{ "kind": "tool", "value": "comparison-frame", "collectionKey": "slides:tool:comparison-frame:all-document-kinds:all-producers:all-orientations", "filters": { "documentKinds": [], "sourceTypes": [], "orientations": [] }, "total": 1727, "page": 1, "pageSize": 24, "pageCount": 72, "rows": [ { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-3e15c6e3bf72", "docSlug": "da48f73eb97e2470", "documentTitle": "2018 True-Luxury Global Consumer Insight", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 45, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "The slide uses a bar chart comparison to show the delta in consumer behavior between global and Chinese luxury shoppers.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "chart/bar-horizontal: Comparison of online sources for luxury purchases", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-3e15c6e3bf72/45", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-3e15c6e3bf72", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-3e15c6e3bf72#slide-45", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 51, "from": 41, "name": "Zoom In", "slug": "06-zoom-in", "bestFor": "Technical deep-dives, case studies, detailed analysis", "matchId": "019dd95a-07fe-70ce-8d40-3e11f88f929e", "evidence": "Opens with 3 Chinese segments (~55% spend), then digital ecosystem, WeChat journey, ROPO, brand ranking.", "position": 9, "objective": "Zoom into the Chinese consumer", "structure": "The Big Picture -> Key Area of Focus -> Specific Detail -> Implication", "confidence": 85, "description": "Start broad, then progressively focus on specific details that prove your point" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 51, "from": 14, "beatId": "019dd95a-0682-776c-8e38-15ef0d1686df", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "Data on casualwear, social, channels, then Millennial & Chinese deep dives", "position": 4, "confidence": 78, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" }, { "to": 51, "from": 30, "beatId": "019dd95a-0682-776c-8e38-23f7258e57dc", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Implications (So What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-implications-so-what", "evidence": "Millennial + Chinese segment deep dives", "position": 2, "confidence": 60, "parentBeatName": "Reflection", "parentBeatSlug": "reflection" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-41f9eb4ca4a9", "docSlug": "f8987efef196926b", "documentTitle": "2019 True-Luxury Global Consumer I nsight", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 37, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "The chart uses a stacked bar format to show the distribution of consumer behaviors (Does not participate, Sell only, Sell and purchase, Purchase only) across three regions.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "The slide compares consumer behavior segments for China, Europe, and the US, indicating a comparison frame.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-41f9eb4ca4a9/37", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-41f9eb4ca4a9", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-41f9eb4ca4a9#slide-37", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 37, "from": 36, "name": "Segmentation Split", "slug": "34-segmentation-split", "bestFor": "Customer analysis, market research, resource allocation", "matchId": "019dd95a-07fe-70ce-8d40-58d69b5f137f", "evidence": "Younger sell / older buy; China sellers vs US buyers.", "position": 7, "objective": "Split 2nd-hand by age and geography to find behavioral asymmetries", "structure": "The Aggregate View -> Segment A Behavior -> Segment B Behavior -> The Insight in the Difference", "confidence": 75, "description": "Divide a whole into meaningful segments to reveal hidden patterns" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 48, "from": 16, "beatId": "019dd95a-0682-776c-8e38-34bd1509e1d8", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "Deep-dive data on Collaborations, 2nd-hand, Sustainability, Made-in.", "position": 4, "confidence": 78, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" }, { "to": 45, "from": 16, "beatId": "019dd95a-0682-776c-8e38-4abcc7d1fe6d", "arcName": "The Onion", "arcSlug": "onion", "beatName": "Core Insight", "beatSlug": "onion-core-insight", "evidence": "Granular evidence on collaborations, 2nd-hand, sustainability.", "position": 4, "confidence": 55, "parentBeatName": "Turn", "parentBeatSlug": "turn" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b633-bc0f4a0a3ef5", "docSlug": "75154b823290a109", "documentTitle": "2021 P&C Underwriting Survey", "authorId": "Accenture", "authorName": "Accenture", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 50, "slideType": "data_table", "function": "analyze_data", "notes": "The slide uses a stacked bar chart to visualize survey responses on a 5-point scale. Two specific bars are highlighted with yellow dashed boxes.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "The slide compares perceived positive impacts of new process/organization models between personal lines and commercial lines underwriters.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b633-bc0f4a0a3ef5/50", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b633-bc0f4a0a3ef5", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b633-bc0f4a0a3ef5#slide-50", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 54, "from": 48, "name": "Benchmark Gap", "slug": "39-benchmark-gap", "bestFor": "Performance improvement, competitive analysis, target setting", "matchId": "019de0ed-a7d9-7480-a20f-0a8f27d9c1e5", "evidence": "p.54 callout 'all aspects related to talent management have worsened compared to 2013'.", "position": 7, "objective": "Show talent management has worsened across all dimensions vs 2013", "structure": "Our Performance -> Industry Average -> Best-in-Class -> The Gap = The Opportunity", "confidence": 80, "description": "Compare performance against best-in-class to quantify the opportunity" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 54, "from": 38, "beatId": "019de0ed-a5e0-7728-aead-9ed12d53be49", "arcName": "The Onion", "arcSlug": "onion", "beatName": "Core Insight", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "Tech paradox and talent worsening reveal underlying root cause.", "position": 4, "confidence": 60, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null }, { "to": 54, "from": 23, "beatId": "019de0ed-a694-760b-a2a7-b0347971cf30", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Implications (So What)", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "Section summaries diagnose quality/efficiency/tech/talent issues.", "position": 2, "confidence": 50, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b633-d538e18344be", "docSlug": "0a69d862df0691e5", "documentTitle": "A&M Valuation Insights November 2023", "authorId": "AlvarezMarsal", "authorName": "A&M", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.333, "pageNumber": 3, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_peers", "notes": "The slide uses a dot-plot/line chart hybrid to compare industry performance metrics over two years.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "The slide compares forward EV/EBITDA multiples across industries, indicating a comparison frame.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b633-d538e18344be/3", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b633-d538e18344be", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b633-d538e18344be#slide-3", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 5, "from": 2, "name": "Zoom In", "slug": "06-zoom-in", "bestFor": "Technical deep-dives, case studies, detailed analysis", "matchId": "019dd95a-07fe-70ce-8d3e-ccbdd3467537", "evidence": "p2 broad market → p3 industry multiples → p4 US vs DE → p5 M&A vs trading discount.", "position": 1, "objective": "Zoom from broad German MRP into industry- and region-level multiple comparisons", "structure": "The Big Picture -> Key Area of Focus -> Specific Detail -> Implication", "confidence": 72, "description": "Start broad, then progressively focus on specific details that prove your point" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 5, "from": 3, "beatId": "019dd95a-0682-776c-8e35-d5db954a8791", "arcName": "The Onion", "arcSlug": "onion", "beatName": "First Layer", "beatSlug": "onion-first-layer", "evidence": "Industry/region multiples comparisons", "position": 2, "confidence": 72, "parentBeatName": "Development", "parentBeatSlug": "development" }, { "to": 5, "from": 2, "beatId": "019dd95a-0682-776c-8e35-e6d27bf34374", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Facts (What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-facts-what", "evidence": "Quantitative market data presented", "position": 1, "confidence": 60, "parentBeatName": "Setup", "parentBeatSlug": "setup" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e5735b54e9cc", "docSlug": "0798c0fb1aaf0664", "documentTitle": "Budgetanalyse af Forsvaret 2017 Materialesamling Del 2", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.445, "pageNumber": 326, "slideType": "appendix_methodology", "function": "present_framework", "notes": "The slide uses a comparison matrix structure to contrast two analytical approaches.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "The slide compares two analytical approaches.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e5735b54e9cc/326", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e5735b54e9cc", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-e5735b54e9cc#slide-326", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 365, "from": 322, "name": "Scenario Fork", "slug": "35-scenario-fork", "bestFor": "Strategic planning, risk analysis, board presentations", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e2-6e9175aa6c84", "evidence": "5 designkriterier -> 4 konkrete modeller (page 334-336) -> recommendation + 14 mio. kr. kursusadm.", "position": 11, "objective": "Compare four models for administrative faellesskaber plus kursusadministration", "structure": "The Decision Point -> Scenario A (If X) -> Scenario B (If Y) -> Scenario C (If Z) -> Recommendation", "confidence": 86, "description": "Present multiple futures based on different assumptions or decisions" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 420, "from": 322, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-2a66536a5837", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "Admin fællesskaber + nyordning af logistik + insourcing benchmarks and business cases.", "position": 4, "confidence": 92, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" }, { "to": 365, "from": 166, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-37e90642ab06", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Implications (So What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-implications-so-what", "evidence": "Potentialeestimater, benchmark gaps, comparison tables.", "position": 2, "confidence": 70, "parentBeatName": "Reflection", "parentBeatSlug": "reflection" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d3738a63434c", "docSlug": "2862941a98bffda6", "documentTitle": "Corporate Ventures in Sweden", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.445, "pageNumber": 9, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "The slide uses a matrix-like structure to compare strategic options. The icons represent the four categories.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "The slide presents a comparison matrix of M&A, Corporate Venturing, Licensing, and R&D across 5 criteria.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d3738a63434c/9", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d3738a63434c", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d3738a63434c#slide-9", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 10, "from": 8, "name": "Mece Breakdown", "slug": "40-mece-breakdown", "bestFor": "Problem structuring, ensuring completeness, strategic analysis", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e2-d961b1a1cab4", "evidence": "CV positioned in Ansoff matrix, contrasted with M&A, then split into 3 vehicles × 7 industries.", "position": 3, "objective": "Introduce Corporate Venturing as a complementary, MECE-decomposed solution space", "structure": "The Whole -> Category A (distinct) -> Category B (distinct) -> Category C (distinct) -> Complete Coverage", "confidence": 82, "description": "Divide a complex topic into mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive categories" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 10, "from": 8, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-c40e152757b5", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Solution & Approach", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-solution-approach", "evidence": "CV expands Ansoff matrix; three vehicles (CVC, accelerators, labs) by industry.", "position": 3, "confidence": 88, "parentBeatName": "Turn", "parentBeatSlug": "turn" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-ea33b3a921f0", "docSlug": "22f6af8f6e5a7ac9", "documentTitle": "Decoding Chinese Internet 2.0 Next Chapter", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.414, "pageNumber": 26, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "The chart uses a dual-line graph to show industry efficiency over time, contrasting a steady US trajectory with a sharp, late-stage acceleration for China.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "list/bullet: Leapfrogging: Market maturity was still low when China entered the Internet era, with ample underserved segments and room for development in traditional industries.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-ea33b3a921f0/26", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-ea33b3a921f0", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-ea33b3a921f0#slide-26", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 27, "from": 25, "name": "Iceberg", "slug": "10-iceberg", "bestFor": "Consulting, complex problem solving, organizational change", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e2-fa26b0b56c37", "evidence": "Surface (3 forces) → hidden (underdeveloped industries) → root cause (leapfrog) on p25-26.", "position": 5, "objective": "Identify leapfrogging as root cause of market uniqueness", "structure": "The Symptom (Visible) -> The System (Hidden) -> The Root Cause", "confidence": 78, "description": "Reveal that the visible problem is merely a symptom of a deeper root cause" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 40, "from": 25, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-dd85f0f62342", "arcName": "The Onion", "arcSlug": "onion", "beatName": "Core Insight", "beatSlug": "onion-core-insight", "evidence": "Leapfrogging + application-driven innovation thesis", "position": 4, "confidence": 72, "parentBeatName": "Turn", "parentBeatSlug": "turn" }, { "to": 55, "from": 25, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87da-ebaba93d7b1a", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Implications (So What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-implications-so-what", "evidence": "Drivers, KSFs, future trends explained", "position": 2, "confidence": 58, "parentBeatName": "Reflection", "parentBeatSlug": "reflection" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b633-19061fbe2812", "docSlug": "abffd4c7eaab37e8", "documentTitle": "How aligning security and the business creates cyber resilience", "authorId": "Accenture", "authorName": "Accenture", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.773, "pageNumber": 26, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_peers", "notes": "The slide uses a table to contrast survey responses and reported metrics between two distinct executive groups.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "comparison_table with 'Security executives' and 'Non-security executives' columns", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b633-19061fbe2812/26", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b633-19061fbe2812", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b633-19061fbe2812#slide-26", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 26, "from": 26, "name": "Tale Two Worlds", "slug": "04-tale-two-worlds", "bestFor": "Competitive analysis, benchmarking, case for change", "matchId": "019dd95a-07fd-712f-b775-20623d50da77", "evidence": "Headline 'Are security and non-security executives on the same page?' with 43% vs 31% comparison.", "position": 5, "objective": "Contrast security vs non-security executive views as proof of misalignment", "structure": "Current State -> Desired State / Benchmark -> The Gap & Implication", "confidence": 65, "description": "Show the gap between two states to drive urgency or highlight opportunity" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 26, "from": 22, "beatId": "019dd95a-0680-7418-820b-f0b30fd9e7ba", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Solution & Approach", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "'How to be a Cyber Champion' + 3 pillars (CISO seat, threat-centric, secure cloud).", "position": 4, "confidence": 88, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b633-21fbbac542b6", "docSlug": "e5f70e8828822558", "documentTitle": "Hyper-disruption demands constant reinvention", "authorId": "Accenture", "authorName": "Accenture", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 20, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_peers", "notes": "The chart uses a grouped bar format to compare two time periods (2023 vs 2021) across 8 categories of risk management activities.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "chart/bar-grouped: Grouped bar chart showing 8 categories of risk activities comparing 2023 (dark purple) and 2021 (light purple).", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b633-21fbbac542b6/20", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b633-21fbbac542b6", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b633-21fbbac542b6#slide-20", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 20, "from": 18, "name": "Before After", "slug": "21-before-after", "bestFor": "Product demos, process improvements, ROI justification", "matchId": "019dd95a-07fd-712f-b775-30f011d5a722", "evidence": "p.18 confidence gap, p.19 progress chart 2023 vs 2021, p.20 explicit 'less proactive when compared to 2021' delta.", "position": 4, "objective": "Show risk function regression vs. 2021", "structure": "The Old Way (Pain) -> The Moment of Change -> The New Way (Glory) -> The Measurable Delta", "confidence": 82, "description": "Show the dramatic contrast between the old way and the new way through side-by-side comparison" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 20, "from": 7, "beatId": "019dd95a-0680-7418-820b-fe0d52be3c7f", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Problem & Complication", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-problem-complication", "evidence": "'Risk is everywhere' + 'Organizations need to raise their game' sections lay out the gap", "position": 2, "confidence": 88, "parentBeatName": "Complication", "parentBeatSlug": "complication" }, { "to": 26, "from": 13, "beatId": "019dd95a-0680-7418-820c-1586370e77a1", "arcName": "The Hero's Journey", "arcSlug": "heros-journey", "beatName": "Challenges & Allies", "beatSlug": "heros-journey-challenges-allies", "evidence": "Interconnected web, tech and skills allies", "position": 3, "confidence": 55, "parentBeatName": "Development", "parentBeatSlug": "development" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d42adb9ada21", "docSlug": "f48d45408c26f5a2", "documentTitle": "Loose dogs in Dallas Strategic Recommendations", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "portrait", "aspectRatio": 0.773, "pageNumber": 54, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "The table uses a color gradient from light yellow (Animal Welfare) to light green (Public Safety) to categorize the mission statements.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Table comparing mission statements across 11 cities", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d42adb9ada21/54", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d42adb9ada21", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d42adb9ada21#slide-54", "loopMatches": [], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 142, "from": 45, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87dd-9f808a4e90ee", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "Deep-dive recommendations, full report exhibits, peer benchmarks, S/N math", "position": 4, "confidence": 92, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d42adb9ada21", "docSlug": "f48d45408c26f5a2", "documentTitle": "Loose dogs in Dallas Strategic Recommendations", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "portrait", "aspectRatio": 0.773, "pageNumber": 131, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "The slide evaluates four models: Subdivision within a department, Independent department, Partially privatized, and Completely privatized.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "While a recommendation for 'complete privatization' would have provided an organization with the greatest freedom to hire, communicate, and operate, there were three key risks that prevented us from recommending this approach.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d42adb9ada21/131", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d42adb9ada21", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d42adb9ada21#slide-131", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 142, "from": 97, "name": "Mece Breakdown", "slug": "40-mece-breakdown", "bestFor": "Problem structuring, ensuring completeness, strategic analysis", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e5-56b00e0e002c", "evidence": "Full report Rec 1 mission → Rec 7 efficiency, each with sub-initiatives", "position": 17, "objective": "Detailed exposition of all 7 recommendations and supporting initiatives", "structure": "The Whole -> Category A (distinct) -> Category B (distinct) -> Category C (distinct) -> Complete Coverage", "confidence": 85, "description": "Divide a complex topic into mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive categories" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 142, "from": 45, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87dd-9f808a4e90ee", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "Deep-dive recommendations, full report exhibits, peer benchmarks, S/N math", "position": 4, "confidence": 92, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d42adb9ada21", "docSlug": "f48d45408c26f5a2", "documentTitle": "Loose dogs in Dallas Strategic Recommendations", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "portrait", "aspectRatio": 0.773, "pageNumber": 245, "slideType": "data_table", "function": "analyze_data", "notes": "The slide uses a dual bar chart layout to contrast participation in activities versus primary focus of animal organizations.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "chart/bar-horizontal comparing Orgs. perform multiple functions and Orgs. focus on similar functions", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d42adb9ada21/245", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d42adb9ada21", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-d42adb9ada21#slide-245", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 267, "from": 161, "name": "Build Up", "slug": "33-build-up", "bestFor": "Pricing justification, cost estimation, market sizing", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e5-5934a57a4387", "evidence": "Repeated triplet pattern: e.g., p.166/167/168, p.178/179/180, p.188/189", "position": 18, "objective": "For each initiative, build up Overview → Estimated Impact → Resource Requirements", "structure": "The Base -> Add Component A -> Add Component B -> Add Component C -> The Total", "confidence": 82, "description": "Start from zero and add components to arrive at a total" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-6d2507bbc234", "docSlug": "0f2f6eba7770f0a6", "documentTitle": "Making WorkWorkBetter for Deskless Workers", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.91, "pageNumber": 6, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_peers", "notes": "The slide uses stacked bar charts to compare sentiment levels (Strongly agree to Strongly disagree).", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Slight increase in French workers feeling burned out, with fewer recommending their employer to family/friends compared to other countries", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-6d2507bbc234/6", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-6d2507bbc234", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-6d2507bbc234#slide-6", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 10, "from": 6, "name": "Segmentation Split", "slug": "34-segmentation-split", "bestFor": "Customer analysis, market research, resource allocation", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e5-7deeef2c3b7c", "evidence": "p.6 country comparison, p.7 age cut, p.8 country job satisfaction, p.9 COVID impact, p.10 tenure cut.", "position": 3, "objective": "Break down the aggregate problem by country, age, and tenure", "structure": "The Aggregate View -> Segment A Behavior -> Segment B Behavior -> The Insight in the Difference", "confidence": 80, "description": "Divide a whole into meaningful segments to reveal hidden patterns" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 10, "from": 6, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87dd-af37abaadfaa", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Solution & Approach", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-solution-approach", "evidence": "Country/age/tenure cuts diagnose where the problem concentrates", "position": 3, "confidence": 85, "parentBeatName": "Turn", "parentBeatSlug": "turn" }, { "to": 10, "from": 3, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87dd-b97d1b3a2b40", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Facts (What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-facts-what", "evidence": "Survey facts on burnout, quit risk, country, industry, age, tenure", "position": 1, "confidence": 70, "parentBeatName": "Setup", "parentBeatSlug": "setup" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b633-40f6d73c4c1b", "docSlug": "1053e574c4b7b824", "documentTitle": "March Macro Brief Financial fissures emerge", "authorId": "Accenture", "authorName": "Accenture", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 14, "slideType": "industry_trends", "function": "analyze_data", "notes": "The chart highlights that while European banks have lower exposure than the US, confidence effects remain a risk factor for credit availability.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Portugal, Italy and Greece are the major countries with the largest exposure to sovereign debt within their banks' balance sheets.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b633-40f6d73c4c1b/14", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b633-40f6d73c4c1b", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b633-40f6d73c4c1b#slide-14", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 15, "from": 12, "name": "Zoom In", "slug": "06-zoom-in", "bestFor": "Technical deep-dives, case studies, detailed analysis", "matchId": "019dd95a-07fe-70ce-8d37-72aee7fd5ad2", "evidence": "p13 Credit Suisse case study, p14 European bank exposure, p15 deposit pass-through detail.", "position": 3, "objective": "Zoom from Europe to Credit Suisse to deposit dynamics", "structure": "The Big Picture -> Key Area of Focus -> Specific Detail -> Implication", "confidence": 65, "description": "Start broad, then progressively focus on specific details that prove your point" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 18, "from": 7, "beatId": "019dd95a-0680-7418-820d-53cbf20e7eef", "arcName": "The Onion", "arcSlug": "onion", "beatName": "First Layer", "beatSlug": "onion-first-layer", "evidence": "Spotlight section peels into regional banking stress (NA, Europe, APAC).", "position": 2, "confidence": 60, "parentBeatName": "Development", "parentBeatSlug": "development" }, { "to": 52, "from": 7, "beatId": "019dd95a-0680-7418-820d-60c07eb39102", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Facts (What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-facts-what", "evidence": "Bulk of deck is data charts and KPI dashboards across topics.", "position": 1, "confidence": 55, "parentBeatName": "Setup", "parentBeatSlug": "setup" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-72f287ba0dd2", "docSlug": "1e4ab4ba8602a452", "documentTitle": "Mind the (AI) Gap: Leadership Makes the Difference", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 7, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_peers", "notes": "The slide uses a comparative bar chart structure to contrast global vs. French AI adoption across three main industry categories.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "The slide presents a comparison table, highlighting France's performance in various sectors.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-72f287ba0dd2/7", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-72f287ba0dd2", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-72f287ba0dd2#slide-7", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 8, "from": 6, "name": "Segmentation Split", "slug": "34-segmentation-split", "bestFor": "Customer analysis, market research, resource allocation", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e5-d3e6505e9702", "evidence": "p.6 sectors ranked, p.7 'France is winning...', p.8 '...but needs to catch up' — paired contrast across segments.", "position": 2, "objective": "Segment French AI activity by industry to expose where France wins and loses", "structure": "The Aggregate View -> Segment A Behavior -> Segment B Behavior -> The Insight in the Difference", "confidence": 82, "description": "Divide a whole into meaningful segments to reveal hidden patterns" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 8, "from": 6, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87de-329e79fbd794", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Problem & Complication", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-problem-complication", "evidence": "France lags Industrials and Financial Services sectors", "position": 2, "confidence": 88, "parentBeatName": "Complication", "parentBeatSlug": "complication" }, { "to": 8, "from": 3, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87de-4290aed50c2d", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Facts (What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-facts-what", "evidence": "Country and sector data on French AI lag", "position": 1, "confidence": 70, "parentBeatName": "Setup", "parentBeatSlug": "setup" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-78c20c8fd595", "docSlug": "b12bcf596ad5dacd", "documentTitle": "Out @ Work Barometer The Paradox of LGBT+ Talent", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 13, "slideType": "data_table", "function": "analyze_data", "notes": "Data shows a clear preference gap for multinational/blue chip companies and start-ups, while public sector and non-profit are more preferred by LGBT+ individuals.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "The slide presents a comparison of preferences between LGBT+ and non-LGBT+ individuals, indicating a comparison frame.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-78c20c8fd595/13", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-78c20c8fd595", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-78c20c8fd595#slide-13", "loopMatches": [], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 13, "from": 13, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87df-026b50781d89", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Action (Now What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-action-now-what", "evidence": "Private sector lacks attractiveness and is missing out on talent.", "position": 3, "confidence": 72, "parentBeatName": "Resolution", "parentBeatSlug": "resolution" }, { "to": 13, "from": 13, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87df-152b0e31eb5d", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Impact & Next Steps", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-impact-next-steps", "evidence": "Private sector missing out on LGBT+ talent.", "position": 5, "confidence": 55, "parentBeatName": "Resolution", "parentBeatSlug": "resolution" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-b17598fef593", "docSlug": "ba6f5e1f7c24f1ae", "documentTitle": "Port of LA Clean Truck Program", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.294, "pageNumber": 11, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": null, "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "table/data: Comparison matrix of LMC asset based vs IOO ownership across four dimensions.", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-b17598fef593/11", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-b17598fef593", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-b17598fef593#slide-11", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 12, "from": 10, "name": "Scenario Fork", "slug": "35-scenario-fork", "bestFor": "Strategic planning, risk analysis, board presentations", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e6-adba23b8c08f", "evidence": "Side-by-side option matrix then narrative slides on Option II rationale and Option III stretch.", "position": 4, "objective": "Define and contrast Options I/II/III as a decision fork", "structure": "The Decision Point -> Scenario A (If X) -> Scenario B (If Y) -> Scenario C (If Z) -> Recommendation", "confidence": 86, "description": "Present multiple futures based on different assumptions or decisions" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 12, "from": 7, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87df-a07bf07db208", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Solution & Approach", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-solution-approach", "evidence": "Five CTP elements, interactions, labor market, three options defined.", "position": 3, "confidence": 88, "parentBeatName": "Turn", "parentBeatSlug": "turn" }, { "to": 14, "from": 6, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87df-b19420ca245c", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Implications (So What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-implications-so-what", "evidence": "Objectives, framework, options compared on benefits/risks.", "position": 2, "confidence": 55, "parentBeatName": "Reflection", "parentBeatSlug": "reflection" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-7e1c9fe1bc87", "docSlug": "7a27e27b944e835f", "documentTitle": "Seeing the BIG Picture", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.414, "pageNumber": 21, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "The slide uses a heatmap-style table to show influence levels and a qualitative comparison table for channel preferences.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Comparison of top ranked digital channels and activities for Hindi vs Regional content", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-7e1c9fe1bc87/21", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-7e1c9fe1bc87", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-7e1c9fe1bc87#slide-21", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 22, "from": 17, "name": "Zoom In", "slug": "06-zoom-in", "bestFor": "Technical deep-dives, case studies, detailed analysis", "matchId": "019dd95a-088b-72c8-b7e7-3c2d5bd4e21c", "evidence": "Lights section deep dive: cross-vertical, cross-demographic, regional digital influence", "position": 3, "objective": "Zoom into evolving consumer behavior across cohorts and verticals", "structure": "The Big Picture -> Key Area of Focus -> Specific Detail -> Implication", "confidence": 78, "description": "Start broad, then progressively focus on specific details that prove your point" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 22, "from": 13, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87e0-193cf5a111bb", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Problem & Complication", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-problem-complication", "evidence": "'Under-indexed on marketing spends and digital capabilities' diagnosis", "position": 2, "confidence": 88, "parentBeatName": "Complication", "parentBeatSlug": "complication" }, { "to": 22, "from": 8, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87e0-2986d735d600", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Facts (What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-facts-what", "evidence": "Lights: India market data + consumer behavior facts", "position": 1, "confidence": 80, "parentBeatName": "Setup", "parentBeatSlug": "setup" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-8ed9828b0449", "docSlug": "89af0e9087dbdadf", "documentTitle": "The Dawn of the Deep Tech Ecosystem", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 9, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "The slide uses two horizontal timelines to contrast the rapid scaling of software vs the long development cycle of deep tech.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Lilium Aviation : 12 years vs Facebook : 20 months", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-8ed9828b0449/9", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-8ed9828b0449", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-8ed9828b0449#slide-9", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 11, "from": 5, "name": "Mece Breakdown", "slug": "40-mece-breakdown", "bestFor": "Problem structuring, ensuring completeness, strategic analysis", "matchId": "019dd95a-088c-724c-b30e-46d6314e81a9", "evidence": "p5 splits into 4 distinct dimensions (Novelty, Impact, Time & Scale, Investment); p6-11 deepens each with data.", "position": 1, "objective": "Define deep tech across MECE characteristic dimensions", "structure": "The Whole -> Category A (distinct) -> Category B (distinct) -> Category C (distinct) -> Complete Coverage", "confidence": 80, "description": "Divide a complex topic into mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive categories" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 11, "from": 4, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87e1-dad2f011c3c3", "arcName": "The Onion", "arcSlug": "onion", "beatName": "Surface Observation", "beatSlug": "onion-surface-observation", "evidence": "Defines deep tech across novelty/impact/time/investment", "position": 1, "confidence": 70, "parentBeatName": "Setup", "parentBeatSlug": "setup" }, { "to": 20, "from": 4, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87e1-ecf8f6376114", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Facts (What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-facts-what", "evidence": "Definition + global investment evidence", "position": 1, "confidence": 55, "parentBeatName": "Setup", "parentBeatSlug": "setup" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b633-808e8065cd88", "docSlug": "04e00f0265e26e9f", "documentTitle": "The disability inclusion imperative", "authorId": "Accenture", "authorName": "Accenture", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 9, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "The chart uses a stacked bar format to show the breakdown of labor force status (Not in workforce, Unemployed, Employed).", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "Despite the increased employment rate of persons with disabilities, the labor force participation rate for persons with disabilities in 2023 is approximately half that of their counterparts without d", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b633-808e8065cd88/9", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b633-808e8065cd88", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b633-808e8065cd88#slide-9", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 9, "from": 7, "name": "Benchmark Gap", "slug": "39-benchmark-gap", "bestFor": "Performance improvement, competitive analysis, target setting", "matchId": "019dd95a-07fe-70ce-8d3a-6e1725139f7f", "evidence": "29%→37% over time and 37% vs ~76% labor force participation gap.", "position": 2, "objective": "Show employment improvement and gap vs. people without disabilities", "structure": "Our Performance -> Industry Average -> Best-in-Class -> The Gap = The Opportunity", "confidence": 78, "description": "Compare performance against best-in-class to quantify the opportunity" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 9, "from": 1, "beatId": "019dd95a-0682-776c-8e32-a8b43c521d11", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Situation & Context", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-situation-context", "evidence": "Cover, preface, ToC, US workforce employment data establishing the situation", "position": 1, "confidence": 88, "parentBeatName": "Setup", "parentBeatSlug": "setup" }, { "to": 19, "from": 6, "beatId": "019dd95a-0682-776c-8e32-be56e502f9fc", "arcName": "The Transformation Tale", "arcSlug": "transformation-tale", "beatName": "Current Reality (Pain)", "beatSlug": "transformation-tale-current-reality-pain", "evidence": "Workforce gap + culture challenge with concealment data", "position": 1, "confidence": 55, "parentBeatName": "Complication", "parentBeatSlug": "complication" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-9da085bdac1f", "docSlug": "52e21d70f3295259", "documentTitle": "True-Luxury Global Consumer Insights 9th Edition", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 30, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "diagnose", "notes": "The slide uses a 4-column comparison structure to contrast 'How Brands act' with 'How reality is'.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "table/data: 4-column comparison table showing misconceptions vs reality", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-9da085bdac1f/30", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-9da085bdac1f", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-9da085bdac1f#slide-30", "loopMatches": [], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 30, "from": 28, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87e3-06531669633d", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "2,600-journey friction map + 4 brand misconceptions", "position": 4, "confidence": 88, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" }, { "to": 30, "from": 20, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87e3-136fd5efdb3b", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Implications (So What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-implications-so-what", "evidence": "Digital discontent gaps and brand misconceptions", "position": 2, "confidence": 60, "parentBeatName": "Reflection", "parentBeatSlug": "reflection" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-9da085bdac1f", "docSlug": "52e21d70f3295259", "documentTitle": "True-Luxury Global Consumer Insights 9th Edition", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 33, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "Uses a binary 'defense vs offense' framing to contrast two strategic approaches.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "table/data: Playing Defense (Hyper-specialization) vs Playing Offense (Hyper-personalization)", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-9da085bdac1f/33", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-9da085bdac1f", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-9da085bdac1f#slide-33", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 33, "from": 32, "name": "Before After", "slug": "21-before-after", "bestFor": "Product demos, process improvements, ROI justification", "matchId": "019dd95a-088c-724c-b30f-43840b359fdb", "evidence": "Iceberg shows 'playbook is there' vs 'write the playbook' (p32) -> defense vs offense (p33).", "position": 7, "objective": "Move from functional-only to functional+emotional CX playbook", "structure": "The Old Way (Pain) -> The Moment of Change -> The New Way (Glory) -> The Measurable Delta", "confidence": 75, "description": "Show the dramatic contrast between the old way and the new way through side-by-side comparison" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 33, "from": 32, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87e3-090e324d7497", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Impact & Next Steps", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-impact-next-steps", "evidence": "Iceberg playbook + strategic touchpoint role choice", "position": 5, "confidence": 88, "parentBeatName": "Resolution", "parentBeatSlug": "resolution" }, { "to": 33, "from": 32, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87e3-14d555da3350", "arcName": "The Triple Take", "arcSlug": "triple-take", "beatName": "The Action (Now What)", "beatSlug": "triple-take-the-action-now-what", "evidence": "Master CX + role-per-touchpoint recommendation", "position": 3, "confidence": 60, "parentBeatName": "Resolution", "parentBeatSlug": "resolution" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-af17566806d2", "docSlug": "88c81413269f048c", "documentTitle": "Women-led startups losing across the board: from creation to funding, in all key European markets", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 12, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_options", "notes": "The slide uses a custom chart combining bar charts with callout bubbles showing the funding ratio multiplier.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "chart/bar-grouped: Average amount raised in 2022 (in €M), per industry", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-af17566806d2/12", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-af17566806d2", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-af17566806d2#slide-12", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 13, "from": 10, "name": "Tale Two Worlds", "slug": "04-tale-two-worlds", "bestFor": "Competitive analysis, benchmarking, case for change", "matchId": "019dd95a-088c-724c-b310-57b0ff189a97", "evidence": "Each slide compares women-only to men-only/mixed: -€1M, 3x less, 160% more", "position": 3, "objective": "Contrast women-only vs men-only/mixed teams on funding access", "structure": "Current State -> Desired State / Benchmark -> The Gap & Implication", "confidence": 80, "description": "Show the gap between two states to drive urgency or highlight opportunity" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 19, "from": 10, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87e4-9f834626018a", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "Funding data, maturity-stage gap, European synthesis (pp.17-19)", "position": 4, "confidence": 85, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" }, { "to": 19, "from": 5, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87e4-a81d12485e12", "arcName": "Problem-Agitate-Solution", "arcSlug": "problem-agitate-solution", "beatName": "Agitate (Make it worse)", "beatSlug": "problem-agitate-solution-agitate-make-it-worse", "evidence": "Trend worsens, gap widens with maturity (x5.6), Europe-wide", "position": 2, "confidence": 65, "parentBeatName": "Development", "parentBeatSlug": "development" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }, { "docId": "019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-af17566806d2", "docSlug": "88c81413269f048c", "documentTitle": "Women-led startups losing across the board: from creation to funding, in all key European markets", "authorId": "BCG", "authorName": "BCG", "documentKindSlug": "consulting-deck", "documentKindLabel": "Consulting deck", "sourceTypeSlug": "strategy_consulting", "sourceTypeLabel": "Strategy consulting", "presentationDate": null, "orientation": "landscape", "aspectRatio": 1.778, "pageNumber": 16, "slideType": "comparison_table", "function": "compare_peers", "notes": "The chart highlights a growing disparity in funding as startups mature, with multipliers indicating the gap between men-only and women-only teams.", "imagePath": null, "matchCount": 1, "evidence": "chart/bar-grouped: Average amount raised in 2022 (€M), per startup age", "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-af17566806d2/16", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-af17566806d2", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-5ca1-7489-b634-af17566806d2#slide-16", "loopMatches": [ { "to": 16, "from": 14, "name": "Cost Of Inaction", "slug": "27-cost-of-inaction", "bestFor": "Urgent budget requests, compliance, risk mitigation", "matchId": "019dd95a-088c-724c-b310-5b928379ba6f", "evidence": "97% < €15M, women teams disappear after series B, x5.6 gap at >9 yrs", "position": 4, "objective": "Show the gap compounds as startups mature (97%, 94%, x5.6)", "structure": "The Status Quo -> The Hidden Costs Accumulating -> The Future State of Inaction -> The Tipping Point", "confidence": 72, "description": "Quantify what happens if the audience does nothing" } ], "arcBeatMatches": [ { "to": 19, "from": 10, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87e4-9f834626018a", "arcName": "The Consultant's Gambit", "arcSlug": "consultants-gambit", "beatName": "Evidence & Proof", "beatSlug": "consultants-gambit-evidence-proof", "evidence": "Funding data, maturity-stage gap, European synthesis (pp.17-19)", "position": 4, "confidence": 85, "parentBeatName": "Evidence", "parentBeatSlug": "evidence" }, { "to": 19, "from": 5, "beatId": "019dd95a-0702-74a3-87e4-a81d12485e12", "arcName": "Problem-Agitate-Solution", "arcSlug": "problem-agitate-solution", "beatName": "Agitate (Make it worse)", "beatSlug": "problem-agitate-solution-agitate-make-it-worse", "evidence": "Trend worsens, gap widens with maturity (x5.6), Europe-wide", "position": 2, "confidence": 65, "parentBeatName": "Development", "parentBeatSlug": "development" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true } ] }