Our research on Consultancy Companies
In the pursuit of fundamental knowledge about economic management, audit and management consultancy companies play a pivotal role in creating and then disseminating by putting into practice the latest and best research and findings. The Institute for Systemic Economic Engineering (ISEE) has conducted research projects to evaluate these companies as potential sources of insights, particularly in the context of their possession of or pursue of a Business Model Ontology to help them provide comprehensive and effective economic management services.
Background
Over the years, ISEE has undertaken several research projects, with the most recent one occurring in spring 2012. These projects aim to appraise existing fundamental knowledge related to managing the economy within the framework of a comprehensive Business Model Ontology.
Other research areas:
Business Software
Science and education
Investigation research
In 2012, ISEE conducted a comprehensive project assessing the scientific background behind consultancy services. At that time, emerging concepts were human competencies, corporate capabilities, and job competency models. The research scope included companies like Deloitte, PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG, and IDS Scheer as potential creators of a fundamental knowledge framework explaining universally the management of any enterprise economy.
Findings and Insights
Societal Benefit of BMO: Some of the consultants assumed, even though they had not yet seen a real Business Model Ontology, that if such model ontology were available, it would be extremely innovative and would give its possessors huge competitive advantages in terms of managerial modeling of the economy of enterprises.
“There are attempts at complete models, but they are not working. They are mostly descriptive and do not provide adequate possibilities for future forecasting and analysis because they are based on the past!”
Research progress on BMO—concepts such as ‘competencies’ and ‘competency models’: The use of concepts like ‘competencies’ and ‘competency models’ as a cognitive basis for enterprise management was explained to originate from the lack of precisely a universal framework explaining enterprises and how they function.
” There are no general descriptions because there are different schools. And it is difficult for some to impose terms on others. And this is because philosophies are at stake in these things. These are philosophical worldviews.”
“There is no theory of the firm. There is no such thing at the moment. There is no system that can unite all companies in one comprehensive and non-contradictory system.”
Implications
The lack of a comprehensive Business Model Ontology as a basis for consultancy services poses challenges for economic practice. This leads to each consultant company to choose one or another of the available managerial models and assemble a seemingly working solution. Moreover, the consultants reject each other’s managerial models.
In regard to the emergence of ungrounded terms and concepts, such as “best practices,” “competencies, ” etc., one of the participants explained: “Where there is good practice, there is no knowledge. Such terms and concepts have so conquered the world that they have spread such metastases that there is no escape. On the other hand, “good practices” is easy for people who don’t want to think.” Furthermore, the term “good practice“, used by some, contradicted the hypothesis of others that “there is no one-size-fits-all model.”
In 2012, ISEE conducted a comprehensive project assessing the scientific background behind consultancy services. At that time, emerging concepts were human competencies, corporate capabilities, and job competency models. The research scope included companies like Deloitte, PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG, and IDS Scheer as potential creators of a fundamental knowledge framework explaining universally the management of any enterprise economy.
Findings and Insights
Societal Benefit of BMO: Some of the consultants assumed, even though they had not yet seen a real Business Model Ontology, that if such model ontology were available, it would be extremely innovative and would give its possessors huge competitive advantages in terms of managerial modeling of the economy of enterprises.
“There are attempts at complete models, but they are not working. They are mostly descriptive and do not provide adequate possibilities for future forecasting and analysis because they are based on the past!”
Research progress on BMO—concepts such as ‘competencies’ and ‘competency models’: The use of concepts like ‘competencies’ and ‘competency models’ as a cognitive basis for enterprise management was explained to originate from the lack of precisely a universal framework explaining enterprises and how they function.
” There are no general descriptions because there are different schools. And it is difficult for some to impose terms on others. And this is because philosophies are at stake in these things. These are philosophical worldviews.”
“There is no theory of the firm. There is no such thing at the moment. There is no system that can unite all companies in one comprehensive and non-contradictory system.”
Implications
The lack of a comprehensive Business Model Ontology as a basis for consultancy services poses challenges for economic practice. This leads to each consultant company to choose one or another of the available managerial models and assemble a seemingly working solution. Moreover, the consultants reject each other’s managerial models.
In regard to the emergence of ungrounded terms and concepts, such as “best practices,” “competencies, ” etc., one of the participants explained: “Where there is good practice, there is no knowledge. Such terms and concepts have so conquered the world that they have spread such metastases that there is no escape. On the other hand, “good practices” is easy for people who don’t want to think.” Furthermore, the term “good practice“, used by some, contradicted the hypothesis of others that “there is no one-size-fits-all model.”