A DRDC Management Accountability Framework · a management accountability framework (MAF) as part...

Defence R&D Canada – Atlantic

DEFENCE DÉFENSE&

A DRDC Management Accountability

Framework

Cycle 1 Final Report

Craig O’Blenus, Research Assistant

Warren Nethercote, Public Servant in Resident

Prepared by:Dalhousie UniversitySchool of Public Administration610 University AvenueHalifax, NS B3H 3J5

Contract Project Manager: Fazley Siddiq, 902-494-3742Director, School of Public Administration

Contract Scientific Authority: Joe Arbour, 902-426-3100 ext 175Deputy Director General, DRDC Atlantic

The scientific or technical validity of this Contract Report is entirely the responsibility of the Contractor and thecontents do not necessarily have the approval or endorsement of Defence R&D Canada.

Contract Report

DRDC Atlantic CR 2008-188

October 2008

Copy No. _____

Defence Research andDevelopment Canada

Recherche et développementpour la défense Canada

This page intentionally left blank.

A DRDC Management Accountability Framework Cycle 1 Final Report

Craig O'Blenis Research Assistant Warren Nethercote Public Servant in Residence Prepared By: Dalhousie University School of Public Administration 610 University Avenue Halifax, NS B3H 3J5 Canada Contract Project Manager: Fazley Siddiq, 902-494-3742 Director, School of Public Administration Contract Scientific Authority: Joe Arbour, 902-426-3100 ext 175 Deputy Director General, DRDC Atlantic

The scientific or technical validity of this Contract Report is entirely the responsibility of the Contractor and the contents do not necessarily have the approval or endorsement of Defence R&D Canada.

Defence R&D Canada – Atlantic Contract Report DRDC Atlantic CR 2008-188 October 2008

Principal Author

Original signed by Warren Nethercote for

Craig O'Blenis

Approved by

Original Signed by Dr. Joe Arbour

Dr. Joe Arbour

Scientific Authority

Approved for release by

Original signed by Ron Kuwahara for

Dr. J.L. Kennedy

Chair, DRDC Atlantic Document Review Panel

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2008

© Sa Majesté la Reine (en droit du Canada), telle que représentée par le ministre de la Défense nationale, 2008

Abstract ……..

Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC), a special operating agency of the Department of National Defence, contracted Dalhousie University to support the development of a management accountability framework (MAF) as part of DRDC’s EXPEDITION 09 project. The DRDC MAF used the Treasury Board MAF as a model, with Expectations, Indicators and Measures tiers. Under Cycle 1 of the contract, a full Expectations tier was developed for the DRDC MAF, and a pilot study was conducted to examine application of the Stewardship Element of the Expectations, Indicators and Measures tiers to the DRDC management cadre. A survey instrument was used as the interface between the DRDC MAF and managers, to minimize management overhead. The results of the pilot study confirm the feasibility of the survey-based approach and provide a generally positive assessment of DRDC managers’ performance against indicators for stewardship: financial management and control; project management; procurement; asset management; and information management.

Résumé ….....

Recherche et développement pour la Défense Canada (RDDC), une agence spéciale qui relève du ministère de la Défense nationale, a embauché l’université Dalhousie pour l’aider à élaborer un cadre de responsabilisation de gestion (CRG) pour le projet EXPEDITION 09 de RDDC. Le CRG de RDDC s’est servi du CRG du Conseil du Trésor comme modèle et de ses paliers « Attentes », « Indicateurs » et « Mesures ». Pour le cycle 1 du contrat, un palier complet d’attentes a été élaboré pour le CRG de RDDC et une étude pilote a été effectuée pour examiner la possibilité d’appliquer l’élément de gérance aux paliers « Attentes », « Indicateurs » et « Mesures » du cadre de gestion de RDDC. Un instrument de sondage a été utilisé comme interface entre le CRG RDDC et les gestionnaires afin de minimiser la surcharge de gestion. Les résultats de l’étude pilote confirment la faisabilité de l’approche fondée sur le sondage et fournissent une évaluation généralement positive du rendement des gestionnaires de RDDC par rapport aux indicateurs de gérance : gestion des finances et contrôle financier, gestion de projet, approvisionnement, gestion de l’actif et gestion de l’information.

DRDC Atlantic CR 2008-188 i


ii DRDC Atlantic CR 2008-188

Executive summary

A DRDC Management Accountability Framework: Cycle 1 Final Report

Craig O'Blenis; Warren Nethercote; DRDC Atlantic CR 2008-188; Defence R&D Canada – Atlantic; October 2008.

Introduction: Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC), a special operating agency of the Department of National Defence, contracted Dalhousie University to support the development of a management accountability framework (MAF) as part of DRDC’s EXPEDITION 09 project. The DRDC MAF used the Treasury Board MAF as a model, with Expectations, Indicators and Measures tiers; however, the focal point for the DRDC MAF is the DRDC management cadre, rather than the Deputy Minister, for the Treasury Board MAF.

DRDC Atlantic CR 2008-188 iii

Results: Under Cycle 1 of the contract, a full Expectations tier was developed for the DRDC MAF, and a pilot study was conducted to examine application of the Stewardship Element of the Expectations, Indicators and Measures tiers to the DRDC management cadre. A survey instrument was used as the interface between the DRDC MAF and managers, to minimize management overhead.

The Expectations Tier of the DRDC MAF was developed through consultation with Deputy Directors General, the Corporate Services community and DRDC’s R&D Executive Committee. The elements of the DRDC MAF correspond to those of the Treasury Board MAF, but reflect the vernacular of the DRDC management cadre.

The Indicators and Measures tiers were not developed in their entirety for the Cycle 1 DRDC MAF. Instead, work focused on the Stewardship element, which was the subject of an operational pilot, and later, on the Accountability element, which would be the subject of an operational pilot in Cycle 2 of the contract. Indicators for Stewardship and Accountability are shown below:

DRDC MAF: Indicators for Stewardship and Accountability

Stewardship

Financial Management & Control Project Management

Procurement Asset Management

Information Management

Accountability

Clear accountabilities and responsibilities for due process and results

Delegations consistent with capabilities

Subordinates’ goals reflect those assigned to their supervisors

Measures for Stewardship and Accountability were not presented in the high-level tabular format of the Treasury Board framework, but instead were presented in detailed tables based on the results of earlier assessments of the Department of National Defence relative to the Treasury Board MAF. By this means, it was possible to derive operationally-relevant measures that were meaningful to the vernacular of DRDC managers and to higher-level DND requirements.

iv DRDC Atlantic CR 2008-188

Furthermore, it was possible to associate DRDC measures with particular levels within the DRDC management cadre.

A bilingual survey instrument was developed for the Stewardship element, in which the questions addressed DRDC measures. The logic employed by the instrument (so-called ‘skip patterns’ in survey vernacular) allowed the same instrument to be administered to three levels of the DRDC management cadre. There was an overall return rate of 46 percent on the survey, despite unavailability of over 25 percent of the management cadre sample due to summer vacations. Although some respondents did report problems, for most, completion of the survey required but 30 to 40 minutes work. This confirmed the concept of use of a survey instrument as a means to minimize management overhead due to a MAF.

Finally, results of the survey instrument were analysed and the results were compared to the results of Treasury Board assessment of six science-based departments or agencies: Fisheries and Oceans, Natural resources, Agriculture and Agri-foods, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Health Canada, and Environment Canada.

Significance: The first operational pilot for the DRDC MAF confirmed the feasibility of use of a survey tool as a MAF instrument. The results of the pilot provide a generally positive assessment of DRDC managers’ performance against indicators for stewardship: financial management and control; project management; procurement; asset management; and information management. It is believed that these results support the vision of a steady state DRDC MAF:

The DRDC Management Accountability Framework (MAF) is a governance tool that facilitates dialogue between managers and executive leadership, helping to clarify managers’ understanding of their roles and responsibilities and providing a framework for assessment and improvement of business processes

Future plans: Cycle 2 of the contract to Dalhousie University will support further development of the DRDC MAF, including two more operational pilots. The first of these pilots will examine performance against the Accountability and Risk Management elements, and the second, People, Policy and Programs, and once again, Stewardship. The return to the Stewardship element will offer an opportunity to demonstrate an annual MAF cycle. The results of the first of these operational pilots will be reported to the 2009 DRDC Managers’ Workshop, and final results of Cycle 2 will be reported to the 2009 DRDC Executive Retreat, together with recommendations for a complete DRDC Management Accountability Framework, including the processes necessary to its operational use.

DRDC Atlantic CR 2008-188 v

Sommaire .....

Cadre de responsabilisation de gestion de RDDC : Rapport final du cycle 1

Craig O'Blenis; Warren Nethercote; RDDC Atlantique CR CR 2008-188; R&D pour la Défense Canada – Atlantique; October 2008.

Introduction

Recherche et développement pour la Défense Canada (RDDC), une agence spéciale qui relève du ministère de la Défense nationale, a embauché l’université Dalhousie pour l’aider à élaborer un cadre de responsabilisation de gestion (CRG) pour le projet EXPEDITION 09 de RDDC. Le CRG de RDDC s’est servi du CRG du Conseil du Trésor comme modèle et de ses paliers « Attentes », « Indicateurs » et « Mesures ». Cependant, le point d’intérêt du CRG de RDDC est les cadres de RDDC plutôt que le sous-ministre du Conseil du Trésor.

Résultats

Pour le cycle 1 du contrat, un palier complet d’attentes a été élaboré pour le CRG de RDDC et une étude pilote a été effectuée pour examiner la possibilité d’appliquer l’élément de gérance aux paliers « Attentes », « Indicateurs » et « Mesures » du cadre de gestion de RDDC. Un instrument de sondage a été utilisé comme interface entre le CRG RDDC et les gestionnaires afin de minimiser la surcharge de gestion.

Le palier « Attentes » du CRG de RDDC a été élaboré après consultation avec le directeur général adjoint, les services ministériels et le conseil exécutif pour RDDC. Les éléments du CRG de RDDC correspondent à ceux du CRG du Conseil du Trésor, mais reflètent le langage des cadres de RDDC.

Les paliers « Indicateurs » et « Mesures » n’ont pas été élaborés en entier pour le cycle 1 du CRG de RDDC. À la place, le travail a mis l’accent sur l’élément de gérance, lequel était l’objet d’une étude pilote opérationnelle. Plus tard, l’accent sera mis sur l’élément de responsabilisation, lequel fera l’objet d’une étude pilote opérationnelle dans le cycle 2 du contrat. Les indicateurs de gérance et de responsabilisation sont illustrés plus bas :

vi DRDC Atlantic CR 2008-188

Les objectifs de mesure de la gérance et de la responsabilisation n’ont pas été présentés dans le format tabulaire de haut niveau utilisé pour le cadre de travail du Conseil du Trésor, mais étaient plutôt dérivés des résultats des évaluations antérieures du ministère de la Défense relatives au CRG du Conseil du Trésor. De cette façon, il était possible d’obtenir des mesures pertinentes sur le plan opérationnel qui étaient significatives pour le langage quotidien des gestionnaires de RDDC. De plus, il était possible d’associer les mesures de RDDC avec des niveaux particuliers au sein des cadres de RDDC.

Un instrument de sondage bilingue a été élaboré pour l’élément de gérance et comprenait des questions traitant des mesures de RDDC. La logique utilisée par l’instrument (nommée « instructions passez à » dans le langage des sondages) a permis d’utiliser le même instrument pour les trois niveaux de cadres travaillant pour RDDC. Pour le sondage, on a observé un taux de retour moyen de 46 pourcent, malgré la non-disponibilité de plus de 25 pour cent des cadres (vacances). Bien que certains répondants aient signalé des problèmes, la plupart ont pu exécuter le sondage en 30 à 40 minutes. Cela confirme l’hypothèse de l’utilisation d’un instrument de sondage comme moyen pour minimiser la surcharge de gestion grâce à un CRG.

DRDC Atlantic CR 2008-188 vii

CRG de RDDC : Indicateurs de Gérance et de Responsabilisation

Gérance

Gestion des finances et contrôle financier

Gestion de projet Approvisionnement Gestion de l’actif

Gestion de l’information

Responsabilisation

Responsabilisation et responsabilités clairement établies pour les procédures et les

résultats établis

Délégations conformes aux capacités

Objectifs des subordonnés reflètent ceux attitrés aux superviseurs

En dernier lieu, les résultats obtenus par l’instrument de sondage ont été analysés et ont été comparés aux résultats de l’évaluation du Conseil du Trésor de six agences ou ministères à vocation scientifique : Pêches et Océans, ministère des Ressources naturelles, ministère de l’Agriculture et de l’Agroalimentaire, Agence canadienne d’inspection des aliments, Santé Canada et Environnement Canada.

Portée

La première étude pilote opérationnelle pour le CRG de RDDC a permis de confirmer la faisabilité de l’utilisation d’un outil de sondage comme instrument CRG. Les résultats de l’étude pilote ont fourni une évaluation généralement positive du rendement des gestionnaires de RDDC par rapport aux indicateurs de gérance : gestion des finances et contrôle financier, gestion de projet, approvisionnement, gestion de l’actif et gestion de l’information. On suppose que ces résultats appuient la vision d’un CRG de RDD permanent :

Le cadre de responsabilisation de gestion (CRG) de RDDC est un outil de gouvernance qui facilite le dialogue entre les gestionnaires et les cadres de gestion et permet de clarifier le rôle et les responsabilités des gestionnaires et fournir un cadre de travail pour l’évaluation et l’amélioration des processus opérationnels.

viii DRDC Atlantic CR 2008-188

Recherches futures

Le cycle 2 du contrat avec l’université Dalhousie viendra appuyer une élaboration plus avancée du CRG de RDDC et comprendra deux études pilotes opérationnelles. La première de ces études examinera le rendement par rapport aux éléments responsabilité et gestion du risque et la deuxième, les employés, la politique et les programmes et la gérance une fois de plus. Un retour sur l’élément de gérance permettra de démontrer un cycle du CRG annuel. Les résultats de la première de ces études pilotes opérationnelles seront présentés dans l’atelier des gestionnaires 2009 de RDDC et les résultats finaux du cycle 2 seront présentés dans la période de réflexion 2009 de RDDC de concert avec les recommandations pour un cadre de responsabilisation de gestion complet pour RDDC qui comprendra les processus nécessaires pour les fins d’exploitation.

DRDC Atlantic CR 2008-188 ix


x DRDC Atlantic CR 2008-188

Table of contents

................................................................................................................................. i Abstract ……..

................................................................................................................................... i Résumé ….....

........................................................................................................................ iii Executive summary

.................................................................................................................................. vi Sommaire .....

............................................................................................................................ xi Table of contents

............................................................................................................................... xiii List of figures

................................................................................................................................. xiv List of tables

....................................................................................................................... xv Acknowledgements

.... ...................................................................................... 1 1 Vision of a Steady-State DRDC MAF

.... ............................................................................................................................... 2 2 Introduction

.... ......................................................................................................... 5 3 The Treasury Board MAF

................................................................................................................ 7 3.1 Expectations Tier

..................................................................................................................... 7 3.2 Indicators Tier

..................................................................................................................... 9 3.3 Measures Tier

.... ........................................................ 10 4 The Development Process for the Cycle 1 DRDC MAF

............................................................. 11 4.1 The Cycle 1 DRDC MAF: Stewardship Element

................................................................... 12 4.2 The Cycle 1 DRDC MAF: Expectations Tier

....................................................................... 13 4.3 The Cycle 1 DRDC MAF: Indicators Tier

........................................................................ 14 4.4 The Cycle 1 DRDC MAF: Measures Tier

................................................................................................. 15 4.5 The Stewardship Element

.... ................................................................................ 18 5 The Accountability Element for Cycle 2

................................................................................. 19 5.1 Accountability for the DRDC MAF

............................................................................................ 20 5.2 Indicators for Accountability

............................................................................................. 20 5.3 Measures for Accountability

..................................................................... 23 5.4 Draft Survey Instrument for Accountability

.... ................................................................................................... 26 6 The Cycle 1 Operation Pilot

......................................................................................................... 26 6.1 Experimental Design

............................................................................................................................... 27 6.2 Results..................................................................................... 27 6.2.1 Preliminary Information

................................................................... 29 6.2.2 Financial Management and Control........................................................................................... 30 6.2.3 Project Management

........................................................................................................ 31 6.2.4 Procurement............................................................................................. 33 6.2.5 Asset Management

................................................................................... 34 6.2.6 Information Management

.... .................................................................................................................................. 35 7 Analysis...................................................................... 35 7.1 Financial Management and Control

DRDC Atlantic CR 2008-188 xi

........................................................................................................... 37 7.2 Procurement

.... .............................................. 39 8 DRDC Performance Relative to Other Scientific Departments

.................................................................. 39 8.1 Performance of Other Scientific Departments

.................................................................. 39 8.1.1 Department of Fisheries and Oceans.................................................................................. 41 8.1.2 Natural Resources Canada

................................................................... 42 8.1.3 Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada..................................................................... 42 8.1.4 Canadian Food Inspection Agency

.................................................................................................... 43 8.1.5 Health Canada.......................................................................................... 43 8.1.6 Environment Canada

........................................................................................... 44 8.2 Comparison to DRDC

.... ..................................................................................................................... 47 9 Plans for Cycle 2

.. ............................................................................................................... 48 10 Concluding Remarks

............................................................................................................................ 49 Bibliography .....

.. ............................................................ 53 Annex A DRDC MAF Survey Instrument: Stewardship

.. ..................................................................................................... 67 Annex B Raw Survey Results

.. ......................................................................................... 71 Annex C Survey Results by Indicator.................................................................................................... 73 Project Management

................................................................................................................. 78 Procurement...................................................................................................... 80 Asset Management

............................................................................................ 84 Information Management

..................................................................... 87 List of symbols/abbreviations/acronyms/initialisms

.............................................................................................................................. 89 Distribution list

xii DRDC Atlantic CR 2008-188

List of figures

....................................................................................... 2 Figure 1: Expedition 09 Project Structure

........................................................ 8 Figure 2: The Expectations Tier of the Treasury Board MAF

............................................................. 8 Figure 3: The Indicators Tier of the Treasury Board MAF

.............................................................. 9 Figure 4: The Measures Tier of the Treasury Board MAF

........................................................................... 10 Figure 5: Structure of the Treasury Board MAF

........................................................................... 13 Figure 6: Expectations Tier of the DRDC MAF

..................................... 14 Figure 7: The Stewardship Element of the DRDC MAF, Indicators Tier

................................. 20 Figure 8: The Accountability Element of the DRDC MAF, Indicators Tier

DRDC Atlantic CR 2008-188 xiii

List of tables

........................................................................................................ 14 Table 1: Levels of Management

Table 2: Measures for Stewardship Indicators: Financial Management and Control; Project Management; Asset Management; and Information Management ................................. 15

....................................................... 21 Table 3: Accountability in the Treasury Board MAF, Round V

............................................................................................... 22 Table 4: Measures for Accountability

................................................................................ 23 Table 5: Questions for Accountability Element

............................................................................................... 28 Table 6: Level within DRDC by Unit

.................. 28 Table 7: Unit Types: Science and Technology, Corporate, Combination, or Individual

............................................................................................... 29 Table 8: Budgeting Authority by Unit

Table 9: If you are identified as a project manager in CPME, do you have sufficient delegated authority to execute your duties? .................................................................................... 30

................... 31 Table 10: Significance of Contributing Factors to Failure to Meet Project Milestones

................................................................ 31 Table 11: Clients and Providers of Procurement Services

Table 12: Number of Procurement Specialists to Number of Procurement Specialists with Training ........................................................................................................................... 32

.............................................................. 32 Table 13: Procurement Process and Ease of Use for Client

.............................................. 35 Table 14: Adherence to Financial Deadlines and Reasons for Failure

Table 15: Reasons for Missing Deadlines for Reporting Financial Forecasts to your Supervisor ....................................................................................................................... 36

................................... 36 Table 16: Financial Record Keeping and Adherence to Financial Deadlines

Table 17: Procurement Process Ease-of-Use and Relationships Between Project Managers and Functional Specialists............................................................................................... 37

Table 18: Client Use of Procurement Process and Relationships Between Project Managers and Functional Authorities .............................................................................................. 37

Table 19: Treasury Board MAF Assessment Scale – Round IV....................................................... 40

Table 20: Treasury Board Assessments Compared to DRDC Stewardship Element........................ 45

xiv DRDC Atlantic CR 2008-188

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the significant contributions of a number of colleagues or clients. Dr. Dominika Wranik, Dalhousie School of Public Administration, provided key advice and critique during the development of the survey instrument for the Stewardship Element. Ms. Cathy Poulain, DRDC Atlantic, implemented the survey instrument on the DRDC Atlantic ORACLE® server, and supported the execution of the survey remotely, while on holiday. Messrs. Ed Pitula, Jim S. Kennedy, and Keith Hendy, together with Drs. Jim L. Kennedy and Joe Arbour, all of DRDC, willingly performed pilot testing of the survey instrument. Dr. Peter Aucoin, Dalhousie University School of Public Administration, guided the development of the Accountability element reported herein, to allow an early start to be made in preparations for Cycle 2 of the project.

DRDC Atlantic CR 2008-188 xv


xvi DRDC Atlantic CR 2008-188

1 Vision of a Steady-State DRDC MAF

The DRDC Management Accountability Framework (MAF) is a governance tool that facilitates dialogue between managers and executive leadership, helping to clarify managers’ understanding of their roles and responsibilities and providing a framework for assessment and improvement of business processes.

The Process

Annually, DRDC managers will complete a survey instrument that examines practices relevant to the elements of the DRDC MAF. Corporate staff will analyze and report on survey results at both the Agency and Centre level, in the context of the elements of the DRDC MAF. Survey design will vary from year-to-year, according to the results of prior surveys and Corporate or Centre organizational needs.

The Participants

Level 2 managers, Level 3 managers, and key Level 4 functional authorities will complete the survey. DRDPO staff will lead the analysis and reporting of survey results. CORA staff will support DRDPO staff in survey design and execution.

The CEO/DRDC will use the results of analyses to support the Deputy Minister’s accountabilities to the Treasury Board Secretariat. Level 2 managers (Directors General and COS/ADM(S&T) will use the results of analyses to support organizational development and process improvement. Level 3 managers and Level 4 functional authorities will use the results of analyses to support self-improvement.

The Resources

Survey participation will be mandatory for Level 2 and 3 managers, and selected Level 4 functional authorities. It will require one to two hours per year, per survey participant. DRDPO staff will require approximately one month per year for analysis and reporting, and one month for planning the next cycle. CORA staff will require one month per year for survey instrument development and support. Resources for executive or managerial response to the analysis are part of managing the organization, not the DRDC MAF.

DRDC Atlantic CR 2008-188 1

2 Introduction

Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC), a special operating agency of the Department of National Defence, contracted Dalhousie University to support the development of a management accountability framework as part of DRDC’s EXPEDITION 09 project. This is the first of a series of reports describing Dalhousie University’s work under the contract.

EXPEDITION 09 is DRDC’s core organizational change initiative, following an earlier change initiative, EXPEDITION 07. The EXPEDITION series established the principle of an ‘umbrella,’ agency-wide change program, under the control of the DRDC Executive Committee, demonstrating organizational support. Figure 1 illustrates the project structure of EXPEDITION 09 schematically. This contract report supports Task 3 of WBE 1.4: Management Leadership Capabilities.

EXPEDITION 09

WBE i WBE n WBE 1.4: Management Leadership Capabilities

Task 1: Management Workload

Task 2: Management Leadership Development

Task 3: Management Accountability Framework

Figure 1: Expedition 09 Project Structure

The contract calls for Dalhousie University to support a cyclic development process for a DRDC management accountability framework (MAF), as follows:

• “Cycle ‘Zero’: Establishing executive direction, developing a basis MAF, and obtaining management cadre input at the 2008 DRDC Managers’ Workshop (1 December 2007 to 11 April 2008)

• Cycle 1: Developing a Cycle 1 MAF from Cycle Zero output and testing through collaborative workshop of DRDC Deputy Directors General; revising the Cycle 1 MAF

2 DRDC Atlantic CR 2008-188

and conducting an operational pilot of one element of the MAF across DRDC; analyzing the operational pilot , revising the MAF and reporting to the DRDC Executive Committee (15 April to 5 September 2008)

• Cycle 2: Subject to DRDC Executives’ acceptance of Cycle 1 results, preparing materials and conducting a workshop of DRDC Deputy Directors General; preparing a Cycle 2 MAF; conducting an operational pilot of the Risk Management and Accountability elements; analyzing the pilot, revising the MAF as necessary and reporting to the 2009 DRDC Managers’ Workshop; conducting an operational pilot of the Policy and Programs, People, and Stewardship elements; analyzing the pilot and editing the MAF as necessary; reporting the final Cycle 2 MAF to the DRDC Executive (8 September 2008 to 25 September 2009)”1

This report describes the results of the following activities under Cycle 1 of the process: 2• Develop a Cycle 1 MAF based on the Cycle 0 ‘straw-man MAF’ through research and

consultation with DRDC Deputy Directors General and the DRDC Corporate Services functional authorities and managers.

o The Cycle 1 MAF includes a complete Expectations tier and those elements of the Indicators and Measures tiers necessary for an operational pilot

• Plan, execute and analyze an operational pilot of the Stewardship element

• Working in parallel with the operational pilot, develop other elements of the Indicators and Measures tiers

• Revise the Cycle 1 MAF as necessary as a result of the pilot

The structure of the report is as follows:

• Section 3 introduces the Treasury Board MAF, providing background on its development and implementation.

• Section 4 describes the work conducted for the DRDC contract with Dalhousie University for Cycle 1, following the development process of the Stewardship element within Expectations, Indicators, and Measures tiers.

• Section 5 introduces Cycle 2 and work done on the three tiers of the Accountability Element.

• Section 6 presents the results of the Cycle 1 survey of DRDC management on Stewardship, along with a comparison to other scientific departments.

1 “MGMT. ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK,” PWGSC Contract W7707-074191, dated

2008-04-09, Annex: Dalhousie proposal, p. 2 2 Nethercote, W.C.E., “A DRDC Management Accountability Framework: A Straw-man, April

2008,” Dalhousie University School of Public Administration, Discussion Paper, April 21, 2008


• Section 7 builds on Section 6, providing additional analysis across indicators within Stewardship that demonstrate the utility of a survey-based MAF

• Section 8 presents Treasury Board assessments of other scientific departments’ MAF implementation, highlighting Treasury Board expectations and then comparing other departments’ stewardship assessments to the information collected during the Cycle 1 DRDC MAF survey

• Section 9 presents plans for Cycle 2

• Section 10 presents concluding remarks, and

• Several Annexes provide details of the survey instrument and both raw and summarized survey results.


3 The Treasury Board MAF

In Results for Canadians, the Treasury Board sought and then drafted public service values for all departments, universal standards aimed at achieving top public sector management. Four themes define public sector values and provide the basis for the management accountability framework.

Respect for democracy recognizes that authority rests with democratically elected officials who are accountable to Parliament, and thereby to the Canadian people. A well-performing public service takes its democratic responsibilities seriously, constantly providing ministers, Parliament and the public with full and accurate information on the results of its work.

Professional values require government employees to provide high quality, impartial advice on policy issues while committing to the design, delivery and continuous improvement of programs and services to Canadians.

Ethical values (integrity, trust and honesty) are the personal cornerstone of good governance and democracy. They require public servants to support the common good at all times and recognize the need for openness, transparency and accountability in what they do and how they do it.

People values include courage, decency, responsibility and humanity. In a well-performing workplace, they show themselves in respect, civility, fairness and caring. Values-driven organizations support learning and

While values are an important determinant of individual and organizational action, the Treasury Board goes farther when discussing the benefits of public sector renewal. The Treasury Board states:

Responsive and well-managed federal organizations, oriented to the needs of citizens and working in collaboration with other levels of government and with the private and not-for-profit sectors, are critical to the achievement of national goals. Developing excellence in these organizations requires a vision of modern public management, a frank assessment of the gaps between that vision and reality, a practical agenda for change and a motivated workforce to bring it all together.3

3 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Result for Canadians: A Management

Framework for the Government of Canada. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2007, p. 1.


The Treasury Board’s agenda for change includes departmental adoption of a management accountability framework.

In 2003, the Treasury Board introduced a draft MAF for bilateral discussions between deputy ministers and the Secretary of the Treasury Board to discuss its ten core elements of public service management.4 The MAF uses an integrative approaching, combining the ten elements to show what the Treasury Board, and the public indirectly, expects of managers:

• Governance and Strategic Directions • Public Service Values

• Policy and Programs • People

• Risk Management • Stewardship

• Results and Performance • Learning, Innovation and Change Management

• Citizen-focused Service • Accountability

In 2004, the Treasury Board, with 35 federal departments and agencies, developed management priorities based on the ten elements.5 From this, the Treasury Board identified 41 indicators and in 2005, it assessed 53 departments and agencies against the indicators. At this time, the Treasury Board did not intend to review management quality; instead, it was looking for performance compared to the specific indicators.6 The latest round of assessments, conducted in 2006, expanded to 55 departments and agencies.7 The Treasury Board revised the 2004 indicators based on departmental and agency input,8 and to focus on management aspects it could assess easily through normal oversight activities. Information sources included estimates, management resources and results structures (e.g., program activity architectures, Memoranda to Cabinet, and Treasury Board submissions), and existing consultations.9

4 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, “MAF Assessments – Round I,” (Treasury Board of

Canada Secretariat, 2007), http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/assessments-evaluations_e.asp#r1.

5 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, “MAF Assessments – Round II,” (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2007), http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/assessments-evaluations_e.asp#r2.

6 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, “Round III (2005),” (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2007), http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2005/index_e.asp.

7 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, “List of Departments and Agencies assessed during MAF Round IV,” (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2007), http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2006/departments-ministeres_e.asp.

8 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, “MAF Assessments – Round IV,” (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2007), http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/assessments-evaluations_e.asp#r4.

9 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, “MAF Elements and Indicators - 2006,” (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2007), http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/indicators-indicateurs/2006/elements-elements_e.asp.


The three MAF tiers detail the commitments senior managers make as departmental leaders. The top tier, Expectations, defines leadership standards and recognizes that successful management relies on the connection between each element. The second tier, Indicators, supports Expectations, providing practical descriptions easily adapted to an agency’s unique context. The bottom tier, Measurements, is an expression of each element’s performance standards. While the expectations are constant, a MAF recognizes departments and agencies are unique by allowing flexibility in definition of Indicators and Measures.

As Figure 2 shows, governance and strategic directions, public service values, learning, innovation and change management, and results and performance frame the MAF. These elements guide good management, enclosing the elements required to make good decisions.10 In essence, the elements focus on the capacity and capability within a department. It does not address a department’s relationship with its Minister and it does not discuss horizontal collaboration.11 These limitations result from the scope of the MAF, which provides for a dialogue between the Treasury Board and senior managers on the expectations of departmental leadership

3.1 Expectations Tier The elements of the Expectations tier in Figure 2 describe the Treasury Board’s expectations of senior managers in the Government of Canada. This framework overcomes silo thinking by emphasizing the relationship between each of the elements. For example, although Stewardship can be narrowly considered a financial activity, managing human resources has significant impact on financial performance. In addition to the People element, Policy and Program directives connect intimately to Stewardship decisions. A manager may find that project failure is due to limited resources, but without sound financial management, it is a challenge to overcome the problem. A manager succeeds at delivering high-quality public service by meeting the expectations of each element. To meet expectations, managers need performance indicators and clear measures, detailed in the remaining MAF tiers.

3.2 Indicators Tier

The indicators describe the breadth of the elements. The Treasury Broad intends that Deputy Ministers engage their executive councils in discussions of the items listed in the indicators to determine how well their department reflects the MAF’s expectations.

10 Ivan Blake, Management Accountability Framework, (Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat:

2005), http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/documents/video-video/video-video_e.asp11 Ibid.


http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/documents/video-video/video-video_e.asp

Figure 2: The Expectations Tier of the Treasury Board MAF

Figure 3: The Indicators Tier of the Treasury Board MAF


Figure 4: The Measures Tier of the Treasury Board MAF

3.3 Measures Tier

Measures are used to determine how a department functions; unlike Expectations and Indicators, measures may change in response to departmental needs. Sources of information change, particularly when reporting methods change. The measures tier of the Treasury Board MAF lists potential sources, while acknowledging a department may have other, accurate information sources that describe departmental performance. The Treasury Board and Privy Council Office use information found through the measures to engage Deputy Ministers on their department’s performance. Depending on performance, certain measures may be more important for discussion than others. For example, a department may perform well at risk management but could benefit from improvement in its accountability guidelines. In this case, the Treasury Board, Privy Council Office, and Deputy Minister would focus on accountability at the expense of risk management.


4 The Development Process for the Cycle 1 DRDC MAF

The DRDC MAF is being developed in a cyclic process, to offer the opportunity for ongoing testing and management response at various stages in the development. This reduces the risk of delivery of a product with serious flaws.

The DRDC MAF is being developed using the structure of the Treasury Board MAF as a model (see Figure 5, below), thereby ensuring that DRDC’s MAF will be able to support departmental reporting under the Treasury Board MAF. This, like cyclic development, is also a risk reduction measure.

Expectations

Indicators Measures

Figure 5: Structure of the Treasury Board MAF

The focal point of the Treasury Board MAF is the Deputy Head of a Department, whereas for the DRDC MAF, the focal point will be the manager. This implies that the DRDC MAF will be more operational, even tactical, than strategic, and so the vernacular will have to change from that of the Deputy, to that of a manager. Thus, a key part of the development process is the redefinition of the elements of the MAF in the managers’ vernacular.

Redefinition of the elements of the Expectations Tier was a consultative process, collecting input from the Deputy Directors General, Corporate Services communities, and the DRDC R&D Executive Committee. In a sense, this was editorial work, but by subject matter experts, not copy editors.

Redefinition of the elements of the Indicators and Measures tiers was a more difficult process. Editing would not be enough to ensure managers’ understanding of and support for the DRDC MAF. Instead, prior Treasury Board applications of the MAF to the Department of National Defence were examined. By examining the Treasury Board Secretariat call documents for the


MAF, and DND’s response to them, it was possible to clearly see the operational implications of the MAF, and so identify operationally-oriented rather than policy-oriented expressions of indicators and measures. These operationally-oriented indicators and measures were then evaluated through consultation.

Finally, it was decided that a survey instrument should be the interface between the DRDC MAF and DRDC managers to reduce MAF-related workload. Having developed DRDC measures, questions were developed for a survey instrument to address the Measures. The survey instrument was implemented by DRDC staff on an ORACLE® server within the DRDC intranet, and presented to managers as a web-based instrument.

4.1 The Cycle 1 DRDC MAF: Stewardship Element The first element to be examined in the cyclic development process is stewardship, which is, or should be, one of the most pervasive qualities of an organization, especially in the public sector.

Steward: a person whose responsibility it is to take care of something; trans verb, act as steward of … Stewardship: noun12

Wikipedia says that:

[i]n an organizational context, stewardship refers to management's responsibility to properly utilize and develop its resources, including its people, its property and its financial assets..13

Both these definitions of stewardship are apparent in the Treasury Board MAF’s statement of stewardship, considering the “other person” to be represented in the public purse:

The departmental control regime (assets, money, people, services, etc.) is integrated and effective, and its underlying principles are clear to all staff.

14, where the element statements are: The Treasury Board Indicators tier reinforces this

• Management systems that provide relevant information and early warning on resources, results and controls

• Rigorous audit/evaluation function

• Functional specialists as partners

• Compliance with policies, regulations, and legislation 15 is described as: Similarly, the Stewardship element in the TB MAF Measures Tier

• Risk-based audit plans (reviewed regularly) and follow-up

• Progress in integrating corporate information systems and controls

• Audit findings and control failures

12 Concise Canadian Oxford Dictionary, Oxford university Press: Don Mills, 2005. 13 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewardship, downloaded March 7, 2008 14 www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/images/maf-rcg-02_e.gif, downloaded October 4, 2007 15 www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/images/maf-rcg-03_e.gif, downloaded October 4, 2007.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewardship

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/images/maf-rcg-02_e.gif

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/images/maf-rcg-03_e.gif

• Quality assurance in contracting, financial, knowledge and asset management, and IT stewardship

More detailed and up-to-date descriptions of elements for stewardship can be drawn from the Treasury Board website.16

The 2006 (Round IV) MAF assessment for the Department of National Defence was used as a starting point for the development of the DRDC Stewardship element. Reference will not be made to DND performance; instead, the Round IV process provides examples of Departmental Indicators and Measures, as a starting point for the managerial levels of DRDC.

4.2 The Cycle 1 DRDC MAF: Expectations Tier The Expectations tier for the DRDC MAF is shown in Figure 6. As a result of development of indicators and measures for the accountability element (Section 5 of this report), the accountability element has been changed from that approved by the R&D Executive Committee17 for cycle 1:

Accountabilities for results are clearly assigned and consistent with resources, and delegations are appropriate to capabilities.18

to:

Accountability for results are clearly assigned and are consistent with resources, and delegations are consistent with capabilities.

This replacement of ‘appropriate to’ by ‘consistent with’ is believed to be more readily understood by the management cadre, on the basis of discussions during consultations with the Deputy Directors General and Corporate Services Communities.

16 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, “TB Management Accountability Framework,” Treasury

Board of Canada Secretariat, 2005, http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/index_e.asp. 17 DRDC R&D Ecutive Committee Meeting, 17 June 2008. 18 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, “TBS Management Accountability Framework – Text

Version,” (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2005), http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/documents/booklet-livret/text-texte_e.asp#g1


http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/index_e.asp

Governance Defence R&D Canada Agency Values* Results and And

Strategic Through its actions, DRDC leadership continually reinforces the importance of the agency’s values through delivery of results to the Canadian Forces and defence and security partners.

Performance Direction

Relevant information on results (internal, service and program) is gathered and used to make decisions in DRDC, and departmental and public reporting is balanced, transparent, and easy to understand.

The DRDC Charter, the Defence Science and Technology Strategy and the DND Business Planning process ensure effective support and functional S&T authority for Government, the Canadian Forces, and defence and security partners

Policy & Programs People Service

DRDC provides functional authority and deliverables in science and technology for DND, the CF and security partners.

DRDC’s people and work environment provide S&T leadership and expertise in defence and security, now and for the future.

Services are client and partner-centred, policies and programs address client and partner needs, and partnerships are encouraged and effectively managed.

* DRDC values are commitment, a client focus, creativity and innovation, leadership, professionalism and integrity, and trust and respect

Figure 6: Expectations Tier of the DRDC MAF

4.3 The Cycle 1 DRDC MAF: Indicators Tier The elements for the Indicators tier of the Cycle 1 DRDC MAF were developed as required by the project schedule, beginning with Stewardship, which was the focus of the Cycle 1 operational pilot study. No changes were proposed to the straw-man element for Stewardship as a result of consultations. Thus the Stewardship element Indicators tier for the Cycle 1 DRDC MAF is as proposed in the straw-man MAF, as shown in Figure 7.

Risk Stewardship Accountability Management

The DRDC control regime (assets, money, people, services, etc.) is integrated and effective, and its underlying principles are clear to all staff

Accountabilities for results are clearly assigned and are consistent with resources, and delegations are consistent with capabilities.

DRDC prepares for, manages and exploits risk in the science and technology environment.

Learning, Innovation and Change Management

DRDC fosters creativity, innovation and change, promotes organizational learning, values corporate knowledge, and learns from its performance (to

better support the defence and security community).


Stewardship

Financial Management & Control Project Management

Procurement Asset Management


Figure 7: The Stewardship Element of the DRDC MAF, Indicators Tier

4.4 The Cycle 1 DRDC MAF: Measures Tier Earlier discussion identified the need to address the managers’ vernacular in the DRDC MAF, and Nethercote19 extended this requirement to accepting the notion that different Indicators and Measures tiers might be required for different levels of management. Cycle 1 analysis determined that this distinction was appropriate only for the Measures tier.

The following sub-sections present measures elements in a tabular format to enable a more detailed view than would the TB framework format. The tables present measures for the indicators identified in the previous Section and assigns each measure to an appropriate ‘Organization Level,’ or level of management. Levels of management are defined as in Table 1. Although Table 1 describes Level 4, the measures tables do not address level 4 explicitly; instead, Level 4 performance would be assessed against Level 3 Measures.

Table 1: Levels of Management

Organizational Level

Incumbents

Level 1 CEO DRDC Level 2 Directors General, Chief of Staff/ADM(S&T) Level 3 Deputy Directors General, Chief Scientists, Directors, Scientific Section

Heads, Managers Level 4 Functional Authorities, Supervisors

19 Nethercote, W.C.E., p. 13


4.5 The Stewardship Element

Nethercote described the development of indicators for the straw-man steward ship element earlier20 and that development will not be repeated here. There were few comments directed to the Measures tier in consultations and so Table 2 presents the same measures, together with their association with organizational levels.

Table 2: Measures for Stewardship Indicators: Financial Management and Control; Project Management; Asset Management; and Information Management

Org. Level Measures for Financial Management and Control

1 2 3

Delegations:

X X X • Subordinates execute their delegated authorities effectively

X X X • Subordinates have been trained/validated for necessary delegations

Financial Reporting:

X • Timely, accurate financial reports as required by ADM (Fin CS)

X • Timely, accurate financial reports as required by DGRDCS X • Validated FMAS entries and forecasts as required by local FI

X X X • End-of-year expenditures within budget/forecast tolerance set by

superior

Preparedness for Audit:

X • Financial records suitable for random selection for internal audit

Org. Level Measures for Project Management 1 2 3 Efficient, effective and economical project management

Organization of Work:

• All activities of the unit can be associated with and charged against a

20 Nethercote, W.C.E., pp. 15-17


CPME/FMAS project coding X X

Project Organization:

X X • Project Manager and other authorities have appropriate delegations and authorities

• Project manager has appropriate links to functional authorities X

X • Project documentation includes appropriate responsibility matrix, or equivalent

X X • The project plan strikes an appropriate balance between resources, schedule and goals.

Project Oversight:

X • The Project Manager reports routinely to an oversight body (TAG, SRB, etc.) independent of his chain-of-command21

• Project reporting is adequate to assess performance against objectives X

Project Resources:

X X • The project staff, whether management, administration or subject matter experts, are adequate in number and capability

• Project funds are adequate to support the schedule and goals X X

Org. Level Measures for Asset Management 1 2 3

Capital Planning: X • A strategic capital plan is maintained

• A local capital equipment plan is maintained and available for both budgeted and opportunity funds

X X

Real Property:

21 It is assumed that Project Managers are Level 3 Managers or members of Level 3 organizations,

thus Level 3 is identified as accountable


X • A strategic real property plan is maintained

X • A local real property inventory and development plan is maintained

• A local real property minor development/maintenance plan is executed on an ongoing basis

X

• A local inventory and management plan for contaminated sites is in place

X

Materiel Management:

X • Materiel management organizations make stocking decisions for stores based on life-cycle and whole-of-organization costing

• Materiel management organizations conduct validation of inventory and disposal of assets on an ongoing basis

X

• Line managers review asset holdings annually and release appropriate assets for disposal

X

Org. Level Measures for Information Management 1 2 3

Corporate Information:

X • Accurate program information is available through CPME and FMAS

• Centre responds to ATI requests in a timely and efficient manner X • Centre maintains an effective records management system X

• Information is protected appropriately, whether against loss or against inappropriate exposure X X

Scientific Information:

X • An effective peer and management review process ensuring that S&T outputs are timely

• An effective document review process ensures that S&T outputs are timely

X

• Policies and processes are in place to preserve the availability of primary data for future researchers

X


5 The Accountability Element for Cycle 2

Accountability is a key feature of bureaucracy and of the governance of organizations in general. There are many definitions of the term, whether popular, for example:

Accountability: the quality or state of being accountable; especially: an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions 22.

23Accountability: the allocation or acceptance of responsibility for actions

or learned, for example Osbaldeston says:

Accountability is the obligation of [someone] to answer to a person or group for the exercise of responsibilities conferred upon him by that person or group.24

Osbaldeston’s definition neglects holding managers to account. Aucoin, Smith and Dinsdale address this deficiency:

Accountability: to justify, explain or defend one’s actions (or those of one’s subordinates) based on powers and responsibilities bestowed by a superior authority. The account may encompass a statement of any necessary corrective action to be taken. The superior authority has the obligation to hold to account all those on whom it has bestowed powers and responsibilities.25

Responsibility is a constant feature of definitions of accountability and the two terms are often confused (even more so in French, due to vocabulary). Osbaldeston wrote of management responsibility as “the requirement for [someone] to respond to the concerns of individuals or groups within the overall context of their accountability obligations,26 where one could interpret ‘accountability obligations’ as functional duties or a managerial role. The Somalia Inquiry addressed the differences as follows:

Responsibility is not synonymous with accountability. One who is authorized to act or exercise authority is ‘responsible.’ Responsible officials are held to account. An individual who exercises powers while acting in the discharge of official functions is responsible for the proper powers or duties assigned.27

A useful definition for a manager lies in a National Defence document, Organization and Accountability, which solidly links the triad of responsibility, authority and accountability.

22 Mirriam-Webster On-line Dictionary, http://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/accountability, accessed 24 July 2008 23 The Business Network, http://dictionary.bnet.com/definition/Accountability.html, accessed 24

July 2008 24 Gordon F. Osbaldeston, Keeping Deputy Ministers Accountable, (Toronto: McGraw-Hill

Ryerson, 1989), p. 8. 25 Peter Aucoin, Jennifer Smith, and Geoff Dinsdale, Responsible Government: Clarifying

essentials, dispelling myths and exploring change, (Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Management Development, 2004), p. 88

26 Osbaldeston, p. 5. 27 Canada, Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces to

Somalia, Dishonoured Legacy: The Lessons of the Somalia Affair, (Ottawa: Public Works and Government services Canada, 1997), p. 393 [Amendments by the authors.]


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accountability


http://dictionary.bnet.com/definition/Accountability.html

Furthermore, Organization and Accountability introduces the concept that delegated authorities and responsibilities bring with them the implicit obligation to act:

Having a responsibility involves having the authority and the obligation to act, including the authority to direct or authorize others to act. It also means being accountable for how those responsibilities have been carried out in light of agreed or set expectations, particular duties, or obligations. In a public sector organization … each individual is obliged to account fully and promptly to those who, in the hierarchy, conferred the responsibilities, for the way they have been carried out and for how the relevant authorities have been used.28

This description is in the spirit of Elliot Jacques’ three level managerial linkage where “one person – the manager – is held accountable not only for the quality of his own performance, but also for the quality of performance of others – his subordinates.”29 The manager may delegate responsibilities to subordinates (indeed, ordinarily must do so) but cannot escape accountability to his own manager (the manager-once-removed) for those delegated responsibilities (and authorities). The manager must have requisite delegated authority from the manager-once-removed to exploit the resources assigned, whether human or financial.

Inevitably, reference to accountability is associated with some form of misbehaviour: ‘shame and blame.’ The Somalia and Gomery inquiries are but two notable examples. It has been argued that “in fact, accountability should be viewed as that which is exchanged for the devolution of authority. It can be a positive opportunity to demonstrate performance results against the expectations of those who have faith and trust in an individual, an element of the organization, or the organization itself.”30

Demonstration of performance against expectations implies a regime of reporting and review: the subordinate reports to the superior and the superior reviews performance. This regime should be as much about the superior acting in a manner to support continuous improvement of the subordinate’s performance, as being about reward or punishment. An accountability regime should not only support an environment of compliance, but also of assurance and continuous improvement.31

5.1 Accountability for the DRDC MAF The Expectations Tier for the Cycle 1 DRDC MAF uses the TBS accountability statement without amendment.32 The wording of the statement is clear, albeit with the observation that “delegations appropriate to capabilities” is perhaps outside vernacular use. ‘Delegations

28 Organization and Accountability: Guidance for Members of the Canadian Forces and

Employees of National Defence. Second Edition, Sept 1999, Ch IV, p. 2 29 Elliot Jacques, A General Theory of Bureaucracy, (London, Heinemann Educational Books

Ltd., 1976), p. 63 30 “Strengthening Accountability and Comptrollership in National Defence,” Department of

National Defence, 16 June 2004, p. C8/22 31 Peter Aucoin and Mark D. Jarvis, Modernizing Government Accountability: A Framework for

Reform (Ottawa: Canada School of Public Service, 2005), 9. 32 The DRDC CEO endorsed the Expectations Tier at the June 17, 2008 RDEC meeting, noting the

opportunity for amendment during future work (indeed, as happened during development of the Accountability element).


consistent with capabilities’ might be more readily understood, and so we propose the following for the Expectations Tier in Cycle 2:

Accountabilities for results are clearly assigned and consistent with resources, and delegations are consistent with capabilities.

5.2 Indicators for Accountability The TBS Indicators Tier would be acceptable for use by DRDC, but could benefit from some revision. “Clear accountabilities and responsibilities for due process and results” is an expression that should resonate with any public servant, regardless of organization. “Delegations appropriate to capabilities” has already been addressed, and the same amendment might be adopted: ‘Delegations consistent with capabilities.’ The last indicator, “Cascading commitments in Performance Management Agreement(s)” would most benefit from amendment since ‘Performance Management Agreement’ (PMA) is not a term used widely outside the EX community. DRDC managers, whether in the scientific (DS), technical (generally ENG) or corporate services (typically AS) communities, may have performance objectives or goals for the next review period, but do not associate themselves with PMAs, per se. A statement such as Subordinates’ goals reflect those assigned to their supervisors would better reflect the management vernacular of DRDC. Figure 8 illustrates this proposed DRDC Indicators Tier.

Accountability

Clear accountabilities and responsibilities for due process and results

Delegations consistent with capabilities

Subordinates’ goals reflect those assigned to their supervisors

Figure 8: The Accountability Element of the DRDC MAF, Indicators Tier

5.3 Measures for Accountability The Measures Tier of the TBS MAF includes four measures for Accountability:

o Clarity of accountabilities

o Delegations regularly reviewed

o Executive committee oversight of performance management and regular review of performance


33o Alignment of individual with corporate commitments.” Round V of the TBS MAF addressed these only partly, as shown in Table 3:

Table 3: Accountability in the Treasury Board MAF, Round V

“Accountabilities for results are clearly assigned and consistent with resources, and delegations are appropriate to capabilities.

Alignment of Accountability Instruments - The organization has a healthy and effective performance management system to hold executives accountable for results

Evidence: Alignment of executive performance agreements with organizational business

plans and the Clerk's priorities

Clear relationship between performance and performance pay and consistency and equity in assessment of results

Effective administration of the PMP, stakeholder awareness and linkages to other human resources applications including talent management

Possible Sources: PMP Annual or Triennial Scorecard (due September 30 each year)

PMP Report (due June 30 each year)

Key Relevant Policies: Policy on the Management of Executives

Directive on the Performance Management Program for executives Q. Does the organization have a healthy and effective performance management program for executives?”34

33 http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/documents/booklet-livret/text-texte_e.asp#g1 accessed 30 June

2008 34 http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/indicators-indicateurs/2007/accountability-

responsabilisation/accountability-responsabilisation_e.asp accessed 30 June 2008


http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/documents/booklet-livret/text-texte_e.asp#g1

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/indicators-indicateurs/2007/accountability-responsabilisation/accountability-responsabilisation_e.asp

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/indicators-indicateurs/2007/accountability-responsabilisation/accountability-responsabilisation_e.asp

Table 4 presents potential measures for the accountability element of the DRDC MAF.

Table 4: Measures for Accountability

Org. Level Clear accountabilities and responsibilities for due process and results

1 2 3

PMAs/Management Goals:

X X • PMAs or management goals are set by or agreed with superior managers

• PMAs or management goals include elements tied to milestones identified in CPME (the DRDC program formulation tool) for which the manager’s organization is responsible.

X X

X X • PMAs or management goals are expressed to identify measurable

products.

Org. Level Delegations consistent with capabilities

1 2 3

Delegations:

X X • Managers have received the training necessary to execute the delegations normally associated with their position.

• Managers hold delegation validations based on passing ADM (FinCS) on-line testing within the past three years.

X X

Org. Level Subordinates’ goals reflect those assigned to their superiors.

1 2 3

PMAs/Management Goals:

X X • PMAs or management goals, if achieved, will support the achievement of a superior’s PMAs or management goals.


5.4 Draft Survey Instrument for Accountability Accountability addresses a manager’s responsibility, first to require a subordinate to report, and then to review the subordinate’s performance.35

This statement of principle is at the core of the proposed questions for a survey instrument for the DRDC MAF. One consequence of the principle will be a preponderance of questions ‘looking downwards,’ questions that reflect upon a manager’s interactions with his or her subordinates. Looking downwards also reflects the importance of a manager’s subordinates, if the manager is to satisfy his or her own obligations in a three level managerial linkage. Although accountability tends to focus on individual performance, the questions in the survey instrument must also address organizational performance.

The Stewardship element addresses delegated authority; therefore, the following accountability questions do not cover delegated authority. A shared question bank in the survey instrument for the DRDC MAF will help control the size of a survey instrument for the full MAF, thus encouraging survey responses that are carefully considered.

Table 5: Questions for Accountability Element

Org. Level Questions for Accountability 1 2 3

X X • Do you have a governance document that sets out the roles, responsibilities and authority of everyone in your organization? (Yes, for everyone; yes, a document for most; yes, a document for some; No document)

X X o Or, do you have a document that sets out the roles, responsibilities and authority of your immediate subordinates? (Yes for all immediate subordinates; Yes for most immediate subordinates; Yes for some immediate subordinates; No document)

o If ‘yes,’ do you have confidence that your staff understand this document? (Likert scale)

X X

• Do you have an organization chart which is consistent with the

governance structure:

X X o Into which you report? (Y/N)

X X o Within which your subordinates work? (Y/N)

• Duties relate to roles, responsibilities and authority (‘due

process’) whereas tasks relate to goals.

35 Private communication, Peter Aucoin, 7 July 2008


o Do you see a distinction between your duties (as would typically be defined by your job description) and tasks assigned to you by your superior? (Y/N)

X X

o Do you make a distinction (either explicitly or implicitly)

between duties and tasks assigned to your subordinates by you? (Y/N)

X X

o Do you regularly review performance of your

subordinates against ongoing duties? (Yes, regularly; sometimes; rarely; never)

X X

o Do you regularly review performance of your subordinates against assigned tasks (as distinct from defined duties)? (Yes, regularly; sometimes; rarely; never)

X X

• Does your superior set performance goals for you, whether inside

a performance management agreement, or as stand-alone management objectives? (Yes, annually; Yes, on an ad hoc basis; No)

X X

o If ‘yes’ do your performance goals support your superior’s

achievement of his or her own goals? (I don’t know; all do; some do; none do)

X X

o If ‘yes’ do your performance goals include measurable standards? (Always; generally; sometimes; rarely; never) X X

o If ‘yes’ does your superior review your performance against your goals? (Always; generally; sometimes; rarely; never)

X X

• Do you set performance goals for your subordinates? (Yes, annually; Yes, on an ad hoc basis; No) X X

o If ‘yes’ do your subordinates’ performance goals support your own performance goals? (All do; some do; none do)

X X

o If ‘yes’ do your subordinates’ performance goals include

measurable standards? (Always; generally; sometimes; rarely; never)

X X

X X o If ‘yes’ do you review your subordinates’ performance against their goals? (Always, generally, sometimes; rarely; never)

• Do you make reports of progress to your superior during a formal

program review? (Yes, twice a year or more; yes, annually; yes, less frequently than annually; No)

X X

o If ‘yes’ are reports of progress compared to organizational


plans, for example by reference to milestones in CPME? (Yes, always; generally, sometimes; rarely; never)

X X

• Do you receive reports of progress from subordinates in

preparation for or during a formal program review? (Yes, twice a year or more; yes, annually; yes, less frequently than annually; No)

X

o If ‘yes’ are reports of progress compared to organizational

plans, for example by reference to milestones in CPME? (Yes, always; generally, sometimes; rarely; never)

X


6 The Cycle 1 Operation Pilot

36In an earlier document, Nethercote described key characteristics of a DRDC MAF , the overall implication being that a DRDC MAF should also be economical of resources. This concern led Dalhousie University to focus on the use of a survey instrument as a vehicle for delivering the DRDC MAF to managers. The Cycle 1 operational pilot used such an instrument to address the Stewardship element.

6.1 Experimental Design The survey instrument was prepared by developing questions relating to the measures in Table 5. These questions were then sorted into the following categories before being checked for redundancy and refined by means of a limited pilot test with five level 3 managers:

• Part A: Management of Your Unit (3 questions);

• Part B: Budget Management (10);

• Part C: Delegated Authorities (7);

• Part D: Work and Project Management (11);

• Part E: Procurement (7);

• Part F: Asset Management (13); and,

• Part G: Information Management (5)

The full set of questions is available in Annex A. Annex B presents raw individual responses and Annex C categorizes responses by stewardship indicators.

The survey presented to managers reorganized the stewardship elements of the management accountability framework. The above sections cross the five components of the element: financial management and control, project management, procurement, asset management, and information management. The majority of questions were qualitative in nature; however, several closed answer choices generated quantifiable data. In two instances, the survey asked for open-ended qualitative responses.

The survey was distributed to 97 of the Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4 functional authorities who attended the DRDC Managers Workshop. The questionnaire was implemented bilingually on the DRDC Atlantic ORACLE® server. Survey participants were provided with a link that could be accessed from anywhere within the DRENet. The survey was active from July 15, 2008 to August 1, 2008. Of the 97 recipients, 24 were on vacation and unavailable to complete the survey. Six responses were invalid; the participants did not complete the survey. Forty-five recipients completed the survey, an effective response rate of 62%. Annex B contains the raw survey data; incomplete responses are marked in black.

The logic tree within the questionnaire resulted in a varying number of questions for respondents: the minimum was 17 and the maximum was 40 for completed surveys.

36 Nethercote, W.C.E., p. 4


The survey had limitations. The overall response rate, 45 of 97 or 46 percent, is due to timing. Many managers take summer vacation; therefore, one must expect a reduced response rate when surveying this group in late July. Nonetheless, a 46 percent response rate provides solid data for social science research. However, the intention of the DRDC MAF is to demonstrate management’s application of standards of practice. As the project develops and moves towards institutionalization, the response rate should move closer to 100 percent. As mentioned above, the survey used closed questions. This prohibits managers from exploring a question that may be confusing. Survey designed can overcome confusion with consultation and focus groups, two methods used to develop the stewardship element of the DRDC MAF. Unfortunately, managers did find questions confusing. Cycle 2 will address this with an earlier start at defining Indicators, Measures and survey questions for Accountability. Development for Risk Management will follow completion of revisions to Accountability. Closed questions also prohibit respondents from providing extra information that may be relevant to the questionnaire. The DRDC MAF can overcome this by using the survey as a basis for conversation between the ADM and senior management. Earlier development of pilot surveys will also reduce schedule risk due to delayed translation, which was an issue in the first pilot. A bilingual survey instrument is warranted, both from an official languages policy perspective and pragmatically. Survey response levels were comparable for the Atlantic, Valcartier and Toronto Centres: this probably would not have been so had an English-only survey been presented to a French-language unit.

Despite these faults, the survey presents benefits. An immediate benefit is timeliness. The survey avoids the strain of the requirement for a lengthy written report. Managers must demonstrate their unit’s progress in several reports, such as an annual report. These documents can take days to prepare. DRDC managers already suffer from long work hours; an additional essay may sequester valuable time. Additionally, the survey asks pointed questions about activity. Many of the Treasury Board MAF assessments look for existing frameworks. The survey goes beyond identifying frameworks by easily allowing managers to demonstrate how they act within a framework.

6.2 Results The raw survey results were delivered as an Excel® file and then analyzed using SPSS®. Extracts from a preliminary analysis follow, organized by Indicator.37

6.2.1 Preliminary Information The following tables provide a participant profile. Table 6 lists the participants who completed the survey by the unit they represent and their rank within DRDC. Table 7 lists the participants by their unit and unit type. When the sample population increases to 100 percent of DRDC managers, analysis could permit unit-by-unit comparison, identifying strong performance worthy of agency-wide adoption.

37 The time between closure of the survey and required reporting to the R&D Executive

Committee did not permit complete analysis. Cycle 2 pilots will be scheduled to address this issue.


Table 6: Level within DRDC by Unit

Level Two Level Three Level Four Total

ATLANTIC 0 9 1 10 Centre CORA 1 2 1 4 COS 0 3 0 3 CS 0 1 2 3 CSS 0 2 0 2 OTTAWA 1 6 0 7 PROGRAMS 1 4 0 5 SUFFIELD 0 1 1 2 TORONTO 1 4 1 6 VALCARTIER 0 6 0 6

Total 4 38 6 48

Table 7: Unit Types: Science and Technology, Corporate, Combination, or Individual

Primarily a science and

technology unit

Primarily a corporate

services unit

Includes both science and technology

and corporate services sub-

units

I have no subordinates

Total

ATLANTIC 6 1 1 2 10 Centre CORA 2 0 0 2 4 COS 1 1 1 0 3 CS 0 3 0 0 3 CSS 0 1 1 0 2 OTTAWA 3 1 3 0 7 PROGRAMS 3 1 1 0 5 SUFFIELD 1 1 0 0 2 TORONTO 3 2 1 0 6 VALCARTIER 4 2 0 0 6

Total 23 13 8 4 48

The following information explores the stewardship elements. Data presented cover financial management and control, project management, procurement, asset management, and information management.


6.2.2 Financial Management and Control Three groups of questions addressed financial management: one group relating to delegated authority (7 questions), another to financial reporting (2 questions), and the third to preparedness for auditing (1 question).

Seventy-nine percent of respondents have budgeting authority. Financial management is an important element of stewardship; therefore, the high proportion of managers with budgeting authority presents a strong portrait of financial practices at DRDC.

Table 8: Budgeting Authority by Unit

Yes No Total

ATLANTIC 8 2 10 Centre CORA 3 1 4 COS 3 0 3 CS 1 2 3 CSS 2 0 2 OTTAWA 5 2 7 PROGRAMS 5 0 5 SUFFIELD 1 1 2 TORONTO 5 1 6 VALCARTIER 5 1 6

Total 38 10 48

Thirty-one respondents have subordinates who require delegated authority under the Financial Administration Act to execute all of their job responsibilities. Twenty-two of these respondents indicated they supervise four or more employees who require delegated authority. Those respondents also indicated that the majority of those who require delegated authority have the necessary training or certification through either the Canada School of Public Service or DND testing. In an environment of accountability, it of concern that of the 22 respondents only 19 indicated that their subordinates have the appropriate training to execute all of their duties. Nineteen of the 31 respondents are always happy with their subordinates’ use of delegated authority, while those remaining were generally happy. Despite the favourable view of subordinates, there were nine instances where subordinates sometimes unnecessarily sought approval to exercise their authority and one instance of the subordinate always seeking unnecessary approval to act.

Thirty-eight respondents provided information on their financial reporting practices. In the last fiscal year, supervisors set end-of-year expenditures budget tolerances for 23 of the respondents. All respondents but one reported being within the budget tolerance. DRDC managers appear to perform very well with their annual budgeting.

Eight respondents to the survey are prepared to deal with an internal audit through an existing filing system. Thirty-two respondents indicated they could rely on an existing filing system with


some additional verbal input, while eight indicated they would have to provide substantial input on top of their existing filing system.

6.2.3 Project Management Three groups of questions addressed project management: project organization (9 questions), organization of work (1) and project oversight (1).

Twenty-two respondents were identified as project managers in CPME and all felt that they had sufficient delegated authority for their project manager role. Thirty-two respondents had subordinates who were project managers, but were less positive about their subordinates. Nineteen respondents said that all their subordinate project managers had sufficient delegated authority; 11 said that some subordinates did, and two respondents said that none of their subordinate project managers had sufficient delegated authorities. Most of these subordinates (25 of 32) generally or always had sound working relationships with financial or procurement functional authorities.

Table 9: If you are identified as a project manager in CPME, do you have sufficient delegated authority to execute your duties?

Not applicable: I am not identified as a project

manager in CPME

Yes, I have sufficient delegated authority

Total

ATLANTIC 5 5 10 Centre CORA 4 0 4 COS 2 1 3 CS 3 0 3 CSS 0 2 2 OTTAWA 3 4 7 PROGRAMS 1 4 5 SUFFIELD 1 1 2 TORONTO 4 2 6 VALCARTIER 3 3 6

Total 26 22 48

In a disturbing number of cases (14 of 35), project documentation for projects managed within a manager’s unit did not include a responsibility matrix or some other formal assignment of responsibilities.

Question 27 examined contributing factors to failure to meet project milestones, as summarized in Table 10. There seems to be a tendency to attribute schedule and resources with the greatest importance as contributing factors to failure.


Table 10: Significance of Contributing Factors to Failure to Meet Project Milestones

SIGNIFICANCE OF CONTRIBUTING FACTOR FACTOR Not very Rarely Sometimes Generally Very

Schedule 0 1 11 19 4 Goals 0 6 17 8 4 Quality of Milestones 2 6 16 8 3 Resources 1 3 8 19 4

With respect to organization of work, only 14 of 38 respondents indicated that funds in their units were always expended against the correct project codes. Finally with respect to project oversight there were only 20 respondents, of which 18 had reported to an oversight body, either a Thrust Advisory Group or a Senior Review Board.

6.2.4 Procurement Six of the 46 respondents identified themselves as “providers of local procurement services” with the balance being “primarily a client.”38 Two of the 6 were Level 2 managers from DRDC Atlantic, in which the second may represent the DDG, or perhaps a line manager who (erroneously) viewed possession of acquisition cards within his Section as ‘providing procurement services.’

Table 11: Clients and Providers of Procurement Services

Blank Primarily a client of local procurement

services

The provider of local procurement

services

Total

ATLANTIC 0 8 2 10 Centre CORA 0 3 1 4 COS 0 3 0 3 CS 0 3 0 3 CSS 0 1 1 2 OTTAWA 0 7 0 7 PROGRAMS 0 5 0 5 SUFFIELD 0 2 0 2 TORONTO 1 4 1 6 VALCARTIER 1 4 1 6

Total 2 40 6 48

Procurement-related questions offer the possibility of examining processes from two viewpoints, that of the provider and that of the client. Cross-tabulation can also be used to examine issues such as training and certification for delegated authorities. Questions 29 and 32, for example, indicate that those Centres with small procurement staffs (3 or less) operate with full certifications, whereas those with larger staffs (4 or more) operate with some procurement

38 Survey: Question 28


specialists who are not fully certified. This may be viewed as offering developmental opportunity, rather than being problematic.

Table 12: Number of Procurement Specialists to Number of Procurement Specialists with Training

Q. 32 How many procurement functional specialists in your unit have the necessary training and certifications for their

delegated authorities?

Blank Two Three Four Total or

more Blank 40 0 0 0 40 None 2 0 0 0 2 One 0 1 0 0 1 Two 0 1 0 0 1

Q 29. How many procurement functional specialists are in your unit?

Three 0 0 2 0 2 Four or more

0 1 0 1 2

Total 42 3 2 1 48

Questions 33 and 34 offer assessments of ease of use of procurement processes and ease of determination of progress of procurement files. More than half of respondents (26 of 43 for question 33 and 22 of 39 for question 34) answered ‘some processes’ or ‘sometimes’, with the next largest group answering ‘most’ or ‘generally’. Only three respondents felt that ‘all’ procurement processes were easy to use, and only four thought that progress of procurement files was easy to track. Need for process improvement, or perhaps better education of what processes are, is apparent.

Table 13: Procurement Process and Ease of Use for Client

Q. 34 Can clients of the internal procurement process in your unit easily determine progress of procurement files.

No Sometimes Generally Yes Total None 1 3 1 0 5 Some 8 15 3 0 26 Most 0 4 8 2 14

Q. 33 How many of the internal procurement processes in your organization are easy to use? All 0 0 1 2 3 Total 9 22 13 4 48


6.2.5 Asset Management Three groups of questions addressed asset management: one group relating to capital planning (3 questions), another to real property management (5 questions) and the third to materiel management (7 questions). The materiel management questions addressed two communities: stores operations and managers with responsibility for protection of assets within their own units.

Thirty-eight respondents to the survey entered the capital plan logic branch. Only 19 of them maintained a strategic capital plan that reflected long-term needs; 5 maintained a strategic capital plan that did NOT meet long-term needs. Eighteen of the respondents maintained a local, budget-based capital plan; 15 maintained no plan at all, while 5 maintained a plan unrelated to budget. Consider the last response together with a third question, where 19 of the 38 said that they “maintain[ed] a local capital equipment plan that allow[ed] exploitation of funds arising outside of the budget allocation.”39 Capital planning does not seem to be a strong suit of DRDC managers, although the task leader’s experience suggests that many may view capital planning as a frustrating exercise when Vote 5 funding is generally in short supply.

Only five respondents to the survey maintained a real property inventory, four of whom were Corporate Services Managers. All maintained real property development plans, as well as management plans for local contaminated sites. Questions were insufficiently probing to determine the adequacy of those plans, but their existence speaks to evidence of stewardship.

Five respondents to the survey had materiel managers reporting to them. Four of five materiel managers “make stocking decisions based on life-cycle analysis,”40 while only two “make stocking decisions based on whole-of-organization costing.”41 Two materiel managers do not validate inventory on an on-going basis, and one of those two does not conduct disposal of assets on an ongoing basis. It would appear that materiel managers execute processes for acquisition of materiel better than they execute processes for maintenance or disposal of materiel. The survey questions do not address whether the processes themselves, the standard operating procedures or policies, are adequate.

Twenty-six respondents were responsible for an inventory, and 18 of the 22 had surveyed their inventory within the annual cycle specified by Treasury Board Secretariat, either personally or through a subordinate. Only 11 of the 26 respondents identified how many accountable assets were in their inventory (Question 46), and only 13 identified how many assets were written off in the past year (Question 47). The survey permitted an “I don’t know” answer for questions 46 and 47; that roughly half of the respondents chose ”I don’t know” suggests either difficult-to-access inventory records or disinterest in stewardship of assets. The first assumption is dangerous: at DRDC Atlantic, most respondents to Question 46 selected the “I don’t know” option, yet the inventory records for every distribution account at DRDC Atlantic are available on-line through the local intranet. The “I don’t know” choice was viewed as unavoidable to encourage survey completion, but is clearly un piège for many managers. Notwithstanding, 18 of 22 met Treasury Board Secretariat standards for frequency, which is positive.

39 Survey: Question 7 40 Survey,: Question 41 41 Survey, Question 42


6.2.6 Information Management Two groups of questions addressed information management: corporate information (8 questions) and scientific information (1 question). Examination of scientific information was limited to the document review process.

Twenty-two respondents were project managers with edit authority in CPME: 10 edited CPME as project changes occurred, 10 made changes annually, and 2 never made changes. Question 8 examined the relationship between managers’ ‘black books’ and FMAS. Of 38 managers with budgets, 10 used FMAS directly, 15 reconciled their black books with FMAS on an on-going basis, 10 did so occasionally, and 3 never did so. Taking these two issues together, one can understand the challenge of generating accurate financial forecasts. In question 11, managers cited the most common reasons for missing financial forecast deadlines as personal workload (6 managers), personal absence (2), inadequate financial records (1), and ‘other’ (3). The apparent insignificance of inadequate financial records seems at odds with responses about reconciling black books, or the claims in question (question 6) that the vast majority of managers met their financial targets.

Eight of eleven respondents always met required response dates for access to information requests. One of the three who responded with the answer ‘usually’ was from the Corporate Services Centre, who as ATI Coordinator, may have been subjected to delays by other Centres.

Of 10 respondents whose units held personnel files, 7 restricted access to human resources staff only, while 3 did not. Restricted access is a DND standard practice, but may not be a Treasury Board Secretariat requirement.

Fifteen respondents of 21 “filed and tracked [classified correspondence] to protect it from both exposure and loss,”42 4 filed classified correspondence but did not track it, and 2 answered “No.” The last is disturbing, unless it represents misinterpretation of the question.

Question 52 of the survey asked science managers “how many scientific documents are under your immediate control at this time for the purposes of your review or approval?” The question was designed to identify ‘log-jambs’ in the document review process. Twenty-three respondents had staff who produced scientific documents, and of those managers, 7 had no documents in hand, 12 had 5 or less, 2 had 10 or less, and 2 had 11 or more. If the choice of five or less is an acceptable level of work-in-progress, then managers in general do not seem to be a major source of delay in the document review process; however, there are clearly two cases, if not 4, where they are.

42 Survey, Question 51


7 Analysis

Surveys present the opportunity for thorough analysis that written reports can sometimes overlook. Related questions across sub-sections of the stewardship element can be compared to draw out information. For example, one can explore if a manager succeeds at reporting on all aspects of his responsibility or if there is a consistent influence, personal workload for example, influencing his success. As the survey instrument develops, analysis can examine the relationships between the ten different elements and determine the strengths and weaknesses of management process. The following cross-tabulations demonstrate the utility of a survey instrument, examining financial management and procurement.

7.1 Financial Management and Control

Table 14: Adherence to Financial Deadlines and Reasons for Failure

Q11. What was the most important or most common reason for missing deadlines for reporting financial forecasts to your supervisor?

Blank Personal workload

Personal absence

Inadequate financial records

Other Total

Blank 36 6 1 1 432 46 Once 0 0 1 0 0 1

Q10. In the last fiscal year, how many times did your unit miss deadlines for reporting financial forecasts to your supervisor?

More than twice

0 0 0 0 441 1

Total 36 6 2 1 3 48

43 One “other” response is from a DRDC Atlantic manager: “Missed early forecasts in the FY.

Forecasts not missed in the last Quarter of the FY.” And the other response is from a DRDC Toronto manager, “Just a general system failure where no single individual (other than me) was responsible.”

44 This response is from a DRDC Atlantic manager who wrote, “Poor communication between the FO with regard to the type and format of information requested (which changed frequently) and the AC who reconciles Black Books with FMAS.”


Table 15: Reasons for Missing Deadlines for Reporting Financial Forecasts to your Supervisor

Unit ATLANTIC Poor communications between the FO with regard to the type and format of information

requested (which changed frequently) and the AC who reconciles Black Books with FMAS.

ATLANTIC Missed early forecasts in the FY. Forecasts not missed in the last Quarter of the FY

OTTAWA Insufficient resources to accurately track all expenditures. Not easy to reconcile FMAS with black book at this time (working on procedures to improve, but workload and personnel roll-

over in admin assistant impeding progress. Approx. 50% or R&D spending is estimated based on partial information.

TORONTO Just a general system failure where no single individual (other than me) was responsible. TORONTO PWGSC delay in awarding contracts

Table 16: Financial Record Keeping and Adherence to Financial Deadlines

Q. 11 What was the most important or most common reason for missing deadlines for reporting financial forecasts to your

supervisor?

Blank Personal workload

Personal absence


Other Total

Blank 10 0 0 0 0 10 Not applicable: I use FMAS directly

6 2 1 0 1 10

On an on-going basis

11 1 1 0 2 15

Occasionally 6 3 0 145 0 10

Q8. How often do you reconcile your unit's 'black books' (your personal system of accounts) with FMAS?

Never 3 0 0 0 0 3 Total 36 6 2 1 3 48

45 It is possible that personal workloads and inadequate financial records would play a smaller role

in missing reporting deadlines if managers regularly reconciled their Black Books with FMAS.


7.2 Procurement

Table 17: Procurement Process Ease-of-Use and Relationships Between Project Managers and Functional Specialists

Q. 25 Do project managers within your unit have sound working relationships with functional financial and procurement

authorities locally?

Blank Sometimes Generally Always Total None 3 1 1 0 5 Some 9 546 1147 1 26 Most 2 1 8 348 14

Q. 33 How many of the internal procurement processes in your organization are easy to use? All 2 0 0 1 3 Total 16 7 20 5 48

Table 18: Client Use of Procurement Process and Relationships Between Project Managers and Functional Authorities

Q. 25 Do project managers within your unit have sound working relationships with functional financial and

procurement authorities locally?

Blank Sometimes Generally Always Total No 3 2 4 0 9 Sometimes 9 5 7 1 22 Generally 2 0 8 3 13

Q. 34 Can clients of the internal procurement process in your unit easily determine progress of procurement files?

Yes 2 0 1 1 494

Total 16 7 20 5 48

With respect to the results of the Cycle 1 pilot per se, the results of the analysis were generally positive barring certain issues:

• Financial Management and Control: Although responses were generally good, there were instances of ineffective use of delegations that suggest a need for professional development of subordinates.

46 It is possible that the relationships will improve with a clear procurement process. 47 This result suggests process is not directly correlated with the relationships between project

managers and functional financial and procurement authorities. 48 However, the results in this row suggest that well defined and clear procurement processes lead

to sound relationships. 49 These results are similar to the preceding table; 17 respondents indicate that project managers

generally or always have a sound relationship with functional financial and procurement authorities when they are generally or always able to determine the progress of their procurement files.


• Project Management: Although project management practices seem to be present in DRDC, there are still many instances where a project management culture is not fully established.

• Procurement: There seem to be issues around procurement processes and reporting. The processes may be a consequence of the FAA, and so invariant, but improved clarity of process and reporting of progress of files might address this issue indirectly.

• Asset Management: Capital planning appears to be weak among level 3 managers.

• Information Management: Project documentation, and financial record reconciliation are both candidates for improvement among level 3 managers.


8 DRDC Performance Relative to Other Scientific Departments

Treasury Board assessments of other scientific departments offer an opportunity to make preliminary comparative assessments of DRDC performance. While a complete analysis of each stewardship indicator is premature, the survey instrument was able to collect data for limited analysis. The following subsections summarize Treasury Board analysis of other science-based departments and agencies, prior to comparing their performance to that of DRDC. An important caveat exists: the Treasury Board analyses examined departmental performance, whereas the DRDC pilot examines managerial performance.

8.1 Performance of Other Scientific Departments This section presents a brief summary of Treasury Board assessments of other federal departments with substantial scientific activity, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Natural Resources Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Canada Food Inspection Agency, Department of Health, and Environment Canada. These Treasury Board assessments are then compared to DRDC. An analysis of the Treasury Board assessments demonstrates its expectations of departmental procedure, which enhances DRDC’s ability to respond to its own Treasury Board assessment.

The following assessments focus on the stewardship element of the management accountability framework. The Treasury Board breaks down stewardship similar to the DRDC MAF; that is, information management, information technology management, asset management, project management, procurement, financial management and control, and audit preparedness. The Treasury Board evaluates each sub-section of the element, using the scale in Table 19, overleaf.

8.1.1 Department of Fisheries and Oceans The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) performed well in the view of the Treasury Board. Of the 19 indicators it assessed DFO against, the Treasury Board determined that there were six areas with opportunity for improvement, the remaining areas either acceptable or better. Its three overall areas of success include utilization of a corporate performance framework, effective information technology management that aligns to the department’s strategic plans and priorities, and meeting citizen and client needs and expectations through extensive consultation.50 Unfortunately, there are several opportunities for improvement within the stewardship element, particularly in information, asset, financial management, and preparedness for an audit.

50 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, “MAF Assessment: Fisheries and Oceans - 2006,”

(Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2008), http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2006/dfo/dfo_e.asp.


51Table 19: Treasury Board MAF Assessment Scale – Round IV

Attention required • Significant deficiencies, or deficiencies in most of the measures listed for the indicator

and/or

• Inadequate attention to the deficiencies

Opportunity for improvement

• Moderate deficiencies, or deficiencies in some of the measures listed for the indicator

and

• Evidence of attention to the deficiencies and progress

Acceptable • No significant deficiencies in any of the measures

and

• Meets Treasury Board Portfolio (TBP) expectations

Strong • No deficiencies in any of the measures

and

• Sustained performance for the indicator that exceeds TBP expectations and suggests continued strong performance

Insufficient information • Neither TBP nor the department currently has the information required for the indicator (for example, because the indicator is new or due to very recent organizational changes).

Not applicable • Does not apply to the Department / Agency

The Treasury Board believes DFO has opportunity for improvement in information management. The department’s weakness is in information released for the Treasury Board’s Info Source publication, which acts as an information repository on government activity that feeds public inquiries under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.52 DFO did not submit the required annual update and its personal information bank contained deficient information.53

DFO lacked a coherent asset management strategy. Within the department, three distinct groups manage real property, small craft harbours, and the Canadian Coast Guard. Accountabilities

51 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, “MAF Assessment Scale – Round IV,” (Treasury Board

of Canada Secretariat, 2007), http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2006/scale-echelle_e.asp.

52 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, “InfoSource Publications,” (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2008), http://www.infosource.gc.ca/index-eng.asp.

53 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, “MAF Assessment: Fisheries and Oceans – 2006.”


between the three groups on shared matters are unclear. The Treasury Board recommends implementing a new framework to integrate data collected and shared by each group. The Contaminated Sites Management Plan contained data integrity errors; however, the Treasury Board notes that DFO is actively addressing this situation. 54

DFO has several financial management issues to address. There were deficiencies in payment verification and no process verifying that Contribution Agreements and Terms and Conditions reflected those approved by the Treasury Board. There was concern that the department was not meeting the Treasury Board Policy on Delegation of Authorities, such as, timely delegation and monitoring. There were also instances of the department making payments to terminated programs, and spending Grants and Contributions funds instead of more appropriate alternatives.55

According to the Office of the Comptroller General, the department’s audit plan can use the following improvements: “rank projects based on risk; include rationale for carry-over projects; provide resource levels; and identify constraints caused by resource levels.” 56

8.1.2 Natural Resources Canada During the 2006 MAF assessment, Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) underwent several senior management changes, which the Treasury Board notes influenced its performance. The department did receive praise for conducting project evaluations, implementing an integrated risk management strategy, employment equity, and a thorough program assessment framework tracking extremely detailed expenditure information.57

The Treasury Board noted opportunities for improvement and required attention in the following areas: information technology, project, procurement, and financial management. 58

NRCan is developing an information technology plan; however, it did not exist at the time of assessment. Without a plan in place, the Treasury Board sees there is room for improvement. 59

NRCan promotes training, continuous learning, and development for all project management staff. It has a project management governance structure for oversight committees, decision-making, and accountability. However, the structure is inconsistent across NRCan and the department was unable to provide evidence that staff adhere to it. 60

The Treasury Board recommends that NRCan’s procurement process would improve if the department adopts a Procurement Management Framework that includes a contracts review committee. This board would supervise all contracting functions, provide guidance, and monitor for quality assurance. 61

54 Ibid. 55 Ibid. 56 Ibid. 57 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, “MAF Assessment: Natural Resources Canada - 2006,”

(Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2008), http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2006/rsn/rsn_e.asp.

58 Ibid. 59 Ibid. 60 Ibid. 61 Ibid.


NRCan was not compliant with the Treasury Board Policy on Delegation of Authority. It lacked a timely delegation instrument. 62

Within financial management, NRCan must direct attention to reporting. The Office of the Auditor General found on error in the department’s financial report, which appeared on the Government of Canada’s summary of unadjusted audit differences. 63

8.1.3 Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada (AAFC) performed well on the Treasury Board assessment. The Treasury Board identified six areas with opportunity for improvement and only one area requiring attention. AAFC received praise for its information-technology-management practices and improvement in program evaluation and project management. Its opportunities for improvement are within information management and financial management, while they must direct attention to accounting standards. 64

Within information management, AAFC suffers from compliance issues. The department requires improvement in asset identification and business continuity planning to align with the Standard for Management of Information Technology Security. It also submitted incomplete information to Info Source, particularly on information holdings. The submission also lacked a privacy impact assessment. 65

The concerning aspect of AAFC’s financial management practices is its compliance with Treasury Board Accounting Standards. In several areas, draft financial statements did not disclose relevant information related to revenues, expense, related party transactions and equity.66

8.1.4 Canadian Food Inspection Agency The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) stands out among federal departments and agencies. The Treasury Board assessed the agency with 16 indicators, identifying only three areas for improvement with the remaining either acceptable or strong.67

The CFIA’s strengths include corporate risk management, asset management, and project management. It made significant improvements by creating an information technology plan that aligns with the agency’s strategic plans and priorities; by establishing a Contract Review Committee to provide a contract oversight function; and by improving its financial reporting timeliness and compliance with Treasury Board Accounting Standards.

The Treasury Board’s only concern within stewardship is the CFIA’s information management capacity. The CFIA lacks an agency-wide information management strategy. It also submitted an insufficient report for InfoSource, lacking information of its management of privacy and

62 Ibid. 63 Ibid. 64 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, “MAF Assessment: Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada -

2006,” (Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2008), http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2006/agr/agr_e.asp.

65 Ibid. 66 Ibid. 67 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, “MAF Canada Food Inspection Agency - 2006,”

(Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2008), http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2006/ica/ica_e.asp.



access to information, which inhibits access to information requests. CFIA would also benefit from formalizing its incident and vulnerability management practices and working on business continuity planning.68

8.1.5 Health Canada Health Canada received a mixed assessment from the Treasury Board, partially attributed to its size and complexity. It did receive some praise from the Secretariat. Its success includes a strong information technology governance structure, outstanding public consultation, training all department officials in contract management, and sound portfolio management.69

Health Canada can improve its asset management. A comprehensive long-term capital plan for investments in capital assets does not exist. It also lacks an agency-wide real property asset management framework.70

Outside of information management, the department lacks the tools to monitor projects and their progress. The Treasury Board identified this as a priority area for departmental improvement during the 2005 assessment, but remained unaddressed in 2006.71

The Treasury Board identified several financial management concerns. Beginning in 1997, Health Canada contracted First Canadian Health Management Corporation to pay health providers for medical services to First Nations people. The Office of the Auditor General determined that the nature of the contract does not comply with the Financial Administration Act. Health Canada had not reconciled the account used to pay the Corporation at the time of the assessment, setting a risk standard that could permit overpayment. Finally, the department had $14.6 million in accounts receivable outstanding beyond 365 days, representing almost 70 percent of its total accounts receivable.72

8.1.6 Environment Canada Like Natural Resources Canada, Environment Canada (EC) underwent several senior management changes during 2006, welcoming a new Minister, Deputy Minister, Associate Deputy Minister, and several new Assistant Deputy Ministers. Despite leadership transition, the department performed well on the Treasury Board assessment. The department introduced stronger program evaluation measures, setting service standards, and measuring citizen and client satisfaction. It also implemented a comprehensive change management plan, supported by on-line training tools, and it is fostering a culture of respect and integrity agency-wide. 73

68 Ibid. 69 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, “MAF Assessment: Health Canada - 2006,” (Treasury

Board of Canada Secretariat, 2008), http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2006/shc/shc_e.asp

70 Ibid. 71 Ibid. 72 Ibid. 73 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, “MAF Assessment: Environment Canada - 2006,”

(Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2008), http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2006/doe/doe_e.asp

EC lags behind other departments’ information management strategies for two reasons. First, its InfoSource submission was outdated, requiring revisions. Second, it lacks and information management strategy. The Treasury Board noted that EC is developing a strategy.74

EC is developing a strategic information technology plan while also implementing frameworks and tools that measure the value derived from information technology investments. Until these are in place, the Treasury Board believes EC has areas within information management requiring improvement.

Asset management presents EC with opportunities to improve. It lacks a long-term capital plan. The first attempt at a capital plan, in 2006, did not succeed. Its most recent plan covers 2000-01 to 2004-2005. The department implements incrementally its capital plan as compensation. It is working on a multi-year framework that will contain a capital investment management section, strengthen life-cycle management, and assign managers to moveable asset categories (e.g., fleet, scientific, field equipment). According to the Treasury Board, EC’s best change included in the framework is assigning managers to moveable assets. Some information regarding assets is unclear.75

8.2 Comparison to DRDC Looking through the Treasury Board assessments, one can see the secretariat is interested in the existence of frameworks. Frameworks do demonstrate an organizational commitment to standards; however, the mere existence does not indicate adherence or efficacy. Unlike the Treasury Board assessments, the DRDC MAF survey instrument probes managers, looking for action. At the moment, the Treasury Board is revising its Integrated Risk Management Framework, and as part of the 2008 risk management indicators of the MAF, the Treasury Board plans to use a questionnaire to assess departments.76 Although deviating from Treasury Board prescriptions can be controversial, the secretariat’s adoption of a questionnaire for the risk management element clearly shows they acknowledge there are efficient alternatives to written reports.

Table 20 compares DRDC’s performance to that of the other agencies. Again, note that other agencies are being assessed by Treasury board on the basis of their policy frameworks, together with audit results, whereas the DRDC assessment is based on managerial performance, and so should be more conservative.

74 Ibid. 75 Ibid. 76 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Risk Management, (Treasury Board of Canada

Secretariat, 2008), http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/indicators-indicateurs/2008/risk-risques/risk-risques-eng.asp.


Table 20: Treasury Board Assessments Compared to DRDC Stewardship Element

Strong Acceptable Opportunity for

improvement Attention Insufficient required information

Information management

DFO X

NRCan X

AAFC X

CFIA X

HC X

EC X

DRDC X

Information technology management

DFO X

NRCan X

AAFC X

CFIA X

HC X

EC X

DRDC X

Asset management

DFO X

NRCan X

Strong Acceptable Opportunity for improvement

Attention required

Insufficient information

AAFC X

CFIA X

HC X

EC X

DRDC X

Project management

DFO X

NRCan X

AAFC X

CFIA X

HC X


EC X

DRDC X

Procurement

DFO X

NRCan X

AAFC X

CFIA X

HC X

EC X

DRDC X

Financial management and control

DFO X

NRCan X

AAFC X

CFIA X

HC X

EC X

DRDC X

Internal audit function

DFO X

NRCan X

AAFC X

CFIA X

HC X

EC X

Strong Acceptable Opportunity for improvement

Attention required

Insufficient information

DRDC X


9 Plans for Cycle 2

Cycle 2 includes two operational pilots, with interim reporting to the 2009 Managers’ Workshop. The operational pilots are more extensive than originally planned. The survey instrument approach makes this extended scope possible, which minimizes workload for managers. The second operational pilot will examine the Accountability and Risk Management elements of the Cycle 2 DRDC MAF. The proposed report to the 2009 Managers’ Workshop would present complete interim Expectations, Indicators and Measures tiers for the Cycle 2 DRDC MAF, and additionally would present analyses of the first (Cycle 1) and second (Cycle 2) operational pilots.

The third operational pilot will address People, and Programs and Policies, as well as revisiting Stewardship. The addition of Stewardship to the third pilot provides a demonstration of the annual MAF cycle and of evolution of the survey instrument with time. Timings and durations of the operational pilots will be adjusted to augment survey return rates.

The Cycle 1 operational pilot targeted attendees of the Managers’ Workshop for its sample population. An ideal survey would be a census with nominally perfect participation, like the Canadian census. Ultimately, a survey instrument for a DRDC MAF should be addressed to the whole management population if it is to be used as an organizational management and organizational development tool. As a first step towards this, it is proposed that the Cycle 2 pilots address the whole of the DRDC management cadre, not just the attendees at the Managers’ Workshop. Similarly, it is proposed that completing the DRDC MAF survey instrument would be a compulsory activity. Clearly, compulsory completion would require that any survey instrument be prepared carefully, and that the participants in the survey see personal value in the exercise, or at least evidence that the analysis of the survey instrument would contribute to a better DRDC. Level 2 manager engagement would also be critical to census-like participation rates; in the present pilot only six of ten Level 2s participated. An improved survey instrument and longer ‘open’ periods might address this in the future. From the beginning it was recognized that executing a survey in prime summer holiday season would be problematic.


10 Concluding Remarks

The Dalhousie University School of Public Administration has provided support to the development of a Management Accountability Framework for Defence R&D Canada. The resulting DRDC MAF is based upon the Treasury Board MAF, but is designed for use by the DRDC managerial cadre, rather than the Deputy Minister and his Executive. The DRDC MAF differs further in that it uses a survey instrument to determine performance of the DRDC management cadre.

Use of a survey instrument as the interface between the DRDC MAF and the organization is significant. While the survey instrument approach was intended to limit incremental managerial workload, it also allows assessment of actual organizational performance, rather than assessment of the adequacy of policy frameworks, as for the Treasury Board MAF. As a result, the DRDC MAF is likely to be a more conservative instrument than the Treasury Board Framework, but more important, by interfacing with the management cadre the DRDC MAF should be of greater value than the Treasury Board MAF as an organizational development tool.

Cycle 1 of the development of the DRDC MAF was the primary focus of this report, including a pilot application of the survey instrument to the Stewardship element of the MAF. The survey instrument was demonstrated to be feasible and response to the survey was encouraging, both in numbers of respondents and their answers. Overall, the results support the vision of a steady state DRDC MAF:

The DRDC Management Accountability Framework (MAF) is a governance tool that facilitates dialogue between managers and executive leadership, helping to clarify managers’ understanding of their roles and responsibilities and providing a framework for assessment and improvement of business processes.


Bibliography .....

Aucoin, Peter and Jarvis, Mark D. Modernizing Government Accountability: A Framework for

Reform. Ottawa: Canada School of Public Service, 2005. Aucoin, Peter, Smith, Jennifer, and Dinsdale, Geoff. Responsible Government: Clarifying

essentials, dispelling myths and exploring change. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Management Development, 2004.

Blake, Ivan. Management Accountability Framework. Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat,

2005, http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/documents/video-video/video-video_e.asp Canada. Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Deployment of Canadian Forces to

Somalia. Dishonoured Legacy: The Lessons of the Somalia Affair. Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1997.

Concise Canadian Oxford Dictionary. Oxford University Press, Don Mills, 2005. Jacques, Elliot. A General Theory of Bureaucracy. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.,

1976. Mirriam-Webster On-line Dictionary. http://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/accountability, accessed 24 July 2008. National Defence, Organization and Accountability: Guidance for Members of the Canadian

Forces and Employees of National Defence. 2nd edition. Sept 1999. National Defence, Strengthening Accountability and Comptrollership in National Defence.

Department of National Defence, 16 June 2004. Nethercote, W.C.E. A DRDC Management Accountability Framework: A Straw-man. Dalhousie

University School of Public Administration, Discussion Paper, April 21, 2008 Osbaldeston, Gordon F. Keeping Deputy Ministers Accountable. Toronto: McGraw-Hill

Ryerson, 1989 Public Works and Government Services Canada, MGMT. ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK.

PWGSC Contract W7707-074191. 2008-04-09. The Business Network, http://dictionary.bnet.com/definition/Accountability.html, accessed 24

July 2008 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. InfoSource Publications. Treasury Board of Canada

Secretariat, 2008, http://www.infosource.gc.ca/index-eng.asp.


http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/documents/video-video/video-video_e.asp



http://dictionary.bnet.com/definition/Accountability.html

http://www.infosource.gc.ca/index-eng.asp

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. List of Departments and Agencies assessed during MAF Round IV. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2007, http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2006/departments-ministeres_e.asp.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. MAF Assessment Scale – Round IV. Treasury Board of

Canada Secretariat, 2007, http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2006/scale-echelle_e.asp.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. MAF Assessment: Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada –

2006. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2008, http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2006/agr/agr_e.asp.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. MAF Assessment: Environment Canada – 2006. Treasury

Board of Canada Secretariat, 2008, http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2006/doe/doe_e.asp.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. MAF Assessment: Fisheries and Oceans – 2006.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2008, http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2006/dfo/dfo_e.asp.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. MAF Assessment: Health Canada – 2006. Treasury

Board of Canada Secretariat, 2008, http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2006/shc/shc_e.asp.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. MAF Assessment: Natural Resources Canada – 2006.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2008), http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2006/rsn/rsn_e.asp.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. MAF Assessments – Round I. Treasury Board of Canada

Secretariat, 2007, http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/assessments-evaluations_e.asp#r1.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. MAF Assessments – Round II. Treasury Board of Canada

Secretariat, 2007, http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/assessments-evaluations_e.asp#r2.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. MAF Assessments – Round IV. Treasury Board of

Canada Secretariat, 2007, http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/assessments-evaluations_e.asp#r4.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. MAF Canada Food Inspection Agency – 2006. Treasury

Board of Canada Secretariat, 2008, http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2006/ica/ica_e.asp.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. MAF Elements and Indicators – 2006. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2007, http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/indicators-indicateurs/2006/elements-elements_e.asp


http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2006/departments-ministeres_e.asp

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2006/departments-ministeres_e.asp

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2006/scale-echelle_e.asp

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2006/scale-echelle_e.asp

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2006/dfo/dfo_e.asp

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2006/dfo/dfo_e.asp

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/assessments-evaluations_e.asp#r1






http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/indicators-indicateurs/2006/elements-elements_e.asp

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/indicators-indicateurs/2006/elements-elements_e.asp

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Result for Canadians: A Management Framework for the Government of Canada. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2007.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Risk Management. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat,

2008, http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/indicators-indicateurs/2008/risk-risques/risk-risques-eng.asp.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. Round III (2005). Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat,

2007, http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2005/index_e.asp. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. TB Management Accountability Framework. Treasury

Board of Canada Secretariat, 2005, http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/index_e.asp.

Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. TBS Management Accountability Framework – Text Version. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, 2005, http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/documents/booklet-livret/text-texte_e.asp#g1

Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewardship, downloaded March 7, 2008


http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/indicators-indicateurs/2008/risk-risques/risk-risques-eng.asp

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/indicators-indicateurs/2008/risk-risques/risk-risques-eng.asp

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/assessments-evaluations/2005/index_e.asp

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/maf-crg/index_e.asp



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewardship

Annex A DRDC MAF Survey Instrument: Stewardship

One of the tasks in EXPEDITION 09 is the development of a Management Accountability Framework (MAF) for DRDC. As part of the development of a MAF for DRDC, we would like ‘the one hundred,’ those managers who attend the DRDC Managers’ Workshop, to complete an on-line survey, which follows at the end of this message. The Treasury Board introduced the concept of a MAF to provide a basis for bilateral discussions between Deputy Ministers and the Secretary of the Treasury Board. The Treasury Board MAF translates the four core principles of public management—citizen focus, public sector values, results orientation, and responsible spending—into a set of expectations. DRDC’s MAF is being developed to support ADM(S&T)’s part in this process and to simplify the lives of managers by providing clarity in their roles and responsibilities, and a framework with which to execute them. As an early step in this development process, in this survey we will be examining aspects of ‘Stewardship’, one component of a manager’s responsibilities. Stewardship addresses a manager's responsibility to take care of and properly use resources. This survey covers budget management, delegated authority, work and project management, procurement, asset management, and information management. Depending on your responsibilities, there will be about 45 questions to complete, taking about 45 minutes. Before starting the survey, there is one group of questions which may require you to do some homework. Are you, or a subordinate, responsible for accountable items (such as computers or test equipment) in your unit? If so, when was the last time you or a subordinate surveyed your inventory (6 months ago, 12 months, 24 months, or more than 24 months ago)? How many accountable assets were listed in your inventory at the time? How many accountable assets in your inventory were written off in the last fiscal year? “I don’t know” is an allowable answer to the last two questions. To start the survey, follow the link: (http, etc.)

L’une des fonctions d’EXPÉDITION 09 consiste à élaborer un cadre de responsabilisation de gestion (CRG) pour RDDC. Dans ce cadre, nous aimerions que les « cent gestionnaires » qui assistent à l’atelier de travail des gestionnaires de RDDC répondent à un sondage en ligne qui se trouve à la fin du présent message. Le Conseil du Trésor a présenté le concept d’un CRG afin d’établir une base pour les discussions bilatérales entre les sous-ministres (SM) et le secrétaire du Conseil du Trésor. Le CRG du Conseil du Trésor se fonde sur les quatre principes fondamentaux de la gestion publique — l’accent sur les citoyens, les valeurs du secteur public, les résultats et des dépenses judicieuses —au sein d’un ensemble d’attentes. Le CRG de RDDC a été élaboré dans le but de soutenir la partie du processus du SMA(S et T) et de simplifier la vie des gestionnaires en leur fournissant des rôles et des responsabilités clairs ainsi qu’un outil qui les aidera à mettre ceux-ci en œuvre. Comme étape préliminaire à ce processus d’élaboration, nous examinerons dans ce sondage divers aspects de la notion de gérance, l’une des responsabilités d’un gestionnaire. La gérance


traite de la responsabilité du gestionnaire à faire face aux ressources et à les utiliser adéquatement. Ce sondage couvre la gestion budgétaire, les pouvoirs délégués, la gestion du travail et de projet, l’achat, la gestion des biens et la gestion de l’information. Selon vos responsabilités, vous aurez à répondre à environ 45 questions en quelque 45 minutes. Avant de commencer, soulignons qu’un groupe de questions pourrait vous demander un certain travail. (Les DG, le CEM SMA(S et T) et les gestionnaires des Services généraux n’auront pas à répondre à ces questions.) Est-ce que vous ou l’un de vos subalternes êtes responsable d‘articles à comptabiliser (tels que des ordinateurs ou du matériel d’essai) au sein de votre unité? Si oui, dites-nous à quand remonte le dernier inventaire de votre stock de votre part ou de celle de l’un de vos subalternes : 6 mois? 12 mois? 24 mois? plus de 24 mois? Combien d’articles à comptabiliser figuraient alors à votre inventaire? Combien d’articles à comptabiliser ont été rayés de votre dernier inventaire? La réponse « je ne sais pas » est permise aux deux dernières questions. Pour répondre au sondage, suivez le lien suivant (à partir d’un ordinateur connecté au DRENet) :

A. Please complete the following survey questions relating to the management of your unit. For the purposes of this survey, 'your unit' represents the personnel and resources that you manage or supervise. 'You' refers to you personally, or to a subordinate who acts on your behalf. Veuillez répondre aux questions suivantes ayant trait à la gestion de votre unité. Aux fins du sondage, « votre unité » représente le personnel et les ressources que vous gérez ou supervisez. « Vous » renvoie à vous personnellement ou à un subalterne qui agit en votre nom.

0 At what centre do you work? À quel centre travaillez-vous?

a. Atlantic / Atlantique b. Valcartier c. Ottawa

d. Toronto e. Suffield f. CORA / CARO

g. Security Science / Sciences pour la sécurité h. Programmes i. Corporate Services / Services généraux

j. Chief of Staff / Chef d’état-major

1. At what level are you in DRDC? / Quel est votre niveau à RDDC?

a) Level Two (Director General or Chief of Staff)

b) Level Three (Deputy Director General, Chief Scientist, Section Head, Manager or equivalent)


c) Level Four (Supervisor, Functional Specialist or equivalent)

a) Niveau deux (directeur général ou chef d’état-major) b) Niveau trois (directeur général adjoint, scientifique en chef, chef de section,

gestionnaire ou l’équivalent) c) Niveau quatre (superviseur, expert fonctionnel ou l’équivalent)

2. Do you manage a budget? / Gérez-vous un budget? a) Yes / oui b) No / Non (skip to section C)

B. The following questions relate to your budget management. / Les questions suivantes se rapportent à la gestion budgétaire.

3. In the last fiscal year, did your supervisor set a tolerance for your end-of-year expenditures relative to your budget or to your expenditure forecasts? / Au cours de l’exercice précédent, est-ce que votre superviseur a fixé une limite de tolérance à vos dépenses de fin d’exercice relatives à votre budget ou à vos prévisions de dépenses? a) Yes / oui

b) No / Non (skip to question 5)

4. Were you end-of-year expenditures within the budget or forecast tolerance set by your supervisor? / Étiez-vous dans les limites de la tolérance fixée par votre superviseur en ce qui concerne vos dépenses de fin d’exercice et vos prévisions de dépenses? a) Yes / oui b) No / Non

5. Do you maintain a strategic capital plan that reflects long-term needs? / Dressez-vous un

plan d’immobilisations stratégique en fonctions de vos besoins à long terme? a) My strategic capital plan does not reflect long-term needs / Mon plan

d’immobilisations stratégique ne reflète pas mes besoins à long terme b) Yes / oui

c) No / Non

6. Do you maintain a local capital equipment plan that is based upon your budget allocation? / Dressez-vous un plan pour vos biens d’équipement sur place fondé sur le budget qui vous est alloué a) My capital equipment plan is not based upon my budget / Mon plan

d’immobilisations stratégique n’est pas fondé sur mon budget b) Yes / Oui

c) No / Non


7. Do you maintain a local capital equipment plan that allows exploitation of funds arising

outside of the budget allocation? / Dressez-vous un plan pour vos biens d’équipement sur place qui permet l’exploitation de fonds ne provenant pas du budget qui vous est alloué? a) Yes / Oui b) No / Non

8. How often do you reconcile your unit's 'black books' (your personal system of accounts)

with FMAS? / À quelle fréquence conciliez-vous votre propre système de comptabilité avec le SCFG a) Not applicable: I use FMAS directly / Sans objet : j’utilise directement le SCFG b) On an on-going basis / En permanence

c) Occasionally / Occasionnellement d) Never / Jamais

9. Are funds in your unit expended against the correct project codes? / Les fonds de votre unité sont-ils imputés aux codes de projet appropriés?

a) Always / Toujours b) Almost always / Presque toujours c) Generally / De façon générale

d) Usually not / Pas de façon générale e) Never / Jamais

10. In the last fiscal year, how many times did your unit miss deadlines for reporting financial forecasts to your supervisor? / Au cours de l’exercice précédent, combien de fois votre unité a-t-elle raté les échéances pour ce qui est soumettre vos prévisions financières à votre superviseur a) Never / Jamais(skip to section C) b) Once / Une fois c) Twice / Deux fois d) More than twice / Plus de deux fois

e) Every time / Chaque fois

11. What was the most important or most common reason for missing deadlines for reporting financial forecasts to your supervisor? / Quelle a été la raison principale ou la plus fréquente pour avoir raté l’échéance pour ce qui est de soumettre vos prévisions financières à votre superviseur? a) Personal workload / Charge de travail personnel (skip to Section C) b) Personal absence / Absence personnelle (skip to Section C) c) Failure of delegated subordinate to act / Omission de la part du subalterne chargé de

le faire (skip to Section C)


d) Inadequate financial records / Documents financiers inadéquats (skip to Section C) e) Other / Autre

12. What was the 'other' reason for missing financial forecast deadlines? Please explain. /

Quelle a été « l’autre raison » justifiant le non-respect des échéances relatives aux prévisions financières? Veuillez expliquer (written response)

C. The following questions relate to delegated authorities. / Les questions suivantes se rapportent aux pouvoirs délégués.

13. Do you have subordinates who require delegated authority under the Financial Administration Act to execute all responsibilities of their job? / Avez-vous des subalternes à qui un pouvoir doit être délégué aux termes de la Loi sur la gestion des finances publiques pour qu’ils exécutent toutes les fonctions relatives à leur travail a) Yes / Oui

b) No / No (skip to section D)

14. How many of your subordinates require delegated authority under the Financial Administration Act to execute all the responsibilities of their job? / Combien de vos subalternes ont besoin d’un pouvoir délégué aux termes de la Loi sur la gestion des finances publiques pour exécuter toutes les responsabilités relatives à leur travail? a) One / Un b) Two / Deux

c) Three / Trois d) Four or more / Quatre ou plus

15. How many of your subordinates who require delegated authority under the Financial Administration Act have the necessary training or certification either through the Canada School of Public Service or DND testing to execute that authority? / Combien de vos subalternes ayant besoin d’un pouvoir délégué aux termes de la Loi sur la gestion des finances publiques ont reçu la formation ou la certification nécessaire de l’École de la fonction publique du Canada ou à la suite d’examens du MDN pour exercer un tel pouvoir? a) None / Aucun b) One / Un

c) Two / Deux d) Three / Trois e) Four or more / Quatre ou plus

16. Are you satisfied with your subordinate's use of their delegated authority under the

Financial Administration Act? / Êtes-vous satisfait de l’utilisation que font vos subalternes de leur pouvoir délégué aux termes de la Loi sur la gestion des finances


publiques? a) Never / Jamais

b) Rarely / Rarement c) Sometimes / Quelquefois d) Generally / De façon générale

e) Always / Toujours

17. Do your subordinates with delegated authority unnecessarily seek your approval for actions when they exercise authority under the Financial Administration Act? / Vos subalternes détenant un pouvoir délégué aux termes de la Loi sur la gestion des finances publiques requièrent-ils inutilement votre approbation pour certaines de leurs actions en exerçant ce pouvoir?

a) Never / Jamais b) Rarely / Rarement c) Sometimes / Quelquefois

d) Generally / De façon générale e) Always / Toujours

18. Do your subordinates with delegated authority act outside the bounds of their delegations? / Vos subalternes outrepassent-il les limites des pouvoirs qui leur sont délégués?

a) Never / Jamais b) Rarely / Rarement c) Sometimes / Quelquefois

d) Generally / De façon générale e) Always / Toujour

19. Do your subordinates with delegated authority act outside the bounds of operational guidelines set by you or by others? / Vos subalternes détenant un pouvoir délégué outrepassent-ils les lignes directrices opérationnelles énoncées par vous ou par d’autres? a) Never / Jamais


e) Always / Toujour

D. The following questions relate to work and project management. Les questions suivantes se rapportent à la gestion du travail et de projet.

20. Suppose a unit or activity under your authority were selected for an internal audit. In order to perform their duties, would auditors have to use: / Supposez qu’une unité


relevant de votre compétence fasse l’objet d’une vérification interne. Pour exécuter leurs tâches, les vérificateurs auraient-ils à utiliser : a) An existing filing system / Un système de classement existant b) An existing filing system plus some input from you / Un système de classement

existant et de l’assistance de votre part

c) An existing filing system plus substantial input from you / Un système de classement existant et une assistance considérable de votre part

d) Input from you only / Uniquement une assistance de votre part

21. If you are identified as a project manager in CPME, do you have sufficient delegated authority to execute your duties? / Si vous êtes désigné comme gestionnaire de projet dans le SCPG, est-ce que des pouvoirs suffisants vous sont délégués pour que vous puissiez exercer vos fonctions? a) Not applicable: I am not identified as a project manager in CPME / Sans objet : je ne

suis pas désigné comme gestionnaire de projet dans le SCPG (skip to 24) b) Yes, I have sufficient delegated authority / Oui, j’ai des pouvoirs suffisants c) No, I have insufficient delegated authority / Non, je n’ai pas de pouvoirs suffisants

22. As a project manager, when did you last report to an oversight body such as a Thrust Advisory Group (TAG) or Senior Review Board (SRB)? / À titre de gestionnaire de projet, quand avez-vous rendu des comptes pour la dernière fois à un organisme de surveillance tel que le Groupe consultatif sur l’orientation (GCO) ou un Comité supérieur de révision (CSR)?

a) Less than six months ago / Il y a moins de six mois b) Six months to 12 months ago / Il y a de 6 à 12 mois c) 12 to 18 months ago / Il y a de 12 à 18 mois

d) More than 18 months ago / Il y a plus de 18 mois

23. As a project manager, you should have edit authority for projects in CPME. How often do you update project information in CPME? /. À titre de gestionnaire de projet, vous devriez pouvoir modifier des projets dans le SCPG. À quelle fréquence modifiez-vous des données relatives à un projet dans le SCPG? a) I do not have edit authority in CPME / Je n’ai pas le pouvoir de modifier des

données du SCPG b) As changes occur / Au fur et à mesure des changements

c) During annual program formulation / Lors de la formulation du programme annuel d) Never / Jamais

24. If one or more of your subordinates are project managers, do they have sufficient delegated authority to execute their duties? / Si un ou plusieurs de vos subalternes sont des gestionnaires de projet, des pouvoirs suffisants leur sont-ils délégués pour qu’ils puissent exercer leurs fonctions?


a) Not applicable: I have no subordinates / Sans objet : Je n’ai pas de subalternes (skip to 26)

b) Not applicable: None of my subordinates are project managers / Sans objet : aucun de mes subalternes n’est gestionnaire de projet (skip to 26)

c) All do / Tous

d) Some do / Quelques-uns e) None do / Aucun

25. Do project managers within your unit have sound working relationships with functional financial and procurement authorities locally? / Les gestionnaires de projet de votre unité entretiennent-ils de bonnes relations de travail avec les responsables locaux des services fonctionnels des finances et des achats? a) Never / Jamais


e) Always / Toujour

26. For projects managed within your unit, does the project management documentation include a responsibility matrix or some other formal equivalent assigning responsibilities? / La documentation de gestion des projets gérés par votre unité comprend-elle une matrice des responsabilités ou un mécanisme officiel équivalent d’attribution des responsabilités?

a) Not applicable: There are no projects managed within my unit / Sans objet : on ne gère pas de projet au sein de mon unité (skip to section E)

b) Yes, responsibilities are formally assigned / Oui c) No, responsibilities are not formally assigned / Non

27. If projects managed within your unit fail to meet planned milestones, what is the importance of the following in that failure? / Si les projets gérés au sein de votre unité ne respectent pas les jalons clés prévus, quelle incidence cela a-t-il pour les éléments suivants?

1) not very significant 2) rarely significant 3) sometimes significant 4) generally significant 5) very significant Resources / Ressources: Schedule / Calendrier: Goals / Objectifs:

Quality of milestones / :

E. The following questions relate to procurement. Les questions suivantes se rapportent aux achats.


28. Your unit is: / Votre unité est : a) Primarily a client of local procurement services / Principalement un client des

services d’achat locaux (complete to questions 33 and 34) b) The provider of local procurement services / Un fournisseur de services d’achats

locaux (complete questions 29, 30, 31, 32, 34)

29. How many procurement functional specialists are in your unit? / Un fournisseur de services d’achats locaux? a) None / Aucun (skip to question 33) b) One / Un

c) Two / Deux d) Three / Trois e) Four or more / Quatre ou plus

30. How many internal procurement processes in your unit are well defined by standard

operating procedures (SOP)? / Combien de processus d’achats internes de votre unité sont bien définis par des instructions permanentes d’opération (IPO)? a) None / Aucun b) Some / Quelques-uns

c) Most / La plupart d) All / Tou

31. Is the number of procurement specialists in your unit adequate for the level of

procurement activity? / Le nombre d’experts des achats au sein de votre unité suffit-il pour le volume d’achats? a) Never / Jamais

b) Sometimes / Quelquefois c) Generally / De façon générale d) Always / Toujours

32. How many procurement functional specialists in your unit have the necessary training

and certifications for their delegated authorities? / Combien d’experts fonctionnels des achats au sein de votre unité ont la formation ou la certification nécessaire pour les pouvoirs qui leur sont délégués?

a) None / Aucun b) One / Un c) Two / Deux

d) Three / Trois e) Four or more / Quatre ou plus

33. How many of the internal procurement processes in your organization are easy to use? /


Combien de processus d’achats internes de votre organisation sont faciles d’utilisation? a) None / Aucun

b) Some / Quelques-uns c) Most / La plupart d) All / Tous

34. Can clients of the internal procurement process in your unit easily determine progress of

procurement files? / Les clients utilisant des processus d’achats internes de votre unité peuvent-ils suivre facilement le cheminement de leur dossier d’achat? a) No / Non b) Sometimes / Quelquefois c) Generally / De façon générale

d) Yes / Oui

F. The following questions relate to asset management. Les questions suivantes se rapportent à la gestion des biens.

35. Are you or do you supervise a corporate services manager? / Êtes-vous un gestionnaire

des Services généraux ou en supervisez-vous un? a) Yes / Oui b) No / Non (skip to question 45)

36. Do you maintain a local real property inventory? / Votre unité tient-elle un inventaire de

ses biens immobiliers? a) Yes / Oui b) No / Non

37. Do you maintain a local real property development plan? / Votre unité dresse-t-elle un

plan de développement immobilier? a) Yes / Oui

b) No / Non

38. Do you execute a local real property minor development/maintenance plan on an ongoing basis? / Votre unité met-elle en œuvre un plan permanent de développement ou d’entretien de faible envergure de ses biens immobiliers? a) Yes / Oui b) No / Non

39. Does your unit have contaminated sites? / Votre unité a-t-elle des sites contaminés?

a) Yes / Oui

b) No / Non (skip to question 41)


40. Do you maintain a local inventory and management plan for contaminated sites? / Votre

unité tient-elle un inventaire et un plan de gestion de ses sites contaminés? a) Yes / Oui

b) No / Non

41. Do materiel managers in your unit make stocking decisions for stores based on life-cycle analysis? / Les gestionnaires du matériel de votre unité prennent-ils des décisions quant au stockage dans ses magasins après une analyse du cycle de vie? a) Not applicable: I do not have a stores operation / Sans objet : je ne gère pas de

magasin (skip to question 43) b) Yes / Oui

c) No / Non

42. Do materiel managers make stocking decisions for stores based on whole-of-organization costing? / Les gestionnaires du matériel prennent-ils des décisions de stockage en magasin fondées sur les coûts assumés par l’ensemble de l’organisation a) Yes / Oui

b) No / Non

43. Do materiel managers conduct validation of inventory on an on-going basis? / Les gestionnaires du matériel vérifient-ils l’inventaire régulièrement? a) Yes / Oui

b) No / Non

44. Do materiel managers conduct disposal of assets on an ongoing basis? / Les gestionnaires du matériel aliènent-ils des biens régulièrement?

a) Yes / Oui b) No / Non

45. When did you or a responsible subordinate last survey the inventory for which you are

responsible (If you are a Corporate Services manager, this question refers to the inventory in your unit, not the whole organization. If you are a DG or a CoS, select answer (a))? / Quand vous ou votre subalterne responsable avez-vous inventorié le stock dont vous êtes responsable (si vous êtes un gestionnaire des Services généraux, cette question se rapporte au stock de votre unité et non à celui de toute l’organisation. Si vous êtes un DG ou un CEM, choisissez la réponse a))?

a) Not applicable: I do not control an inventory of accountable items / Sans objet : je ne gère aucun stock d’articles à comptabiliser (skip to section G)

b) Six months ago / Il y a six mois c) 12 months ago / Il y a 12 mois d) 24 months ago / Il ya 24 mois


e) More than 24 months ago / Il y a plus de 24 mois

46. How many accountable assets were listed in the inventory for your unit? / Combien de biens à comptabiliser figuraient à votre inventaire?

a) __________ (Number) b) I do not know / je ne sais pas

47. How many accountable assets in the inventory for your unit were written off for disposal in the last fiscal year? / Combien de biens à comptabiliser ont été rayés de votre inventaire pour aliénation au cours du dernier exercice?

a) __________ (Number ) b) I do not know

G. The following questions relate to information management. Les questions suivantes se rapportent à la gestion de l’information.

48. Your unit is: / Votre unité est

a) Primarily a Science and Technology unit / Principalement une unité de Sciences et technologie (skip to question 52)

b) Primarily a Corporate Services unit / Principalement une unité des Services généraux (complete questions 49, 50, and 51)

c) Includes both Science and Technology and Corporate Services sub-units / Comprend des sous-unités de Science et technologie et des Services généraux (complete questions 51 and 52)

d) I have no subordinates / Je n’ai pas de subalterne (finish survey)

49. In the last fiscal year, did your unit meet the required response dates for Access to Information requests? / Au cours du dernier exercice, votre unité a-t-elle répondu aux demandes d’accès à de l’information dans les délais prescrits? a) Not applicable: My unit does not coordinate AIT responses /. Sans objet : mon unité

ne coordonne pas de réponse d’ACI b) Never / jamais

c) Sometimes / Quelquefois d) Usually / De façon générale e) Always / Toujours

50. In your unit, is access to personnel files restricted to human resources staff only? /. Dans

votre unité, l’accès aux dossiers personnels est-il réservé au personnel des ressources humaines? a) Not applicable: My unit does not hold personnel files / Sans objet : ma unite ne gere

pas les fichiers de personnel b) Yes / Oui


c) No / Non

51. In your unit, is classified correspondence filed and tracked to protect it from both exposure and loss? /. Dans votre unité, la correspondance classifiée est-elle classée et suivie de manière à être protégée contre la divulgation et la perte?

a) In my unit, classified correspondence is filed but not tracked b) Yes / Oui c) No / Non

52. If you are a science manager, how many scientific documents are under your immediate

control at this time for the purposes of your review or approval? / Si vous êtes gestionnaire scientifique, combien de documents scientifiques relèvent de votre examen ou approbation immédiate en ce moment?

a) Not applicable: My staff do not produce scientific documents / Sans objet : mon personnel ne produit pas de document scientifique

b) None / Aucun c) Five or less / Cinq ou moins d) Ten or less / Dix ou moins

e) 11 or more / Onze ou plus


Annex B Raw Survey Results

Centre A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12

1 ATLANTIC 3 2 2 ATLANTIC 2 2

3

ATLANTIC 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 5 Poor communications between the FO with regard to the type and format of information requested (which changed frequently) and the AC who reconciles Black Books with

FMAS.4 ATLANTIC 1 1 1 5 ATLANTIC 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 6 ATLANTIC 7 ATLANTIC 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 8 ATLANTIC 2 1 2 3 3 1 4 1 9 ATLANTIC 2 1 2 3 3 2 2 1 10 ATLANTIC 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1

11ATLANTIC 2 1 2 3 3 2 1 2 5 Missed early forecasts in the FY. Forecasts not missed in

the last Quarter of the FY12 ATLANTIC 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 13 CORA 1 1 2 3 3 2 2 1 14 CORA 3 2 15 CORA 2 1 2 3 3 2 1 3 16 CORA 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 2 17 COS 2 1 2 3 3 2 3 3 1 18 COS 2 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 2 1 19 COS 2 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 2 20 CSS 2 1 2 3 3 2 3 2 21 CSS 2 1 2 2 3 2 1 2 22 CS 3 2 23 CS 3 2 1 24 CS 3 2 25 CS 2 1 2 3 3 2 1 3 26 OTTAWA 2 1 2 1 2 1 4 3 27 OTTAWA 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 2

28

OTTAWA 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 2 4 Insufficient resources to accurately track all expenditures. Not easy to reconcile FMAS with black book at this time (working on procedures to improve, but workload and

personnel roll-over in admin assistant impeding progress. Approx. 50% or R&D spending is estimated based on

partial information.29 OTTAWA 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 30 OTTAWA 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 4 1 31 OTTAWA 2 2 32 OTTAWA 2 2 33 PROGRAMS 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 3 2 1 34 PROGRAMS 2 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 2 35 PROGRAMS 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 36 PROGRAMS 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 37 PROGRAMS 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 38 SUFFIELD 3 2 39 SUFFIELD 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 2 40 SUFFIELD 2 1

41TORONTO 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 5 Just a general system failure where no single individual

(other than me) was responsible.42 TORONTO 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 43 TORONTO 2 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 2 44 TORONTO 2 1 2 3 3 2 3 1 45 TORONTO 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 1 1 PWGSC delay in awarding contracts46 TORONTO 3 2 47 TORONTO 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 48 VALCARTIER 2 2 49 VALCARTIER 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 50 VALCARTIER 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 51 VALCARTIER 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 52 VALCARTIER 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 53 VALCARTIER 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 54 VALCARTIER 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2


Centre A13 A14 A15 A16 A17 A18 A19 A20 A21 A22 A23 A24 A25 A26 A27 R A27 S A27 G A27 Q A28

1 ATLANTIC 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 ATLANTIC 2 2 1 1 1 1

3

ATLANTIC 1 4 5 5 3 1 2 2 2 1 2 4 4 2 4 3 3 3 1

4 ATLANTIC 5 ATLANTIC 1 4 5 4 2 2 1 2 2 1 3 3 5 2 3 4 4 2 1 6 ATLANTIC 7 ATLANTIC 1 4 5 5 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 4 4 3 2 3 3 3 1 8 ATLANTIC 1 2 3 5 2 1 2 2 1 5 3 3 5 4 5 3 2 9 ATLANTIC 1 4 5 5 3 2 2 2 1 3 4 3 5 4 3 3 1 10 ATLANTIC 1 3 4 5 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 1

11ATLANTIC 1 4 5 4 3 1 3 2 2 4 3 2 1 2

12 ATLANTIC 1 4 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 CORA 1 4 5 4 3 1 1 1 1 4 4 3 4 3 2 1 2 14 CORA 2 3 1 2 1 1 15 CORA 1 4 5 4 1 2 1 3 1 3 3 3 4 4 2 1 1 16 CORA 1 4 5 4 3 2 2 3 1 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 1 17 COS 1 4 1 4 2 1 1 3 1 2 3 2 4 3 3 1 18 COS 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 2 1 3 4 2 4 4 2 2 1 19 COS 1 2 3 5 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 1 20 CSS 2 2 2 4 2 1 2 21 CSS 2 1 2 1 3 4 4 2 4 5 3 3 1 22 CS 2 3 1 1 1 1 23 CS 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 24 CS 2 2 1 1 2 4 4 3 3 1 25 CS 2 2 1 2 1 1 26 OTTAWA 1 4 5 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 2 2 1 27 OTTAWA 1 4 5 4 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 2 5 4 4 4 1

28

OTTAWA 1 4 4 5 3 2 2 2 2 1 2 4 4 2 4 3 3 3 1

29 OTTAWA 1 4 5 4 3 2 3 1 1 3 4 2 5 4 3 4 1 30 OTTAWA 1 1 2 5 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 4 4 2 3 3 3 3 1 31 OTTAWA 2 2 2 2 3 4 3 1 1 32 OTTAWA 2 3 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 1 33 PROGRAMS 2 3 2 1 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 1 34 PROGRAMS 2 2 1 3 4 2 3 4 5 2 1 35 PROGRAMS 1 4 5 5 3 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 4 2 4 3 4 3 1 36 PROGRAMS 1 4 3 5 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 37 PROGRAMS 1 4 5 5 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 5 4 3 3 4 3 3 1 38 SUFFIELD 2 2 1 2 1 1 39 SUFFIELD 1 4 5 4 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 5 2 4 4 4 4 1 40 SUFFIELD

41TORONTO 1 4 5 4 3 3 3 1 2 1 4 3 4 2 1 4 3 4

42 TORONTO 1 4 5 5 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 43 TORONTO 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 4 2 1 44 TORONTO 1 3 1 45 TORONTO 1 3 3 5 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 3 4 5 4 4 1 46 TORONTO 2 2 1 2 3 4 4 2 3 1 47 TORONTO 2 3 1 3 4 2 4 4 3 3 1 48 VALCARTIER 2 2 1 2 1 1 49 VALCARTIER 1 4 5 4 2 1 2 2 1 3 4 2 4 3 3 4 1 50 VALCARTIER 1 4 5 5 1 1 2 2 1 4 51 VALCARTIER 1 3 4 5 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 4 5 2 4 3 4 5 52 VALCARTIER 1 3 4 5 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 5 2 4 4 5 5 1 53 VALCARTIER 1 3 4 5 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 5 2 4 5 5 5 1 54 VALCARTIER 1 4 5 5 2 1 2 2 1 4 4 2 4 5 3 2 2


Centre A29 A30 A31 A32 A33 A34 A35 A36 A37 A38 A39 A40 A41 A42 A43 A44 A45 A46 A47 A48 A49 A50 A51 A52 A53 A54 Done

1 ATLANTIC 4 4 2 2 4 0 4 YES2 ATLANTIC 4 4 2 2 4 YES

3

ATLANTIC 2 3 2 5 1 5 YES

4 ATLANTIC 5 ATLANTIC 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 3 2 1 YES6 ATLANTIC 7 ATLANTIC 2 2 2 2 71 8 1 2 YES8 ATLANTIC 3 2 1 3 2 2 2 2 0 1 3 YES9 ATLANTIC 3 4 2 2 1 2 YES10 ATLANTIC 3 3 2 2 1 2 YES

11ATLANTIC 4 2 3 4 3 3 2 3 2 5 2 1 YES

12 ATLANTIC 2 2 2 5 10 30 1 3 YES13 CORA 2 4 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 3 YES14 CORA 1 3 2 1 4 YES15 CORA 2 1 2 1 1 3 YES16 CORA 3 2 2 1 4 YES17 COS 1 1 2 5 1 3 YES18 COS 3 2 2 1 2 5 1 2 YES19 COS 2 1 2 1 3 2 1 YES20 CSS 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 5 2 1 YES21 CSS 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 YES22 CS 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 3 YES23 CS 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 24 CS 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 YES25 CS 1 2 2 1 2 4 2 2 YES26 OTTAWA 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 4 2 1 YES27 OTTAWA 2 1 2 3 10 0 1 5 YES

28

OTTAWA 2 3 2 3 82 1 4 YES

29 OTTAWA 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 YES30 OTTAWA 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 YES31 OTTAWA 2 2 2 3 15 0 1 1 YES32 OTTAWA 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 YES33 PROGRAMS 2 2 2 1 2 5 1 1 YES34 PROGRAMS 3 2 2 1 1 1 YES35 PROGRAMS 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 YES36 PROGRAMS 2 2 2 1 1 1 YES37 PROGRAMS 2 1 2 1 1 1 YES38 SUFFIELD 2 2 2 1 2 5 1 2 YES39 SUFFIELD 3 3 2 2 60 0 1 4 YES40 SUFFIELD

41TORONTO 4 3 3 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 YES

42 TORONTO 5 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 0 2 5 2 2 YES43 TORONTO 1 2 2 1 1 3 YES44 TORONTO 45 TORONTO 2 3 2 3 50 20 1 3 YES46 TORONTO 3 2 2 2 24 0 2 4 3 3 YES47 TORONTO 2 2 2 3 1 3 YES48 VALCARTIER 2 1 2 1 2 5 3 2 YES49 VALCARTIER 3 3 2 1 1 3 YES50 VALCARTIER 51 VALCARTIER 1 2 2 2 2 35 1 3 YES52 VALCARTIER 3 4 2 2 0 1 2 YES53 VALCARTIER 3 3 2 3 0 1 2 YES54 VALCARTIER 5 2 2 5 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 5 4 0 2 5 2 2 YES

Note: Darkened rows represent incomplete surveys which were not analysed.


Annex C Survey Results by Indicator

Financial Management and Control AUDIT PREPAREDNESS Q20. Suppose a unit or activity under your authority were selected for an internal audit. In order to perform their

duties, would auditors have to use: An existing

filing system An existing filing system plus

some input from you An existing filing system plus Total

substantial input from you

ATLANTIC 2 8 0 10 CORA 1 0 3 4 COS 0 2 1 3 CS 0 2 1 3 CSS 1 1 0 2 OTTAWA 1 5 1 7 PROGRAMS 0 4 1 5 SUFFIELD 0 2 0 2 TORONTO 1 4 1 6

Centre

VALCARTIER 2 4 0 6 Total 8 32 8 48

FINANCIAL REPORTING

Q3. In the last fiscal year, did your supervisor set a tolerance for your end-of-year expenditures relative to your budget or to your expenditure forecasts?

Blank Yes No Total


Centre




Q4. Were you end-of-year expenditures within the budget or forecast tolerance set by your supervisor?

Blank Yes No Total


Centre


DELEGATIONS

Q13. Do you have subordinates who require delegated authority under the Financial Administration Act to execute all responsibilities of their job?

Yes No Total

ATLANTIC 8 2 10 CORA 3 1 4 COS 3 0 3 CS 0 3 3 CSS 0 2 2 OTTAWA 5 2 7 PROGRAMS 3 2 5 SUFFIELD 1 1 2 TORONTO 3 3 6

Centre

VALCARTIER 5 1 6 Total 31 17 48

Q14. How many of your subordinates require delegated authority under the Financial Administration Act to

execute all the responsibilities of their job? Blank One Two Three Four

or more

Total

ATLANTIC 2 0 1 1 6 10 CORA 1 0 0 0 3 4 COS 0 1 1 0 1 3 CS 3 0 0 0 0 3 CSS 2 0 0 0 0 2 OTTAWA 2 1 0 0 4 7 PROGRAMS 2 0 0 0 3 5 SUFFIELD 1 0 0 0 1 2 TORONTO 3 0 0 1 2 6

Centre

VALCARTIER 1 0 0 3 2 6 Total 17 2 2 5 22 48

Q15. How many of your subordinates who require delegated authority under the Financial Administration Act

have the necessary training or certification either through the Canada School of Public Service or DND testing to execute that authority?

Blank None One Two Three Four Total or

more ATLANTIC 2 0 0 1 1 6 10 CORA 1 0 0 0 0 3 4 COS 0 1 1 1 0 0 3 CS 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 CSS 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 OTTAWA 2 0 1 0 1 3 7 PROGRAMS 2 0 0 1 0 2 5 SUFFIELD 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 TORONTO 3 0 0 1 0 2 6

Centre

VALCARTIER 1 0 0 0 3 2 6 Total 17 1 2 4 5 19 48

Project Management PROJECT ORGANIZATION

Q21. If you are identified as a project manager in CPME, do you have sufficient delegated authority to execute your duties?

Not applicable: I am not identified as a project manager in CPME

Yes, I have sufficient Total delegates authority

ATLANTIC 5 5 10

CORA 4 0 4

COS 2 1 3

CS 3 0 3

CSS 0 2 2

OTTAWA 3 4 7

PROGRAMS 1 4 5

SUFFIELD 1 1 2

TORONTO 4 2 6

Centre

VALCARTIER 3 3 6

Total 26 22 48


Q24. If one or more of your subordinates are project managers, do they have sufficient delegated authority to execute their duties?

Not applicable: I have no subordinates

Not applicable: None of my subordinates

are project managers

All do Some do

None Total do

ATLANTIC 3 1 3 2 1 10 CORA 0 1 2 1 0 4 COS 0 1 2 0 0 3 CS 2 1 0 0 0 3 CSS 0 1 0 1 0 2 OTTAWA 0 1 2 4 0 7 PROGRAMS 0 1 2 1 1 5 SUFFIELD 0 1 1 0 0 2 TORONTO 1 1 4 0 0 6

Centre

VALCARTIER 0 1 3 2 0 6 Total 6 10 19 11 2 48

Q25. Do project managers within your unit have sound working relationships with functional financial and procurement authorities locally?

Blank Sometimes Generally Always Total

ATLANTIC 4 1 4 1 10

CORA 1 2 1 0 4

COS 1 0 2 0 3

CS 3 0 0 0 3

CSS 1 0 1 0 2

OTTAWA 1 2 4 0 7

PROGRAMS 1 1 3 0 5

SUFFIELD 1 0 0 1 2

TORONTO 2 1 3 0 6

Centre

VALCARTIER 1 0 2 3 6

Total 16 7 20 5 48


Q26. For projects managed within your unit, does the project management documentation include a responsibility matrix or some other formal equivalent assigning responsibilities?

Not applicable: There are no projects managed within my

unit

Yes, responsibilities are formally assigned

No, responsibilities Total are not formally

assigned

ATLANTIC 4 2 4 10

CORA 1 1 2 4

COS 0 1 2 3

CS 2 1 0 3

CSS 1 1 0 2

OTTAWA 1 5 1 7

PROGRAMS 1 2 2 5

SUFFIELD 1 1 0 2

TORONTO 1 2 3 6

Centre

VALCARTIER 1 5 0 6

Total 13 21 14 48

Q27. If projects managed within your unit fail to meet planned milestones, what is the importance of the following

in that failure? - SCHEDULE Blank 2 3 4 5 Total

ATLANTIC 4 0 3 3 0 10

CORA 1 1 1 1 0 4

COS 0 0 0 3 0 3

CS 2 0 0 1 0 3

CSS 1 0 0 0 1 2

OTTAWA 1 0 3 3 0 7

PROGRAMS 1 0 1 3 0 5

SUFFIELD 1 0 0 1 0 2

TORONTO 1 0 1 3 1 6

Centre

VALCARTIER 1 0 2 1 2 6

Total 13 1 11 19 4 48




in that failure? - GOALS Blank 2 3 4 5 Total

ATLANTIC 4 0 4 1 1 10

CORA 1 3 0 0 0 4

COS 0 1 1 1 0 3

CS 2 0 1 0 0 3

CSS 1 0 1 0 0 2

OTTAWA 1 1 4 1 0 7

PROGRAMS 1 0 2 1 1 5

SUFFIELD 1 0 0 1 0 2

TORONTO 1 1 2 2 0 6

Centre


Total 13 6 17 8 4 48


in that failure? - QUALITY OF MILESTONES

Blank 1 2 3 4 5 Total

ATLANTIC 4 0 1 4 1 0 10

CORA 1 2 0 1 0 0 4

COS 0 0 1 1 1 0 3

CS 2 0 0 1 0 0 3

CSS 1 0 0 1 0 0 2

OTTAWA 1 0 1 3 2 0 7

PROGRAMS 1 0 1 3 0 0 5

SUFFIELD 1 0 0 0 1 0 2

TORONTO 1 0 1 2 2 0 6

Centre

VALCARTIER 1 0 1 0 1 3 6

Total 13 2 6 16 8 3 48


in that failure? - RESOURCES Blank 1 2 3 4 5 Total

ATLANTIC 4 0 1 1 2 2 10

CORA 1 0 0 1 2 0 4

COS 0 0 1 0 2 0 3

CS 2 0 0 0 1 0 3

CSS 1 0 0 0 1 0 2

OTTAWA 1 0 0 3 1 2 7

PROGRAMS 1 0 0 3 1 0 5

SUFFIELD 1 0 0 0 1 0 2

TORONTO 1 1 1 0 3 0 6

Centre

VALCARTIER 1 0 0 0 5 0 6

Total 13 1 3 8 19 4 48


in that failure? Blank 1 2 3 4 5 Total

Schedule 13 0 1 11 19 4 48

Goals 13 0 6 17 8 4 48

Quality of Milestones 13 2 6 16 8 3 48

Resources 13 1 3 8 19 4 48

Total 52 3 16 52 54 15


Procurement

Q28. Your unit is:

Blank Primarily a client of local procurement services

The provider of local Total procurement services

ATLANTIC 0 8 2 10CORA 0 3 1 4COS 0 3 0 3CS 0 3 0 3CSS 0 1 1 2OTTAWA 0 7 0 7PROGRAMS 0 5 0 5SUFFIELD 0 2 0 2TORONTO 1 4 1 6

Centre

VALCARTIER 1 4 1 6Total 2 40 6 48

Q29. How many procurement functional specialists are in your unit?

Blank None One Two Three Four Total or

more

ATLANTIC 8 0 0 1 1 0 10CORA 3 0 1 0 0 0 4COS 3 0 0 0 0 0 3CS 3 0 0 0 0 0 3CSS 1 1 0 0 0 0 2OTTAWA 7 0 0 0 0 0 7PROGRAMS 5 0 0 0 0 0 5SUFFIELD 2 0 0 0 0 0 2TORONTO 4 0 0 0 1 1 6

Centre

VALCARTIER 4 1 0 0 0 1 6Total 40 2 1 1 2 2 48



Q31. Is the number of procurement specialists in your unit adequate for the level of procurement

activity? Blank Never Sometimes Generally Total

ATLANTIC 8 1 0 1 10CORA 3 0 0 1 4COS 3 0 0 0 3CS 3 0 0 0 3CSS 2 0 0 0 2OTTAWA 7 0 0 0 7PROGRAMS 5 0 0 0 5SUFFIELD 2 0 0 0 2TORONTO 4 0 0 2 6

Centre

VALCARTIER 5 0 1 0 6Total 42 1 1 4 48

Q32. How many procurement functional specialists in your unit have the necessary training and

certifications for their delegated authorities? Blank Two Three Four

or more

Total


Centre


Q30. How many internal procurement processes in your unit are well defined by standard operating

procedures? Blank Some Most All Total

ATLANTIC 8 2 0 0 10CORA 3 0 0 1 4COS 3 0 0 0 3

Centre

CS 3 0 0 0 3


CSS 2 0 0 0 2OTTAWA 7 0 0 0 7PROGRAMS 5 0 0 0 5SUFFIELD 2 0 0 0 2TORONTO 4 1 1 0 6VALCARTIER 5 1 0 0 6

Total 42 4 1 1 48

Q33. How many of the internal procurement processes in your organization are easy to use?

None Some Most All Total


Centre


Asset Management MATERIEL MANAGEMENT

Q45. When did you or a responsible subordinate last survey the inventory for which you are responsible?

Not applicable: I do not control an inventory of

accountable items

Six months ago 12 months

ago

More than 24 months

ago

Total


Centre


Total 22 14 8 4 48

Q46. How many accountable assets were listed in the inventory for your unit?

Blank 25 or less 26 to 50

51 to 75 76 or Total more

ATLANTIC 7 2 0 1 0 10CORA 4 0 0 0 0 4COS 3 0 0 0 0 3CS 3 0 0 0 0 3CSS 2 0 0 0 0 2OTTAWA 4 2 0 1 7PROGRAMS 5 0 0 0 0 5SUFFIELD 1 0 0 1 0 2TORONTO 4 1 1 0 0 6

Centre


Q47. How many accountable assets in the inventory for your unit were written off for disposal in the

last fiscal year? Blank 0 to 10 11 to

20 21 to 30 Total


Centre



Q41. Do materiel managers in your unit make stocking decisions for stores based on life-cycle analysis?

Blank Not applicable: I do not have a stores

operation

Yes No Total


Centre


Total 41 2 4 1 48

Q42. Do materiel managers make stocking decisions for stores based on whole-of-organization

costing? Blank Yes No Total


Centre

VALCARTIER 5 0 1 6

Total 43 2 3 48


Q43. Do materiel managers conduct validation of inventory on an on-going basis?

Blank Yes No Total


Centre

VALCARTIER 5 0 1 6

Total 41 5 2 48

Q44. Do materiel managers conduct disposal of assets on an ongoing basis?

Blank Yes No Total


Centre

VALCARTIER 5 1 0 6

Total 41 6 1 48


REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

Q35. Are you or do you supervise a corporate services manager? Count Yes No Total

ATLANTIC 1 9 10Centre CORA 1 3 4COS 0 3 3CS 0 3 3CSS 1 1 2OTTAWA 2 5 7PROGRAMS 0 5 5SUFFIELD 0 2 2TORONTO 1 5 6VALCARTIER 1 5 6

Total 7 41 48


Corporate Information

Q23. As a project manager, you should have edit authority for projects in CPME. How often do you update project information in CPME?

Blank As changes occur During annual program

formulation

Never Total


Centre



Q8. How often do you reconcile your unit's 'black books' (your personal system of accounts) with FMAS?

Blank Not applicable: I use FMAS directly

On an on-going basis

Occasionally Never Total

ATLANTIC 2 2 5 0 1 10CORA 1 2 1 0 0 4COS 0 1 0 2 0 3CS 2 1 0 0 0 3CSS 0 1 0 1 0 2OTTAWA 2 1 0 2 2 7PROGRAMS 0 0 3 2 0 5SUFFIELD 1 0 1 0 0 2TORONTO 1 0 2 3 0 6

Centre

VALCARTIER 1 2 3 0 0 6Total 10 10 15 10 3 48

Q10. In the last fiscal year, how many times did your unit miss deadlines for reporting financial

forecasts to your supervisor? Blank Once More than twice Total


Centre

VALCARTIER 6 0 0 6


Q11. What was the most important or most common reason for missing deadlines for reporting financial forecasts to your supervisor?

Blank Personal workload Personal absence


Other Total

ATLANTIC 6 0 2 0 2 10CORA 4 0 0 0 0 4COS 1 2 0 0 0 3CS 3 0 0 0 0 3CSS 2 0 0 0 0 2OTTAWA 6 0 0 1 0 7PROGRAMS 4 1 0 0 0 5SUFFIELD 2 0 0 0 0 2TORONTO 4 1 0 0 1 6

Centre

VALCARTIER 4 2 0 0 0 6Total 36 6 2 1 3 48

Level Q12. What was the 'other' reason for missing financial forecast deadlines?

Please explain. ATLANTIC Level 3 Poor communications between the FO with regard to the type and format of

information requested (which changed frequently) and the AC who reconciles Black Books with FMAS.

ATLANTIC Level 3 Missed early forecasts in the FY. Forecasts not missed in the last Quarter of the FY

OTTAWA Level 3 Insufficient resources to accurately track all expenditures. Not easy to reconcile FMAS with black book at this time (working on procedures to improve, but

workload and personnel roll-over in admin assistant impeding progress. Approx. 50% or R&D spending is estimated based on partial information.

TORONTO Level 2 Just a general system failure where no single individual (other than me) was responsible.

TORONTO Level 3 PWGSC delay in awarding contracts


List of symbols/abbreviations/acronyms/initialisms

ADM(FinCS) Assistant deputy Minister, Finance and Corporate Services

ADM(S&T) Assistant Deputy Minister, Science and technology

ATI Access to Information

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CORA Centre for Operational Research and Analysis

COS Chief of Staff

COS/ADM(MAT) Chief of Staff to/for ADM(S&T)

CPME Collaborative Planning and Management Environment

DGRDCS Director General, R&D Corporate Services

DND Department of National Defence

DRDC Defence Research & Development Canada

DRDKIM Director Research and Development Knowledge and Information Management

DRDPO Director R&D Program Oversight

DRENet The DRDC Scientific and Corporate Network

FI Financial Officer: a Government of Canada personnel occupational group

FMAS DND’s Financial Management Administration System

MAF Management Accountability Framework

R&D Research & Development

SRB Senior Review Board

TAG Thrust Advisory Group

WBE Work Breakdown Element


Distribution list

Document No.: DRDC Atlantic CR 2008-188

LIST PART 1: Internal Distribution by Centre

5 DRDC Atlantic Library 1 Director General 1 Deputy Director General 1 Chief Scientist

8 TOTAL LIST PART 1

LIST PART 2: External Distribution by DRDKIM

1 Library and Archives Canada

1 DRDKIM

Dalhousie University 610 University Avenue Halifax, NS B3H 3J5

1 Warren Nethercote 1 Craig O’Blenis 1 Dalhousie University, School of Public Administration

DRDHR Defence R&D Canada 305 Rideau Street, Ottawa, ON K1A 0K2

1 ADM(S&T) COS 1 DGRDCS 1 Director, HR 1 DSTEA 1 DRDRA 1 DRDPO DRDC Valcartier

2459 Pie-XI Blvd North Val-Belair, Quebec, G3J 1X5

1 Deputy Director General DRDC Ottawa

3701 Carling Avenue Ottawa, ON, K1A 0Z4

1 Deputy Director General



DRDC Toronto

1133 Sheppard Avenue West PO Box 2000 Toronto, ON, M3M 3B9

1 Deputy Director General DRDC Suffield

PO Box 4000, Stn Main Medicine Hat, Alberta, T1A 8K6

1 Deputy Director General Centre for Security Science

Defence Research & Development Canada 222 Nepean Street Ottawa, ON K1A 0K2

1 Deputy Director General

16 TOTAL LIST PART 2

24 TOTAL COPIES REQUIRED

DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA (Security classification of title, body of abstract and indexing annotation must be entered when the overall document is classified)

1. ORIGINATOR (The name and address of the organization preparing the document. Organizations for whom the document was prepared, e.g. Centre sponsoring a contractor's report, or tasking agency, are entered in section 8.) Dalhousie University School of Public Administration 6100 University Avenue Halifax, NS B3H 3J5 Canada

2. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION (Overall security classification of the document including special warning terms if applicable.)

UNCLASSIFIED

3. TITLE (The complete document title as indicated on the title page. Its classification should be indicated by the appropriate abbreviation (S, C or U) in parentheses after the title.)

A DRDC Management Accountability Framework: Cycle 1 Final Report

4. AUTHORS (last name, followed by initials – ranks, titles, etc. not to be used)

O'Blenis, C; Nethercote, W.

5. DATE OF PUBLICATION (Month and year of publication of document.) October 2008

6a. NO. OF PAGES (Total containing information, including Annexes, Appendices, etc.)

110

6b. NO. OF REFS (Total cited in document.)

32

7. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES (The category of the document, e.g. technical report, technical note or memorandum. If appropriate, enter the type of report, e.g. interim, progress, summary, annual or final. Give the inclusive dates when a specific reporting period is covered.) Contract Report

8. SPONSORING ACTIVITY (The name of the department project office or laboratory sponsoring the research and development – include address.) Defence R&D Canada – Atlantic 9 Grove Street P.O. Box 1012 Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B2Y 3Z7

9a. PROJECT OR GRANT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable research and development project or grant number under which the document was written. Please specify whether project or grant.)

DRDC 46gl 04

9b. CONTRACT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable number under which the document was written.)

W7707 - 074191/HAL

10a. ORIGINATOR'S DOCUMENT NUMBER (The official document number by which the document is identified by the originating activity. This number must be unique to this document.)

10b. OTHER DOCUMENT NO(s). (Any other numbers which may be assigned this document either by the originator or by the sponsor.)

DRDC Atlantic CR 2008-188

11. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY (Any limitations on further dissemination of the document, other than those imposed by security classification.)

Unlimited

12. DOCUMENT ANNOUNCEMENT (Any limitation to the bibliographic announcement of this document. This will normally correspond to the Document Availability (11). However, where further distribution (beyond the audience specified in (11) is possible, a wider announcement audience may be selected.))

Unlimited

13. ABSTRACT (A brief and factual summary of the document. It may also appear elsewhere in the body of the document itself. It is highly desirable that the abstract of classified documents be unclassified. Each paragraph of the abstract shall begin with an indication of the security classification of the information in the paragraph (unless the document itself is unclassified) represented as (S), (C), (R), or (U). It is not necessary to include here abstracts in both official languages unless the text is bilingual.)

Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC), a special operating agency of theDepartment of National Defence, contracted Dalhousie University to support the development ofa management accountability framework (MAF) as part of DRDC’s EXPEDITION 09 project.The DRDC MAF used the Treasury Board MAF as a model, with Expectations, Indicators andMeasures tiers. Under Cycle 1 of the contract, a full Expectations tier was developed for theDRDC MAF, and a pilot study was conducted to examine application of the StewardshipElement of the Expectations, Indicators and Measures tiers to the DRDC management cadre. Asurvey instrument was used as the interface between the DRDC MAF and managers, tominimize management overhead. The results of the pilot study confirm the feasibility of thesurvey-based approach and provide a generally positive assessment of DRDC managers’performance against indicators for stewardship: financial management and control; projectmanagement; procurement; asset management; and information management.

Recherche et développement pour la Défense Canada (RDDC), une agence spéciale qui relèvedu ministère de la Défense nationale, a embauché l’université Dalhousie pour l’aider à élaborerun cadre de responsabilisation de gestion (CRG) pour le projet EXPEDITION 09 de RDDC. LeCRG de RDDC s’est servi du CRG du Conseil du Trésor comme modèle et de ses paliers« Attentes », « Indicateurs » et « Mesures ». Pour le cycle 1 du contrat, un palier completd’attentes a été élaboré pour le CRG de RDDC et une étude pilote a été effectuée pourexaminer la possibilité d’appliquer l’élément de gérance aux paliers « Attentes », « Indicateurs »et « Mesures » du cadre de gestion de RDDC. Un instrument de sondage a été utilisé commeinterface entre le CRG RDDC et les gestionnaires afin de minimiser la surcharge de gestion.Les résultats de l’étude pilote confirment la faisabilité de l’approche fondée sur le sondage etfournissent une évaluation généralement positive du rendement des gestionnaires de RDDCpar rapport aux indicateurs de gérance : gestion des finances et contrôle financier, gestion deprojet, approvisionnement, gestion de l’actif et gestion de l’information.

14. KEYWORDS, DESCRIPTORS or IDENTIFIERS (Technically meaningful terms or short phrases that characterize a document and could be helpful in cataloguing the document. They should be selected so that no security classification is required. Identifiers, such as equipment model designation, trade name, military project code name, geographic location may also be included. If possible keywords should be selected from a published thesaurus, e.g. Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms (TEST) and that thesaurus identified. If it is not possible to select indexing terms which are Unclassified, the classification of each should be indicated as with the title.) management accountability framework; stewardship; accountability

A DRDC Management Accountability Framework · a management accountability framework (MAF) as part...

Documents

Transcript of A DRDC Management Accountability Framework · a management accountability framework (MAF) as part...