Literature review

Looking at the literature on accountability, I have found papers on its forms (Sinclair) and dimensions (X). Some write about systems of accountability (X) but few define it. Fewer measure it; it is not quantifiable. Accountability is discussed as a discursive construct and its forms identified as different according to some circumstance of context. It is accountability to some body or some organisation, not accountability for anything other than for decision-making.
The literature on consultants may be categorised as:

• Academic
• Practitioner
• Media
• Grey

The academic literature has two strands (x):

• Functional literature reflecting OD and how the consultant helps a client who is in charge;
• The critical strand reflects takes the view that the client is weak and the consultant powerful in possession of knowledge.

Practitioner literature tells consultants how to do it, offering steps, processes, advice on marketing, and salary agreement between partners (Maister).

Media criticise the amounts spent on consultants and offer horror stories in the public sector, sometimes confusing outsourcing with consulting.

The consultants’ professional body, the MCA, together with the NAO and OGC have written reports on the use of consultants, with advice for clients in the public sector on how to procure and run consultancy projects. This seems to be the best source for suggesting managers in public sector can be accountable for the use of consultants.