The Australian government undertakes the establishment of a model for in-house consulting to mitigate reliance on outside consultants and explore influences from both domestic and international jurisdictions.
The Australian Public Services (APS) Reform Office takes an approach that covers information from the cost recovery model used by the now-defunct UK Government Consulting Hub, the Canadian and New Zealand central procurement systems, and the US Digital Service’s consulting guidelines.
This article will examine the APS Reform Office’s review of Australian instances, including Queensland and Victoria, as well as the particular factors of each model, noting relevance and discrepancies. Gain insights into the deep network of variables creating this strategic shift in consulting methods as Australia’s Australian Government Consulting service takes shape.
APS Reform Office to action
In an effort to reduce the reliance on external consultants, the Australian Public Services (APS) Reform Office is currently looking into the domestic and international jurisdictions that could be applied in an in-house consulting service. Furthermore, the Australian Government Consulting service is steadily progressing, with the secretaries’ board getting updates and job advertising filed for jobs, including a chief consulting officer, as services are expected to be delivered later this year.
An earlier this year senate estimates query on notice sheds light on where PM&C’s APS Reform Office is looking for thoughts on the model. The department stated that the UK Government Consulting Hub, which is noted for cutting costs and maximising consultant value, was examined but closed down. The UK model, in particular, used a full cost recovery billing mechanism and did away with departmental spending limitations on consultants.
APS Reform Office explores other models
Due to the UK model being closed down, the APS Reform Office further explored three more jurisdictions that were flagged as relevant to the federal government. These jurisdictions under consideration include New Zealand’s All Government Consultancy Services, Canada’s central procurement system, and the consultant engagement rules of the US Digital Service.
In the United States, the APS Reform Office can benefit from the government’s in-house consulting firm 18F’s strategic scoping of technical solutions.
The government is interested in the Singapore Innovation Lab’s process, which draws “from design thinking, behavioural insights, organisational development, business process reengineering, systems thinking, data analytics, and futures thinking.”
Domestically, the APS Reform Office is examining Queensland Treasury Corporation’s consultant management, capability uplift, and talent transfers, as well as the Victorian Public Service Board’s consulting section.
In an effort to reduce reliance on consultation from the outside, the APS Reform Office is gathering data by observing models implemented globally and locally. This initiative observed models such as the UK’s past Consulting Hub, Canada’s centralised procurement, and the US Digital Service’s guidelines, highlighting a significant transformation in the strategic aspect.
By learning from diverse jurisdictions and evaluating domestic examples, such as Queensland and Victoria, Australia aims to streamline costs and optimise consultancy value. This approach further highlights the commitment to the creation and establishment of consultation practices that align’s to Australia’s unique requirement as the Australian Government Consulting service slowly takes form.
After four years in business school and working for multinational clients, Jomar believes he can improve the world through his writings via Public Spectrum, by informing the public on the latest news and updates happening around the government and society. Jomar has eight years experience as a writer and has a degree in Business Administration and Entrepreneurial Marketing.
