Directorates
·	Director General's Office
·	Data Development
·	Strategic Evaluations
·	Partnership and Continuous Evaluations
Publications
·	Evaluation Reports
·	Evaluation Briefs
·	Labour Market Development Agreement Series
·	Lessons Learned Series
·	Evaluation Tool Kit Series
·	Evaluation Forum Newsletter
·	From Theory To Practice

One major common thread of the case studies has been the diversity inherent in organizational innovation. This has been noted on various occasions in this report and need only be summarized in the conclusion. There are no guaranteed formulas for implementing successful change. What works in one setting may be inappropriate in another. In this vein, a number of cases have demonstrated the importance of “fit,” both internally with the firm’s culture and what it is doing in other functional areas and externally with the economic and institutional environment.

In the final analysis, although “best practice” is common parlance in the area of organizational change, it is, in fact, a somewhat inappropriate concept. So it is more realistic to acknowledge the diversity and to consider “best principles” in a more generic sense. This involves a focus on the particular goals the changes were intended to affect and a consideration of the impacts on all of the stakeholders. As we have argued on the basis of these cases, a key element in sustainable organizational innovation is that the stakeholders maintain a long-run perspective with a strong orientation towards “intangible” investments. Without that, it will be very difficult to work out the divergent interests involved, especially those between management and labour.

The body of survey literature suggests that the incidence of workplace change (especially with these characteristics) remains quite low. This literature also highlights the accumulating evidence that organizational innovation can have positive payoffs in terms of improved firm performance and a range of benefits for employees. These favourable outcomes have also been illustrated through many of the case studies reviewed for this project.

However, the case studies also underline the difficulty of sustaining effective innovation, even once the process has been launched. There are many obstacles that come into play — for example, information barriers, externalities associated with intangible investments, pressures for immediate benefits, various institutional barriers, and the different interests of the stakeholders. The degree to which these obstacles are overcome will dictate the diffusion of effective organizational innovation in the future.

Clearly, management and labour must be the primary actors in workplace changes. Government and other third parties can play a role as we have seen, but it cannot be the central one. We have already emphasized the importance of both business and labour lengthening their strategic horizons and actively seeking out organizational ideas that will have positive payoffs in their particular organizations.

While governments are not necessarily concerned about what is happening within individual workplaces, they do have a legitimate concern about how they can encourage the diffusion of effective organizational practices in order to support macro objectives such as productivity and employment growth and income distribution. There are both “market failure” (around intangible investments) and “public good” aspects to the governments’ role here. This involves a wide range of policy areas including education and training, industrial partnerships, research and information, and ultimately labour and social policy. These are the various considerations that public policy should be addressing in order to support the sorts of organizational innovation that encourage investments in people, that offer individuals the opportunity to enhance their employability, and that contribute to economic performance.