>It seems like you’re just paying people for critical thinking.
That's exactly what it is. Unfortunately most organizations, probably even ones like the NSA, really struggle with doing any kind of critical thinking on their own. This is especially true when trying to decide on a future direction for the org: the org itself is most likely biased to just doing things the way it's always been done. In that regard, having an outsider's perspective, especially one that has also done work at other similar organizations and has taken note of all the various ways other orgs do things and knows what works and what doesn't, can be quite beneficial.
I completely disagree with this. McKinsey is often used to sell an existing idea. Plus for really boring MS office work. They don't bring in any new ideas.
The company I worked for had various McKinsey consultants; this is pretty much what they were hired for unfortunately. Various consultants (not all) were also way too young (+lack of work experience) to suggest they had that magical knowledge.
They basically just sell what some people in the organization already intend to do. McKinsey has the name, plus the people are usually better focussed on the political game that's in a big organization. There's not much magic going on though.
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 for the CIA, or DIA, or DoD. Your own organization likely doesn't have much insight into the successes and failures of your fellow (sometimes competitor) organizations, while a consulting company does, and they can lend you that knowledge.
At least, that's what is supposed to happen (and indeed it does happen if you are diligent about the specific team of consultants you hire). I have increasingly witnessed a lot of deception and bullshit in the consulting industry, so it's completely understandable to me why people are skeptical.
" the org itself is most likely biased to just doing things the way it's always been done."
This is powerful, and true, because often nobody has the power to change anything.
This is why 'funder led' companies can have an advantage, founders have that 'mythical status' that enables them to move the needle on projects. Of course this can be bad as well, but hopefully the bad ones fail early.
Even 'good companies' are full of cruft and bureaucracy - Google, Apple, MS, FB no exception. It seems the 'good companies' are able to move the pieces they need to move quickly enough to steer towards market needs, knowing large chunks of the company will be left behind.
Think of all the Apple apps that have only marginally changed in a decade, and how many zillions of devs are working on them.
That's exactly what it is. Unfortunately most organizations, probably even ones like the NSA, really struggle with doing any kind of critical thinking on their own. This is especially true when trying to decide on a future direction for the org: the org itself is most likely biased to just doing things the way it's always been done. In that regard, having an outsider's perspective, especially one that has also done work at other similar organizations and has taken note of all the various ways other orgs do things and knows what works and what doesn't, can be quite beneficial.