Three Configurations of In‐House Government Consulting: Public‐Value Purpose and Organizational Viability

ABSTRACT Governments have created in‐house consulting organizations to reduce dependence on external firms and retain public capability and control. Yet organizations grouped under this label pursue different forms of public value that require different designs. This article distinguishes three reasons for a dedicated unit: retaining control over consequential work, capturing returns from problems that recur across government, and mobilizing expertise dispersed across public and adjacent institutions. It develops three corresponding configurations—Strategic Transformation, Scalable Solutions, and Expertise Platform—and shows how choices about work, staffing, knowledge, authority, client relationships, financing, and evaluation must fit together. Documentary comparison of eight units in five countries grounds the analysis. The cases show that viability depends on whether work renews the conditions needed for subsequent work and that evaluation must reflect configuration and stage. Internalization is therefore organization‐building, not the reversal of a procurement decision: a unit creates public value only when work reproduces the conditions on which that value depends.