The Promise & Pitfalls of Delivery Units

Across the Global South, governments set bold targets. But the hardest task is turning ambition into results—consistently and at scale.  

In the early 2000s, our founder, Sir Michael Barber, introduced the Delivery Unit model to help close the gap. These small, short-term teams, placed close to the center of government, were designed to accelerate implementation of top priorities. At their best, they sharpen focus, resolve bottlenecks, and strengthen the system around them.

But their real value isn’t just in what they deliver—it's in what they leave behind.

The aim is that ministries and agencies are better equipped to continue delivering long after the unit itself has gone.

The UK’s original Delivery Unit, for instance, helped reduce hospital wait times and improved literacy rates. Its deeper legacy, however, was less visible: embedding routines for review and problem-solving that reshaped how the government approached delivery.

But as the model spread, its purpose often drifted. Some Delivery Units became permanent fixtures, detached from the systems they were meant to reinforce. Others turned into reporting shops or political showcases, bypassing the ministries responsible for delivery. Some achieved quick wins—but left little enduring capacity.

In cases like this, Delivery Units risk creating dependency and weakening the very systems they’re meant to strengthen.

Designing Delivery Units that Strengthen the System

From our work with governments in more than 70 countries, we’ve seen that the Delivery Units that build lasting capability share a few common design features:

• They reinforce, not replace. The best units equip ministries to diagnose and solve problems themselves, keeping ownership where it belongs.

• They’re designed with the end in mind. From day one, they set a clear mandate, scope, and exit strategy—planning for the transfer of tools, routines, and relationships into permanent structures.

• They secure broad sponsorship. Political backing from the top is essential, but so is support from finance, planning, and the implementing ministries.

• They acknowledge limits. Delivery Units can remove bottlenecks but can't, on their own, rewrite procurement laws or rebuild civil service systems.

How these principles are applied depends on context. In lower capacity or fragile settings, this often means starting small—a trusted team within a priority ministry, focused on a narrow set of goals. In more stable or mature systems, delivery practices can be embedded directly into planning routines, cabinet reviews, or performance management frameworks. The principles are constant, but the path must fit local realities.

What Sustainable Delivery Looks Like

The less a Delivery Unit takes on directly, the more the system learns—provided that core functions like planning, staffing, and budgeting are ready to absorb new ways of working. Where these foundations are strong, delivery routines become part of everyday governance and outlast the unit.

Where they are weak, form overtakes function: dashboards, job titles, and “embedded” labels mean little if behaviors stay the same.  

From our experience, governments that keep delivering have three core foundations: ‍

1. Institutionalized Delivery Routines

• High-performing systems don’t reinvent delivery with each political cycle. They embed regular reviews or “stocktakes,” budget-linked planning, and cabinet-level performance reviews that persist across administrations.
• Tools proven in crisis are adopted into normal operations, not discarded once the emergency passes.

2. Decision-Oriented Data Use

• Data matters only if it shapes choices. Effective systems ensure information reaches decision-makers in time to influence action.
• Peer comparisons and frontline feedback are used to adjust course during implementation, not just after the fact.

3. Skilled People Coordinating across Government

• Durable systems invest in public servants who can adapt under pressure, bridge silos, and solve problems.
• Finance, HR, procurement, and delivery agencies work together week by week, not only at annual planning or review retreats.

Making Reform Stick

Even the strongest Delivery Units cannot succeed in isolation. Their impact depends on the core operating system of the government—on whether political commitment, institutions, and funding structures support delivery.

But politicians and funders often gravitate to what’s visible. New programs, parallel delivery systems, and pilot schemes offer quick results but disappear without infrastructure to sustain them when funding or political attention shifts. For decades, aid and philanthropy have filled delivery gaps through NGOs, temporary technical assistance, and off-platform data systems. These have delivered services, but little enduring capacity and capability.  

The critical question is: What remains when external support ends?

The answer lies in credible budgets, responsive procurement, professional staffing, and performance reviews that shape real decisions. These unglamorous functions are slow to build and politically hard to defend—but when they work, they multiply the impact of every reform that follows.

Supporting existing systems isn’t a retreat from ambition—it’s the only way ambition lasts.

Funders who back this shift must stay the course, often five to seven years, in step with national planning cycles. But the payoff is worth it: stronger institutions, fewer workarounds, and delivery that endures. In a time of rising expectations and repeated crises, only governments can deliver at the scale required.

Here are three ways funders can work together with government to make reform possible:

1. Reduce fragmentation and align across sectors. Fragmented funding and reporting overload systems and weaken accountability. In one country’s health sector, different donor programs each set up separate reporting systems for the same facilities. By consolidating them into a single platform managed by the ministry, the government eliminated duplication, reduced the reporting burden on clinics, and freed up time for frontline staff to focus on patient care.

2. Start with a joint diagnostic. Map the delivery chain—the people involved from release of the funds to frontline action—before designing interventions. In one country, this process revealed that resources for a youth enterprise program were stalled in approvals between finance and local authorities. Clarifying roles and streamlining sign-offs revived the program, leading to a fivefold increase in outputs within a year.

3. Invest in institutions—and the people who run them. Capability grows when governments have strong core functions and skilled, empowered public servants. In one health reform, embedded planning officers outperformed parallel advisory groups because they had authority to act, stayed in post, and became part of the system they improved.

Reclaiming Delivery as the Core Work of Government

Delivery isn’t a temporary project or a specialist function—it’s the day-to-day work of governing. While Delivery Units can accelerate progress, their true legacy is strengthening institutions that can plan, fund, staff, and solve problems as part of normal business.  

Embedding these capabilities in durable systems and in the public servants who run them is the surest way to deliver consistently at scale. For governments, this is the path to sustained results. For funders, it is the only investment whose impact will outlast the program itself.

‍

The authors wish to thank Caroline Schmutte for her contribution to this article.