大型咨询及会计机构正冒险向战略服务推进 
　    

Bigconsulting and accounting firms are making a risky move into strategy work
大型咨询及会计机构正冒险向战略服务推进

      “OPERATIONS consultants sit at the front of the classroom,” says a partner at a strategy consultancy. “Strategyconsultants stay in the back, not paying attention, throwing paper airplanes.But they still get the girls and get rich.” Like somany caricatures, this one is cruel but contains a grain of truth. Operationsconsultants—the fine-detail guys who tinker withbusinesses’ internal processes to make them run better—generally do not enjoy the same glamour or financial rewards asstrategy specialists, whose job is to advise firms on make-or-break deals,adopting new business models and other big stuff.

      “运营咨询顾问坐在教室的前排，”一名战略咨询公司合伙人说道。“战略咨询顾问则呆在后面，扔着纸飞机，并不认真。但他们仍然坐拥女孩与金钱。”就跟很多讽刺漫画一样，这样的场景很残酷，但却包含着一丝真理。运营咨询顾问是注重细节的角色，负责修改企业的内部流程，让企业运行得更好。这种角色的魅力或奖金通常不如战略咨询顾问。战略咨询顾问负责就公司的决策、商业模式以及其他重大事项提出建议。

      Although in practice their work overlaps, thetwo have until now remained distinct businesses. Strategy firms like McKinsey,Bain and the Boston Consulting Group hire from the top universities, are packedwith highly paid partners and whisper their counsel in CEOs’ears. In contrast, operations specialists such as IBM, Accenture and the BigFour accounting firms (Deloitte, EY, KPMG and PwC) employ armies of lower-paidgrunts; and tend to answer to the client firm’s financeor tech chiefs.

      虽然在实际工作中两者的分工有所重叠，但区别仍十分明显。战略咨询公司，比如麦肯锡、贝恩和波士顿咨询集团，从顶尖大学招聘员工，拥有收入颇丰的合伙人们,并悄声把建议告诉给CEO们。然而，那些运营顾问，比如IBM、埃森哲以及四大会计师事务所（德勤、安永、毕马威和普华永道），则雇佣了大批收入较低的低等兵，向客户公司的财务或技术主管交付工作成果。

      This year, however, that line has begun to blur.In January Deloitte became the largest of the Big Four by scooping up theassets of Monitor, a strategy firm that had gone bust. And on October 30th itsclosest rival, PwC, said it would buy another strategy firm, Booz &Company, for a reported $1 billion. If Booz’spartners approve the deal, it will vault PwC back into first place.

      然而，自2013年开始,上述界限变得模糊起来。2013年1月，德勤收购了破产的战略咨询公司摩利特，并成为了四大中最大的一家。2013年10月30日，德勤的最大竞争对手普华永道表示，其将以10亿美元的对价收购另外一家战略公司——博斯。假如博斯的合伙人批准该项收购，那么普华永道将重回四大第一位。

      The accountancies’ pushinto strategy has been a decade in the making. During the late-1990s technologybubble they beefed up their IT-consulting arms. But in 2001 Enron, anenergy-trading firm, went bust and took its auditor, Arthur Andersen, down withit. In response, America’s Congress passed theSarbanes-Oxley corporate-governance reform, which banned firms from doingsystems consulting for companies they audited. As a consolation prize, the BigFour made a fortune helping clients comply with the new law. Their advisorybusinesses, full of potential for conflicts of interest with their auditingside, by now seemed dispensable. All but Deloitte had sold off those divisionsby 2003.

      十年以来，会计所们一直在向战略咨询业务推进。1990年代晚期，互联网泡沫使会计所中的IT咨询部门强大起来。但是，能源贸易公司安然在2001年破产， 也牵连到了其审计师安达信。结果，美国国会通过了《萨班斯－奥克斯利》公司治理改革法案，禁止审计公司向其审计客户公司提供系统咨询服务。作为对审计师的安慰补偿，四大会计所通过为其客户提供新法律的合规业务大赚了一笔。与审计业务充满潜在利益冲突的咨询业务因而变得可有可无。截至2003年，除德勤之外的四大均卖掉了自己的咨询部门。

      Just as the workload from Sarbanes-Oxley began to dwindle, the 2008-09financial crisis hit, causing consulting revenues to dip (see chart). But oncethe economy recovered, the climate for the Big Four started to resemble the1990s. They began to rush back into consultancy, encouraged by its high marginsand double-digit annual growth rates at a time when revenue growth fromauditing and tax work had slowed. In particular, Deloitte and PwC began gobblingup operations consultancies as they sparred for the top spot.

      由于《萨班斯－奥克斯利》法案合规业务量开始逐步减少，加之2008至2009年金融危机的爆发，导致咨询业务收入降至了最低点（见图表）。但是，经济一旦恢复，四大所又回复到1990年代时的样子：他们受到更高利润、两位数增长率的驱使，蜂拥向咨询业务。同时，审计和税务业务的收入增幅开始下降。特别是德勤和普华永道，他们拼命扩张自己的运营咨询业务，以争夺业内第一的位置。　

      For years the strategy firms remained beyond theBig Four’s grasp.During the 2000s they had mostly prospered on their own, and their partnersshuddered at the thought of being subsumed into giant bureaucracies. After thefinancial crisis, however, midsized strategy consultants hit hard times.Cost-conscious companies with globalising businesses wanted either to hireboutiques with deep knowledge of their industries, or to benefit from the scaleof generalist firms with offices everywhere. Too big for some clients and toosmall for others, Monitor went under, and Booz—aspin-off from Booz Allen Hamilton, which now focuses on operations work forgovernments—went on the block.

      多年以前，战略咨询业务曾超出四大的胜任能力。2000年时，这些战略咨询机构仅凭自身的业务，就能够繁荣兴旺。但是，他们仍害怕会被别的巨型机构吞并。金融危机之后，中型战略咨询公司遭遇了艰难时期。成本意识较强且有国际业务的客户希望雇佣拥有较深行业知识的精品咨询机构或者规模遍布全球的大型专业机构。诸如摩利特、博斯这样的咨询公司对一些客户来说太大，对一些客户来说又太小了。正因如此，摩利特倒闭，而博斯被收购了。

      Both Booz and PwC say that the two sides ofconsulting are converging, and that more clients want a one-stop shop that canboth devise a strategy and execute it. Deloitte and Monitor claim theirintegration is already bearing fruit. “There’s been a very healthytwo-way cross-selling opportunity,” says Mike Canningof Deloitte.

      博斯和普华永道表示，两边的咨询业务正在重合。越来越多的客户希望一站式服务，既包括战略建议又包括执行建议。德勤和摩利特声称，他们的整合已经开花结果，“现时已经有不少双向交叉的销售机会，”德勤的麦克•坎宁表示。

      Nonetheless, Booz’s leadership still faces a hard sellto get the deal passed. In 2010 the company’s partnersvoted down a proposed merger with AT Kearney, another midsized strategy firm.This marriage involves far more risks. A significant number of Booz’s clients would immediately be in doubt because PwC audits them—strategy consulting for audit clients is banned in many countries,and even where it is legal it is frowned upon (not least in America). Since theBig Four are structured as associations of national partnerships, Booz’s staff would probably end up being divided by country, hinderingthe global co-operation that many big clients seek.

      然而，博斯的领导层仍面临合并交易的难产。2010年，公司合伙人曾就与另一家咨询公司AT科尼尔的合并议案投了反对票。现在普华永道与博斯两家公司的合并会有更大的风险。大量博斯的客户会开始怀疑，由于普华永道是他们的审计师――对审计客户提供战略咨询服务在很多国家是被禁止的，这种做法哪怕在被允许的国家里也有所欠妥（不止是在美国）。四大会计师事务所在各个国家互相独立，博斯的员工可能将按照国家被拆分到不同的本地机构,从而阻碍许多大型客户所探寻的全球合作。

      Most important, each of Booz’s 300 partners would have to trademeaningful sway over the direction of a highly profitable firm for a minusculestake in a diversified, lower-margin empire. If the sale is approved, the testof its success will come in a few years, after Booz’spartners receive their full payout and can head off. An exodus would leave PwCempty-handed.

      对博斯300名合伙人来说最重要的是，他们将不得不把在一间高利润机构中举足轻重的分量转变为在一个多元化经营、低利润的大帝国里的小份股权。假如这笔收购能够得到批准，这次合并成功与否将在博斯合伙人的股份出资全部收回之后的未来几年得到验证。如果业务大量流失,那将使普华永道一无所获。

      The Big Four are also running a risk far greaterthan the cost of their purchases. A decade ago they placated regulators byretreating from advisory work. High-profile deals like the Booz-PwC tie-up putthe conflict of interest between auditing and consulting back in the spotlight:after it was announced, Arthur Levitt, a former head of America’s Securities and ExchangeCommission, warned that the firms were “slipping back” towards old, bad habits. Any gains from pushing into strategy workmight end up being outweighed by the cost of another regulatory crackdown.

      除了收购所花的成本之外,四大还面临着更大的风险。十年前，他们撤出了咨询业务，安抚了监管者。像博斯与普华永道这样的高规格合并交易使得审计和咨询业务之间的利益冲突又成了监管机构及公众关注的焦点。该收购一经宣布，美国证券交易委员会前任负责任阿瑟•莱维特就发出警告,称这些公司正在“倒退”回过去的不良习惯。在战略业务中获得的收益最终可能甚至不如为另一轮监管打击所付出的代价来得大。