This chapter has contrasted and analysed the findings of three detailed case studies of implementation and delivery units associated with the cabinet offices of the United Kingdom, Commonwealth of Australia, and Queensland. It demonstrated that these units were multi-faceted and similar in many ways, and two benefited from cross-fertilisition of ideas and practices across jurisdictions, but were nevertheless distinctive in key ways. The chapter sought to explain their emergence and observed patterns, and, to the extent these seemingly precarious capabilities have survived to date, identified lessons on design for building similar capabilities committed to improving implementation analysis and oversight, and elaborating those in place.

There is certainly more research to be done. Beyond monitoring the fortunes of cabinet implementation units, there is a need to carefully explore whether and how functional equivalents in other governance systems handle implementation analysis and monitoring. Another fertile area to explore would be detailed case studies on the effect of particular efforts by implementation units to influence and monitor policy departments and delivery agencies; some interesting work on the UK experience has been reported (Kelman, 2005), but this should also be contrasted with experience from other jurisdictions. Finally, the advent of cabinet implementation units should be understood alongside the emergence of gateway reviews in the UK and the adoption of this approach to learning and oversight in Australia at the Commonwealth and state levels.

What are the prospects for implementation units? Earlier it was suggested that there was great potential for competition and possibility of absorption, but it bears noting that the same could be said for many central secretariats and adhocracies not directly connected to the transactions associated with managing a cabinet system. What is remarkable is the extent to which these units have survived and taken root, albeit in circumscribed ways, and not been attacked. However, their first real test will be to see if they survive once the experienced first ministers who created them step down; if they survive that test, perhaps with changes in roles and repertoires, it would show that successor first ministers (who might have been ministers monitored through those units by the previous first minister!) see their value as another instrument for managing government mandates and ministerial colleagues, and that there are some real political and control imperatives calling for this distinct functional capability. Moreover, the jury is still out in other jurisdictions; they might emerge elsewhere as new governments take power or new issues associated with implementation emerge. On the other hand, the experiment with distinct implementation units could melt away, joining a long list of efforts to more systematically improve the decision-making of governments, and we would be left with the time-honoured question of how to inject good implementation analysis into policy decision-making.

If one were to speculate about sources of competition for implementation units, or places where the units might be transferred to, there are two strong possibilities: the divisions in cabinet offices responsible for general planning and managing of government mandates, and budget offices and management boards. As noted earlier, implementation units can be seen as a critique of existing central agencies, particularly since first ministers and governments are under great pressure to deliver on promises and demonstrate performance, and the critique came from a powerful quarter. This critique suggests that it is not enough for cabinet offices to keep a checklist of whether government commitments are met on schedule nor for budget offices to keep track of financial flows associated with these priorities – there needs to be more thought and effort expended in the upstream and downstream to ensuring that initiatives get the attention they deserve.

It is hard to imagine that this pressure will lessen in the years to come. However, while it might seem natural for cabinet offices and budget offices to take on more responsibility for implementation analysis and monitoring, like any organisation they may resist taking on tasks that threaten to complicate their mission or do not play to the strengths and competencies of staff (Wilson 1989). Cabinet offices may see a conflict between their responsibility for policy advising and managing the decision-making system, and budget offices may want to focus on financial perspectives as opposed to management questions. Even if required to absorb implementation units (or in jurisdictions with functional equivalents), there may be strong incentives to create distinctive units for this purpose. An open question would be whether the implementation units could gain or maintain credibility without the direct support of the first minister; presumably this would require linking the function to key decision-making processes (that is, cabinet decision-making, budget approvals, regular review of programs, and so forth); otherwise, they could quickly lose their effectiveness and, at best, become symbolic nods towards the desire and principles of ‘good implementation’ thinking and practice.

Finally, it is worth reminding ourselves that the genesis of these units was not inspired nor informed by the modern policy implementation literature, although undoubtedly the recourse to the notion of implementation and alertness to some issues attached to the concept hearkened back to the insights generated during the 1960s and 1970s. There was little evidence from the case studies that the recent progenitors of the implementation and design units surveyed the most recent implementation literature nor did they contact the current gurus in the field. Indeed, one wonders, if asked, what lessons or advice would have been proffered. Arguably, there would have been a blind spot or disinterest based on the modern literature on implementation, which has devoted considerable attention to managing networks and identifying strategies for mutual adjustment and cooperation, insights of considerable sophistication and importance. Early on, the literature could be characterised as against, in principle, the idea of developing strategies for fostering top-down change, let alone advising and monitoring across the sweep of a government’s mandate. Political and bureaucratic leaders regularly innovate without reference to any scholarly work, of course, but there has been a missed opportunity to distil from the literature good advice for central authorities about how better to advise on, coordinate, and monitor multiple initiatives, as well as strategies for adjusting those not working. Perhaps the call for improved implementation by first ministers may lead scholars in the field to consider this vantage point and provide an opportunity for recent implementation insight to be coupled with policy advising.