The selection of an inappropriate regime by policy makers can thwart the effective implementation of public policy and lead to implementation failure. Competing values in the implementation process have a significant impact on the results of implementation, and the regime selected for implementation implies the choice of one value over another. Stoker has argued that on the one hand central leadership is valued for consistency, benefits of scale, co-ordination and cost sharing (instrumental model); and on the other, diffuse authority is valued as knowledge is particular and situational, and the task of analysis is to understand the problems, perspectives and interactions of implementation participants at the contact point between public programs and their clients (accommodation model). This study examines the implementation regime chosen by the Victorian Government for the introduction of a modern internal auditing function into the Victorian Public Service, using the Bureau of Internal Audit within its Department of Management and Budget. The selection of the Department of Management and Budget for the introduction of Internal Audit as a managerial accountability mechanism indicates that the instrumental model was held by the Victorian Government to be the most important in implementation. It is argued that use of a top-down central agency leadership approach resulted in implementation failure. Three propositions suggesting the mechanisms by which this result is brought about are examined: that lack of co-ordinated planning at the outset will result in inadequate definition of client needs as part of policy formulation; that intraorganisational conflict during the implementation success, as individual participants are likely to exercise their veto; and the increasing the number of participants contributes to complexity, so that they should only be involved in implementation when their presence is absolutely required. It is argued that the essential task of implementation is to create an environment where participants are likely to co-operate to achieve predetermined public policy goals; and that the introduction of a modern internal auditing approach into the Victorian Public Service required a more participatory implementation regime in order to facilitate policy outcomes and prevent implementation failure. It is also argued that the dominance of economic reform over accountability in Victoria restricted the ability of the Bureau of Internal Audit to implement change to internal audit practices within Victorian Government departments. The selection of an instrumental model of implementation by the Department of Management and Budget is examined in the context of the environment that existed in Victoria between 1982-1987; and while some of the values which Stoker associates with the top-down approach to policy making were observed, an alternative view to the development of internal auditing in the Victorian Public Service can be sustained.