The National Audit Office (NAO) has criticised the UK government's approach to employing consultancies to assist with work such as IT projects.
The NAO, which scrutinises public spending on behalf of Parliament, slammed the government in a report entitled "Central Government's Use of Consultants". This report found that the public sector spent a total of £2.8bn on consultancy, an increase of 33 percent between 2003-04 and 2005-06, largely due to a rise in spending in the National Health Service.
"There's more to be done to secure value for money, and the government needs to take a much more strategic approach," said an NAO spokesman. "There's not enough information being shared on consultancy services, and consultants' skills need to be transferred to staff."
The NAO's list of criticisms of the government included that it:
- does not collect or aggregate adequate management information on its use of consultants;
- does not make proper assessment of whether internal resources could be used instead of consultants;
- does not have adequate controls on awarding contracts by single tender;
- does not undertake or share post-project performance reviews to inform future buying decisions;
- does not actively engage with and manage the relationships with key consultancy suppliers to better understand how they work and align objectives;
- and it does not regularly plan for and carry out the transfer of skills from consultants to internal staff to build internal capabilities.
IT consultancy represented the biggest amount of government spend in the 2005-06 period, with over £550m spent. The amount spent on IT consultancy has dropped over the past two years, while spending on other forms of consultancy has accelerated.
The government has turned to consultants to help it implement many IT projects over the years, including its ID card programme and the multi-billion pound upgrade for the NHS IT system. Both projects have been criticised, but the NAO reported that "key programmes... would have made less progress without the specialist skills and experience brought to bear by consultants."
The NAO said that the government needed to use consultants far more efficiently, or public money would continue to be wasted.
"When used incorrectly, consultants can drain budgets very quickly, with little or no productive results," said the report.
The NAO said it was not possible to make an overall assessment of the benefits that have arisen from the money spent on consultants, in part because departments rarely collect any information on what has been achieved.
According to the NAO, there are examples where consultants have "added real value and enabled departments to make improvements they would not have otherwise. Nevertheless there is some way to go before central government overall is achieving good value for money from its use of consultants."






Talkback
This is no surprise when you consider the purchasing mechanism used by government agencies, local authorities and education to purchase products and services. The very nature of G-cat, Catalyst etc exclude the experts, the specialist houses who can actually deliver value for money or plain results.
It seems that -in fact, many of the largest privately and publicaly funded organisations increasingly turn to their hardware supplier or systems integrator to use a more modern term to find solutions and consultants.
Now, the benefits of this approach are undeniable from a single point of contact in sales, to consolidated procurement and billing.
The trade offs are equally obvious in the way of a lack of specialism outside of the usual suspects (Microsoft, Citrix and Veritas-Symantec). More importantly the lack of integration, interoperability and true solution making can costs our public organisations a small fortune. Only too happy to entrust a number one Microsoft partner with large sums of money for the next 5-10 years they will face the unsurmountable pressures of establishing lines of responsibility and accountability. Failing that, you do the next best thing and scrap the contract and get another number one "systems integrator" in to finish the job, no need to go through litigation to recup some of the contract's value, the money was free anyway!
What would you do? Get a project manager and foreman to build that beautiful Canadian log home in the location of your choice OR spend twice as much to buy that miniature Wimpey house on that huge development the other side of the motorway?
Would the pain of managing a couple of self employed workers be worth it? Or would you have that one point of contact with Wimpey in the knowledge that you won't get a good deal, that your house will be cold, small and too close to the roads and neighbours?
I have chosen...
Alex
Corporate Solutions
LinuxIT Europe
This is no surprise when you consider the purchasing mechanism used by government agencies, local authorities and education to purchase products and services. The very nature of G-cat, Catalyst etc exclude the experts, the specialist houses who can actually deliver value for money or plain results.
It seems that -in fact, many of the largest privately and publicaly funded organisations increasingly turn to their hardware supplier or systems integrator to use a more modern term to find solutions and consultants.
Now, the benefits of this approach are undeniable from a single point of contact in sales, to consolidated procurement and billing.
The trade offs are equally obvious in the way of a lack of specialism outside of the usual suspects (Microsoft, Citrix and Veritas-Symantec). More importantly the lack of integration, interoperability and true solution making can costs our public organisations a small fortune. Only too happy to entrust a number one Microsoft partner with large sums of money for the next 5-10 years they will face the unsurmountable pressures of establishing lines of responsibility and accountability. Failing that, you do the next best thing and scrap the contract and get another number one "systems integrator" in to finish the job, no need to go through litigation to recup some of the contract's value, the money was free anyway!
What would you do? Get a project manager and foreman to build that beautiful Canadian log home in the location of your choice OR spend twice as much to buy that miniature Wimpey house on that huge development the other side of the motorway?
Would the pain of managing a couple of self employed workers be worth it? Or would you have that one point of contact with Wimpey in the knowledge that you won't get a good deal, that your house will be cold, small and too close to the roads and neighbours?
I have chosen...
Alex
Corporate Solutions
LinuxIT Europe