Analogy

People think I'm asking how consultants account for their work, which isn't what I'm trying to get at; I'm interested in how consultants' work is managed in the public sector.

It's akin to asking someone to build you a conservatory. You check out who the potential builders are, select one, give them a brief, and watch them lay the foundations and put together some contraption out of aluminium or wood or whatever. But suppose you just give them the job - "build me a conservatory" and leave them to it. You'll get what the builders decide to do when they decide to do it. Of course your brief might be to put it in that position, and make it eco-friendly, and to fit in with a listed building. That might go in the contract, but if you then ignore what they're doing, how can you tell where they're up to, if they're making any progress, and if it's the right progress. And I suppose if you're scared of builders, or out at the office/university all day, you could always hand over their management to your teenage children. Tell them to let you know when the job's finished and they want you to pay the bill.

Do you think that senior management in the public sector might be scared of IT builders? would they delegate the job to middle management? Or perhaps to outside consultants?

Some report said that senior management should be involved - it's a success factor in projects. And some government report says that there should be trained and experienced people to run projects, and that there should be a Senior Responsible Officer (SRO) in charge of every project.