Propósito: Sumarizar y proveer una información beneficiosa de estadísticas acerca de la industria de la consultoría y dar un acceso rápido a una lista de las mejores empresas consultoras y sus páginas webs.

Para quien: Individuales en busca de trabajo, estudiantes, profesionales, y todos aquellos que busquen información sobre las empresas de consultoría más importantes

Derechos: No pretendemos tener ningún derecho y declinamos toda responsabilidad o propiedad en crear, diseñar, desarrollar o programar cualquiera de las páginas webs listadas en esta página. Todas ellas son públicas y visibles desde la red.

Rankinks: Cualquier información de rankings listadas abajo han sido elaboradas por terceras partes, organizaciones que hacen su propio ránking y las ponen a disposición pública, páginas, todas ellas gratuitas. En este particular caso, hemos realizado los ránkings basándonos en varias fuentes de internet entre las que encontramos CNN, Vault.com, fortune.com y linkedin.

En 2011 las mejores Firmas para las que se puede trabajar, según Consulting Magazine son:

1. Bain & Company

2. The Boston Consulting Group

3. North Highland

4. Point B

5. Deloitte Consulting

6. Slalom Consulting

7. McKinsey & Company

8. PwC

9. Booz Allen Hamilton

10. Huron Consulting Group

11. Ernst & Young

12. Accenture

13. Crowe Horwath

14. Monitor

15. A.T. Kearney

Las mejores pequeñas empresas de consultoría del 2011

1. Stroud Consulting

2. Impact Advisors

3. Cask

4. Vynamic

5. Infinitive

6. Fitzgerald Analytics

7. Lenati

8. Jabian Consulting

9. PeopleFirm

10. HiSoft (formerly Nouveon)

11. Plus Consulting

12. Meridian Compensation Partners

13. Marakon

14. SEI

15. IBB Consulting Group

Muy interesante articulo sobre privacidad internacional titulado (es en inglés) “How does ‘privacy’ translate abroad?” Escrio por Martin Abrams, para el National Law Journal (www.nlj.com). Martin Abrams is executive director of the Center for Information Policy Leadership at Hunton & Williams.

The center is a global privacy and information security think tank located in Washington.

A new initiative will govern
international transfers of information.

For every company in the Americas of any
size, cross-border data transfers are a way of life. Offices
in Lima, Peru, access customer information
stored in Toronto. A distribution center in Cincinnati
processes accounts payable in Costa Rica and
Mexico. A clinical research team in New Jersey
shares data with teammates in 12 countries outside
the United States. A clinic in Vancouver, British
Columbia, has systems serviced in Rochester, N.Y.
Today, data are processed anywhere, by everyone,
and at anytime—they are constantly moving.
Much of this information pertains to people,
which means it is sensitive from both a privacy and
security standpoint. Privacy and security require
the information to be under control as it moves and
sits, and control requires governance. This article
will focus on governance as it exists today in the
Americas and governance as it probably will exist
in the very near future based on a framework being
developed by the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC) group of Pacific Rim nations.
The implementation structure for the framework
is being built out in 2008 as part of the APEC
year in Peru (member states take turns hosting the
annual APEC summit). Nine privacy pathfinder
projects were approved during the 2007 APEC year
in Australia. Those pathfinders are being explored
during two APEC privacy workshops in Peru in
2008—one that was held in February and another
to be held in the fall. This process will establish the
governance structure for the next decade.
Canada and the United States already have
governance structures for cross-border data transfers.
The Canadian law is explicit, while U.S. protections
are inferred from other laws. The following
describes the protections that exist today in
the Americas:
Canada has omnibus privacy laws that govern
both the public and private sectors. The laws are
maintained at both the federal and provincial level.
Canada’s federal private-sector privacy law, the
Personal Information Protection and Electronic
Documents Act (PIPEDA), S.C. 2000, c. 5, available
at www.canlii.org/ca/sta/p-8.6/, is considered
by many experts to be the most progressive legislation
on international data transfers in the world.
The law requires an organization to comply with a
set of standard data-protection principles. Canadian
law makes no distinction between information
processed by the organization and by a vendor for
the organization. The law makes no distinction
between processing in Canada and processing Canadian
resident data outside Canada.
Responsible for vendors
Either way, the Canadian organization that collects
information from or about the individual is
accountable for the protection of that information.
If a Canadian company outsources a process to a
company anywhere else in the world, the Canadian
company remains accountable for how that vendor
manages and protects the information. If a vendor
in Mexico is processing the information for a Canadian
firm covered by the act (such as a bank) and
has a data breach that harms Canadian individuals,
the Canadian authorities will pursue that Canadian
firm for redress.
Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia have
provincial private sector laws that are equivalent
to the federal law. Ontario does not have an
omnibus private sector act, but does have a law
covering health care that is equivalent for healthrelated
privacy.
None of Canada’s privacy commissioners have
the power to levy fines directly. Instead, the commissioners’
roles are those of ombudsmen. The
PIPEDA is currently up for review, however, and
may be amended to give the federal commissioner
more authority.
There is a complicating factor under Canadian
law: Canadian privacy officials and many Canadian
consumers mistrust national security and law enforcement
officials in the United States. Power
granted to U.S. officials under the USA Patriot Act
and other acts to subpoena data accessible from the
United States has outraged Canadians, even
though Canadian officials hold similar authority.
British Columbia has passed legislation that prohibits
the outsourcing of public-sector processes to
vendors who might have the information accessed
from the United States.
Other provinces are considering similar laws,
and there have been threats of expanding the requirement
to the private sector.
These issues have been a topic for negotiations
among Mexico, Canada and the United States to
expand trade among the three neighbors.

The U.S. approach
There are no laws that would prohibit U.S.
companies from processing information outside the
United States. However, existing laws are being
interpreted to require that data collected from or
on individuals in the United States must be protected
no matter where the information is processed
or by whom.
This concept was articulated clearly in a May 7,
2004, letter from then-Federal Trade Commission
Chairman Timothy Muris to U.S. Representative
Edward Markey, D-Mass.: “A company that is subject
to U.S. laws is responsible for the use and
maintenance of consumer information in accordance
with those laws,” Muris wrote. “Simply because
a company chooses to outsource some of its
data processing to a domestic or offshore service
provider does not allow that company to escape liability
for any failure to safeguard the information
adequately.” Letter from Timothy J. Muris, Chairman,
Federal Trade Commission, to U.S. Representative
Edward Markey (May 2, 2004) (on file
with author).
The primary law that Muris was referring to was
the Safeguards Rule contained in the Gramm-
Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization
Act of 1999 (GLBA). The act requires financial
services companies to provide physical, technical
and administrative safeguards for personal financial

Outsourcers have a duty to
protect their clients’ privacy.
information. While GLBA covers only financial
services companies, the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) has asserted that as a matter of fairness, organizations
must safeguard information pertaining
to individuals under their care.
Therefore, U.S. companies will be held accountable
if information they export or make accessible
outside the United States is lost, stolen or
misused. While contracts may be used to specify
outsourcer responsibilities, the totality of the process
will be examined by the FTC. If the outsourcer
did not conduct due diligence to determine the
vendor’s willingness and capacity to adhere to the
contract, then the outsourcer may well find itself
signing a consent decree with the FTC.
While the FTC lacks authority over banks and
many other financial services companies, those institutions
are covered by safeguard regulations very
similar to the FTC’s. Trade groups within financial
services, such as the Banking Industry Technology
Secretariat, have been developing standards for security
in an outsourcing environment.
Mexico and Costa Rica have become prime
outsourcing locations for processes originating in
North America. Brazil has become a destination for
information, and Chile has targeted electronic
commerce as an engine for growth. Argentina has a
privacy law that has been found adequate by Europe,
but enforcement of the law is almost nonexistent.
Chile, Panama and Uruguay have privacy
laws to some extent, but don’t seem to create a risk
for parties transferring data.
Mexico has been debating privacy legislation
for years, but seems no closer to passing new laws.
Essentially, data transfer governance requirements
from most Latin American countries are not a current
compliance issue.
Focus on accountability
Accountability is the key theme for cross-border
data transfers from North America. That key
concept of accountability most likely will be the
evolving standard for cross-border data transfer
governance. Accountability is part of the Canadian
law PIPEDA and is inferred by the Safeguards Rule
and its broader application
as a fairness standard by
the FTC.
The concept of accountability was first articulated
by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) Privacy Guidelines
of 1980, which included Canada, Mexico and
the United States as signatories. See www.oecd.
org/document/18/0,3343,en_2649_201185_
1815186_1_1_1_1,00.html. However, the OECD
principle has not been developed into a governing
structure for data transfers.
APEC has begun to fill the vacuum. Its key motivator
is economic growth in the region. APEC is
relevant to the Americas because it includes Chile,
Peru, Mexico, the United States and Canada.
Steering group formed
APEC created the Electronic Commerce Steering
Group in 1998, and that group created a subgroup
to consider privacy issues. APEC includes 21
economies with varying levels of privacy law and
sophistication. Canada, Hong Kong, Australia and
New Zealand have data-protection laws and independent
privacy commissioners; Japan and South
Korea have privacy laws with unique structure;
the United States has its own, very special
privacy mosaic.
Most of the other APEC countries lack privacy
laws and have very different privacy
cultures. The
APEC economies determined that this mixture of
privacy approaches might eventually prove an impediment
to electronic commerce-led economic
growth. In 2003, the data privacy subgroup began
developing a framework for privacy so that concerns
about privacy would not inhibit the economic
growth that would come from electronic commerce.
The APEC Privacy Framework, approved in
2004, was based on the well established OECD
guidelines. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation,
APEC Privacy Framework, 2004; available at www.
ape c .or g / ape c /news_medi a /2004medi
a_
releases/201104_apecminsendorseprivacyfrmwk.
html. However, the accountability principle was
strengthened and established as the primary governance
structure for cross-border data transfers.
The APEC accountability principle states: “A
personal information controller should be accountable
for complying with the measures that give
effect to the Principles stated above. When personal
information is to be transferred to another
person or organization, whether domestically or
internationally, the personal information controller
should obtain the consent of the individual or
exercise due diligence and take reasonable steps to
ensure that the recipient person or organization
will protect the information consistently with these
Principles.” Id. at 19.
The APEC process references corporate crossborder
privacy rules. A set of cross-border privacy
rules is an approved set of policies that match the
APEC privacy principles and that a company
promises to put into effect to govern its protection
of personally identifiable information.
As mentioned above, the rules must be compliant
with the APEC principles, and the company
must agree that it will follow national privacy laws
that exist where the information is collected. The
rules must be approved by an accountability agent,
and a national authority must submit the name of
the approved entity to the APEC Secretariat to be
posted to a Web site.
Once a company’s cross-border rules are approved
by one economy, they must be recognized
by all other participating economies. For example,
a U.S. company approved in the United
States would be free to collect information in
Thailand and process it in Hong Kong if all three
economies are participating.
Each APEC economy is free to create the structure
for approval and oversight that best matches
its legal system and privacy culture. Many
APEC economies will choose to use nongovernmental
entities as accountability agents, such as
trustmark agencies.
Other economies will use existing data-protection
authorities as accountability agents. No matter
which structure is adopted, a government authority
will have responsibility for enforcement.
Pathfinder projects
While each economy may have its own structure
for approvals, they must all use similar standards.
This is important because an approval of a
set of cross-border privacy rules by one economy
must be respected by all other participating economies.
To build out these standards, APEC approved
a set of pathfinder projects. Thirteen economies are
participating in the pathfinder, including all of the
economies in the Americas.
The purpose of the pathfinder projects is to develop
the documents and processes necessary for
approval, recognition and processing of consumer
disputes. For example, one pathfinder project is exploring
what documents are necessary for privacy
enforcement agencies in different economies to
hand off disputes to other economies. see http://
aimp.apec.org/Documents/2007/ECSG/SEM2/07_
ecsg_sem2_003.doc. This Pathfinder Project Nine
is a test bed for the standards and processes.
Both Mexico and the United States are participating
in the project and have companies that have
agreed to participate in the tests. The participating
companies will test the documents and processes to
see whether they are usable to create a governance
means for cross-border data transfers. The regulators
will use dummy complaints against the companies
to see if the redress program works.
The pathfinder projects should be completed in
early 2009. It can be expected that a number of
companies will begin to use APEC cross-border
privacy rules in the latter part of 2009.
Organizational accountability is the emerging
governance structure for cross-border data transfers.
To be accountable, organizations will have to
develop internal policies that are compliant with
traditional privacy principles and have mechanisms
to ensure that these principles are enforced both
within the organization and with its vendors. Accountability
structures will be mandatory for any
organization that distributes work where it may
most effectively be performed.
The National Law Journal Monday , March 31, 2008
Reprinted with permission from the Monday, March 31, 2008
edition of The National Law Journal. © 2008 ALM
Properties, Inc. All rights reserved. Further duplication without
permission is prohibited. For information, contact 212.545.6111
or cms@alm.com. #005-04-08-0014
nlj
Latin America is becoming a
data destination.
New privacy rules could be
in effect sometime next year.