The role of small consultancies in Government Digital Transformation

Digital transformation has been a defining theme across UK government for more than a decade. We’ve seen entire programmes created to modernise outdated systems, redesign public services around users, and deliver efficiencies for taxpayers. Yet, despite all the strategy papers, frameworks, and funding rounds, delivery still comes down to people and teams — the individuals who sit with departments, listen to users, and shape services that work.

Traditionally, government has leaned heavily on large consultancies and systems integrators to provide these teams. The reasoning is clear: size equals security, capacity, and the ability to scale up when needed. But over the years, I’ve observed that some of the most effective delivery doesn’t come from the biggest suppliers. Instead, it often comes from small, specialist consultancies who can bring targeted skills, adapt quickly, and integrate seamlessly with government staff.

This isn’t just a matter of preference — it’s a matter of outcomes. If we want services that pass assessment, meet user needs, and deliver value for money, we need to understand the unique role small consultancies play in the ecosystem. Drawing on my own experience across several major departments and agencies, I want to unpack why these smaller players matter — and why they may be more important now than ever before.

Agility Over Scale

Government projects are complex by nature. Priorities shift, policies evolve, and external events can force entire programmes to pivot overnight. In that kind of environment, agility isn’t a buzzword — it’s a survival trait.

Large consultancies often struggle here. With layered governance structures, centralised approval chains, and rigid resourcing models, adapting course can take weeks or months. Every change becomes a commercial negotiation, often requiring contract variations or layers of sign-off. That might work for long-term infrastructure programmes, but it slows down digital delivery where iteration and speed are critical.

Smaller consultancies don’t carry the same weight of process. Because they’re lean, they can respond to shifting priorities almost immediately. I recall working on a discovery where the policy direction changed halfway through. The small consultancy embedded in our team didn’t need to halt or renegotiate scope; they simply adjusted their research plan, refocused their interviews, and delivered findings that reflected the new reality. We stayed on track, the project remained credible, and the department avoided weeks of delay.

This ability to adapt is particularly important in multi-supplier environments — which is where most government delivery happens. When you’re working with a blend of civil servants, contractors, and partner organisations, you need suppliers who can flex without friction. In my experience, small consultancies are often the glue that keeps delivery moving when larger suppliers stall.

Deep Expertise That Fits the Problem

Digital transformation is rarely a generic challenge. More often than not, projects hinge on highly specific problems: understanding how a complex benefits system interacts with vulnerable users, redesigning legacy clinical pathways, or making sense of data flows across multiple agencies.

Big suppliers often bring generalists who can follow a playbook, but that isn’t enough when the problem is niche or high-stakes. What government needs in those moments is deep, targeted expertise.

This is where small consultancies excel. They are usually built around specialists who have honed their craft in a particular space — whether that’s service design, user research, business analysis, or technical architecture. Their credibility depends on depth, not breadth.

I saw this play out on a health-sector project where the challenge wasn’t just technical but also regulatory and cultural. A small consultancy brought in a service designer with prior experience working on clinical services. Because they already understood the pressures clinicians faced, the project didn’t lose time to onboarding or basic orientation. They were able to spot issues early — things a generalist might have missed — and helped the team design a pathway that balanced compliance with usability. That expertise was the difference between passing service assessment first time and having to go back for rework.

The value here isn’t just about skills. It’s about fit. Small consultancies can handpick people who are right for a very specific context. Government gets a practitioner who already speaks the language of the sector, who can engage confidently with stakeholders, and who can bring proven methods from similar projects. That’s far more powerful than deploying a large team of generalists who spend weeks getting up to speed.

Better Value for Money

Every procurement decision in government comes back to value for money. But value is often misunderstood. Too often, decision-makers focus on headline day rates, assuming that a lower number means a cheaper outcome. In reality, the equation is more nuanced: value is about the speed, quality, and sustainability of delivery — not just the cost of a single day.

Small consultancies are frequently more cost-effective because they strip away overhead. They don’t carry the weight of global office space, extensive management hierarchies, or layers of subcontracting. Clients aren’t paying for marketing budgets or partner bonuses; they’re paying for delivery.

I’ve been part of programmes where departments saved significant sums by engaging small specialist teams for targeted work. For example, rather than hiring a large consultancy to cover an entire transformation programme, one department brought in a small consultancy just for the discovery and alpha. They delivered the insights and prototypes needed to de-risk the service, then handed over to an in-house team to carry forward. The result? Faster progress, lower spend, and stronger capability within the department.

Another aspect of value is sustainability. Small consultancies are often more willing to invest in knowledge transfer, ensuring that government teams can maintain progress after the contract ends. This reduces long-term dependency on external suppliers, which is a hidden cost often overlooked when awarding contracts to larger firms. In short: a slightly higher day rate can deliver far greater long-term savings when it results in less rework and more self-sufficiency.

Integration Into Government Teams

Digital transformation is a team sport. The most successful projects are those where external partners don’t just deliver outputs but embed themselves within blended teams, building capability as they go.

Small consultancies tend to do this exceptionally well. Their practitioners arrive without the baggage of rigid hierarchies or proprietary methods. Instead, they sit alongside civil servants, contractors, and policy colleagues, contributing as equals and building trust through shared delivery.

I saw this clearly during a discovery in a large department where capability was still maturing. The small consultancy working with us didn’t just conduct user research; they actively coached internal BAs and service designers on methods, co-facilitated workshops, and left behind templates the team could reuse. The result was that the department didn’t just get a report — they gained confidence and tools they could apply on future projects. That kind of integration doesn’t just deliver a service; it builds resilience.

This approach also makes for smoother delivery. When a consultancy integrates fully, there’s less duplication, less friction, and more continuity. Civil servants don’t feel sidelined by a supplier “taking over,” and knowledge doesn’t vanish when the contract ends. It’s a partnership rather than a transaction — and that’s exactly what digital transformation requires.

Building Trust Through Relationships

At the heart of government delivery is trust. Leaders want partners who won’t just deliver a contract but will care about the outcomes as much as they do.

For small consultancies, trust is existential. Their business depends on reputation and repeat work, not on volume-based contracts. That creates a culture of accountability. When I’ve worked with small consultancies, I’ve noticed that leadership stays close to delivery. Directors and founders remain accessible, checking in regularly and ensuring the work is on track. That level of visibility reassures government clients and creates a sense of shared ownership of outcomes.

Contrast this with some larger suppliers, where senior figures often disappear after the contract is signed and day-to-day delivery is left to junior staff. That gap can leave clients feeling disconnected from leadership and uncertain about accountability.

Relationships matter because transformation is never smooth. There will be setbacks, unexpected policy shifts, and challenges with legacy systems. In those moments, having a supplier you can trust — one who is invested in outcomes, not just outputs — makes all the difference. Small consultancies succeed here because they build partnerships, not just contracts.

Final Thoughts

Government digital transformation is complex, high-stakes, and constantly evolving. Too often, the assumption is that only large consultancies can handle this scale of challenge. My experience suggests otherwise.

Small, specialist consultancies bring three qualities that are vital: agility, deep expertise, and better value for money. They can adapt quickly when priorities shift. They can provide the targeted knowledge that specific problems demand. They integrate into government teams, build capability, and invest in relationships. And they do it all while keeping costs lean and outcomes sustainable.

The question for public sector leaders is not just, “Who has the biggest team?” but “Who is best placed to deliver the right outcome for users?”

The next time you face a transformation challenge, don’t default to scale. Ask whether a smaller consultancy could deliver sharper focus, faster progress, and stronger value. In my experience, that choice can mean the difference between services that truly work for citizens — and those that never make it past assessment.