Implementation

Abstract

The Implementation concept within the initial version of 5Is (e.g. Ekblom, 2002c) comprised a relatively ad hoc assemblage of headings. To some extent this reflects the inevitable messiness of getting to grips with all the diverse practicalities of the real world. But, as will be seen, it’s possible to draw on some more recent ‘process’ frameworks for implementation to handle the diverse action, and the knowledge of implementation practice, in a more systematic and clearly defined way. In particular this brings the preventive process and the management process closer together. But in realising this desirable aim, as an Australian review of the management and improvement of preventive practice (AGD, 2003) notes, it is important to ensure that the resultant framework remains generic and detached from specific organisational arrangements which may differ markedly from one another (in the Australian case, from state to state). Practically speaking this means any individual programme or organisation adopting 5Is might have to undertake its own process of customising the headings and content. However, the benefits of inter-organisational, inter-programme and inter-jurisdictional exchange of practice knowledge mean this shouldn’t go too far.