A constant theme emerging in our discussions has been the balance of activity and accountability between individual departments and the “centre” (whether Cabinet Office, HM Treasury or the GDS). This is similar to the challenges faced by many large multinationals with substantial operating divisions or country operations (in contrast to single product line or single division entities where a single central service often works well). In these more complex situations the general consensus is that a federated “hub and spoke” model is the most effective. This puts the primary accountability for delivery with the operating divisions with a level of “freedom within a framework” but supported by a strong, expert centre with real teeth, responsible for technical architecture and standards but federating out the tooling to the operating divisions. As with all organisational questions there are advantages and disadvantages to any given approach. But the optimal approach here seems clearly to ensure that the primary accountability for technology delivery should rest with individual Government Departments and their Permanent Secretaries. Crucially, however, this needs to be supported by a relatively small but strong central organisation focused on (1) holding the Departments to account for delivery, (2) setting the technical and data standards to ensure interoperability, and (3) delivering services where it can add value over and above what individual departments can achieve alone. This appears consistent with the direction of travel of recent years with the appointment of strong CDIOs in many individual departments, and aligns with formal financial and delivery responsibilities that rest with the individual Permanent Secretaries and other Accounting Officers. Indeed, a strong central assurance function was something that Departmental CDIOs in our discussions said they would welcome with those that had been hired externally surprised and, to an extent, disappointed to find it absent.