A Complexity Case Study : The Implementation of an Interministerial Policy
Table 2 . Ministries and scientific collaborating institutions reached for data collection
Ministries Scientific collaborating institutions
Ministry of Health ( i . e ., MSSS ) Ministry of Family ( i . e ., MFA )
Ministry of Local Development ( i . e ., MAMROT )
Ministry of Executive Council ( i . e ., MCE )
Ministry of Transport ( i . e ., MTQ )
Ministry of Economic Development ( i . e ., MDEIE )
Ministry of Natural Resources ( i . e ., MNRF )
Ministry of Work ( i . e ., MT ) Ministry of Culture ( i . e ., MCCCF )
Ministry of Education and Sports ( i . e ., MELS )
Ministry of Sustainable Development and Parks ( i . e ., MDDEP )
Ministry of Social Solidarity and Employment ( i . e ., MESS )
Ministry of Agriculture ( i . e ., MAPAQ ) Secretary Board ( i . e ., SCT ) Ministry of Justice ( i . e ., MJ )
National Institute of Public Health ( i . e ., INSPQ )
Research Council ( i . e ., FRQ )
National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy ( i . e ., CCNPPS )
University Laval ( i . e ., ULaval )
School of Public Administration ( i . e ., ENAP ) its early stage of implementation , within the relevant sectors of an administration . First , we present the lens we used ( a complexity metatheory ) to analyze how a governmental agenda permeates within sectors . Second , we expose the dynamics at stake : their characteristics , their evolution , their current state . Third , we extract practical benefits for managers , both practitioners and policymakers , and derive a performance assessment framework for the management of HiAP .
Methods
We studied a single in-depth case ( see Table 1 ).
69