From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ireland (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Chicago (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Companies (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Computing (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


I don't understand the reason for this revert. The numbers don't need interpretation and come from the annual report, the same as the 2013 numbers. --NeilN talk to me 15:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Help with a few updates?[edit]

Hi there. As ChrisPond has in past, I am working as a consultant to Accenture to help them improve this article. After reviewing the content, I have several updates to suggest. Many of these changes are simply maintenance and do not significantly alter the content of the article. However, because of my financial COI, I will not be making any updates myself and instead ask other editors to review my proposed material carefully.

Firstly, I'd like to propose updating the number of clients in the Fortune Global 100 that appears in the intro. The most current figure is 89 and can be sourced to this Chicago Tribune article.

Secondly, the Growth Platforms section may also be updated. There have been some changes to both Accenture's Technology and Operations growth platforms and as a result, the language about them can be revised to better reflect what each is responsible for. This article describes the realignment of Technology under new leadership and the broadening of Operations to include infrastructure and cloud services. The new language and sourcing I'm proposing are below:

In addition, there are now 2014 rankings available to update several of the items in the Awards and Honors section. These updates are below and include the first five bullets currently in the section. I have not added any new awards, just corrected the ones already listed to represent the most current standings and recent sourcing.

Finally, I'd like to suggest removing two sections:

  • The Workforces subsection is outdated and lacks sourcing. The company eliminated its workforces in September 2014 and they were not replaced with a comparative structure.
  • The Notable Recent Projects section is also outdated and, due to the nature of using the word “recent” in the heading, would need frequent updates to stay current. Not to mention, having a section like this invites edits adding information that's not necessarily encyclopedic. I'd like to suggest removing it and placing future noteworthy projects in the ‘’History’’ section instead, which is more typical for company articles than a section like this that collects "recent" work.

Thanks in advance for reviewing these requests and please do let me know if there are any questions or feedback on the above. If these changes seems appropriate, I'd appreciate if another editor could make them in the article. Thanks. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Pinging this page again to see if any editors who watch this article can help with the above request. Also, the details of the company's headquarters in the infobox is incorrect: Accenture is not headquartered in San Francisco. There's no citation given, so can this be removed? Technically, the company doesn't have an official headquarters, although it is incorporated in Ireland, so saying "incorporated headquarters are in Dublin, Republic of Ireland" in the introduction wouldn't be entirely wrong. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi 16912 Rhiannon, sorry I haven't had a chance to get to this before today. I was able to have a quick look a couple of days ago but there were some concerns and I didn't want to address them inadequately. The first item I've addressed and have made that change with that reference. The last (in the comment preceding this one) has also been addressed in the infobox and in the lede.
The first of the proposed changes (the larger two) has a few problems. The two aren't particularly strong - one is an "anonymous" article which would seem to be a copy-paste of a company press release and the other is a release of information from the company. The language they are proposed to support is a little flowery. Nothing too problematic but those two citations alone are probably not strong enough to justify it. Probably just a matter of toning down the language a little and finding some alternate sources. #1 probably isn't of much value and #2 is a primary source.
The second change is fine. I might do that in one hit once we get the first one sorted.
I agree with the last two items. "Notable" means something specific around here and none of those projects are "notable". That said, they might be "significant" to the company. But we probably need a list of actually significant projects and not just the recent ones. I'll get rid of the workforces section now.
Happy to discuss anything in more detail if we need to. Stlwart111 23:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stalwart111, thanks so much for taking a look at these for me and making those first few edits. I'm looking again into sourcing for the Technology and Operations information and I'll work on adjusted wording for that, too. Once I have that, I'll ping you here to check it out. In the meantime, I wanted to ask what you think the best course of action is for the Notable Recent Projects section? Are you ok with deleting that entirely or do you think the listed projects should be incorporated into the History section? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I think that section has two problems - the "notable" part and the "recent" part. "Notable" means something specific here and while readers might not understand that, its strange to include a list of "notable" projects when none of them are actually notable (with articles of their own). In that sense, they should be projects that are significant (to a broader audience than just the company) or significant to the company's history (projects that led to considerable growth or the opening of a new regional office or something along those lines). In that sense, we're looking for projects significant to the company's history and so including them in the history section makes sense. But we need to decide, first, which projects should be included. The "recent" part is a problem also - why only the "recent" projects? That doesn't really make sense. Stlwart111 22:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi @Stalwart111: many apologies for taking so long to come back to you on this. I've been working with the Accenture folks to see if there was any additional sourcing for the Technology bullet point, however, I've been unable to find any really strong sources. The best I have is an All Things D piece which mentions the research and development arm of the Technology growth platform. However, since the existing language in the article is so "flowery" (to borrow a term from your earlier reply), and not fully supported by the existing source, so I'm loath to say it's fine to leave it as is. What do you think to using the company's website plus the All Things D article, and amending the wording to make it less jargony?

For the Operations bullet, there's just a little bit of industry-speak that's necessary (BPO -- happily there is a Wikipedia article for this, so it isn't left to readers to work it out), but otherwise, I have pared it down significantly and found another, stronger source. What do you think about the below updated wording?

If this language works for you, would you be able to add it into the article in place of the current bullet points? Also, I think you were coming down in favor of moving the Notable Recent Projects into the History. All three of the projects mentioned garnered media attention, and I think are high profile enough to be included in the company's History. The US-VISIT information doesn't currently have a source, but this Washington Post article can be used to support the first two sentences. Let me know what you think! Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm certainly not the only person who can help with this so my opinion shouldn't be seen as carrying any more weight than anyone else's, but I still have concerns about those sources. They are still better than what is there at the moment so I would be happy to make those changes, but it would be good to get better ones if we can (and I will wait to see if that is possible). The "Lauchlan source" isn't really a "Lauchlan source" at all - it is large blocks of a statement from Nanterme interspersed with single lines from Lauchlan. That's not a problem, really, as Nanterme is a reliable source for information about his own company's operations. But it certainly isn't an "independent source" so a more independent source would be better. Analysis by someone of that statement, for example, would be a better option. Thoughts? Stlwart111 05:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi @Stalwart111: I certainly agree that fully independent sources providing their own analysis of Accenture's operations would be ideal, however I have been unable to locate any recent ones clearly discussing either the Technology or Operations growth platforms. Given that the existing language for both is quite promotional and either unsourced, or the citation used is an Accenture source that doesn't actually support the information given, I do feel like the alternative language and sources I've provided are an improvement. In both cases, the wording is much more straightforward in its explanation of what those growth platforms do, more in line with what's appropriate for a primary source (or secondary source quoting a primary one) to support. Given all this, do you feel it's reasonable to go ahead with the changes? If you'd rather leave these two items and look at the other changes (the Notable Recent Projects section, and updating the awards information), I would absolutely understand. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Just to follow up on my above comment, re: the Notable Recent Projects section, this information definitely isn't crucial to Accenture's history, so if editors were ok with it, I'd be just as happy to simply delete the section. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Pinging here again to see whether Stalwart111 or any other editors can help resolve the remaining requests for the updates. Just to make things clear, here's what remains and outcome of discussion so far:

  • Updating language and adding sources for the Accenture Operations and Accenture Technology bullet points under Growth Platforms: Stalwart111 was concerned about the lack of independent secondary sourcing for all of the details for these, however the current language is entirely unsourced and quite promotional and the alternative version proposed adds citations and provides a more straightforward, non-promotional explanation of these growth platforms. (See v2 in collapse box above)
  • Updating the Awards and Honors section
  • Removing the Notable Recent Projects section: Stalwart111 and I have discussed this above and I do not believe there is a clear consensus one way or the other between removing entirely or moving the details into the History section. Since the information isn't vital to Accenture's history, I think it would be fine to remove entirely.

Hope someone can help with these requests. Please don't hesitate to ask if there are any questions at all. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Since this has become so long and probably quite confusing to any new editors stopping by, I'm going to create a new section and summarize the requests and discussion there, as well as providing some additional sources and requests. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Updated request[edit]

Since I originally posted the above requests, some more items have come to my attention that can be updated in the article to correct some errors and bring things up-to-date. To make things simplest, I have closed the previous request and am putting all remaining queries under this one. Noting my financial COI again: I'm working as a paid consultant on behalf of Accenture and will not make any edits in the article myself.

Infobox and introduction corrections[edit]

  • The dates in the infobox for Andersen Consulting no longer match the article text, they should be 1989-2001
  • Foundation date in the infobox should be 1989, to match up with the above
  • The revenue in the infobox should be $30.0 billion net, as is noted in the introduction
  • Number of employees can be updated to 323,000 (February 2015)
    • Citation:<ref name=Factsheet>{{cite web |url= |title=Accenture Fact Sheet |author= |date=28 February 2015 | |publisher=Accenture |accessdate=9 April 2015}}</ref>
  • The number of current clients from the Fortune Global 100 should be 89 per the source cited, not 91

Updating Awards and Honors[edit]

Since I previously proposed updating this section, some of the awards and rankings have released their 2015 details, so I've put together an updated draft below.

Remove Notable Recent Projects[edit]

As discussed previously with Stalwart111, the Notable Recent Projects section currently is lacking in citations and the projects listed are not actually notable. We didn't reach a clear outcome on whether to remove or move the details into History, but I'd be absolutely fine with simply removing this section, since the projects listed are not vital to Accenture's history.

Update Operations and Technology wording[edit]

The current language for Operations and Technology bullet points under Growth Platforms is entirely unsourced and quite promotional. I've prepared an alternative version that adds citations and provides a more straightforward, non-promotional explanation of these growth platforms. Although Stalwart111 was concerned about the lack of independent secondary sourcing for all of the details for these, the proposed wording is, I believe, an improvement on the existing wording.

If anyone is able to take a look at the above and make the changes in the article as they feel appropriate, that would be fantastic. Also, just as a heads up, I'm working on getting a new map released by Accenture to replace the current one in the article, so I'll post details of that here once the image is available. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi - I have made most of the changes. A couple of comments: (i) I did not feel comfortable inserting the net revenue figure as the standard infobox only has a parameter labeled "revenue" not "net revenue" (ii) I have retained some of the text on notable projects as the material was properly sourced and in my view notable. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Dormskirk! There are a couple of things that might not have been clear from my request and that do need fixing:
  • Only the Technology and Operations wording in the Growth Platforms section needed updating, the other details were fine, so did not need deleting. Would you be able to restore those?
  • The 2013 details under Awards and Honors can be removed, as they are updated by the 2014 wording added. (With regards to the 2013 Ethisphere mention, there's a sentence there about Suzie Cartwright staying with the company, which is not supported by the citation, so I think doesn't need to be retained.)
For the notable projects, seeing as one of these is not actually recent (now more than 10 years old), what do you think to moving the details for both into the company's History? My thinking is that a section called Notable Recent Projects is liable to become dated fairly quickly, so perhaps it's better to include notable projects in the History instead. What do you think? Finally, totally understood about the net revenue, though just to explain: Accenture more commonly uses their net revenue rather than total revenue, which is why that figure would be preferable. Could it perhaps be added in parentheses after the revenue in the infobox? Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 13:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi - I have restored the growth platforms material, removed the 2013 awards and moved the notable projects to history. I am still a bit uncomfortable on the revenue point : I think it would look very messy to provide both the revenue and the net revenue and there is no chance that the lay reader would understand the difference. I hope this helps. Dormskirk (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi there Dormskirk, thanks so much for making those tweaks. All looks great now! And on the net revenue, I do understand and thanks for explaining your thoughts on that point, I'll leave that alone. You've been a great help, hope you won't mind if I bother you again once I have the map image to add to the article. Thanks again, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi - No problem. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dormskirk, thanks for sorting that out. I was short on time and wasn't sure how I was going to get a chance to go through that. Probably good to have another pair of eyes on it anyway. 16912 Rhiannon, apologies for not getting back to you but it looks like Dormskirk has done a great job anyway. Stlwart111 02:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thanks to you both. I just noticed that an IP address editor has added back the 2013 award information and the incorrect bullet point re: 2014 listing in Fortune 2000 (which actually is Forbes 2000 and is listed below), would one of you mind removing that again Dormskirk or Stalwart111? Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 13:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

done. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I feel so nitpicky pointing this out, so apologies in advance, Dormskirk, but the first bullet point, and third and fourth can all be removed, as they're updated/corrected by the new details added. So, these ones:
  • In 2013, the Ethisphere Institute designated Accenture as one of the World's Most Ethical Companies for the 6th time.
  • In 2013, Corporate Responsibility Magazine named Accenture in the top 25 of their top 100 Best Corporate Citizens for the third consecutive year.
  • In 2014, Accenture has been ranked at 339 in the Fortune Global 2000 list. (New bullet point correctly says Forbes instead of Fortune)
Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
done. Best wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks Dormskirk and I really appreciate you bearing with me! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

New map image[edit]

Hi all, thanks again to the editors who reviewed my previous requests. I have just a quick request for this time: the existing map in the Services and Operations section is out-of-date, since it shows countries of operation as of 2012, to update it I've created a new version based on the current list of countries on Accenture's website.

Here's the new image: File:AccentureMap 2015.png

Please can someone replace the 2012 image with this one? For the caption, I recommend simply updating the year in the existing caption. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

done. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Fantastic! Thanks, Dormskirk! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Accenture National Security Services[edit]

It has been suggested by User:Lakun.patra that Accenture National Security Services be merged into this article. I support that proposal. Dormskirk (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)