Are management consultants the best people to solve the challenges of Covid-19?

This post is written by Andrew Sturdy, Professor of Organisation and Management, University of Bristol, UK.

• The problem: Over-reliance on untested and expensive staff compared to other options and approaches.

• Why it matters: Saved resources could be directed elsewhere and greater accountability for taxpayers’ money is needed.

• The solution: Greater capacity within government including internal consulting options and alternative approaches to external consulting which do not prioritise sales over client and/or social needs.

Imagine a permanent government department for pandemics, brought into action every hundred years or so. Staffed by experts of various types, such a department could deploy the latest technologies and skills quickly to organise activities such as testing and vaccinations.

Having such a set-up permanently would seem ridiculous or implausible to many, along with having fixed resources for other unique or rare events (Brexit for example). While there are examples of this kind of resource (having fire engines at airports or a nuclear ‘deterrent’), a better approach might be to call on external experts such as consultants for a specified period only. They should be able to specialise, keep up-to-date and be released when the crisis is over.

"Consulting staff seem to be fashionable and immediately available, rather than necessarily have any demonstrable or superior expertise."

Consultants and Covid-19

This, some would argue, is precisely what has happened in many (but, importantly not all) countries with Covid-19, in the UK, Canada and Australia especially. The news media is full of stories of how much governments are spending on consultants to support various pandemic-related activities.

In the UK for example, the National Audit Office (NAO) reported in June that around £500 million has so far been contracted to 10 large firms, together deploying around 2000 consultants on ‘test and trace’ alone. The main concern expressed seems to be cost. While consulting rates are typically very high compared to most civil service or public health sector salaries, an increased cost might be justified on the basis of the scarcity of expertise and the short-term nature of the role.

But no one seems to be questioning why management consulting firms would have the requisite skills to organise for a pandemic (the same applies to Brexit). Or, at least, why would they have better skills than say civil servants, healthcare managers or even regular (cheaper) temporary staff such as interim managers? Indeed, in the absence of any convincing case for specialist skills (again see the NAO report), it seems that consulting firms have been used as expensive ‘temps’. No doubt the public sector has been ‘hollowed out’ to the extent that when extra staff are needed, there is no capacity, especially at short notice. However, this does not explain why the most expensive option is chosen and for a sustained period. Research elsewhere suggests that the following is important: the brand of consulting and particular firms which reflect a deference to private sector ‘solutions’ over civil service expertise and close relationships between senior decision-makers and consultants.

Consulting staff seem to be fashionable and immediately available, rather than necessarily have any demonstrable or superior expertise. Indeed, consulting competence has been questioned in the case of the UK ‘test and trace’ project, where key targets have been missed. While it is impossible to assess whether others would have done better for less, the relative success of a partly volunteer-supported vaccination programme in the UK and elsewhere has not gone unnoticed. A further irony is that the immediate availability of consultants is partly founded on a Covid-induced downturn in consulting business generally which should have led to a reduction in rates.

"new forms of consulting are emerging with a different ethos or structure such as the BCorp model of purpose-led business"

A stuck record or higher purpose?

What then, can be done now? What lessons can be learned? Firstly, we should note that watchdogs such as national audit bodies and parliamentary accounts committees have long and repeatedly urged government departments to plan for future demand for generic skills (e.g. project management) and, in the case of new specialisms, to insist on knowledge transfer from consultants as a priority. A recent example of this is evident in the publication of a Consultancy Playbook by the UK Cabinet Office in May. But these valuable lessons never seem to be taken up by government clients. Likewise, there may be little that can be done with the big firms and their way of operating, except perhaps to curb repeat business and improve transparency. For example, in October, The Australia Institute called for the publication of consulting reports to government departments as a start.

What could be effective and innovative is to help cultivate conditions which encourage a wider variety of expertise and providers. This might include agile internal consulting operations of various sorts – perhaps across government or the public health services - not a novel solution, but tried and tested. Indeed, in the UK a new Government Consulting Hub was launched along these lines in May.

Likewise, external consulting operations, where selling and profit are _not _the driving forces of business, could be developed further. Historically, these are quite common such as bodies linked to industry associations. There are also signs that alternative approaches are appearing and in demand. With the financial and climate crises, combined with technological developments, new forms of consulting are emerging with a different ethos or structure such as the BCorp model of purpose-led business. While such an approach might sometimes be more of an exercise in branding than different values or business priorities, there is at least some potential here to do more than simply exploit a hollowed-out civil service with ‘expensive temps’. And, in the hope of a post-Covid world, it would certainly be more cost-effective than a permanent department for pandemics.

👋 You can create a post like this one! Share your thoughts with a community of public servants. Learn more

(Image Credit: Unsplash)