prohibiting well-funded competitors from similar GSA approval, is there? My understanding is that this method is used to streamline contract awards...being listed on a GSA schedule means you've gotten a stamp…
So the bidding process gets corrupted, ignored, anything and everything the staff can do to inflate the contracts so they get more IFF back.
That IFF honestly sounds like the cleverest pork barrel hack since all the military contractors got theirs set up...
Had a lot of experience with McKinsey doing projects at my company at different levels I’ve been in throughout it the years. When it’s highly technical things like implementing a new technology you know nothing about or a new manufacturing footprint that is tangible to perform, they do good work. Anything “Strategic” or fluffy I find a waste of time. They are excellent salespeople and do a lot to calm the C-suite but…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Getting an outsider perspective - sure. That I can get behind, it can obviously be helpful. But getting an outsider to tell you what to do? A complete overhaul? That’s a leap. You’re going from getting perspective to getting directed by an outsider. A recipe for disaster, and from what we’re seeing here, that’s exactly what has happened.
>You’re going from getting perspective to getting directed by an outsider Yes, but it's not like this outsider has no idea what they're talking about. This outsider has decades (sometimes centuries) of knowledge working with organizations exactly like yours, and they have seen what works and what doesn't. When McK goes to consult for the NSA, they likely bring along with them experience from doing similar projects fo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This entirely misses the forest for the trees. And granted the author's bias gets in the way of his attempt to point out that forest. Their bias aligns with mine, but with less editorialization IMO the following would be more clear: It's not that the work is or isn't valuable, or where that value is. It's that McKinsey charges 72% more than a competitor for the same consulting, and that there's a massive perverse inc…
> there's a massive perverse incentive for public servants in charge of awarding contracts to pick the most expensive one. I'm not quite following your logic here, could you elaborate a bit more? There's nothing prohibiting well-funded competitors from similar GSA approval, is there? My understanding is that this method is used to streamline contract awards...being listed on a GSA schedule means you've gotten a stamp…
Therefore, the GSA has an incentive to have a very short list of highly paid consultants.
The individual agencies using the scheduled are supposed to pick the low bid, but if GSA has restricted the schedule, well, we all get ripped off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there's a massive perverse incentive for public servants in charge of awarding contracts to pick the most expensive one. I'm not quite following your logic here, could you elaborate a bit more? There's nothing prohibiting well-funded competitors from similar GSA approval, is there? My understanding is that this method is used to streamline contract awards...being listed on a GSA schedule means you've gotten a stamp…
Reread the part about the IFF - GSA gets paid a percentage of their contracts. So the bidding process gets corrupted, ignored, anything and everything the staff can do to inflate the contracts so they get more IFF back. That IFF honestly sounds like the cleverest pork barrel hack since all the military contractors got theirs set up...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
McKinsey does flat fees. The flat fees are driven by a rate card estimate, but there's no marginal cost to an extra hour... fwiw
Thats because there is 0 additional marginal cost for their salaried consultants' time, too. Like many in the workforce, they are a paid a salary, and it's the same amount whether working 40 hours or 80 hours.