Talk:Monitor Deloitte

Response to financial crisis

I'm going to be sailing close to 3RR soon. If the IP posters have sources for the information they're adding, it'd be welcome. Hypnotist uk (talk) 22:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the Economist link, which is both WP:V and needed for WP:NPOV. Deleting it was not a minor edit. Hypnotist uk (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Assistance requested

Hello, I'd like to ask for assistance with this article. Because I know there are guidelines about contributing when there may be a potential conflict of interest, I want to disclose (as on my user page) that I am posting here in affiliation with and on behalf of Monitor Group, the subject of this article. It has come to my attention that this article has been edited significantly since March, when Monitor’s work with Libya re-entered the news. I'm under no illusion that information about this will be removed, but I do wish that it be even-handed and accurate, as the best Wikipedia articles can be. I do not think it is that now. I aim to follow all the Wikipedia guidelines, including those for COI, and I would like to seek help from impartial editors to improve the page in this regard. I believe that there is definite room for improvement on the current article, but I am wary of making edits directly due to my working relationship with the company. Here are some things that stand out:

• Most of the key section "Work for Muammar Qadhafi Regime" relies on a report by Mother Jones[3] and a single primary source from their website[4]. This section would benefit from making greater use of reliable secondary sources than it does now, including a March 4 report by the Boston Globe[5].
• The section currently relies only on very recent sources (Mother Jones and after), creating the impression that Monitor’s work in Libya was not publicly known until this year. However, there are a number of secondary sources from 2006 and 2007 citing the firm’s presence in Libya. I would suggest using these sources, including an Associated Press[6] article from March 16, 2007, an NPR[7] report from September 1, 2007 and a New Yorker[8] article from May 8, 2006.
• This section states that Mother Jones "has obtained internal company documents" and "produced internal company documents" when in fact (as the section also states) these were released by a Libyan opposition group in 2009.
• The section now quotes Mother Jones' statement that Monitor "had been retained 'not to promote economic development'" but this is not true. As the Boston Globe[9] reported, and the Monitor Group[10] statement has explained, the bulk of the work in 2006-2008 was focused on encouraging economic and democratic reforms. The 2007 NPR[11] report also states that Monitor was hired for these purposes. As written, this is one-sided and inaccurate. I suggest more information from the Globe, NPR and Monitor’s statement be included.
• The section includes a fairly long and somewhat confusing blockquote (it begins "According to the proposal...") taken from the primary document, including a typo not in the original. My suggestion is it be summarized in the document.
• The section currently does not mention that the majority of Monitor's work was in 2006 to 2008. This is supported by several sources, including a Businessweek[12] article on April 6, which states that “between 2006 and 2008, when Monitor said it did the bulk of its work, the country's trajectory seemed positive."
• One more thing: someone has posted the full Monitor statement in this section. I am glad it is available here but I recognize the full quotation is inappropriate. I would rather see it used in context, so I suggest it can be removed and incorporated throughout the section.

Because of the sensitivity involved, I do not wish to edit this page directly. Please let me know if you would like to get involved, and if you have any questions that I can answer. I would appreciate any help that other editors can provide as there are a lot of improvements that can be made to make this a much better article and one that better reflects Wikipedia's guidelines. Please leave any messages here or on my talk page. Thanks, CanalPark (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern and caution. I'll take a look at this. If you'd like to propose a draft of the section on this talk page, that's fine too. We can discuss it and edit it if necessary. Ocaasi ^c 15:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: I've created a subpage at Talk:Monitor Group/LibyaSources to collect some more links to articles. Ocaasi ^c 16:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest, Ocaasi. I will review the list of links you have created to see if I can add more. Although I am cautious about suggesting actual draft language, with your invitation I will see what I can come up with. I will check with you on your talk page when I am ready to propose something. Meanwhile, can you explain the section copied below? It is still in the article, yet I am confused about what to make of its inclusion on this page now. Thanks again, and I look forward to working with you on this. CanalPark (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The links were from a pretty exhaustive Google news and archives search between 2005 and today. Frankly, there are probably way more than are necessary. Ironically, Mother Jones isn't among them. But feel free to add any, especially if you have print sources which Google does not index. The purpose of the draft below is so you could make or propose changes without them being 'live'. You could adjust it so it says exactly what you think it should, and myself and others can give you feedback and make edits ourselves--all without disrupting the main article until we're finished. If you'd rather not do that, you can just leave it. Ocaasi ^c 20:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see now. I've added in the first section now, too, since that requires much work as well. I have also added a couple of new links to the workpage you have created, but I agree that there is already plenty to write a more neutral section from. That will be my next plan. Thanks again for your help. CanalPark (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Drafts

Current

Existing Libya sections as of April 21, 2011

Work for Muammar Qadhafi Regime The group had been hired in 2006 by the regime in Libya as part of the Libya lobby to cooperate in a project to, in the firms own words, "Enhance the Profile of Libya and Muammar Qadhafi". Mother Jones has obtained internal company documents which were originally published by a Libayn oposition group (www.libya-nclo.com) that show that Monitor Group had been retained "not to promote economic development, but 'to enhance the profile of Libya and Muammar Qadhafi.'" The article went on to report that in 2006: Mark Fuller, the CEO of Monitor, and Rajeev Singh-Molares, a director of the firm, wrote, Libya has suffered from a deficit of positive public relations and adequate contact with a wide range of opnion-leaders and contemporary thinkers. This program aims to redress the balance in Libya's favor. Mother Jones, Boston Globe and Politico have reported that Monitor Group was retained by Libya to do essentially PR work for Qadhafi and his regime. Mother Jones has produced internal company documents that state: According to the proposal agreed on July 4th 2006, the goal of the project was defined as follows: “The project is a sustained, long term program to enhance international understanding and appreciation of Libya and the contribution it has made and may continue to make to its region and to the world. It will emphasize the emergence of the new Libya and its ongoing process of change.” During the course of the project a second important goal was introduced by the client. This goal is to introduce Muammar Qadhafi as a thinker and intellectual, independent of his more widelyknown and very public persona as the Leader of the Revolution in Libya. It was reported by Politico that the firm was working with a $3 million per year contract to work to promote Libya and to recruit global figures to promote the reputation of Qadhafi Under this contract Monitor Group engaged and flew to Libya several leading academics and other luminaries including: Joseph Nye of Harvard’s Kennedy School, Anthony Giddens of the London School of Economics and Benjamin Barber of Rutgers University, who later published positive articles about Libya following their trips to the country, according to the following article by The Nation. None of them has disclosed that they received payments from Monitor for their work in Libya. The Mother Jones article went on to report that the company aimed to publish a book to be title "Qadhafi, the Man and His Ideas," but the book was never published The article presents information that, though claiming to be promoting democratic development in Libya, the project was in fact collecting fees from promotional work for the dictator .. An article by the Sunlight Foundation raised the question of why Monitor was not registered as a foreign lobbying group under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), given what appeared to be a lobbying effort by firm on behalf of the Libyan government and Muammar Qadhafi. In official company documents which were directed to its Libyan clients, the firm claimed that it is not a lobbying organization. The firm has responded to this coverage with a public press release on March 24th 2011. It addresses the arguments put forth by the reporters, such as those quoted above, with the following statement: Monitor Group is a global management consulting firm with a mission: to help shape a better future, with our clients, in a dynamic and complex world. For more than 25 years, we have served clients from the government, civic, and corporate sectors to address an array of complex and challenging issues. We believe that our strength and success as a firm rests on the quality and integrity of our people—employees, partners, networks—and the high standards we set individually and collectively for excellent and ethical behavior, performance, and outcomes. Much of the recent commentary on our work in Libya does not capture accurately who we are, what we do, and what drives us. Given the terrible spectacle of Col. Gaddafi using force on his own people, it may be difficult to imagine that just a few years ago many saw a period of promise in Libya. Col. Gaddafi had renounced terror, forfeited nuclear and chemical weapons and programs, and declared himself ready to rejoin the community of nations. International policy at the time sought to seize an opportunity to re-engage a rogue nation for the benefit of global security and the people of Libya. In that context, and especially between 2006 and 2008, when we did the bulk of our work, Libya needed expert assistance to build its democratic institutions and modernize its economy. After decades of isolation, Libya’s business, civic, government, and intellectual leaders also sought to deepen their understanding of ideas and practices in the rest of the world. Monitor’s work in this period focused on economic development, the training of hundreds of high-potential leaders selected competitively from all sectors of Libyan society and industry, and the introduction of global thought leaders representing a diverse range of perspectives and expertise to enable processes of reform. These are areas where Monitor and its people have great experience and skills, and these are the outcomes we sought to achieve according to our high standards of ethics and excellence. We regret that this period of promise was so short-lived. We also regret that during the course of our work we did make some errors in judgment, which we have acknowledged and have vowed not to repeat. We are aware that questions have been raised regarding activities that could conceivably be construed as “lobbying,” and therefore introduce questions of regulatory compliance. We take these questions very seriously. Earlier this month we launched a thorough investigation of this subject, led by an internal task force and supported by expert outside counsel, to investigate further and advise us concerning potential registration and reporting. As we move aggressively to identify and address any issues, we remain fully committed to providing the outstanding services that our clients deserve and expect, and that our staff and partners consistently deliver. London School of Economics and the Libya Links's affair Main article: LSE Libya Links One of the prime targets for the activities of Monitor Group have been academics associated with the London School of Economics, such as professors Anthony Giddens and David Held. In 2006 and 2007 the Monitor Group organized two trips to Libya for Anthony Giddens, when the former LSE Director met with Muammar al-Gaddafi. Giddens has declined to comment on the financial compensation he received. In a July 2009 letter to Abdullah Senussi, a high-ranking Libyan official who was convicted in absentia in France for his role in a 1989 bombing of a passenger plane flying over Niger that resulted in the deaths of 170 people, Monitor Group reported that: We will create a network map to identify significant figures engaged or interested in Libya today ... We will identify and encourage journalists, academics and contemporary thinkers who will have interest in publishing papers and articles on Libya, ... We are delighted that after a number of conversations, Lord Giddens has now accepted our invitation to visit Libya in July, Giddens' first visit to Libya resulted in articles in the New Statesman, El País and La Repubblica, where he argued that Libya had been transformed. In the New Statesman he wrote: "Gaddafi's 'conversion' may have been driven partly by the wish to escape sanctions, but I get the strong sense it is authentic and there is a lot of motive power behind it. Saif Gaddafi is a driving force behind the rehabilitation and potential modernisation of Libya. Gaddafi Sr, however, is authorising these processes." During the second visit, Monitor Group organized a panel of "three thinkers" – Giddens, Gaddafi, and Benjamin Barber, author of Jihad vs. McWorld – chaired by Sir David Frost. When questioned, the Monitor Group admitted to having "contributed" to the PhD dissertation ostensibly written by Saif al-Islam al-Gaddafi, the son of the Libyan leader, for which he was given a PhD at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Canal Park

New Libya section proposed April 21, 2011

1 Work for Muammar Qadhafi Regime Monitor Group was hired in 2005 by the regime in Libya after the United Nations lifted economic sanctions in December 2003 and the United States followed suit in 2004. The work focused on assessing the state of Libya’s economy and charting a path to modernizing the economy, but shied away from political reforms. The work also involved training leaders from different sectors of the society and reforming the banking system. Media reports at the time noted there was significant opposition to change within the establishment in Libya. In 2009, the National Conference of the Libyan Opposition posted confidential Monitor documents that proposed additional work to "Enhance the Profile of Libya and Muammar Qadhafi". The 2006 proposal described “a sustained, long term program to enhance international understanding and appreciation of Libya and the contribution it has made and may continue to make to its region and to the world,” and added that a second goal was “to introduce Muammar Qadhafi as a thinker and intellectual.” Under this contract Monitor Group engaged and flew to Libya several leading Western academics and luminaries to Libya to introduce them to Western ideas on economic and governance issues. They included Joseph Nye of Harvard’s Kennedy School, Anthony Giddens of the London School of Economics and Benjamin Barber of Rutgers University. Monitor Group also proposed to write a book under Qadhafi’s name, and provided research support for the London School of Economics doctoral thesis by Qadhafi’s son, Saif Gaddafi. The proposed book by Gaddafi was never completed and Monitor later stated that the book idea had been a mistake. The allegation led to an investigation at the London School of Economics and to the resignation of its director, Howard Davies. The work of Monitor Group and academics who published articles about their visits to Libya came under scrutiny after Qadhafi’s forces attacked anti-government protesters in February 2011. Questions arose about whether Monitor Group should have registered as a foreign lobbyist under the Foreign Agent’s Registration Act (FARA), for its work in Libya. As of March 2011, Monitor Group said it had launched an investigation into these questions.

Rangoon

Rangoon's additions April 26, 2011

1 Work for Muammar Gaddafi Regime Monitor was first hired by the Muammar Gaddafi-led Libyan government in 2005 to assess the state of Libya’s economy, develop plans for economic modernization and reform of the banking system, and train leaders from different sectors of society. The work did not involve any wider political reforms in the North African nation. According to a 2007 memo from Monitor to Libya's intelligence chief which was subsequently obtained by the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition and posted on the internet in 2009, Monitor entered into further contracts with the Libyan regime in 2006 which were worth at least $3m (£1.8m) per year plus expenses. According to the memo these contracts were for a campaign to "enhance international understanding and appreciation of Libya... emphasize the emergence of the new Libya... [and] introduce Muammar Qadhafi as a thinker and intellectual." In connection with these contracts Monitor engaged and flew to Libya several leading Western academics, including Anthony Giddens of the London School of Economics (LSE), Joseph Nye of Harvard’s Kennedy School, Benjamin Barber of Rutgers University and Michael Porter. Monitor also provided research support for a doctoral thesis which Gaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, submitted to the LSE. During this period Monitor also proposed a separate project to write a book for a fee of $2.45 million, to be published in Gaddafi's name and which would "allow the reader to hear Gaddafi elaborate, in his own words and in conversation with renowned international experts, his core ideas on individual freedom, direct democracy vs. representative democracy, [and] the role of state and religion". The book was never completed and Monitor later stated that the project had been a "serious mistake on our part". Monitor's work for the Libyan government, and its hiring of academics in connection with it, became the subject of increasing scrutiny and controversy after Gaddafi’s forces attacked anti-government protesters in February 2011. Questions arose about whether Monitor should have registered as a foreign lobbyist under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) in connection with its work in Libya. During this time details also came to public notice of the role which Monitor had played in the writing of Saif Gaddafi's thesis submitted to the LSE. This, combined with public exposure of wider connections between the LSE and Libya, resulted in the resignation of its director, Howard Davies. In March 2011, Monitor announced that it had launched an internal investigation into its work for the Libyan government.

Discussion

I have written and posted above a new draft of the Libya-related material, inside the second "collapse box", for review and comparison with the existing two sections covering the same topics, now located inside the first collapse box. Whereas the current treatment of the material begins in 2011, this new version begins in the more logical time, when Monitor began its work for Libya. All of the same material is covered, including the documents posted by the Libyan opposition group, the involvement of U.S. and British academics and the LSE, and covers the breadth of Monitor's activities. The new version is shorter but covers the same publicly reported allegations in what I think is a reasonable, even-handed manner. To Ocaasi or another experienced editor, please edit this as you see fit and if one agrees it is better for the main page than the two current sections, I hope you will replace it. I will be available to answer questions if that will help. Thank you, CanalPark (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for updating this. I invited User:Rangoon11 who is familiar with articles about both corporations and the UK to help out. We'll give you some feedback this week. Ocaasi ^c 01:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds great to me. I have this page watchlisted so I will respond as in as timely a manner as I can. Thanks, CanalPark (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I have now read through all of the above and my initial thoughts are that (1) I agree that the current treatment of these issues in the article is in need of improvement, and is unduly long; (2) I broadly support the new text in terms of length, structure, tone and sources and am happy for the above draft to form the basis for a replacement section on these issues; (3) I would however like to see some adjustments to the proposed text to more strongly emphasise certain points. In particular I would like to include that (i) the Monitor statement described the abortive book project as a "serious mistake on our part" rather than merely a mistake; (ii) that Monitor has been alleged to have received a fee of least $3m (£1.8m) per year for its work for the Libyan regime; and (iii) that the proposed price for the book concept was $2.45 million. I would also like to include these three articles as additional sources: [13],[14] and [15]. Tomorrow I will post a propsed revised version of the replacement section for discussion, but I welcome a response to these initial comments. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rangoon11. I am glad to hear you agree with the points I have raised about the sections, and with the general direction of the draft I provided. Your suggestions sound reasonable to me, and I am eager to see the latest version when it is posted. Thank you, CanalPark (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I am creating a third draft section on this talk page, based on CanalPark's initial proposal. Rangoon, can you add your changes there so we have a new draft as well as record to which we can compare? I also think your suggestions are very on point, though I'm still sorting through the various commentary. I'm up through the 2009 sources but have not yet covered the 2011 renewal of debate and criticism. Ocaasi ^c 22:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

A few preliminary additions to Rangoon's comments. The draft should include wikilinks to Michael Porter, Joseph Nye, Benjamin Barber, any other major individuals or organizations, and LSE Libya Links. Ocaasi ^c 03:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for putting up the new draft box, I will add in my proposed additions, as well as the proposed above WP links, a bit later today.Rangoon11 (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I have now put up a revised draft in the box above. The text is now broadly as I think it should be, although I still need to add in the new citations and check that the existing ones are now in the right place. However it would be much appreciated if comments could be made at this point so that they can be fed in before more work is done on polishing the text. Rangoon11 (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks pretty good, and I think it's definitely ready to replace what was there before. My main criticism is the understated mention of Porter's role. I've read every source I could find linking Monitor to Libya from 2005-2010 (Haven't finished the 2011 sources), and Porter is at the center of almost every single one. He was the competitiveness expert who Saif wooed early on to come and help; he was there for the 2007 New Dawn kickoff speech; he seems to have been the lead figure behind the strategic planning and the definite connection to Monitor and Harvard Business School, if not the mastermind of the whole thing. We can work with that once the draft is added, as well, since it's not like I see any problems with the most recent version. Ocaasi ^c 12:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Great. Re Porter I'm happy to more strongly emphasise his role here, particularly as he is a Senior Partner and Academic Director of Monitor, as well as a co-founder. A detailed description of his involvement should in my view go in the Michael Porter article however, where bizarrely there is no mention at all at present.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ocaasi and Rangoon, I've read the latest proposed version, and it appears factual and straightforward to me. I'll be interested to see how you plan to describe Porter's role, but insofar as they accurately reflect what has been publicly reported, I would support it. Really, I have no changes to suggest here; it will undoubtedly be better than the current version. I am very grateful that you have both taken the time to do a thorough job, and I am very much looking forward to seeing the new section posted. Thanks, CanalPark (talk) 14:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is not finished and this is a major improvement, I'm going to add it now, especially given the topicality of this... topic. It's still pretty newsworthy, we so might as well get the cleaned up draft in the main article while page views are through the roof. Expansion or revision can still happen while it's in the main article, of course. It's been great working with you, and I hope you write a note about it for the company bulletin, seriously! It's important that one of the world's most prominent consulting (and PR?) companies finds the world's most prominent collaborative reference encyclopedia to be respectable and workable. So spread the word! If you like. Ocaasi ^c 17:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I have been pleasantly surprised how quickly this process has worked out, and your editorial judgments I believe have been quite sound. And you are correct, speaking at least for my immediate colleagues, we certainly respect Wikipedia as a unique and important platform. Ironically, now the best-written part of the article is the one we probably wish did not have to be here at all. I would like to try proposing improved versions of sections about other aspects of Monitor's work, which has often also received significant notice. I understand the importance of privileging third-party sources and striving to focus on notable aspects of the business without being promotional. It will take another week to do that, but if you're willing to review that when I am able to present it, I'd be very appreciative. Thanks, CanalPark (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments and very happy to have helped out. I for one would also be happy to review any proposed new content or improvements to other sections of the article. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

FARA

Following from our above discussion regarding the Libya section, there has been a small development that seems appropriate to include here. I would like to request a small update to the section, replacing the final sentence (beginning "In March 2011...") with the following:

In May 2011, Monitor announced it would register some of its past work in Libya with the U.S. Department of Justice in accordance with FARA. The company said it would also register for work with Jordan.

I would appreciate another editor's input in reviewing and making the edit, due to my potential conflict of interest on this subject. To Ocaasi, Rangoon11, or any other experienced editor, please edit this addition as needed and make the replacement if you feel that it is suitable. Thanks, CanalPark (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the proposed text above has now been inserted. Please note that I have not deleted what was the last sentence of that paragraph however as I think that the detail regarding the internal investigation is still relevant. Happy to discuss of course if there are good reasons why you think it should now come out. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that's fine, I understand why you say that. I'm still working on a draft to help improve the "Organization" section so I will share that when it is ready. Thanks, CanalPark (talk) 17:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Organization section

Following from the above discussion, I would like to ask for some further assistance with this article, in particular with reviewing proposed changes to the "Organization" section. As noted in my original request, I am seeking assistance with this on behalf of Monitor Group, and as such have a potential conflict of interest with editing this article. Therefore, I would prefer that disinterested and experienced editors review and, if appropriate, make any edits that I propose.

The current "Organization" section offered a flawed view of the company. I have provided an alternative in the collapse box, below this note.

What I changed:

• The first paragraph is better explained by who founded it and where. The current first paragraph isn't very useful.
• The long second paragraph explaining the firm's practice areas is now more accurate, based on the same sources.
• I cleaned up the information about the award for Monitor's pro bono service, and provided the name of the parent organization, with a press release from the Corporation itself.
• I made some minor changes to the language in the last paragraph, about the 2008 financial crisis.

What I added:

• Several prominent individuals in the firm have written business books that inform and are informed by Monitor's work, and these are included here.

What I removed:

• I removed the Consulting Magazine reference because I thought it didn't add anything concrete.
• I removed the Fast Company award co-sponsorship because it has not been held for several years.

Due to my potential COI (as mentioned above) it would be most appreciated if Rangoon11, Ocaasi or another editor could review this draft section and make the replacement, if appropriate. Please make any edits to the draft that are required and if you have any questions, I will reply as quickly as I am able. Thanks, CanalPark (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Organization section draft

1 Organization Monitor Group was founded in 1983 by six entrepreneurs with ties to Harvard Business School, including Michael Porter, Mark Fuller and Joseph Fuller. Stephen M. Jennings is managing partner. Monitor is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts and has 27 offices in 18 countries. Its consulting areas include: Strategy and Uncertainty, Leadership and Organization, Innovation, Economic Development, Marketing Pricing and Sales, and Social Action. Monitor has a number of business units that specialize in these areas and work together on client projects and the development of intellectual property, including its own white papers and research reports. They include: Global Business Network (GBN), experts in scenario planning and experiential learning; Doblin specializes in innovation and design thinking; Monitor Regional Competitiveness supports economic development and regional competitiveness initiatives; Monitor Institute consults on strategy for the philanthropy and non-profit sectors; Monitor 360 works on strategy for government and non-governmental agencies; and Monitor Talent, a network of authors, experts, and academics who share ideas about the future of business, science and society. According to Monitor Group, about 85 percent of its revenues come from repeat clients. Several authors affiliated with the firm have written business consulting books related to Monitor's work, including Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors, by Michael Porter; Knowledge for Action: A Guide to Overcoming Barriers to Organizational Change, by Chris Argyris; A Theory of the Firm: Governance, Residual Claims and Organizational Forms, by Michael C. Jensen; The Strategy and Tactics of Pricing: A Guide to Growing More Profitably, by Thomas T. Nagle, John E. Hogan and Joseph Zale; and The Art of the Long View: Paths to Strategic Insight for Yourself and Your Company by Peter Schwartz. In 2008, the Corporation for National and Community Service honored Monitor for outstanding pro bono service for its 10-year partnership with and providing consulting resources for New Profit Inc., a national venture philanthropy fund, as well as its consulting work through Monitor Institute. More than 250 Monitor Group consultants have participated in projects supporting New Profit and its portfolio organizations. Monitor was hit by the 2008 economic crisis. In September 2008 the company laid off nearly 20% of its workforce and closed several small offices. According to co-founder Joe Fuller, 2008 revenue was up on the previous year, but he stated that Monitor continued to anticipate "a demanding and tough market in the short term".

The draft is an improvement in several areas. I have a few questions, comments and tweaks:

• Reword 'consulting practices:' to consulting areas/groups/departments, as 'practices' generally describes behaviors
• Consider using a comma before the final 'and' in Pricing and Sales, and Social Action. This is a style choice, but I prefer it, especially in long lists and lists with 'and' outside of the final list item
• Rephrase 'development of intellectual property' to be more plainspoken. Does this mean Monitor has its own publications?
• Try and limit colon use if possible (minor)
• Sentence about repeat clients is a bit of a non-sequitur in that paragraph. Move elsewhere or develop into a full paragraph about clients.
• Why remove the part about Monitor's corporate reputation, i.e. 'known for being different'? I'd expand that actually. Or best move it into the Reputation section.
• Why remove the coverage of Monitor's non-profit work?
• Suggest order of subjects, founding and history, current organization--departments and offices and management, clients, reputation, employees, competition. Each of those areas could have its own level 2 section and be expanded.

Nice work though. Let me know what you think. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Ocaasi. Really quite helpful. I have made a couple of small edits now. First, in the main article I have moved the "different" quote to "Reputation" and I have also put quotation marks around it. I had suggested removing it because it seemed like a minor thing, but it fits better now that it's properly quoted. I also brought one additional detail from the current text back to the section about Monitor's non-profit work. It was not my intention to remove anything, but to tighten it up, especially in light of the "citation needed" now there. As for the "non-sequitur" about repeat clients, I think it works fine at the end of this sentence, though it would take me some time to add more, but I would definitely like to. And I agree the article could be developed further, though this is as far as I have got now. I sense that you're supportive of moving this new version over, but I'd like to give you a chance for feedback once more. I am glad you agree that this is generally an improvement, and I'd like to see it reflected in the article soon. Thanks, CanalPark (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Ocaasi. Based on your indication of qualified support, I've gone ahead and moved the above draft into the article. I know that it is not exactly as you think it could be, so please make any changes that you think are necessary for the integrity of the section. Thanks, CanalPark (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Historical Comparison

There needs to be a section praising how quickly Monitor Group owned up to its errors on Libya. Can there be a contrast with organisation that have worked with Syria, Iran, North Korea, or going back to Franco and Stalin that have not been so quick to admit mistakes. Else profile will becomes unbalanced and biased against Monitor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.156 (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a source, a published article in a newspaper, magazine, or expert blog, which discusses Monitor's quickness to respond, then we can consider including it. Otherwise, it's just an observation from a reader. Can you help? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 13:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Monitor Deloitte. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080331103114/http://www.newprofit.com/about.asp to http://www.newprofit.com/about.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015214604/http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/2007/apr24a.html to http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/2007/apr24a.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100520085218/http://bx.businessweek.com/monitor-group to http://bx.businessweek.com/monitor-group/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)