Big 4 rely heavily on their name and bill the client accordingly - they don't generally offer the expertise or value for money found in the best smaller consultancies.
To play devils advocate, in terms of eDiscovery (which is a service that many of us also provide), if you look at the 2008 Socha-Gelbmann Electronic Discovery Survey Report, 2 of the top 15 eDiscovery service providers were Big4 companies.
http//
Datacarver
I've already posted my experiences so I won't address all of your points some of which I agree with. I disagree with the characterization of "bad apples". In my experience, the question was one of relative value. However
1. Let me repeat that no one said that Big 4 consultants were accountants turned forensic investigators. The observation was about the evolution of the FIRMS not the consultants. There is no real point in arguing this as it is a matter of historical fact that the (then) Big 5 accounting firms created consultancy groups which turned out to be more profitable than their accountancy practices (e.g. Arthur Andersen).
Moreover, you talk about conflicts. Let's not forget that the move to identify potential conflicts of interest resulting from horizontal integration were motivated, to a great extent, by the desire of firms to escape legal restrictions such as Sarbanes-Oxley . Prior to this self-policing, the Big 5 firms routinely used their accountancy practices to feed business to their consulting businesses.
2. I know many smaller shops who have access to all the tools that you mention. While they are expensive, they are not out of the reach of a reasonably busy firm. The question is not how many tools in the toolbox but what can you do with the tools that you have. I (and many others that I know), are perfectly comfortable doing a complete investigation without the use of any commercial tools. Having access to more tools may help someone pad their resume but it doesn't make them a better investigator.
3. We don't do domestic cases and rarely CP and we don't crawl through dumpsters or sit outside people's houses with cameras trained on them. Most of the cases that we handle are the very same cases handled by the Big 4, including fraud, theft of IP, RICO, copyright infringement, intrusion and extrusion detection, HIPAA, PCI and PII theft/violations. etc.
4. We have handled cases involving simultaneous investigations in the US, UK, Netherlands, Switzerland, Norway and Russia and we didn't need to go to a CCE Listserv. Like a lot of other firm, we have reciprocal relationships with other firms and contacts in other regions and countries which we are able to rely on in a complex investigation. While I think that global firms still have an advantage in this area, the existence of communities such as FF make the need for a global presence less important (as does the evolution of tools such as F-Response). Though your question was rhetorical, the answer is yes, we could handle a case which extended across national borders.
Clearly there is a market for both the small and the larger providers.
As for the rankings that you posted in your last message, I noticed that you didn't post the following line which appears above each ranking
We stress, however, that anyone who makes buying decisions primarily on these rankings is a fool.
Clearly there is a market for both the small and the larger providers.
I think you hit it on the ball. I in no way meant that Big4 forensics is better than anyone else. I know other vendors have resources, tools, relationships, etc. I just wanted to throw down some points for people that never worked for Big4 and may underestimate their abilities.
I got the impression that folks think that just because they are an accounting firm they have no right or expertise to be performing digital forensics, which I do not think is the case.
As you said, there is a market for all providers.
As for the rankings that you posted in your last message, I noticed that you didn't post the following line which appears above each ranking
We stress, however, that anyone who makes buying decisions primarily on these rankings is a fool.
hahah D. I knew that was coming. I totally agree with that statement. I was in no way implying that they were better than the next guy, just that based on the their evaluation buckets and the numerous vendors that were evaluated, they must be doing something right.
* Experience and reputation (10%)
* Capacity (15%)
* Types of services (20%)
* Software usage (3%)
* Law firm rankings (18%)
* Corporate rankings (18%)
* Revenue estimates (16%)