Исследование консалтинговых методологий
Introduction: Understanding Consulting Methodologies
In the realm of organizational and strategic consulting, a “methodology” refers to a structured approach, framework, or set of practices that consultants use to analyze problems and deliver solutions. It can be a broad conceptual model (for example, McKinsey’s 7‐S framework or BCG’s growth-share matrix) or a step-by-step process for project delivery. These methodologies are a consulting firm’s intellectual property – refined through experience and research – that provide a repeatable way to tackle client challenges. Crucially, effective consulting methodologies are not static formulas; they must be adapted to the situation’s complexity. As the Cynefin framework teaches, problem contexts vary from simple or complicated (where cause and effect are clear or can be uncovered with expert analysis) to complex or chaotic (where uncertainty is high and linear planning fails) . In simple contexts, a methodology may amount to a best practice checklist – a fixed sequence known to yield results . In complex or chaotic scenarios, however, successful consultants treat methodology as a guiding system of principles that evolves through rapid feedback, experimentation, and iteration . In other words, methodology in consulting combines a firm’s accumulated knowledge and its ability to continuously learn and adapt. Below, we explore how top consulting firms (e.g. McKinsey, BCG, Bain, Accenture, etc.) develop, apply, and adapt their methodologies, examining the creation process, involved roles, integration with practice, feedback loops, knowledge management, and differences among firms – with real examples and case insights.
Developing Methodologies: Process and Key Roles
Initiating & Designing a New Methodology: In large consulting firms, the development of a new methodology often begins when a need is identified – either a recurring client problem lacking a structured solution, or an innovative idea championed by consultants or partners. Senior leaders (partners or practice heads) typically sponsor “knowledge projects” to create new approaches. For example, McKinsey established an internal contest called Practice Olympics in the mid-1990s where teams of consultants proposed new practice ideas and frameworks . Winning ideas received resources for further development. (This program later evolved into McKinsey’s New Ventures Competition focused on tech-enabled solutions, but originally it was about methodologies and knowledge .) Similarly, Boston Consulting Group (BCG) launched the Bruce Henderson Institute – a dedicated research unit led by senior partners – explicitly to “develop pioneering new ideas and approaches to solving business challenges.” This formal institute, named after BCG’s founder, illustrates how BCG initiates methodology development at a leadership level to stay on the cutting edge of management thinking.
Research and Concept Development: Once an initiative is approved, consultants, researchers, and analysts collaborate to research and design the methodology. This may involve internal analysis of past projects, academic research, market studies, and expert brainstorming. For instance, Bain & Company’s development of the Net Promoter Score (NPS) methodology began with Fred Reichheld (a Bain partner) and his team conducting a research project to find a better metric for customer loyalty. They analyzed data across industries, tested many survey questions, and discovered that one question (“How likely are you to recommend…?”) had the strongest correlation to customer behavior . The outcome was the NPS framework. Many methodologies similarly start as hypotheses that certain practices or metrics could predict or improve performance, which consultants then validate with data. In developing methodologies, firms often leverage internal think-tanks: McKinsey has the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) for economic research and numerous internal centers of excellence, while BCG’s Henderson Institute and Bain’s internal research teams play analogous roles. These groups conduct studies and distill insights that become the backbone of new consulting frameworks.
Pilot Testing and Refinement: A proposed methodology isn’t considered truly proven until it’s applied in practice. Consulting firms usually pilot new methodologies on client engagements (often with supportive or long-term clients willing to try innovative approaches). During these pilots, the methodology’s steps or tools are tested against reality: Do they produce insight? Are they efficient? Do they lead to better client outcomes? Feedback from these pilot projects is gathered to refine the approach. For example, when McKinsey’s Tom Peters and Robert Waterman (authors of the 7-S framework) first formulated that model in the early 1980s, they did so by examining successful organizations and consulting experiences. The 7-S framework (strategy, structure, systems, shared values, style, staff, skills) was refined through case work and eventually published – but only after internal vetting in real scenarios. Who approves a methodology for wider use can vary: typically a practice leader or a global committee will review the evidence that a new framework works. If it passes muster, it becomes part of the firm’s official toolkit, sometimes even trademarked or branded as the firm’s intellectual property.
Key Roles in the Creation Process: Throughout this development journey, multiple roles contribute:
Expert Partners/Practice Leaders: Senior partners often initiate methodology projects (seeing the “big picture” need) and sponsor them. They provide domain expertise and ensure the new approach aligns with the firm’s standards and strategic focus. They also often are the ones to formally approve and champion the methodology once developed. For instance, BCG’s CEO Rich Lesser and Senior Partner Martin Reeves led the establishment of the Henderson Institute to institutionalize BCG’s creation of new frameworks . At McKinsey in the 1980s, Director Fred Gluck spearheaded a push to focus on “knowledge building,” which led to formal knowledge development processes .
Consultants and Case Teams: Many methodological innovations originate from front-line consultants solving client problems. A creative approach crafted to crack a specific client issue can be scaled up to a firm-wide method. Consulting teams provide the practical insights – what actually works in the field. They also contribute by documenting their project learnings (see next sections) so that raw material for new frameworks is available. In McKinsey’s Practice Olympics, it was front-line teams “outlining innovative new ideas they had developed out of recent project work” that drove new methodologies .
Researchers and Knowledge Specialists: Large firms have dedicated knowledge professionals who support methodology development. McKinsey’s Knowledge Network and Bain’s Product, Practice & Knowledge (PPK) team are examples. These individuals (often called knowledge managers, practice experts, or analysts) collect data, codify lessons, and draft the documents or tools that form the methodology. Bain’s PPK group explicitly focuses on “capturing completed client work, codifying the lessons, and distributing that knowledge” to consultants. They help turn a successful project approach into a reproducible framework and often work with partners to write internal “playbooks” or external articles. McKinsey’s knowledge managers similarly help translate project decks into refined content (“PDs” – practice documents – and shorter “knowledge nuggets”) that inform methodologies (as evidenced by former consultants describing how internal databases contained such documents for reuse) . These roles ensure the methodology isn’t just in a partner’s head but is documented and sharable.
Clients (Indirectly): While clients are not internal to the firm, their input is vital. Sometimes firms co-develop approaches with clients in a collaborative project. More often, clients provide feedback and results data: e.g. if a pilot method improved their KPIs or not. Satisfied reference clients can validate a methodology’s effectiveness, while any difficulties they faced using it prompt adjustments. In some cases, consulting firms even invite clients to speak at internal knowledge sessions or training about how a new approach worked, thereby enriching the firm’s understanding of its methodology in action.
In summary, developing a consulting methodology is a multi-stage, collaborative process – from ideation and research, to piloting and refinement – overseen by senior leaders but drawing on the creativity and experience of many consultants and researchers.
From Framework to Practice: Application and Adaptation
Developing a methodology is only half the battle; it must also be embedded into the firm’s practice and regularly updated. Top consultancies ensure that methodologies are living systems, not static binders on a shelf. Here’s how methodologies are applied and kept alive in practice:
Codification and Knowledge Sharing: Once a methodology is approved, it is codified into knowledge assets – documents, tools, training – and made accessible to consultants globally. Major firms invest heavily in knowledge management systems to facilitate this. McKinsey, for example, has long been a leader in formal knowledge management: as early as the late 1980s it built the Practice Development Network (PDNet), a firm-wide electronic knowledge base to house core documents and insights for each practice . Along with PDNet, McKinsey created a Knowledge Resource Directory (KRD) (an index of experts and documents) and a Practice Information System (database of past project credentials) – all infrastructure to support consultants in finding and applying methodologies. By the 2000s, McKinsey was spending on the order of $50 million annually (in 1993) on knowledge building, and today it invests around $600 million per year in knowledge development, learning and capability building . This huge investment underpins keeping methodologies updated and available. Bain & Company similarly has a robust system; their “Iris” knowledge platform (developed with a partner company) is designed to help consultants quickly find relevant case insights and experts, improving reuse of proven approaches. Bain’s PPK team “steward our knowledge on the ‘best of Bain’ past cases” and support internal tools for sharing ideas, patterns, case examples, and tools. The emphasis is on making knowledge easy to retrieve so that when a consultant faces, say, an organization design project, they can pull the firm’s latest organization design methodology deck, related benchmarks, and contact names of experts in seconds. Accenture, given its larger size and technology focus, also excels in this area – their Knowledge Exchange (KX) is a corporate knowledge system that has been continuously refined (e.g. an upgrade with SharePoint to improve search) . The goal across firms is to embed methodologies in a central repository so consultants everywhere use (and contribute to) the best approaches.
Training and Tools: Firms ensure consultants are trained in key methodologies. New hires often go through bootcamps where they learn the firm’s signature frameworks (like McKinsey’s structured problem-solving approach, or Accenture’s project management method). There may be internal certification for certain methodologies (for example, coaches for Bain’s Results Delivery℠ change management method). Methodologies also come with supporting tools – e.g., spreadsheet models, software, templates, and checklists. Accenture, for instance, historically provided consultants with Method/1, a detailed methodology for systems implementation projects, which included step-by-step phases and templates (originating in 1979 as a “structured, systematic approach to information system planning, design, installation and support” ). While strategy consulting frameworks are often more conceptual, when it comes to implementation or operational methodologies, firms like Accenture and the Big 4 create comprehensive playbooks. These materials are periodically updated by knowledge teams to incorporate new best practices (for example, integrating agile techniques into what was once a waterfall IT implementation method).
Adaptation and Flexibility in Use: An important aspect is that consultants are taught to adapt methodologies to the client context. A framework is not a formula that replaces thinking; rather, it’s a starting point. Consultants will customize the methodology’s steps, or even blend elements from multiple frameworks, to fit the situation. For instance, Bain’s consultants might use the Net Promoter System framework for a client’s customer experience strategy, but they will tailor how they gather feedback or implement changes based on the client’s culture and market. Bain emphasizes that their team helps “build new tools and repeatable approaches” and “offer practice expertise”, but also works “with case teams to surface the right information and patterns to clients.” This suggests a dynamic interplay: Bain codifies what generally works, yet case teams adjust and co-create solutions with the client, effectively evolving the methodology in real time. In complex domains (recalling Cynefin), this adaptability is crucial – consultants might start with an outline of analysis areas (say, in a company culture transformation, they use an outline of organizational elements to examine), but they remain agile, trying interventions, sensing outcomes, and adjusting the approach – an emergent use of methodology rather than strictly linear. Leading firms explicitly acknowledge this: methodologies live as evolving knowledge. Bain even describes their knowledge team as “co-creating Bain’s perspectives and intellectual property so the firm can continuously improve… [we’re] the keepers of all the stories about what worked last time.”. That illustrates how the methodology repository is constantly refreshed with new learnings.
Feedback Loops and Continuous Improvement: Consulting firms implement both formal and informal mechanisms to gather feedback on their methodologies’ effectiveness. Post-project reviews are a common practice: teams dissect what went well or not and send key takeaways to the knowledge system. McKinsey in the 1990s instituted what was called “Practice Olympics” not only to propose new ideas but also to reward the improvement of existing practice knowledge . They gave monetary prizes and recognition (the “Marvin” award, named after Marvin Bower) to teams that best codified insights from recent projects . This created an incentive to document and refine methodologies continuously. Bain’s culture of results tracking also feeds back – because they stay with clients through implementation, they get data on which recommendations stuck and delivered value, informing tweaks to their approach next time. Many firms also track client satisfaction scores and outcomes for projects; if a pattern of underperformance emerges in a certain type of project, the firm may revisit the methodology behind that service offering. Internally, there are often knowledge councils or practice meetings where methodology updates are discussed. For example, a global practice leader might convene all regional leaders in, say, the operations practice to discuss the latest lean transformation tools, share case studies, and agree on any updates to the firm’s standard approach. In essence, methodologies are treated as products that require R&D: firms measure their “performance” (through project success rates, client feedback) and invest in improving them. McKinsey’s quote that “we invest more than $600 million… annually in knowledge development” and study emerging best practices to advance management science speaks to this relentless update cycle.
Living Documents vs. Fixed Manuals: Therefore, at top firms methodologies are living documents. Decades ago, one might receive a physical consulting manual – but today, the latest methodology is likely on an internal wiki or database, with annotations from the last project that used it. For example, an internal McKinsey “practice document” on organizational redesign from 2015 might note, “Update 2019: incorporate digital org structure considerations; see Case X for new model”. This ensures consultants don’t rely on stale tactics. Even so, some baseline documents do exist (for training consistency), but they are periodically version-controlled. Contrast this with some smaller or less knowledge-driven firms where methodology might be a one-time PDF that isn’t revisited often; the large firms have the scale and culture to keep theirs in flux.
To manage this, firms have assigned owners or stewards for each major methodology – usually a senior expert who ensures the content is kept current and who can answer practitioners’ questions. Also, methodologies might evolve into software tools – for instance, BCG’s classic matrix can now be run with automated data visualization, and many firms have proprietary digital tools for things like benchmarking (Accenture, for example, might embed its best practices into a software that analyzes a client’s process metrics). These tools get updates like software does, thereby updating the methodology execution.
In summary, leading consulting firms make sure that methodologies are thoroughly integrated into daily practice via knowledge systems and training, and they remain flexible and up-to-date through constant feedback and knowledge refresh.
Knowledge Storage and Transfer Within Firms
Because methodologies are so central to a consultancy’s value, firms put heavy emphasis on knowledge management (KM) to store and transmit these methods. We’ve touched on KM systems, but let’s detail the formats and practices of knowledge sharing:
Repositories of Documents: Every major firm maintains a curated library of internal documents. These include full-length practice manuals, case studies, research reports, and “best practice” decks. For example, McKinsey consultants can search an internal database to find prior project proposals, deliverables, and summaries – internally dubbed “PDs” (practice documents) – relevant to their current engagement . Shorter 1-3 page summaries called “knowledge nuggets” are also used for quick reference . These documents encode methodologies by example: a team wanting to apply McKinsey’s merger management methodology, for instance, might pull up several PDs from past merger projects and extract the structured approach used. Bain’s internal case database serves a similar function, and Bain also distills “best of Bain” topic primers. Accenture, with its huge workforce, has an elaborate system where any consultant can retrieve methodology playbooks (often PowerPoints or Word docs) for common project types – these are often very detailed, step-by-step guides developed by their Solution Centers.
Knowledge Portals and Wikis: Modern consulting KM has shifted to more interactive portals. Many firms use intranet wiki pages for each practice area. A wiki page for, say, “agile transformation methodology” will outline the firm’s approach, link to tools, list experts, and show latest insights. This is easier to keep updated than standalone files. Some firms have gone further, creating AI-powered search that can answer consultants’ queries about methodologies (e.g., leveraging something like the generative AI platform Lilli that McKinsey developed, which is fed by the firm’s knowledge base).
Formats of Methodologies: Methodologies can appear as framework diagrams (e.g., the 7-S model graphic), checklists (for implementation steps), matrices or canvases (the BCG matrix, or Business Model Canvas – not from these firms but an example format widely used), or algorithms in tools (for instance, a pricing strategy methodology might be partially codified in a pricing simulator tool). They also exist in training slides and handbooks given to new consultants, and in internal webinars or videos (many firms record training sessions where experts teach a methodology). Furthermore, methodologies often turn into client-facing thought leadership: consultants publish articles in HBR or on the firm’s website that share the framework (often to attract clients by showing the firm’s thinking). For example, when Bain’s NPS framework was developed, Reichheld published “The One Number You Need to Grow” in Harvard Business Review (2003) to introduce it, and Bain followed up with books and a dedicated external website for the Net Promoter System – effectively, a methodology that lives in public and in private (the public sees the concept, while Bain’s teams have internal depth on how to implement it). McKinsey’s frameworks like 7-S were popularized through the book In Search of Excellence by Peters and Waterman, showcasing how a methodology can be packaged as a story for a broad audience after being tested internally.
Communities of Practice: Beyond written knowledge, firms foster person-to-person transfer. They establish practice groups or communities where consultants focused on a domain regularly interact (calls, meetings, conferences). Junior consultants learn by working with seniors who have used the methodology many times. Some firms have a “Center of Competence” model – McKinsey did this in 1982, creating 15 centers of competence in various business areas with dedicated leaders . These centers acted as hubs to accumulate and disseminate know-how in their area. So if a consultant anywhere had a question about, say, supply chain strategy methodology, they knew the supply chain CoE (center of expertise) leader to call. This network approach complements the databases, ensuring tacit knowledge (the know-how in experts’ heads) is shared, not just the explicit documents.
Knowledge Transfer Culture: Top firms cultivate a culture where using and contributing to knowledge is expected. McKinsey for one has long promoted a “knowledge-driven culture”. New consultants quickly learn that before doing any analysis from scratch, they should check if the firm has a framework or template for it. Likewise, after finishing a project, they are often required (or gently pushed) to submit a “knowledge capture” – sanitizing the client deliverable and sharing insights for reuse. Bain’s description that PPK team members act as “strategic partners to case teams to surface the right information and patterns” implies that on a live project, a knowledge specialist might proactively reach out and say “I see you’re working for a telecom client on marketing strategy – here are two similar cases and an updated methodology we have; let’s discuss how to apply it.” This active brokerage ensures knowledge flows to where it’s needed in real time.
In summary, consulting firms use sophisticated KM systems and collaborative networks to store their methodologies and enable consultants globally to access and learn them. The format can range from documents to digital tools, but the priority is that knowledge is organized, searchable, and kept current. The result is that methodologies effectively “live” within the firm’s collective memory – preserved through systems and people – rather than solely in any one person’s expertise.
Differences in Approach Between Firms (With Examples)
Although all top firms value methodology development and knowledge sharing, each firm has a distinct style shaped by its history and culture. Let’s compare how a few major firms approach methodologies, with concrete examples:
McKinsey & Company: McKinsey is often seen as the pioneer of the formalized, hypothesis-driven consulting approach. It emphasizes structured problem solving – breaking problems into MECE (Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive) issues – and has developed numerous influential frameworks. McKinsey’s methodologies typically arise from extensive internal and client research. A classic example is the McKinsey 7-S Framework, a model for organizational effectiveness (Strategy, Structure, Systems, Shared values, Skills, Style, Staff). This framework was developed in the early 1980s by McKinsey consultants led by Tom Peters and Robert Waterman, with other colleagues like Julien Phillips contributing. It was a product of studying successful organizations and synthesizing common factors, later popularized in their book. The 7-S model’s creation shows McKinsey’s approach: thought leadership backed by research, then turned into a widely applicable tool. Another example is the GE–McKinsey Nine-Box matrix for portfolio analysis (an expansion on BCG’s matrix in fact) – McKinsey developed it with General Electric in the 1970s to advise on resource allocation across businesses. McKinsey tends to ensure methodologies are evidence-based and conceptually rigorous. Internally, McKinsey’s culture encourages consultants to contribute to knowledge development; they have a saying that “every client engagement should yield some reusable knowledge.” Indeed, McKinsey’s knowledge management system is highly evolved (with PDNet, KRD, etc., as noted earlier) and the firm continuously updates its knowledge stock – winning global MAKE (Most Admired Knowledge Enterprise) awards multiple times . In practice, McKinsey consultants often use a core toolkit (issue trees, frameworks like 7-S, 5 forces, etc.) but adapt them for each client. The firm’s methodologies often come as flexible frameworks rather than strict protocols – reflecting that McKinsey typically works on “complicated” and “complex” strategic issues where expert judgment and adaptation are needed more than a fixed step-by-step. McKinsey is also known for its client communication methodology – the “pyramid principle” for structuring findings, etc., which is part of its consulting approach. While not a methodology for solving a business problem per se, it exemplifies the firm’s attention to having a method to the way consultants think and communicate. Overall, McKinsey’s approach to methodologies is centrally coordinated (global knowledge network) , heavily invested in, and focused on maintaining a reputation for cutting-edge ideas. They even measure their impact in advancing management practice: “We study markets, trends, and emerging best practices… Our investment in knowledge also helps advance the practice of management.” .
Boston Consulting Group (BCG): BCG has a legacy of innovation in business strategy concepts. Under founder Bruce Henderson, BCG in the 1960s–70s produced several famous methodologies: the BCG Growth-Share Matrix (the “Stars, Cash Cows, Dogs, Question Marks” portfolio matrix) and the Experience Curve (cost declines with cumulative production) being foremost. These frameworks revolutionized corporate strategy by giving executives new lenses on resource allocation and cost competitiveness . BCG’s style often involves big-picture, principle-based frameworks that simplify complexity (the BCG matrix, for example, reduces a multi-factor investment decision to a 2x2 grid – a powerful simplification). In terms of developing methodologies, BCG historically was slightly more localized and entrepreneurial – offices had some autonomy to develop ideas (e.g., the BCG Paris office might work on an innovation that the New York office picks up later). In recent years, BCG has centralized idea development via the Bruce Henderson Institute (BHI). The BHI, launched in 2015, is explicitly tasked with “develop[ing] ideas at the cross-section of strategy and execution” and ensuring BCG stays “on the cutting edge of ideas” . It is led by senior partners (e.g., Martin Reeves, who co-authored “Your Strategy Needs a Strategy,” a book that presents BCG’s Strategy Palette – a methodology for choosing the right strategic approach depending on business environment predictability and malleability). That Strategy Palette is a great example of BCG marrying methodology with the Cynefin-like thinking: it identifies domains (classical, adaptive, visionary, shaping, renewal strategies) analogous to stable vs. unpredictable environments, essentially advising that strategy methodology must fit context – e.g., in highly unpredictable markets, use an adaptive method (experiment, iterate) rather than a rigid plan . BCG’s culture of method development is also evident in the way they publish frequent thought leadership (BCG Perspectives, now just bcg.com content). They share new frameworks in articles and books – such as the recent focus on “AI at Scale” frameworks, or sustainability investment frameworks – which shows a propensity to continuously generate and test new methodologies. On the application side, BCG is known for being very analytical and data-driven; their consultants often build complex models to support methodology (where McKinsey might lean slightly more on qualitative frameworks alongside data). BCG also has a reputation for collaborative client engagement – some say BCG works “with” clients more on developing solutions (a bit more than McKinsey’s historically more top-down recommendation style ) – meaning BCG’s methodologies might be more openly co-created during the project. Still, both firms in practice do a mix, but BCGers pride themselves on tailored solutions using BCG intellectual capital. In terms of knowledge infrastructure, BCG may not have been as publicly known for KM systems as McKinsey, but rest assured they too have databases and a network of internal experts. The differences are subtle: one former consultant noted McKinsey was more centrally organized in KM, while BCG was a bit more networked and informal in sharing knowledge , though this may have changed with growth. Lastly, BCG’s methodologies often emphasize conceptual elegance – e.g., “rule of three and four” in market share (a BCG researched concept) – reflecting an almost academic rigor that they then convert to practical advice .
Bain & Company: Bain’s approach to methodology is often described as practical, outcome-focused, and client-embedded. Bain came of age slightly later (founded 1973) and differentiated itself by working “hand-in-hand” with clients to ensure recommendations actually get implemented. Because of this, Bain developed methodologies that extend beyond analysis into execution. A hallmark is their Results Delivery® framework – Bain’s proprietary approach to change management that they integrate into all projects to ensure recommendations stick (it’s about managing client stakeholders, tracking outcomes, etc.). Bain’s most famous methodological contribution is the Net Promoter System (NPS) mentioned earlier – a simple metric and management system to drive customer loyalty . Unlike McKinsey and BCG, who historically focused on ideas for what strategy to do, Bain’s big idea was about measuring the customer experience to fuel growth. Bain made NPS freely available and it’s now ubiquitous, which underscores an interesting point: Bain’s marketing strategy was to give away some methodology (NPS score concept) to gain reputation, but keep the consulting around it (the full system of customer experience transformation) as their secret sauce. Internally, Bain’s culture has been described as very team-oriented and hands-on, with slightly less formal “theory building” than McKinsey/BCG. Indeed, an industry comparison noted “Bain is known for its focus on client relationships and team-oriented approach,” whereas BCG and McKinsey more for expertise and structured thinking. This translates to methodology development being closely tied to client feedback and frontline consultant input. Bain’s Product, Practice & Knowledge (PPK) team (essentially Bain’s KM function) plays a central role as mentioned. They not only capture knowledge but also help “commercialize Bain’s intellectual property… build new tools and repeatable approaches”. This suggests Bain actively turns project learnings into products (some of those become Bain’s selling points). A concrete example: Bain developed a “Micro-battles” approach in recent years (internally spearheaded by their former CEO Chris Zook) to help companies drive agility – essentially treating small initiatives as “battles” to be rapidly executed and scaled. This internal methodology (published in their book The Founder’s Mentality) was refined by working with several clients on agile organizational change. Bain’s knowledge-sharing is also notable in that they have a smaller global footprint (compared to McKinsey/Accenture), which some say allows for a tighter-knit sharing culture. Bain’s global practice meetings are famed for being very spirited and for rapidly spreading new successful techniques from one office to all. Also, because Bain was the last of the “MBB” to expand globally, historically it had to differentiate its methodologies to compete – hence the strong emphasis on things like NPS, PE (Private Equity) toolkits (Bain built a major practice in due diligence with proprietary methods for fast market scans), etc. To sum up Bain: its methodologies are highly pragmatic – they aim to directly drive results (they often coin the phrase “deliver results, not reports”), and their knowledge management ensures any tool that led to results in one case is quickly propagated to others. They also maintain long-term relationships with clients (many retainer clients), so their methodologies evolve with those clients – almost like continuous improvement. This is slightly different from a one-off engagement model where you drop a framework and leave.
Accenture (and similar, e.g. Big 4 consulting arms): Accenture stands out because of its origin in technology and process consulting (as the former Andersen Consulting). Its methodologies are often highly formalized and process-oriented. For instance, Method/1 (mentioned above) was an end-to-end project methodology covering phases from requirements gathering to deployment – very much a cookbook. Accenture and peers (Deloitte, PwC, etc.) tend to create detailed methodologies for implementation projects (ERP implementations, systems integration, large transformations) because these projects involve large teams (sometimes hundreds of consultants) and long timeframes, where consistency is critical. Thus, where an MBB firm’s methodology might be a 20-page conceptual framework, an Accenture methodology might be a 200-page playbook with stepwise guidance. Accenture ensures methodologies are uniform by extensive training and certification (for example, an Accenture consultant might get certified in their Change Management methodology via internal courses). They also embed methodologies in tools and templates – e.g., Accenture’s teams use a global project management tool that reflects their delivery methodology stages, ensuring everyone follows the same workflow. In terms of knowledge adaptation, Accenture is so large that they have specialized industry and functional playbooks (for example, a methodology for retail bank operating model redesign, or for supply chain optimization in pharmaceuticals), often maintained by designated global leads. Accenture’s knowledge management program is award-winning as well; it integrates knowledge capture into every project’s cycle (consultants must upload deliverables to the KX system, etc.) . While Accenture does strategy too (they even acquired strategy firms like Monitor), their approach to strategic methodology might be less about inventing new strategy theories and more about combining their execution know-how with strategic insight. One hallmark of Accenture’s method culture is an emphasis on “assets” and “solutions” – they often develop methodology-based solutions that are semi-productized. For example, Accenture might package a methodology for supply chain improvement as a software demo with data models, which they can then customize for each client. This is a bit different from the pure strategy players who typically craft more bespoke frameworks per client. As a result, Accenture’s methodologies can appear more rigid, but they bring efficiency. They also update them to include new technologies: for instance, Accenture has introduced methodologies for Agile at scale or for AI implementation, which draw on tech best practices as well as change management. In terms of culture, Accenture’s consulting workforce is so large that they rely on communities and Yammer/Teams groups for people to ask questions (“Has anyone done X type of project?”) and quickly get answers or materials – a crowd-sourced KM in addition to official repositories.
Other Firms: The question focuses on a few, but it’s worth noting that each firm has nuances. Deloitte, for example, via its acquisition of Monitor, blends classic strategy frameworks (Porter’s Five Forces – Michael Porter co-founded Monitor) with operational playbooks. They have something called Deloitte Methodology for Enterprise Value Map (which helps identify value creation opportunities) and run Deloitte University programs to train staff in firm methodologies. EY and PwC similarly have robust methodologies (often leveraging their process improvement and tech heritage). Oliver Wyman, Kearney, etc. (smaller strategy firms) may have more niche frameworks and lean heavily on expert teams for dissemination. But broadly, the larger the firm, the more formal the knowledge infrastructure supporting methodologies.
Summary of Differences: McKinsey tends to be seen as the most systematic in knowledge development and often sets the standard in structured problem framing . BCG is highly innovative in conceptual thinking, often introducing new strategy paradigms and adapting them to practice through its research institutes . Bain is extremely focused on what works in execution and ensures its methodologies drive measurable results, exemplified by tools like NPS that link strategy to customer behavior . Accenture (and similar firms) operate with very detailed methodologies to manage complexity at scale, excelling in knowledge systems to deploy large teams consistently. All of them, however, recognize that a methodology must evolve: they treat it as a living body of knowledge. As Bain’s team puts it, their global knowledge efforts ensure the firm “continuously improve[s]. [They’re] the keepers of all the stories about what worked last time.” Different firms just have different flavors of those “stories” – whether more quantitatively modeled, conceptually framed, or operationally granular – but each uses processes and roles as described to develop and adapt their methodologies over time.
What is a “Methodology” in Consulting (Especially in Complex and Chaotic Domains)?
Finally, to address the core question explicitly: what do we mean by “methodology” in organizational consulting, particularly through the lens of frameworks like Cynefin? In consulting, a methodology is essentially a codified approach to problem-solving – it provides a map or recipe that guides consultants and clients from problem identification to solution implementation. This could be a high-level map (e.g., “for a growth strategy: first analyze market size, then competitors, then internal capabilities, then formulate options, etc.”) or a very detailed recipe (e.g., “to conduct a process improvement: follow these 5 phases, with specific analyses in each”). A methodology typically includes conceptual elements (principles, frameworks, models) and process elements (steps, tools, deliverables).
Importantly, methodology is not just theory; it’s a practice guide informed by theory and prior experience. In organizational consulting, methodology might address structures and processes – for example, a reorganization methodology could tell how to redesign an org chart, define roles, manage change with employees, and so forth, combining organization design principles with practical steps.
Now, when we consider the Cynefin framework, we recognize that not all consulting situations are equal. Dave Snowden’s Cynefin model reminds us that in “clear” (simple) contexts, cause and effect are well-understood, so one can apply best practices – i.e., a fixed methodology that has worked many times (this is Cynefin’s “domain of best practice”) . Many technical consulting solutions fall here: for instance, implementing a standard software in a well-defined process – a clear context where an established method works reliably. In “complicated” contexts, there is a knowable relationship between actions and outcomes, but it requires analysis and expertise to discover; here, consulting methodology takes the form of frameworks for analysis and good practices. Consultants act as experts who sense, analyze, and respond – essentially using sophisticated methodologies (like diagnostic frameworks, financial models) to figure out the right answer which isn’t immediately obvious but is attainable with rigorous method. Most classic strategy consulting is in the complicated domain: e.g., determining the optimal market strategy is not simple, but a consultant can use methodologies like Porter’s Five Forces, value chain analysis, and scenario planning to analyze it – these are proven approaches (good practices) but require expert customization. Snowden calls this the “domain of experts” or good practice , analogous to how a doctor diagnoses an unusual but treatable illness with known diagnostic protocols.
In “complex” contexts, the situation is dynamic, with many interdependencies, and no right answer that can be analytically deduced upfront . Think of transforming an organization’s culture, or crafting a strategy in a fast-evolving tech market – there are no precedents or formulas guaranteeing success. In such cases, a consulting methodology cannot be a step-by-step solution; instead, it becomes a framework for learning and adaptation. Consultants operating in complex environments often use methodologies that encourage experimentation, iteration, and sensing. For example, an innovation consulting project might use design thinking methodology: rather than a fixed plan, it provides a process to empathize with users, brainstorm, prototype, and test – essentially a series of probes and experiments. This aligns with Cynefin’s guidance for complexity: probe – sense – respond, meaning you try something small, learn from how the system reacts, and then adjust . Another methodology for complex scenarios is Agile (borrowed from software development but applied in consulting for management problems), which advocates for doing work in short cycles, getting feedback, and pivoting – again, an adaptive method rather than a fixed plan. The consulting firm may provide the structure (e.g., “we will run 3 pilot initiatives, gather data on their impact, and then decide next steps based on what we learn”), but they can’t predetermine the answer at the outset. Thus, in complex domains, the methodology is often about creating the environment for emergence – facilitating networks of employees to find solutions, or running safe-to-fail experiments (a concept Snowden advocates for complex problems). Consultants in these cases draw on practices from complexity science (scenario planning, system mapping, stakeholder engagement workshops, etc.) as their “methodology,” focusing on agility and learning.
In “chaotic” contexts, immediate action is needed to establish order (for example, a company in crisis with no time to analyze). Here a consultant’s methodology might boil down to a few guiding principles: act decisively, impose some temporary structure, stem the bleeding. There isn’t time for analysis or extensive experiments – one must act – sense – respond (stabilize first) . For instance, turnaround specialists have a methodology that often starts with securing liquidity and setting up a crisis management office. It’s a rough guideline (because chaos by definition has no manageable pattern initially), but it’s still a methodology of sorts for chaos: enforce stability, then move the situation into complexity or complicated domains where you can apply other methods. Once chaos is stabilized into merely complex, you might then shift to an adaptive approach.
So, a consulting methodology is context-dependent. Great consultants and firms know this: they have a portfolio of methodologies and choose the one suited to the domain. This echoes the idea from BCG’s Strategy Palette: in unpredictable (complex) business environments, use adaptive or shaping strategies; in stable (simple/complicated) environments, use classical planning or expert-driven strategies . It also answers why the question is framed with Cynefin – to highlight that “methodology” isn’t one-size-fits-all. In the context of organizational consulting, methodology could mean a highly structured approach like a process re-engineering method (appropriate for a complicated but stable process improvement) or a looser change management approach that evolves as you go (necessary for complex cultural change).
To illustrate: Suppose a client asks for help innovating their business model in a disruptive industry (a complex domain). A McKinsey team might use an Innovation methodology – which could involve steps like (1) setting up a cross-functional innovation team at the client, (2) running multiple idea generation sessions (using brainstorming or design thinking techniques), (3) quickly prototyping a few ideas to test in the market (lean startup style experiments), and (4) iterating based on feedback. Notice this methodology is not delivering a single analysis then a recommendation; it’s guiding a process of discovery. On the other hand, if a client asks for cost reduction in a stable manufacturing business (a complicated but not chaotic domain), the consulting methodology might be more linear: (1) benchmark costs, (2) identify efficiency opportunities using known frameworks (like lean manufacturing principles), (3) devise initiatives and implementation plans (maybe using a proven playbook for lean transformations). That’s more of a step-by-step best/good practice approach. Both are “methodologies” – but of very different nature.
In summary, in consulting “methodology” denotes the combination of frameworks, processes, and tools that consultants use to structure how they will solve a client’s problem. Top consulting firms painstakingly develop these methodologies through research and experience, deploy them through robust knowledge systems and training, and adapt them through feedback and innovation. They maintain a variety of methodologies to handle different kinds of problems – recognizing, as Cynefin suggests, that a method must fit the context. A methodology can be a living system: much like an organization itself, it has to learn and adapt, or it becomes obsolete. Consulting firms like McKinsey, BCG, Bain, and Accenture treat methodology development as a continuous journey, involving many stakeholders (consultants, knowledge experts, clients), and they differentiate themselves by the strength and evolution of these very approaches. As one knowledge leader noted about McKinsey’s philosophy: “Our work is founded on a rigorous understanding… we invest heavily in knowledge development… We study emerging best practices in every industry… [Our knowledge] helps advance the practice of management.” That sentiment could be shared across the top firms – their methodologies are both a product and driver of the consulting industry’s advancement, blending science and craft to help organizations in all domains from simple to chaotic achieve better outcomes.
McKinsey’s historical knowledge management and methodology development (centers of competence, Practice Development Network, etc.) ; investment in knowledge development .
Example of McKinsey’s 7-S framework origin by consultants Peters & Waterman in the 1980s.
McKinsey’s internal “Practice Olympics” for promoting new knowledge ideas and its evolution into New Ventures.
BCG’s development of strategy concepts (Growth-Share Matrix, Experience Curve) and commitment to new idea generation via the Bruce Henderson Institute .
Bain & Company’s focus on capturing “Best of Bain” and commercializing intellectual property (Product, Practice & Knowledge team), and its development of the Net Promoter Score methodology (Fred Reichheld’s research) .
Accenture/Andersen’s Method/1 as a formal project methodology example and Accenture’s knowledge management program (Knowledge Exchange) integration .
Cynefin framework contexts and implications for management methods .
Additional comparative insights on firm cultures and approach differences .
Absolutely! Here’s a clean, copy-paste–ready list of sources used in the research. They combine official publications, books, articles, and internal consultant accounts related to methodology development in top consulting firms.
🔗 Sources for Methodology Development in Consulting Firms
Peters, T. & Waterman, R. In Search of Excellence – origin of McKinsey’s 7-S Framework.
McKinsey Global Institute (MGI): https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi
Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review.
Interview with Fred Gluck (former McKinsey MD) on knowledge development.
“McKinsey Knowledge Management Practices” – KMWorld case study archive.
McKinsey’s Lilli AI assistant: https://www.mckinsey.com/about-us/new-at-mckinsey-blog/introducing-lilli-our-ai-powered-knowledge-assistant
Interview with McKinsey knowledge professionals on internal tools (e.g., PDNet, KRD).
Bruce Henderson Institute: https://www.bcg.com/bhi
Reeves, M. & Haanaes, K. (2015). Your Strategy Needs a Strategy. Harvard Business Review Press.
Henderson, B. (1970s). The Experience Curve and BCG Matrix – classic white papers.
BCG Perspectives archives: https://www.bcg.com/publications
Interviews with ex-BCG consultants via Management Consulted and PrepLounge.
Reichheld, F. (2003). The One Number You Need to Grow. Harvard Business Review.
Bain’s Net Promoter System: https://www.netpromotersystem.com
Bain PPK (Product, Practice & Knowledge) Team careers page: https://www.bain.com/careers/roles/ppk/
The Founder’s Mentality by Chris Zook (Bain’s “Micro-battles” methodology).
Bain Knowledge Management Overview: https://www.bain.com/about/our-teams/
Accenture Knowledge Exchange (KX): https://www.accenture.com
Accenture Method/1 Methodology (archived IT strategy documents).
Accenture’s AI and Agile playbooks: https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insights
Knowledge management awards (MAKE award): https://www.kmworld.com/
Cynefin Framework & Complexity Theory
Snowden, D. & Boone, M. (2007). A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making. Harvard Business Review.
Cognitive Edge (Snowden’s company): https://www.cognitive-edge.com
Cynefin illustrated: https://cynefin.io/wiki/Cynefin_Framework
Comparative Insight & Consultant Perspectives
Vault/MCAA/PrepLounge firm comparison interviews.
Podcasts: Strategy Simplified, The Firm Learning Podcast.
LinkedIn articles by ex-consultants on KM and methodology design.