| Booz Allen Hamilton |
Article Index for Booz |
Website Links For Allen |
Information AboutBooz Allen Hamilton |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON | |
| international management consulting firms | |
| economics consulting firms | |
| privately held companies of the united states | |
| companies established in 1914 | |
Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., referred to as '''Booz Allen''' is one of the oldest Strategy Consulting firms in the world. The firm formerly had two consulting divisions: WCB (Worldwide Commercial Business, also known as “The Commercial Side”) and WTB (Worldwide Technology Business, also known as “The Government Side”). These two divisions recently restructured into functional service lines (Strategy, Design, Transformation) and business units: Global Commercial Markets, Global Government Markets, Global Functional Capabilities, Global Integrated Markets, and Global Operations.[http://www.boozallen.com/about Booz Allen is a private company with corporate headquarters in McLean, Virginia and over 100 offices on 6 continents. Dr. Ralph Shrader is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the firm — the seventh chairman since the firm's founding in 1914. Booz Allen competes with strategy firms like , IBM , Accenture , and other systems integrators and defense contractors. Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., is incorporated in , Japan, Korea, and Greater China . With ~18,000 employees on six continents, and double digit growth rates over the past seven years due primarily to growth in its public sector business, the firm generated annual total sales of over $4 billion in FY2007. Booz Allen's notable intellectual business successes include the HBS-honored [http://www.orgdna.com/ OrgDNA framework, the PERT management technique and the Product Lifecycle theory. It was also responsible for coining the phrase " Supply Chain Management ". HISTORY After graduating from Northwestern University in 1914, Edwin G. Booz developed the business theory that companies would be more successful if they could call on someone outside their own organizations for expert, impartial advice. {Link without Title} This theory developed into a new profession — management consulting — and the firm that would bear his name, Booz Allen Hamilton. Mr. Booz was soon joined by James L. Allen , who became a co-founder and the second named partner at the firm. Booz Allen Hamilton has a longstanding relationship with the CIA and other intelligence agencies, with current and former employees including former Director of Central Intelligence, R. James Woolsey , former CIA employee Miles Copeland, Jr. , and former NSA Director Mike McConnell , who is now the second Director Of National Intelligence . COMPETITORS Booz Allen Hamilton's top competitors include A.T. Kearney , Bain & Co. ,The Boston Consulting Group and McKinsey & Co. in the strategy consulting market. Booz Allen also competes with Accenture , Boeing , IBM , L3/Titan , Lockheed Martin , Northrop Grumman , SAIC , and other systems integrators and defense contractors in the government and technology consulting markets. NOTABLE CURRENT AND FORMER EMPLOYEES Business
Politics and public service
Other
OFFICES Booz Allen's headquarters in is McLean, VA. The firm has offices in many U.S. states, with a concentration of offices in and around the Washington, D.C. area as a bulk of their clients (especially the U.S. government) are based in that area. Booz Allen also maintains offices in over 20 countries outside the U.S., including sites in Central & South America, Europe, the Near East, South Asia, East Asia & Oceana, and Australia and New Zealand. CRITICISMS AND CONTROVERSIES Booz Allen has been subject to some scrutiny related to its work with U.S. government defense and intelligence agencies, and to some its ex-government staff. In 2006 at the request of the Article 29 Working Group, an advisory group to the European Commission (EC), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Privacy International (PI) investigated the U.S. government's SWIFT surveillance program and Booz Allen's role therein. The ACLU and PI filed a memo at the end of their investigation which called into question the ethics and legality of a government contractor (in this case Booz Allen) acting as auditors of a government program, when that contractor is heavily involved with those same agencies on other contracts. The basic statement was that a conflict of interest may exist. Beyond that, the implication was also made that Booz Allen may be complicit in a program (electronic surveillance of SWIFT) that may be deemed illegal by the EC. The source article on the ACLU's website and the memo created from this investigation can be found here {Link without Title} . Another controversy related to some of the senior staff of Booz Allen (past and present) and related to its performance on some specific U.S. intelligence agency contracts was brought to light on 12 January 2007 in an interview conducted by , R. James Woolsey, Jr. , and James R. Clapper , all of whom have gone back and forth between government and industry (Booz Allen in particular), and who may present the appearance that certain government contractors receive undue or unlawful business from the government, and that certain government contractors may exert undue or unlawful influence on government. Shorrock further relates that Booz Allen was a sub-contractor with two programs at the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA), called Trailblazer and Pioneer Groundbreaker , and then asserts two statements: that these programs reveal that many contractors are involved in various intelligence programs of which the media and parts of U.S. Government have now questioned the legality; and that the apparent (assertion made by Shorrock) unsuccessful nature of the programs reveals a lack of competence by both NSA and Booz Allen. A June 28, 2007 contract with Booz Allen increased from $2 million to more than $70 million through two no-bid contracts, one occurring after the DHS's legal office had advised DHS not to continue the contract until after a review. A Government Accounting Office ( GAO ) report on the contract characterized it as not well-planned and lacking any measure for assuring valuable work would completed. EXTERNAL LINKS FOOTNOTES |
|
|