hi james. nice piece!
One (reasonably significant) quibble - governing for complexity definitely does not entail this recommendation: "Sharpen accountability, so that people aren’t responsible for some siloed slice of bureaucracy but for end-to-end services — for delivering outcomes to users"
there's a lot of evidence about what happens when you try to hold people accountable for "delivering" outcomes. See here: https://sluggerotoole.com/2016/07/05/soapbox-the-sorry-tale-of-outcome-based-performance-management/
the key point is that in complex systems is one you make in this piece - outcomes aren't delivered by public service, they are emergent properties of complex systems. If we try and hold people/organisations/programmes acconutable for "delivering" outcomes, we are holding them accountable for things they don't control. (so they learn to game the data instead of focussing on the creation of real outcomes).
Fortunately, we also know quite alot about what governing for complexity looks like in public service. It requires a different paradigm for public management. Outlined here: https://realworld.report/ There are over 50 examples of this alternative paradigm in practice here: https://www.humanlearning.systems/case-studies/
