Governments considering structural reform often assume the first question is which model to adopt. In practice, a more useful first question is whether the organisations that would operate within any future model are ready for it. Across every jurisdiction we've looked at, the same finding repeats: governance structure matters less than governance capability. An organisation with strong financial management, clear reporting and confident leadership will perform well under a centralised model, a polycentric one, or anything in between.
Investing in that capability now — before a structural decision is made — improves outcomes under every future scenario, which makes it one of the few genuinely low-risk moves available to government and to the organisations themselves. It's also one of the few investments that pays off immediately rather than only once a future reform is settled and implemented.
In our experience, capability building works best when it's built around the real work an organisation is already doing, rather than delivered as generic training disconnected from day-to-day operations. A Board reporting template is more useful when it's built around the actual programs a Board already oversees. A financial management process is more likely to stick when it's introduced alongside a real acquittal deadline, not as an abstract exercise months before one is due.
This is also why peer-led models — organisations that have already built this capability supporting others building it for the first time — tend to outperform externally delivered training alone. IRAAC's own MCC program is a good example of this logic in practice: capability transferred between organisations that understand each other's operating context, offered at the invitation of the organisation receiving it rather than imposed from outside.
The practical takeaway for any Board weighing up structural reform: capability building isn't something to defer until after the bigger decision is made. It's the safest thing to start on immediately, because it strengthens the organisation's position no matter which direction that bigger decision eventually goes.