I don’t think that Kerma Partners would disagree with my contention that the largest, global , multinational companies require coordinated global coverage from their professional service firms. The law firms do it. Best example I have is Baker and McKenzie. They do a great job at this. The software firms, like SAP and Microsoft, do it. The search firms don’t really. But except for the highest positions, and even for these, search is a local business. But the Big 4 seem to choke on this concept, due to fears of liability. Being audit firms first, their delivery of advisory services on a global basis, the ones they compete with the other professional firms to sell to clients, suffers as a result.

They all seem to accept that:
one firm = one target = one PI insurance pot.

The single brand concept is also adopted by firms with multiple offices. I do wonder however whether it is realistic to expect the client to believe that the service, style and approach of everyone in every office of the one firm will be comparable.

There is a limit as to how much you can ‘tame’ intelligent independent knowledge workers. They won’t all offer a consistent service, style or approach, no matter how much the brand name and promotional material seeks to persuade us to the contrary. Knowledge workers (including accountants and tax advisers) and their advisory services are not the same as products you can buy in a shop or a supermarket.

In the 21st century will there be a move away from working for large branded corporations that tell you how and when to work, to a more independent life securing work through one’s involvement in branded network communities? I hope so. It was one of the inspirations for the creation of the UK’s first independent network for tax professionals: The Tax Advice Network.