feel the prospects were good for internal specialists. The question still remains that why should only 15 or 20% of the partners be specialists? It still begs the question, are they not just as important if not more than regular associates? After all they are at the core of creating innovative solutions to business problems. It appears that management didn’t go far enough in it's reshaping of the partner makeup. The two decade long change process had many positive effects on the company, but as noted in the 3 mini cases, there are some important areas that the plan did not succeed. Namely , in information system development for emerging industries, personal growth and development issues among specialists, and the lack of willingness to try new ideas rather than rely on the company driven internal knowledge database. It seems that it would have been more beneficial had the company loosened the reigns in Sydney and London , regardless of the potential risks. And regarding the career path, there is no doubt it should provided better opportunities for personal growth and development for specialists.Rajat Gupata's approach regarding knowledge development and application within McKinsey revolve around the following key elements. He believes in investing in the future even if it means 5-10% less client work today. He wants to capitalize on the firms historical knowledge and expertise , while continuing to use the present knowledge infrastructure of Pdnet and FPIS to continue to support CIS , and FCG groups. He also wants to use new channels and mechanisms for knowledge development and organizational learning. He also believes in the building the team atmosphere , along with continuing to strive for new and innovative ways of thinking. As evidenced by his support of the Practice Olympics. Gupata also wanted to increase the cross -functional development, by initiating six special initiatives - multi year - internal assignments ...
