This case study illustrates how the interdepartmental executive board model is operating in practice, including its strengths and opportunities. It also outlines specific achievements of the Border Executive Board.
What is an interdepartmental executive board?
The Public Service Act 2020 established new organisational models for addressing complex issues that have impacts and policy levers across a range of portfolio areas and that therefore cannot be solved by a single agency. One of these models is the interdepartmental executive board (IEB). While informal cross-agency models have existed and been tested for some time, the formal IEB model was legislated in response to the limitations of more informal models.
An IEB is a board of public service chief executives brought together to align strategy, policy, operations, and budgeting around a shared issue. Responsibility for delivery activities that contribute to the IEB’s priorities remains with individual agencies. The Prime Minister designates a Minister responsible for the board. The board is responsible to that Minister for the board’s functions, which in practice often operates through the board’s chair (similar to how a Crown Entity board operates). Find out more about the structure and purpose of IEBs in our Supplementary Guidance Note.
IEBs can enter into contracts, administer appropriations and employ staff, who are hosted by a servicing department. The servicing department is also able to carry out administrative and reporting activities under delegation from the board. IEBs are listed in Schedule 2, Part 3 of the Public Service Act 2020 and are subject to requirements under related legislation such as the Public Finance Act 1989 and the Official Information Act 1982.
Purpose of case study
Three years on from the establishment of the new IEB model, we are interested in understanding how IEBs are being used, if they are working as they should, and whether anything could be done to improve their effectiveness.
Since the 2020 Act, five IEBs have been established, many of which have been operating for less than a year. There are some obvious difficulties in assessing the function of the model in those cases (see Appendix 1 on evaluating collective impact). As an alternative approach, we have applied the principles of the collective impact methodology to a case study of the longest running board – the Border Executive Board. The case study covers the period up to February 2023. Despite being the longest running board, the Border Executive Board is still relatively new – in its ‘early years’ according to the collective impact framework. This has meant that our findings are primarily focused on the design and implementation of the model rather than its outcomes or impact. However, we have been able to recognise some significant achievements even at this early stage.
Our preliminary findings indicate that the model is working as intended. The case study highlights a few practical matters that would benefit from more detailed advice and the Commission is looking at how to address these through updated guidance on establishing and implementing IEBs. It also re-surfaces ongoing issues that we are aware of in terms of structural barriers to collaboration.