A consultancy firm that secured $528m of taxpayer money last year has admitted to maintaining hundreds of “power maps” that categorise federal officials based on influence, personality type and relationships with competitors.
Accenture has told the Senate the maps are restricted and only supplied to staff on a “need to know” basis, but acknowledged they were used in the process of bidding for government work.
The power maps detail whether officials are “analytical”, “expressive” or “a driver”. They identify key decision-makers and who has the most influence within teams, and rank how favourably officials may view Accenture.
The power maps also monitor internal conflicts within departments and any negative relationships between colleagues. They monitor which public servants may have relationships with rival consultancy firms and how strong those connections are.
Accenture’s market lead for Australia and New Zealand, Peter Burns, detailed the power maps to a parliamentary inquiry into consultants. This was in a response to questions from Labor senator Deborah O’Neill, who is a member of the committee conducting the inquiry.
“Within Accenture, access to power maps is restricted and can only be accessed by individuals on a need-to-know basis,” Burns said in documents published by the Senate.
“Power maps are used as part of a tendering process to determine how we may assist a client to effect change within their organisation, particularly in relation to understanding the outcomes the client is seeking to achieve and ensuring we can provide appropriate solutions.”
But O’Neill told Guardian Australia that “the practice of ‘power mapping’ departmental officials represents an overt attempt by consulting companies to inappropriately influence the public service”.
Accenture is not considered one of the big four consultancy firms but is favoured by the federal government. Last financial year its contracts with the public service were worth $528m, which is more than that of KPMG, Deloitte and PwC, and double what EY was paid.
The big four firms told the Senate inquiry that they did not engage in any form of power mapping, although those assurances will be scrutinised at upcoming inquiry hearings.
“PwC Australia does not engage in the practice of ‘power mapping’ or maintain records that characterise public servants by influence, relationships to one another or attitude towards consultancies,” said Jan McCahey, PwC’s chief risk and ethics leader.
O’Neill told Guardian Australia she would seek more information and “push for fulsome and honest responses to the questions which I have put to these firms”.
Accenture was unable to say how many power maps had been maintained, but estimated “hundreds have been created in relation to government opportunities from 2015 onwards”.
“Whenever we participate in a tendering process, we strictly abide by the probity rules, which includes not contacting or participating in any discussions or meetings with any individuals [including any that may be included on a power map] who are part of the decision-making process for that tender,” Burns told the inquiry.
“Power maps are one element in our assessment of potential client projects and are used on most of our client engagements, including with our public service clients, and as part of our account planning processes.”
During a Senate inquiry hearing in July, Burns said Accenture had not changed its internal processes as a result of the reputation crisis that engulfed PwC Australia and led to its government services division being divested for just $1.
“I would be misleading the committee if we said we specifically did something different as a consequence of [the PwC scandal],” Burns told the inquiry.
