The Implementation Gap: Why Good Plans Sit on Shelves

Every city has a drawer full of plans. Comprehensive plans, strategic plans, master plans, feasibility studies. Some are brilliant. Some are mediocre. Most share one thing in common: they were never implemented.

The implementation gap—the distance between what plans recommend and what actually gets built—is the central challenge of municipal governance. Understanding why it exists is the first step toward closing it.

Plans fail at implementation for predictable reasons. They recommend actions without specifying who will take them. They assume resources that don't exist. They require cooperation between departments that don't communicate. They ignore political realities. They weren't designed with implementation in mind.

The last point is crucial. Most plans are designed to be approved, not implemented. They're written to satisfy grant requirements, generate positive press coverage, or demonstrate that something is being done. Implementation is treated as someone else's problem.

Closing the implementation gap requires rethinking how plans are created and what they contain.

First, every recommendation needs an owner—a specific person or department responsible for moving it forward. Generic recommendations like 'the city should...' guarantee inaction.

Second, plans must account for capacity constraints. If staff is already overwhelmed, new initiatives won't happen regardless of how important they are. Plans should either identify new resources or explain how existing resources will be redirected.

Third, political viability must be assessed upfront. Recommendations that can't survive council votes, budget cycles, or public opposition aren't recommendations—they're fantasies.

Finally, plans should include implementation support. The same consultants who developed the plan should be available to support its execution, at least initially. Handing off a document and walking away is a recipe for shelf life.