When to choose a ‘mission’ approach?

This post was co-authored by the experts from the OECD Mission Action Lab, a joint initiative of the OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation, the OECD Directorate of Public Governance, and the OECD Development Co-operation Directorate.

In our work at the OECD Mission Action Lab, we frequently encounter a crucial question from policymakers: when is a mission an appropriate policy response? This a fair but difficult question to answer. Indeed, when well designed and implemented, missions can be impactful instruments, but they are also resource-intensive in terms of funds, time, and co-ordination – and therefore need to be deployed strategically. 

For example, missions require a level of commitment and prioritisation which is not always within reach. Channelling public and private sector efforts to tackle a complex and pernicious societal challenge requires significant resources and political capital, not least because missions require changing complex governance structures to be effective. Furthermore, an overabundance of missions in a given domain can dilute their impact and effectiveness, and misaligned conditions and expectations are common underlying causes when missions fail.

To help policymakers navigate this dilemma and weigh the costs and benefits of adopting a mission approach, the OECD Mission Action Lab developed the 4-step “Mission Litmus Test”.

• Step 1: Challenge – Defining the scope of the problem
• Step 2: Support – Assessing the stakeholder landscape
• Step 3: Objective – Crafting an inspiring goal
• Step 4: Commitment – Securing resources and policy tools

The tool greatly benefitted from the feedback of mission practitioners and members of the OECD Mission Community of Practice, as well as the practical application together with the Estonian Government Office.  

Step 1: Challenge – Defining the scope of the problem

First, evaluate the nature of the challenge you’re facing to determine whether your issue is of sufficient scale and complexity to warrant a mission-oriented approach. Ask yourself if the challenge you are seeking to address is:

• Systemic: Is it multi-faceted, cross-sectoral, or cross-governmental?
• Compelling: Does it have consequential and meaningful impacts on citizens or on the planet, or both?
• Complex: Is there a high degree of uncertainty, and are current approaches inadequate to address it?
• Within your remit: Is it connected to your mandate, authority, or jurisdiction?

If the majority of answers are “yes”, your challenge appears within the scope of a mission approach. Proceed to the next step ▼

Step 2: Support – Assessing the stakeholder landscape

Second, assess the level of support for addressing this challenge. This step is crucial as missions require substantial backing and resources to succeed. Consider:

• Championing stakeholders: Are key stakeholders across relevant sectors committed to addressing this challenge?
• Adequate resources: Is there willingness to dedicate the necessary resources?
• Political backing: Does the support to address this challenge extend beyond one party or political cycle?

If the majority of answers are “yes”, there appear to be adequate support for a mission approach. Proceed to the next step ▼

Step 3: Objective – Crafting an inspiring goal

Third, can you formulate an overarching objective that captures the essence of the challenge and meets the definition of a mission? This objective should be compelling enough to rally diverse actors around this common cause. Ensure it is:

• Specific: Can you identify a concrete target outcome that can galvanise and channel collective action?
• Bold yet realistic: Can you set an objective that is both aspirational and achievable?
• Measurable: Is it possible to track progress and determine if and when the objective has been reached?
• Time-bound: Can you commit to a defined timeframe to ensure urgency?

If the majority of answers are “yes” , you appear well positioned to formulate an effective mission statement. Proceed to the fourth and final step ▼

Step 4: Commitment – Securing resources and policy tools

Finally, evaluate your ability to commit to this objective in practical terms. This step assesses whether you have the necessary operational capacity and policy levers to drive the mission forward. Consider the extent to which the following are available:

• A dedicated operational team: Can you empower a core team to coordinate and lead implementation?
• Allocated funding: Can you secure funding for innovation and adoption activities?
• Key policy instruments: Do you have access to necessary policy instruments, such as regulatory or fiscal policy tools?

Hopefully, your answers show that there is willingness to commit to making this mission a reality. Either way, well done, you have now completed the test! It is time to reflect on your answers in their totality.

Interpreting the Results

If you’ve answered “yes” to all or most of these questions for each of the four steps, a mission could be the right approach to address your challenge. However, pay attention to any areas where you answered “no” or gave a muted yes – these may represent weaknesses or areas for improvement in your mission strategy.

If many factors are missing, and you are looking at lots of “no’s”, use this as a starting point for further reflection, discussion, and action. While you might want to consider whether other policy approaches might be more suitable, you should consider this an opportunity for strategic development, rather than a definitive rejection. This test is not to be reduced to a simple “pass or fail”, but rather to be viewed as a diagnostic tool to guide mission development. In fact, many successful missions began with what would amount to several “no’s”. Yet, they were able to strengthen their foundations before launch. Taking time to address gaps during the preparation stage is essential for long-term success.

Mission development actions:

• Rethink the Challenge: Can you reframe the challenge to make it a more viable within your remit or to broaden ownership?
• Strengthen Support: What partnerships or evidence could help build broader backing?
• Refine Objectives: Could clarifying the mission statement make it more achievable while maintaining impact?
• Enhance Commitment: What governance structures need to be put in place to support effective delivery?

Insights from mission practitioners

We piloted this simple decision support tool together with mission practitioners and members of the OECD Mission Community of Practice. The majority of the 56 surveyed practitioners found that their missions or planned mission efforts largely fit the criteria.

For instance, an overwhelming 89% of respondents described their challenge as systemic (multi-faceted, cross-sectoral, or cross-governmental), while 82% emphasised its complexity. In terms of support, 83% reported the existence of championing stakeholders across relevant sectors, highlighting the critical role of broad, cross-sectoral backing.

When it came to formulating objectives, 79% felt able to be specific in their goals, and 77% could set time-bound targets. This suggests that most missions represented in the OECD Community of Practice are anchored in concrete, measurable outcomes with clear deadlines. However, this may vary, as a recent OECD study showed that only half of mapped missions seeking to contribute to net zero have set specific targets. Operationally, 82% of Community respondents confirmed having a dedicated team, emphasising the importance of focused leadership and management in mission implementation.

However, some criteria appeared less universally applicable or perhaps more challenging. Only 75% of respondents found their challenge to be compelling (easily communicable, consequential and meaningfully impacting citizens), which, while still a majority, suggests room for improvement in ensuring missions directly address larger societal needs.

Even more notable is that just 34% of respondents indicated that the challenge was within their remit (connected to their mandate, authority, or jurisdiction). This surprisingly low figure raises important questions about the scope and authority of mission teams, and whether missions are being deployed for challenges that extend beyond traditional organisational boundaries.

In terms of resources, only 43% reported having adequate resources dedicated to their mission. This could indicate a gap between mission ambitions and the means to achieve them, potentially impacting mission effectiveness. This partly reflects a pattern of misaligned conditions and expectations that face many missions, as described in 13 reasons why missions fail.

The criteria for political backing also showed room for improvement, with 68% reporting support that goes beyond one party or political cycle. While this represents a majority, it suggests that nearly one-third of missions may face challenges in long-term sustainability due to political fluctuations.

These results highlight both strengths and areas where missions may face challenges. They underscore the importance of carefully considering all criteria before embarking on a mission-oriented approach and potentially point to areas where additional support or resources may be needed to ensure mission success.

We’d like to hear from you!

By critically assessing the suitability of a mission approach, we can ensure that this powerful policy and governance instrument is used effectively and strategically to drive meaningful change in our societies.

We’re eager to hear your thoughts on the Mission Litmus Test. Is this flowchart too reductive, or do you find it a useful tool for considering whether to deploy a mission?  Are you considering establishing a mission and would you like to test the tool more in depth with the Mission Action Lab? Reach out to us at [email protected] and let us know about your experiences.

If you’re a mission manager or policymaker actively working on a mission and would like to join the monthly sessions of the OECD Mission Community of Practice, please fill out this short interest form.