9 ms·

Some insider knowledge: Lilli was, at least a year ago, internal only. VPN access, SSO, all the bells and whistles, required. Not sure when that changed. McKin

Some insider knowledge: Lilli was, at least a year ago, internal only. VPN access, SSO, all the bells and whistles, required. Not sure when that changed. McKinsey requires hiring an external pen-testing company to launch even to a small group of coworkers. I can forgive this kind of mistake on the part of the Lilli devs. A lot of things have to fail for an "agentic" security company to even find a public endpoint, much less start exploiting it. That being said, the mistakes in here are brutal. Seems like close to 0 authz. Based on very outdated knowledge, my guess is a Sr. Partner pulled some strings to get Lilli to be publicly available. By that time, much/most/all of the original Lilli team had "rolled off" (gone to client projects) as McKinsey HEAVILY punishes working on internal projects. So Lilli likely was staffed by people who couldn't get staffed elsewhere, didn't know the code, and didn't care. Internal work, for better or worse, is basically a half day. This is a failure of McKinsey's culture around technology.

cmiles8 7mo ago
Net conclusion: Don’t hire McKinsey to advise on AI implementation or tech org design and practices if they can’t get it right themselves.
- frankfrank13 7mo ago
  Fair take, but you'd be hard pressed to find much resemblance to any advice McK gives to its own practices. Pre-AI, I always said McK is good at analysis, if you need complicated analysis done, hire a consulting firm. If you need strategy, custom software, org design, etc. I think you should figure out the analysis that needs to be done, shoot that off to a consulting firm, and then make your decision. IME, F500 execs are delegation machines. When they wake up every morning with 30 things to delegate, and 25 execs to delegate to, they hire 5 consulting teams. Whether you hire Mck, or Deloitte, or Accenture will only come down to: 1. Your personal relationships 2. Your company's policies on procurement 3. Your budget in that order. McK's "secret sauce" is that if you, the exec, don't like the powerpoint pages Mck put in front of you, 3 try-hard, insecure, ivy-league educated analysts will work 80 hours to make pages you do like. A sr. partner will take you to dinner. You'll get invited to conferences and summits and roundtables, and then next time you look for a job, it will be easier.
  - decidu0us9034 7mo ago
    Analysis of what? What does that mean? What's something you conceivably would need a consulting firm to "analyze?" I don't understand why management consulting firms would hire software people in the first place, and then punish them for not being on a client-facing project. That seems a bit contradictory to me, but this is all way out of my wheelhouse
    - cl0ckt0wer 7mo ago
      For instance, what would we need to start offering siracha in our burger?
    - frankfrank13 7mo ago
      Analysis: 1. How do I build a datacenter 2. How is the industrial ceramic market structured, how do they perform 3. How does a changing environment impact life insurance Strategy: 1. Should I build a datacenter 2. Should I invest in an industrial ceramics company 3. Should I divest my life insurance subsidiary Specifically in the software world this would be "automate some esoteric ERP migration" or "build this data pipeline" vs. "how can we be more digital native" or "how do we integrate more AI into our company"
      - healthy_throw 7mo ago
        These look like questions you would give to AI in 2026.
        caminante 7mo ago
        They are. The problem is AI isn't CYA quality (yet) to your board.
- m4rtink 7mo ago
  This can be simplified further: "Don't hire McKinsey." ;-)
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
- steve1977 7mo ago
  The only people who hire McKinsey are execs who are even more clueless than the consultants.
  - aleph_minus_one 7mo ago
    The executives who hire McKinsey are often not clueless, but they often lack the political power in the company to push through their plans. So they hire some well-regarded business consultancy to get an "objective" analysis what needs to be done.
    - bonoboTP 7mo ago
      How can it be that what you just wrote is such a widely known fact? I've been reading this and hearing this from consultancy people as well for many years now. If the guy lacks the political power, why don't his internal political opponents say, "nice try hiring the consultants, but we know this trick very well, you still don't get it your way". It has to be some kind of higher level protection racket or something. Like if you hire the consultants there is some kind of kickbacks to the higherups or something with more steps involved where those who previously opposed it will now accept it if it's rubberstamped by the consultants. Or perhaps those other players who are politically opposing this person are just dummies and don't know about this trick and actually trust the consultants. Or maybe it's a bit of a check, that you can't get anything and everything rubberstamped by the consultants, so it is some kind of sanity filter that the guy isn't proposing something that only benefits himself and screws everyone else. And if it's the latter, then it is genuine value, a somewhat impartial second opinion. Basically there is a fog-of-war for all the execs regarding all the internal politics going on, it's not like they see through everything all the time and simply refuse to take the obviously correct decision for no reason.
      - treatmesubj 7mo ago
        if you don't have sufficient political clout or influence, you seek sponsorship or backing from others with it to accrue more influence for your idea. You can pay consultants to agree with your idea and produce pretty charts and whitepapers for it.
eisa01 7mo ago
Maybe it was opened up so it could be used in recruiting? McKinsey challenges graduates to use AI chatbot in recruitment overhaul: https://www.ft.com/content/de7855f0-f586-4708-a8ed-f0458eb25586 https://www.ft.com/content/de7855f0-f586-4708-a8ed-f0458eb25...
- j45 7mo ago
  Using a 2 year old paradigm. And require a chatbot to be used that can be easily gamed by asking a model of how best to navigate it lol. Implementing the past of AI practices is requesting something that will be easily outdone.
j45 7mo ago
I am not sure what accounting or management consulting firms are doing in tech. They look to package up something and sell it as long as they can. AI solutions won't have enough of a shelf life, and the thought around AI is evolving too quickly. Very happy to be wrong and learn from any information folks have otherwise.
- fidotron 7mo ago
  The purpose of hiring them is to make them come to the conclusion you already have, so when it goes well you get the credit for doing it, or if it goes sideways you can pin the blame on them.
  - boringg 7mo ago
    Or, alternatively, there are so many companies that are weak on tech they pay for someone else to guide them.
    - frankfrank13 7mo ago
      Yeah its more this, the companies who ask Mck's help in software tend to hire contractors or vend out software already.
    - pwthornton 7mo ago
      Having done some work with these F500 companies, this is part of it. These legacy companies have long seen tech as a cost center, haven't invested in it, and are unable to attract talent. And, for whatever reason, these companies insist on working with large consulting firms, when a dedicated software or tech consulting firm that is smaller would be way better. Ultimately, why would a large company hire a consultancy company that is bad at tech and has a lot of bad processes to do their tech for them? Because the company itself is even worse and doesn't know what good looks like. If you are hiring McKinsey or Deloitte to do your tech, it's because you are completely lost and don't have the slightest clue how to become unlost. And you have no concept of what good looks like. If you think the actual tech talent and systems are bad, when you work with these consulting firms, they are going to do the most heavy SAFe process you have ever seen. For me, the worst part is not the tech talent, but rather the most by-the-book, heavy-handed agile process possible. Everything moves way slower because of this "agile" rot, and there is almost no concept of doing proper ideation and prototyping work. These legacy F500 companies try to do everything cheaply with consultants and offshoring, and yet it always ends up costing way more than it would if they just had proper in-house tech talent.
dahcryn 7mo ago
is this the same at quantumblack? They at least give the impression their assets on Brix are somewhat up to date and uesable
- itsnotme12 7mo ago
  QB is no more, leadership left, technical experts left. Just the brand stayed behind.
- eastbayjake 7mo ago
  QuantumBlack is synonymous -- it's where all of McKinsey's AI expertise got reorganized these days, anyone working on this tool was likely doing it on a rotation in between client engagements under "QuantumBlack, AI by McKinsey"
OptionOfT 7mo ago
Couple of things to add: McKinsey has a weird structure where there are too many cooks in the kitchen. Everybody there is reviewed on client impact, meaning it ends up being an everybody-for-themselves situation. So as a developer you have little guidance (in fact, you're still being reviewed on client impact, even if you have 0 client exposure). Then a (Senior) Partner comes in with this idea (that will get them a good review), and you jump on that. After all, it's all you can do to get a good review. You work on it, and then the (Senior) Partner moves on. But it's not done. It's enough for the review, but continuing to work on it doesn't bring you anything, in fact, it will actually pull you down, as finishing the project doesn't give immediate client results. So what does this mean? Most products of McKinsey are a grab-bag of raw ideas of leadership, implemented as a one-off, without a cohesive vision or even a long-term vision at all. It's all about the review cycle. McKinsey is trying to do software like they do their other engagements. It doesn't work. You can't just do something for 6 months and then let it go. Software rots. The fact that they laid off a good amount of (very good) software engineers in 2024 is a reflection on how they see software development. And McKinsey's people, who go to other companies, take those ideas with them. Result: The UI of your project changes all the time, because everybody is looking at the short-term impact they have that gets them a good review, not what is best for the project in the long term.
- steve1977 7mo ago
  > McKinsey is trying to do software like they do their other engagements. It doesn't work. I mean, it doesn't work for their consulting gigs either. There's a reason McKinsey has such a bad reputation.
  - _doctor_love 7mo ago
    But it does work for them? They make tons of money.
    - operatingthetan 7mo ago
      As an ex-consultant: consulting at that level is kind of a grift. They over-promise and under-deliver as SOP. It's ripe for AI disruption, whatever that looks like.

cmiles8 7mo ago

Net conclusion: Don’t hire McKinsey to advise on AI implementation or tech org design and practices if they can’t get it right themselves.

frankfrank13 7mo ago
Fair take, but you'd be hard pressed to find much resemblance to any advice McK gives to its own practices. Pre-AI, I always said McK is good at analysis, if you need complicated analysis done, hire a consulting firm. If you need strategy, custom software, org design, etc. I think you should figure out the analysis that needs to be done, shoot that off to a consulting firm, and then make your decision. IME, F500 execs are delegation machines. When they wake up every morning with 30 things to delegate, and 25 execs to delegate to, they hire 5 consulting teams. Whether you hire Mck, or Deloitte, or Accenture will only come down to: 1. Your personal relationships 2. Your company's policies on procurement 3. Your budget in that order. McK's "secret sauce" is that if you, the exec, don't like the powerpoint pages Mck put in front of you, 3 try-hard, insecure, ivy-league educated analysts will work 80 hours to make pages you do like. A sr. partner will take you to dinner. You'll get invited to conferences and summits and roundtables, and then next time you look for a job, it will be easier.
- decidu0us9034 7mo ago
  Analysis of what? What does that mean? What's something you conceivably would need a consulting firm to "analyze?" I don't understand why management consulting firms would hire software people in the first place, and then punish them for not being on a client-facing project. That seems a bit contradictory to me, but this is all way out of my wheelhouse
  - cl0ckt0wer 7mo ago
    For instance, what would we need to start offering siracha in our burger?
  - frankfrank13 7mo ago
    Analysis: 1. How do I build a datacenter 2. How is the industrial ceramic market structured, how do they perform 3. How does a changing environment impact life insurance Strategy: 1. Should I build a datacenter 2. Should I invest in an industrial ceramics company 3. Should I divest my life insurance subsidiary Specifically in the software world this would be "automate some esoteric ERP migration" or "build this data pipeline" vs. "how can we be more digital native" or "how do we integrate more AI into our company"
    - healthy_throw 7mo ago
      These look like questions you would give to AI in 2026.
      - caminante 7mo ago
        They are. The problem is AI isn't CYA quality (yet) to your board.
m4rtink 7mo ago
This can be simplified further: "Don't hire McKinsey." ;-)
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
steve1977 7mo ago
The only people who hire McKinsey are execs who are even more clueless than the consultants.
- aleph_minus_one 7mo ago
  The executives who hire McKinsey are often not clueless, but they often lack the political power in the company to push through their plans. So they hire some well-regarded business consultancy to get an "objective" analysis what needs to be done.
  - bonoboTP 7mo ago
    How can it be that what you just wrote is such a widely known fact? I've been reading this and hearing this from consultancy people as well for many years now. If the guy lacks the political power, why don't his internal political opponents say, "nice try hiring the consultants, but we know this trick very well, you still don't get it your way". It has to be some kind of higher level protection racket or something. Like if you hire the consultants there is some kind of kickbacks to the higherups or something with more steps involved where those who previously opposed it will now accept it if it's rubberstamped by the consultants. Or perhaps those other players who are politically opposing this person are just dummies and don't know about this trick and actually trust the consultants. Or maybe it's a bit of a check, that you can't get anything and everything rubberstamped by the consultants, so it is some kind of sanity filter that the guy isn't proposing something that only benefits himself and screws everyone else. And if it's the latter, then it is genuine value, a somewhat impartial second opinion. Basically there is a fog-of-war for all the execs regarding all the internal politics going on, it's not like they see through everything all the time and simply refuse to take the obviously correct decision for no reason.
    - treatmesubj 7mo ago
      if you don't have sufficient political clout or influence, you seek sponsorship or backing from others with it to accrue more influence for your idea. You can pay consultants to agree with your idea and produce pretty charts and whitepapers for it.

eisa01 7mo ago

Maybe it was opened up so it could be used in recruiting? McKinsey challenges graduates to use AI chatbot in recruitment overhaul: https://www.ft.com/content/de7855f0-f586-4708-a8ed-f0458eb25586 https://www.ft.com/content/de7855f0-f586-4708-a8ed-f0458eb25...

j45 7mo ago
Using a 2 year old paradigm. And require a chatbot to be used that can be easily gamed by asking a model of how best to navigate it lol. Implementing the past of AI practices is requesting something that will be easily outdone.

j45 7mo ago

I am not sure what accounting or management consulting firms are doing in tech. They look to package up something and sell it as long as they can. AI solutions won't have enough of a shelf life, and the thought around AI is evolving too quickly. Very happy to be wrong and learn from any information folks have otherwise.

fidotron 7mo ago
The purpose of hiring them is to make them come to the conclusion you already have, so when it goes well you get the credit for doing it, or if it goes sideways you can pin the blame on them.
- boringg 7mo ago
  Or, alternatively, there are so many companies that are weak on tech they pay for someone else to guide them.
  - frankfrank13 7mo ago
    Yeah its more this, the companies who ask Mck's help in software tend to hire contractors or vend out software already.
  - pwthornton 7mo ago
    Having done some work with these F500 companies, this is part of it. These legacy companies have long seen tech as a cost center, haven't invested in it, and are unable to attract talent. And, for whatever reason, these companies insist on working with large consulting firms, when a dedicated software or tech consulting firm that is smaller would be way better. Ultimately, why would a large company hire a consultancy company that is bad at tech and has a lot of bad processes to do their tech for them? Because the company itself is even worse and doesn't know what good looks like. If you are hiring McKinsey or Deloitte to do your tech, it's because you are completely lost and don't have the slightest clue how to become unlost. And you have no concept of what good looks like. If you think the actual tech talent and systems are bad, when you work with these consulting firms, they are going to do the most heavy SAFe process you have ever seen. For me, the worst part is not the tech talent, but rather the most by-the-book, heavy-handed agile process possible. Everything moves way slower because of this "agile" rot, and there is almost no concept of doing proper ideation and prototyping work. These legacy F500 companies try to do everything cheaply with consultants and offshoring, and yet it always ends up costing way more than it would if they just had proper in-house tech talent.

dahcryn 7mo ago

is this the same at quantumblack? They at least give the impression their assets on Brix are somewhat up to date and uesable

itsnotme12 7mo ago
QB is no more, leadership left, technical experts left. Just the brand stayed behind.
eastbayjake 7mo ago
QuantumBlack is synonymous -- it's where all of McKinsey's AI expertise got reorganized these days, anyone working on this tool was likely doing it on a rotation in between client engagements under "QuantumBlack, AI by McKinsey"

OptionOfT 7mo ago

Couple of things to add: McKinsey has a weird structure where there are too many cooks in the kitchen. Everybody there is reviewed on client impact, meaning it ends up being an everybody-for-themselves situation. So as a developer you have little guidance (in fact, you're still being reviewed on client impact, even if you have 0 client exposure). Then a (Senior) Partner comes in with this idea (that will get them a good review), and you jump on that. After all, it's all you can do to get a good review. You work on it, and then the (Senior) Partner moves on. But it's not done. It's enough for the review, but continuing to work on it doesn't bring you anything, in fact, it will actually pull you down, as finishing the project doesn't give immediate client results. So what does this mean? Most products of McKinsey are a grab-bag of raw ideas of leadership, implemented as a one-off, without a cohesive vision or even a long-term vision at all. It's all about the review cycle. McKinsey is trying to do software like they do their other engagements. It doesn't work. You can't just do something for 6 months and then let it go. Software rots. The fact that they laid off a good amount of (very good) software engineers in 2024 is a reflection on how they see software development. And McKinsey's people, who go to other companies, take those ideas with them. Result: The UI of your project changes all the time, because everybody is looking at the short-term impact they have that gets them a good review, not what is best for the project in the long term.

steve1977 7mo ago
> McKinsey is trying to do software like they do their other engagements. It doesn't work. I mean, it doesn't work for their consulting gigs either. There's a reason McKinsey has such a bad reputation.
- _doctor_love 7mo ago
  But it does work for them? They make tons of money.
  - operatingthetan 7mo ago
    As an ex-consultant: consulting at that level is kind of a grift. They over-promise and under-deliver as SOP. It's ripe for AI disruption, whatever that looks like.