Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Modern Comptrollership Capacity Assessment

The Modern Comptrollership initiative was launched in 1997 with the publication of the Report of the Independent Review Panel on the Modernization of Comptrollership in the Government of Canada containing the recommendations of a private-public sector Panel. From April 1998 to March 31, 2001 modern comptrollership was introduced in 13 departments and 2 agencies as part of a pilot phase. In the summer of 2001, Treasury Board Secretariat announced modern comptrollership as a government-wide initiative that needed to be adopted by all federal departments and agencies.

In simple terms, modern comptrollership is about sound organizational management through the effective partnering of functional specialists and operational managers. One of the key messages of the Independent Panel’s report is that the task of achieving modern comptrollership no longer rests with financial specialists and managers but rather, must be embraced by the entire organization.

The essential elements of modern comptrollership as defined by the Treasury Board Secretariat are:

The Transportation Safety Board (TSB) is an independent agency created in 1990 by an Act of Parliament. The TSB’s sole objective is the advancement of transportation safety in the federally regulated elements of marine, rail, pipeline and air transportation systems. This mandate is fulfilled through the conduct of independent investigations and, where necessary, public inquiries of transportation occurrences. The purpose of these investigations and inquiries is to make findings as to the causes and contributing factors of the occurrences and to identify safety deficiencies which in turn may result in recommendations designed to improve safety and reduce or eliminate risks to people, property and the environment. The TSB has the exclusive authority to make findings as to causes and contributing factors when it investigates a transportation occurrence.

The jurisdiction of the TSB includes all transportation occurrences in or over Canada. The Board also represents Canadian interests in foreign investigations of transportation accidents involving ships, railway rolling stock, or aircraft registered, licensed or manufactured in Canada.

Many individuals and groups cooperate with the TSB in the fulfillment of its mandate. During investigations, the TSB interacts directly with individuals, such as survivors, next-of-kin and operators, with other organizations and agencies, such as coroners, police, manufacturers, owners and insurance companies and with other federal departments and agencies.

The TSB operates in a very large and complex Canadian transportation system with significant challenges. Some examples of challenges facing the Agency include:

Executive Summary

The objective is of this modern comptrollership capacity assessment was to migrate the TSB’s original assessment, completed in May 2000, to the Modern Comptrollership Capacity Check tool that is being applied government-wide. The TSB’s initial assessment was based on the Auditor General’s Financial Management Capability Model. It is expected that the updated assessment will provide the foundation for developing a modern comptrollership action plan for the TSB.

Based on the results of this assessment, relative areas of strength for the TSB consist of Shared Values and Ethics, Clear Accountabilities, and Rigorous Stewardship. Key observations and recommendations by Modern Comptrollership element are as follows:

Project Background and Objective

In May 2000, PricewaterhouseCoopers completed a modern comptrollership baseline assessment of the TSB using the Office of the Auditor General’s Financial Management Capability Model. Subsequently, the Treasury Board Secretariat asked that the TSB’s modern comptrollership baseline assessments be migrated to the Capacity Check Model. The Capacity Check Model has been used for the baseline assessments of the pilot federal government departments and will be the standard for the assessment of all other departments/agencies. This will ensure comparability of results across all federal government organizations.

The objective is of this modern capacity assessment was to migrate the TSB’s original assessment to the Modern Comptrollership Capacity Check tool that is being applied government-wide. It is expected that the updated assessment will provide the foundation for developing a modern comptrollership action plan.

Overview of the Assessment Process

Our approach was based on assessing the modern comptrollership capacities of the TSB against the criteria specified in the Capacity Check Model. The Model sets out thirty-three criteria within the following seven key areas:

The Capacity Check is not a review or audit. It is based on interviews with a representative cross-section of an organization’s managers complemented by document review.

The 33 criteria underlying the seven broad elements of Modern Comptrollership are assessed on a rating scale of 1 to 5. Each criteria has a set of capability descriptions derived from the Independent Panel’s Report on Modern Comptrollership and public and private sector best practices. The assessment is carried out by comparing the capabilities of the organization to the generic capability descriptions in the Capacity Check.

The TSB can choose any of the levels between 1 and 5 to guide the development of its modern comptrollership capabilities. The Capacity Check Model does not stipulate a “one size fits all” approach and recognizes that the appropriate level of capability will be a function of the nature, complexity, and priorities of each entity. Descriptions of the ratings associated with the Model are provided below.

Overview of Results

The chart below provides a snapshot of assessment results for the seven elements of modern comptrollership based on the underlying criteria. The criteria ratings are meant to provide an indication of the extent of maturity of modern comptrollership capabilities.

Key Themes by Comptrollership Element

Detailed assessment information by criteria is included in Appendix A of this report.

Priority Areas for Improvement

The following are key recommendations for advancing modern comptrollership within the TSB:

Other Recommendations

Appendix A – Detailed Results by Criteria

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	The TSB initiated and completed a comptrollership baseline assessment in April 2000 prior to modern comptrollership becoming a government-wide initiative. Subsequent to this assessment, there was a change in the Executive Director of the TSB.

	The new Executive Director has clearly communicated the need to introduce more rigor and structure into the TSB management practices, from strategic and operational planning through to performance measurement and evaluation.

	The Executive Director has also recognized the building of a strategic and business planning framework as an essential first step towards improving management practices in the TSB and has shared this vision widely within the organization. The development of the strategic and business planning framework is being undertaken in a participatory manner that allows for direct input from TSB managers and staff.

	Senior management recognizes gaps in management competencies and is committed to addressing these gaps.

	Understanding and commitment of some senior managers to modern comptrollership is not evident or visible. Some staff are of the opinion that there is visible inertia on the part of some senior managers regarding the need to implement modern comptrollership.

	Senior management is leveraging the strong appetite for change within the TSB to further the modern comptrollership agenda in a subtle yet effective manner. Senior management is proceeding cautiously keeping in mind the absorptive capacity of TSB staff whose main focus is on operations.

	The TSB, with the full support of its Executive Director, has started the process of developing an integrated strategic planning and business framework. This framework will enable the TSB to define its priorities and assign resources to priority areas/activities in a transparent manner.

TOPIC	1	2	3	4	5
Leadership Commitment Awareness and commitment of deputy head and senior management to establishing and implementing a modern management practices environment	Deputy head and senior management have only limited knowledge of the modern management practices focus.	Deputy head and senior management have a broad understanding of the concept of modern management practices, and recognize the need for change. Deputy head has initiated steps to report performance on an integrated and consolidated basis, including financial and non-financial. Deputy head has developed a short and longer-term plan to improve modern management practices, and has put in place an organization to promote modern management practices. Performance information, accountability and stewardship are high on senior management’s agenda.	Deputy head and senior management are highly committed and supportive of modern management practices mindset, and commit resources to implementing modern management best practices. Senior management has established mechanisms to report performance on an integrated and consolidated basis. Deputy head is able to report on extent to which government-wide standard for modern management practices has been met in the department, and makes periodic representations to the Minister and central agencies.	A modern management practices ethos permeates the department and its decision-making process. Deputy head and senior management have created a climate wherein creativity and responsible risk taking are encouraged, barriers are broken down between functions, and business decisions are challenged. Risks are discussed openly by senior management. Senior management is actively reviewing service delivery mechanisms. Deputy head is able to report to the Minister and Parliament with confidence on performance results achieved.	Department is recognized amongst peers for leadership in implementing modern management practices. Deputy head has earned a high level of trust from central agencies and Parliamentarians, who have high level of confidence in the effectiveness and integrity of the systems used to administer programs, and in the accuracy and completeness of the information about that administration. Deputy head and senior management have established a forward-looking approach to modern management practices to assess department’s capacity to sustain desired performance levels in the future

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	The TSB is proactively trying to build management commitment but Modern Comptrollership initiatives are competing with operational and other priorities for scarce resources.

	Managers have a narrow understanding of modern comptrollership that is focused on financial controls and accounting. Awareness of how modern comptrollership will impact their responsibilities is not evident.

	The TSB does not have a modern comptrollership training program in place for managers. However, there is a concerted effort on building awareness. A briefing session on Modern Comptrollership and how it relates to the TSB was delivered at an operational group retreat and there are plans for a full day training session for all staff.

	Managers are doing well in terms of prudence and probity and the protection of assets primarily based on their own initiative. There are few formal tools or frameworks in place to support them in this regard.

	There are some gaps in managers’ understanding of management authorities as well as the roles and responsibilities of functional specialists.

	Understanding of the financial management framework is generally not robust. There are varying and, sometimes limited, levels of understanding with regard to:
	-	how financial information is being used
	-	individual contributions to financial management including ensuring that the system works efficiently and effectively
	-	the forecasting and commitment processes
	-	role of the Auditor General

	Financial concerns of managers are primarily focused on the availability of funds for initiatives.

	Historically, TSB staff have shown eagerness to embrace new initiatives once these are explained and understood. There is a need to better articulate what modern comptrollership is about as well as its benefits in order to increase the level of managerial commitment.

	Some middle managers in the TSB are better versed in modern management practices than others. Opportunities exist to leverage the knowledge and enthusiasm of these managers to actively promote modern comptrollership in the TSB, enhance managerial commitment and champion specific priority initiatives.

TOPIC

Managerial commitment

Awareness of managers of their modern management practices, responsibilities, and commitment to implementing them.

Control is seen as “compliance” and is still considered the main ingredient of comptrollership by both operational and financial managers. Operational managers focus on running the business and count on “corporate” to ensure that the rules, regulations and reporting requirements are being met. They are not familiar with modern management best practices. Financial concerns primarily evolve around availability of funds to carry out initiatives.

Managers understand their management authorities, (e.g., financial, contracting) and those of their staff. They are aware of their responsibilities for probity and prudence and the protection of assets under their control. Plans and initiatives are not subject to a business case analysis beyond the funding issue. Program initiatives are developed without any specialist input. Managers are not always familiar with functional specialties and vice versa.

Managers see the continuous improvement of management practices as part of the job and seek the support of functional specialists. Managers are aware of their modern management responsibilities, and accept accountability for resources entrusted to them. Management implications (e.g., financial, HR, information technology, asset management) are assessed in operational plans and new program initiatives.

Managers are highly committed and supportive of the modern management practices mindset, and have committed resources to implementing improved management practices. Managers develop and integrate the supporting modern management practices (e.g., financial, HR, IT, procurement, asset management) when implementing new program or service delivery initiatives.

Managers see controls as mechanisms to identify risks, opportunities and respond to the unexpected. They apply modern management concepts in their day-to-day operations. Managers integrate financial and non-financial information in their decision-making. Managers are always seeking new and innovative management practices, and share best practices across the organization.

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	Functional authorities are clearly defined within the TSB.

	Senior managers representative of the functional areas are part of the executive team (Senior Management Committee) and are called upon to provide strategic advice. Other functional experts, such as the chief of Human Resources, participate in senior management meetings to provide guidance and advice on specific issues, as required.

	Supporting functional staff (eg, Finance, HR, IM/IT) are primarily focused on transaction processing.

	There are limited capabilities in financial analysis and policy development across the TSB. Most notably, capacity to analyze information and turn it into business advice is generally lacking.

	There are concerns amongst some managers that the TSB’s official decision-making body (Senior Management Committee (SMC)) does not function in an entirely objective and strategic manner. SMC members (functional and non-functional) are perceived to be focused on their own areas as opposed to representing the organization as a whole.

	The Information Management Steering Committee does not have sufficient representation from functional areas.

TOPIC	1	2	3	4	5
*Senior departmental functional authorities* *Extent to which senior departmental functional authorities and supporting organizations are used for objective commentary and independent advice*	No clear functional authorities (e.g., SFO, HR, CIO) within the organization. Role of functional authorities is seen primarily as transaction or process oriented (e.g., maintaining records and controls, processing). Advice is focused mainly on the process.	Senior departmental functional authorities and staff assist the executive team in assessing the management implications of major decisions (e.g., financial, HR). Senior functional authorities are often called upon to provide strategic advice, while supporting organization is primarily transaction or process oriented.	Senior departmental functional authorities and staff are senior members of the executive team, and are often called upon to provide strategic advice and support in new program initiatives/ changes. Scope includes not only functional matters, but also effectiveness/efficiency of service delivery and management controls and practices required.	Senior departmental functional authorities and organization are playing a leadership role in integrating processes and systems to ensure the department is making sound business decisions, maintaining controls, managing long term risks, and achieving high standards of performance. Role of functional authority is well understood and highly valued.	The senior departmental functional authorities and their organizations are recognized as leaders among peers, and are perceived within the department as having strong technical and strategic expert advisory capabilities.

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	The TSB has started work on establishing a formal planning framework that conforms with the government planning cycle and requirements.

	A strategic plan has been developed with input from TSB staff. This plan articulates the mission, values, strategic objectives, and outcomes of the TSB. It also outlines strategies for focusing the attention and energies of staff and management on the achievement of desired outcomes and results.

	Business Planning occurs at the TSB level and is primarily focused on meeting central agency requirements. Business planning is not done on a systematic basis across the organization.
	-	Managers who prepare business plans do so in isolation and in a fragmented fashion. These plans are generally not tied back to the overall TSB plan.

	While part of the TSB has prepared capital and IT asset renewal plans, these are not neither comprehensive nor integrated. As well, neither one has been implemented due to shortage of resources.

	The TSB has an integrated training plan that reflects training plans prepared by different areas in the organization.

	The need to plan around organization-wide objectives and priorities is not recognized across the TSB. There are indications of resistance to this idea coupled with a lack of understanding of the benefits of strategic and business planning.

	Operational branches are not always aware of commitments made in corporate documents.

	Priority should be given to the continued development of a formal, integrated planning cycle.

	The Corporate Business Plan should flow directly from the Strategic Plan and be used as the foundation for the preparation of operational plans across the TSB.

TOPIC	1	2	3	4	5
*Planning* *Strategic, business and operational planning, and the linkages between them and to resource allocation*	Business plans are developed independently of strategic plan. Little or no effort is made to reconcile the two. Business planning is done on an inconsistent basis across the organization. Corporate business plan meets central Agency reporting requirements but is primarily focused on financial information. No effort is made to link/reconcile branch business plans. Plans, once prepared, are seldom used in support of program delivery.	Strategic and business plans are prepared independently. Branches prepare business plans independently. Business plans are primarily focused on meeting central Agency reporting requirements. HR, IM, and other horizontal issues are addressed on a project-by-project basis, and are only partially reflected in business plans. Some effort is made to ensure consistency between business plans and strategic plan or to reconcile branch business plans.	Desired results, strategic priorities and resources are clearly stated in business plans. Strong linkages exist between strategic objectives and priorities, business plans, and operational plans and budgets. Business plans are comprehensive and reflect resources from all functional areas. Resources are adjusted annually to reflect priorities. Strong linkages between branch business plans. Results achieved in business plans are monitored against strategic priorities.	Strategic and business plans highlight organization-wide issues, major risks, and the resource implications. Assumptions are periodically challenged to ensure continued relevance. Plans reflect needs of clients/ stakeholders who are consulted as part of the process. Business plan resources/ performance targets reflect strategic priorities. Results achieved are monitored on a trend basis against strategic priorities. Plans/ resources are adjusted to reflect performance results.	Clients participate in the business planning process.Plans are used as an integral component in program management. Program outcomes are reported regularly against both strategic and business plans on a trend basis. The plans and process are highly integrated. Plans are cascaded across the organization, and are easily accessible through organization-wide information system. Plans and resources are revised periodically to reflect performance results.

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	The Executive Director of the TSB is firmly committed to integrating the resource allocation process with strategic and business planning and further recognizes the importance of resource reallocation as a means of making optimal use of the TSB’s stretched resources. The current mindset of senior management is that of openly questioning whether the organization is making best use of its resources.

	At the present time, there are no processes in place to regularly review resource allocation in light of changes in priorities and/or activities. Work is underway to address this gap.

	In 1999/00, the TSB rolled-out a zero-based budgeting methodology in order to better rationalize priorities and resource allocation. This methodology has not been fully implemented.

	Budgets are being proactively challenged by senior management to validate resource requirements.

	Budget allocations are based primarily on historical information and are not tied directly to business planning or strategic priorities.

	Historically, budget approvals occurred well after the start of the fiscal year – some managers felt that this hampered planning activities. The new Executive Director of the TSB has made a firm commitment that budgets will be approved before 1 April or shortly thereafter.

	The quality of budget submissions varies significantly across the TSB, indicating different levels of understanding/capabilities with respect to the budgeting process. There was no training provided as part of the roll out of zero-based budgeting.

	Budget reallocations are sometimes based on Finance staff’s knowledge of the practices and track records of individual RC managers rather than factual information provided by these managers. There is risk that should turnover of key Finance staff occur, the TSB will not be well positioned to identify surplus funds available for reallocation.

	There are indications of a tendency to use the budgeting and commitment processes to set up contingency funds. While this practice in itself is not a deficiency, contingencies are not reduced or identified as being available for reallocation as the fiscal year progresses or as the events for which they were earmarked do not materialize.

	Because business planning is not done at the Service line level (ie, Investigation Operations, Corporate Services), managers are not able to identify what has been achieved with the resources consumed.

	Budgets are not prepared for individual investigations, therefore it is difficult to hold Investigators In Charge (IICs) accountable for the resource expended.

	A resource review that was initiated in FY 1999/00 has been set aside pending the completion of strategic and business planning framework.

	The TSB maintains ongoing dialogue with TB analysts on resource pressures. The submission made under the Departmental Assessment process has resulted in the approval of additional funding for the TSB.

	The TSB has had a history of lapsing significant amount of funds. In the last two fiscal years this situation has improved considerably with a minimal lapse of funds expected for FY 2001/02.

	A significant number of the TSB’s veteran staff have retired in the last two years and more retirements are expected in the near-term. Senior management is committed to initiating an organization-wide succession planning process to minimize the impact of retirements on operations.

	The TSB does not use a project management approach to guide the length and depth of major investigations. With a few exceptions, there are generally no checkpoints or exit ramps for large, multi-year investigations that enable the reallocation of resources if it is deemed that the total benefit would be greater if the investigation were terminated and resources directed to other work.

	Some staff of the organization are assigned project manager roles without sufficient experience.

	Some managers and staff are responsible for budgets over which they have no control (eg, vehicles, telephones).

	There is currently no succession planning.

TOPIC	1	2	3	4	5
*Resource management* *Mechanisms for ranking program options, identifying funding requirements and allocating resources, and budgeting and forecasting*	No systematic/formal approach or process to resource allocation, budgeting or forecasting. Resource levels are adjusted on an incremental basis from year to year. Budgets are primarily concerned with allocating expenditure or cash targets. Limited consultation or involvement of operational staff in budgeting and forecasting. No commentary on budget or forecasts, and assumptions are not documented. Financial information and analysis is not integrated into the evaluation of program options and priorities.	Resource levels are reviewed periodically through program and other funding reviews. Resource levels are adjusted for new activities/priorities, and are managed independently by each organizational unit (e.g., branch, region). There is a clear formal process for budgeting. Budgets and forecasts are prepared by finance based on a broad understanding of longer term plans and base assumptions provided by operational staff. Forecasts are not reviewed for realism of assumptions. Actual results rarely correspond to forecasts. Reforecasts are infrequently prepared and in little detail. There is limited commentary prepared for the financial assumptions.	Resource planning models are used to estimate resource requirements. Mechanisms are in place to facilitate resource re-allocations between branches/ regions. A business case approach is used to allocate resources. Budgets are prepared by operational staff with advice and input from finance staff, and are clearly linked to strategic/ business plans. SFO and staff develop the budgeting framework and communicate it to managers. The budget clearly identifies objectives and assumptions. Elements are budgeted on basis of assumed consumption. Lifecycle costing is used to identify the full resources required. Forecasts are reviewed for realism of assumptions, and quarterly re-forecasts made. Managers conduct variance analysis and justify variances. SFO and staff provide both a challenge and advisory function to managers.	Mechanisms are in place at the organization level to help make choices between competing priorities and to reflect changes in business plan objectives/ assumptions. Managers at all levels are involved in resource allocation/ re-allocation decisions. Budget re-allocations decisions are fully transparent. The resource allocation culture supports openness and flexibility. Budgets are closely linked to the costing approach, and link resources to activity and program/product costs. The processes for budgeting and forecasting are streamlined. Data is input directly into a financial planning mode (e.g., what-if analysis). Managers are held accountable for budget variances, and are rewarded/ penalized accordingly.	Resources are re-allocated between programs based on priorities that reflect results achieved and “value for money”. All management levels are highly committed to, and participate actively in, the resource allocation process. The budgeting approach is closely focused on outcomes and results. Budgets are closely linked with resource allocation priorities and performance results achieved.

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	The TSB has a number of formal and informal partnership arrangements in place.
	-	There are several Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with Other Government Departments such as Transport Canada, NRCan, and the RCMP, industry partners and provinces for the exchange of services. Some of these MOUs are out of date.
	-	There are informal agreements with the Safety Boards of other countries to collaborate (e.g., other countries that have problems with equipment come to the TSB for help; TSB goes to others such as the NSTB for training).
	-	The TSB is also a member of international organizations. Benefits include access to specialists and sharing of information.
	-	There are also numerous service and cost sharing arrangements that are negotiated on a case-by-case basis (during the course of investigations) with external parties such as coroners and insurance companies. These informal partnerships are considered to be very effective in achieving cost-avoidance.

	Guidance materials related to partnerships tend to be out of date and need to be updated.

	Partnerships are not proactively managed and there is a perception that the TSB is reluctant to form new partnerships. For the most part, existing partnerships are renewed and maintained.
	Opportunities exist to form additional partnerships (e.g., industry, universities, Statistics Canada).

	Staff and managers have identified the need for dialogue on partnerships. The scope of appropriate partnerships is not well understood. In addition, there is a need to build an understanding of key concepts such as arm’s length relationships and how they would work in a partnership.

TOPIC

Management of partnerships

Partnerships are used extensively by the organization in support of service delivery by leveraging the capabilities of external stakeholders, partners, and other government organizations

Roles and responsibilities as they pertain to identifying and implementing partnerships are generally not well understood. No formal mechanisms exist for the organization to manage its relationship with partners, or to measure the extent of benefits/cost savings. Information on the success of partnership arrangements is mainly anecdotal.

The department proactively reviews its activities and services to assess where partnerships are appropriate. Managers see partnerships as one way of doing business better but have only a broad understanding of their benefits and risks. Guidelines are in place to help managers implement new partnerships. A clear decision-making process is in place for authorizing major partnerships. A formal consultation process exists for stakeholders to provide input at critical stages of a project. All new partnership arrangements are supported by a business case and risk assessment.

Managers regularly consider options in terms of service delivery methods including partnership opportunities. Functional specialists play a pro-active role in assisting managers with the assessment and implementation of partnership arrangements. The HR strategy for affected staff is well developed and understood. Training programs are in place for managers and specialists. Toolkits exist to guide managers at each stage of the process. Systems are in place to monitor the performance of external partners, with incentives and sanctions. Benchmarking is done to compare costs with external suppliers. Risk management policies are in place for major partnerships. A consistent approach is used throughout the Department to track the overall performance of governance/ partnership arrangements.

The department has a long-term plan and has committed resources at the corporate level to support new service delivery methods including partnerships. Major partnership risks are identified in strategic and business plans, and the assessment of partnerships is an integral part of business planning and on-going decision-making. The organization has experimented with new types of governance and financing arrangements. Partnership opportunities are identified on a cross-functional basis. Processes are in place at the project level to allocate risks to the parties. Partnership risks are monitored on an on-going basis. Tools and techniques are well-developed and used consistently across the department. Performance information on governance arrangements is readily accessible.

The department is recognized across government for innovation, efficiency and success in implementing new service delivery methods. The department is benchmarked against and often called upon to provide advice to other departments on the benefits and risks of implementing partnerships. The organization has earned a high level of trust from stakeholders. Significant risks and implications are communicated to stakeholders regularly. Performance results on governance arrangements are an integral part of overall departmental performance reporting. Tools and models are assessed continually and updated based on new trends and technology.

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	Client relationship management is a shared responsibility across the TSB. Operational staff such as investigators, senior management, communications and corporate services staff all partake in ensuring that the work of the TSB is carried out in an open and transparent manner, key safety issues are communicated in a timely manner and client feedback information is collected.

	In 1999, an independent survey of persons with direct interest in the findings of the Board indicated that clients are generally very satisfied with the work of the TSB but have overwhelming concerns regarding the timeliness of the Board’s investigation reports. The TSB has been unable to achieve its one year standard for the completion of investigation reports.

	The transportation industry in Canada has developed a high level of confidence in the work of the TSB.

	Canadians generally recognize the work done by TSB investigators on major, high profile investigations but there is very limited recognition of the TSB on the part of the public and Other Government Departments (OGDs). The public and OGDs are not able to always distinguish between the TSB and other federal or provincial departments and agencies involved in transportation safety (eg, TSB investigators are often mistaken as Transport Canada employees).

	The Board is aware of the need to fine tune its communication efforts towards the mainstream media and the general public in order to improve Canadians’ recognition of the TSB.

	The TSB has a proactive approach to dissemination of information; information is made readily available to industry, next-of-kin, the media and the public throughout the investigation process. The Board also issues interim safety information during the course of investigations and positive responses have been received to this information.

	The TSB is making greater use of its Internet site to make its reports and other transportation safety information available to Canadians.

	In an effort to improve communications with next-of-kin of accident victims, the TSB invited a next-of-kin representative to address a national meeting of TSB investigators. The TSB has also been involved in an interdepartmental work group examining the need for a compassionate assistance program to assist survivors and next-of-kin of victims.

A focal point for monitoring client relationships and ensuring coordinated action on client satisfaction and other issues does not exist within the TSB.

TOPIC

Client relationship management

Commitment to consciously strengthening relationships with client organizations, and to integrating and coordinating how client services are developed and delivered.

There is no formal client management role in the department. Relations with clients/ stakeholders are primarily at the individual level. The department has limited systems and infrastructure to support the operations of the client management function.

A client management function (e.g., client managers, client relationship teams) has been established where warranted by the scale and complexity of a client’s interactions with the department. Personnel from key operational, program and supporting policy and functional groups work together to serve key clients. Basic information exists on key clients and stakeholders. Clients are aware of who to contact in the case of issues or new service requirements.

The department liaises with key client organizations to address existing and new service requirements, promote new services, and to share information on clients’ future plans and priorities. Client service plans have been developed for key clients. A client management function marshals and coordinates resources from across the department to ensure service delivery commitments are satisfied and service delivery problems are resolved.

The department develops close client relationships directed toward fully understanding clients’ needs. The client management function sets objectives for the department with key clients, and monitors existing service delivery performance and client satisfaction. Client organizations participate directly in planning sessions. Products and pricing are well understood by clients. The supporting infrastructure is in place—systems that track client intelligence, record client activity, service levels. The performance of the department is tracked for each key client account.

The department has an in-depth knowledge of the client’s business. The client management function has had a positive impact on the volume of client business and client satisfaction. Departmental services are seen to be “seamless” by clients. Client intelligence and lessons learned are shared throughout the organization. Program and service delivery staff work closely together to best serve the client, regardless of where they are in the organizational structure.

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	High standards of ethics and values are recognized and promoted by senior executive-level managers. There is extensive, ongoing dialogue on values and ethics.

	While the TSB does not have a formal and documented code of ethics (eg, independence/arms lengths relationships, how to deal with stakeholders), ethical and core values appear to be implicitly understood. There are ongoing discussions on developing a formal code of ethics.

	Core values were recently discussed at the TSB’s Strategic Retreat (October 2001), including how to improve the existing values. Core values have been updated and are expected to be published in the near future. Notwithstanding, core values do not have high visibility amongst TSB staff.

	The TSB has recently published two new policies: harassment and disclosure of wrong doing.

	Given the diverse backgrounds of TSB staff as well as the decentralized nature of the organization, a code of ethics and more visible core values are key in promoting consistent behaviors across the organization.

	There is a need to operationalize the core values through broad communication and guidance to new and existing staff.

TOPIC

Values and ethics framework

Leadership of policies and activities that visibly support the ethical stewardship of public resources and give priority to “modern management practices”

No clearly enunciated ethics and values policy. Policy statements are issued on an ad hoc basis. Limited attention has been given to values and ethics. No clear direction has been provided. There is an absence of dialogue on the subject. The organization follows minimum guidelines such as a code of conduct.

Values and ethics are recognized as an issue. The organization has engaged staff in a dialogue on ethics and values. Leadership has been demonstrated in championing values and ethics—for example, a champion has been identified. The organization participates in government-wide surveys involving values and ethics. The organization may have a values and ethics statement.

The department has put a structure in place and resourced it to promote values and ethics (e.g., champions, ombudsman, ethics counselor). Written policies have been communicated across the organization, and are generally understood. Values and ethics are incorporated in departmental training programs. The organization is developing a better understanding of how to deal with ethical dilemmas.

Ethics and values principles/ guidelines are well understood by staff, and are reflected in organization-wide documents and communications. Senior managers demonstrate a consistent ethical leadership. There is consistent application of processes on values and ethics. Demonstrated ethical behaviors are assessed in performance evaluation. An atmosphere of mutual trust exists at all levels. There is ongoing monitoring, assessment and evaluation of trends in values and ethics.

The organization is recognized externally as a leader in establishing an ethics and values program. Ethics and values are consistently reflected in organization practices and actions. All levels in the organization participate in the development of ethics and compliance related policies and programs. Values and ethics are integrated into processes and the workplace in general. There is consistent behaviour at large. Ethics and values assessments and surveys are carried out regularly.

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	There is a strong understanding of the need to manage the risks inherent in delivering the products/services of the TSB.

	There is a structured risk assessment process for investigations aimed at evaluating the consequences of not conducting an investigation.

	With respect to non-investigation related decisions or activities, managers appear to have an implicit understanding of risk, but there is no documented risk management framework to provide a consistent risk management platform for managers and staff.

	Risk assessments are undertaken for some major projects such as FIS but not in all cases (eg, IT projects).

	RC managers have a history of establishing contingency funds to deal with unforeseen events.

The TSB would benefit from the introduction of a more structured and holistic risk management system that can be applied consistently across all activities and functions.

TOPIC

Integrated risk management

Measures are in place to identify, assess, understand, act on, and communicate risk issues in a corporate and systematic fashion

No formal risk management measures are in place. Concept of risk management is not well understood.

Risk management policies and guidelines are in place for specific operational areas. Risk assessment is done extensively at the operational level. Risk management is applied primarily to major initiatives involving significant resources. No policy or guidelines exist at the department-wide level. Department-wide issues are dealt with on a “one-off” basis as they arise. Contingency/ reserve funds are in place to deal with unforeseen events. Potential liabilities have been identified and strategies have been developed and implemented to manage them. The organization is beginning to use a common risk management language.

An integrated risk management framework is in place. The department maintains a corporate risk profile. Management direction on risk management and organizational risk tolerance is communicated, and senior managers champion risk management. Major risks are identified and plans developed to manage risks. Risk management is integrated into decision-making. Managers are trained in and apply risk management concepts, techniques and tools. A common risk management process is applied at all levels. There is a consistent understanding of what risk management means. Consultation with stakeholders is ongoing. Evaluation and reporting mechanisms are being developed to report on risk performance.

Integrated risk management is embedded in the department’s corporate strategy and shapes the department’s risk culture. Continuous risk management learning is encouraged. The results of risk management are integrated in organizational policies, plans and practices. Learning from experience is valued, and lessons are shared. Various tools and methods are used for managing risk (e.g., risk maps, modelling tools). The Department reviews its risk tolerance over time. Sharing best practices and experiences is used to increase managers knowledge base. Advisors help integrate a corporate focus on risk management.

Risk management supports a cultural shift to a risk-smart workforce and environment. The integration of risk management into decision-making is supported by a corporate philosophy and culture that risk management is everyone’s business. The Department embraces innovation and responsible risk-taking. Results of risk management are used to support innovation, learning and continuous improvement. The department is seen as a leader in risk management.

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	There is no corporate repository detailing internal controls for Finance, HR and IM/IT. Internal control related documents exist in a fragmented fashion.

	The TSB relies on a combination of manual and systems controls. The implementation of FIS has resulted in new systems controls that are perceived by some managers as hindering the performance of their work.

	Controls are not reviewed regularly to ensure they are sufficient, efficient, or effective. The effectiveness of regional controls is not known.

	The TSB’s internal control framework is founded on a formal Delegation of Authorities Chart and compliance with the Financial Administration Act (Sections 32, 33 and 34).

	Section 32 commitment authority and Section 34 payment authority are decentralized to the lowest levels within the organization. Commitment authorities are not always being exercised properly; some managers are initiating transactions without recording the corresponding commitments in the financial system.

	Delegated authorities are currently being reviewed as managers have requested higher delegation limits.

	High volume transactions such as travel claims and some Accounts Payables are verified through sampling (e.g., all Canadian travel claims under $2000).

	Capital assets have been identified and recorded in a TSB-wide database.

	An inventory system has been implemented for FIS.

With the implementation of FIS, education of managers is required with respect to new controls to ensure that they are understood and complied with.

TOPIC	1	2	3	4	5
*Integrated management control framework* *Appropriateness of management controls in place, and linkages between controls through an integrated control framework*	Transaction controls are largely paper based. Multiple approval levels in place. Account verification is done on a 100% basis without regard to materiality or risk. Revenue controls are weak. Fixed asset records are incomplete, verification is not done regularly. Delegation records are not regularly maintained. Controls are perceived to be impeding decision making and managers’ ability to fulfill their accountabilities. Policies and procedures are not up-to-date.	Systems are in place to control overspending, manage accounts receivable and assets. Limited systems integration, and controls redundancies exist in operating systems. Limited use of statistical sampling based on risk. Approval levels and authorities are documented and reviewed periodically. The authority structure is seen as a control instrument rather than a strategic tool. Authorities are applied inconsistently across the department.	Effective systems in place and integrated or interfaced where necessary. Taking materiality, sensitivity and risk into account, there is an adequate system of internal control over assets, liabilities, revenues, expenditures, contracts and contribution agreements. All legislation, regulations and executive orders are complied with, and spending limits are observed. Comprehensive authority structure exists for most functions of the organization, and is updated periodically. Delegation of authorities are consistent with operating responsibilities.	Control framework is in place and fully integrated. Controls are built into, not onto processes. Controls are working as intended, and are integrated functionally to avoid unnecessary duplication. Controls are regularly reviewed as to risk (potential benefit or amount of exposure to loss). Processes are in place to ensure that corrective action is taken. Alternative controls are developed, where appropriate. Strong fit exists between the authority structure and the corporate values and culture of the organization. Authorities support responsive service delivery to clients.	Managers conduct self-assessments of controls required. Managers are made aware of potential control weaknesses. Control framework is used strategically to support strong ethics and values in the organization. Authority structure is closely related to the organization-wide policy on risk management. Authorities are used as a strategic enabler in the management of the organization.

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	The need to augment capabilities to meet modern comptrollership requirements has been recognized by senior management.

	As part of the FIS project, a self- assessment of existing financial management and modern comptrollership competencies was completed for finance staff/specialists. Training is in progress to address the identified gaps.

	Most managers agree that they would benefit from some management training grounded in TSB policies, processes and systems.

	Core competencies for managers in general have not been clearly defined.

An organization-wide self-assessment of modern management capabilities is required to identify major skills gaps and develop a strategy for addressing these gaps.

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	The TSB does not have any formal mechanisms to collect information on employee satisfaction.

	Managers have different means of monitoring and collecting input on employee satisfaction (eg, number of grievances, absenteeism, work groups, employee exit feedback). They do not believe the TSB’s size warrants a formal mechanism to monitor employee satisfaction.

	Senior management relies on managers to identify employee satisfaction issues and bring these to their attention.

	The results of the 1999 Public Service Survey were analyzed but action taken to address significant issues was not consistent across the TSB. The TSB is planning to participate in the 2001/02 Public Service Survey.

	An employee exit feedback process has been implemented and is providing useful information that will be reported to senior management.

	There is recognition of the need for a focal point to collect input on employee satisfaction through managers and HR staff in an organized way and to develop an action plan to address high priority issues.

	Senior management has identified three axes of tension within the TSB and is working to relieve these tensions, in part, through a more structured and transparent management framework. The tensions revolve around:
	-	operations versus corporate support
	-	regional offices versus HQ
	-	the three modes

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	Staff are regarded as key assets of the organization.

	Senior management is striving to introduce a more structured approach to enable staff to provide input and make suggestions. A group of staff, selected from a list of volunteers, was recently invited to a strategic planning retreat where they had the opportunity to provide input on the TSB’s management framework.

	The TSB uses newsletters and the Intranet to keep staff informed. Regional staff do not always feel attuned to the pulse of the TSB.

	Given the size of the TSB, opportunities for advancement are limited for most staff.

	Some managers are of the opinion that staff should be encouraged and enabled to challenge the status quo.

TOPIC

Enabling work environment

Practices for communication, wellness, safety and support that enable staff to provide client-focussed delivery while reaching their full potential

The prevailing culture reinforces compliance and risk averse behaviour where staff are expected to follow orders and defined procedures. Communication tends to be downward, with management controlling and limiting information to staff. Changes are decided by management and communicated as necessary to staff. Staff have little input into decisions. Cross-functional communication is limited. Staff have little influence over their work or work environment.

Though there is management control, staff are encouraged to increase productivity and look for efficiencies. Staff provide input and are allowed to make suggestions when changes occur. Information is available for monitoring purposes and shared amongst functions where interrelationships exist. Newsletters and bulletins are used to keep staff informed of changes and initiatives. Work/life balance is emphasized.

Staff are acknowledged as a key asset and programs are implemented to allow growth on the job. Staff are given opportunities to provide input, to modify procedures and to make decisions regarding their immediate work. Staff are consulted before major decisions are made, and are often enrolled in cross-functional taskforces to recommend solutions. Information flows freely within functional areas, and is shared between functional areas.

The importance of employees is emphasized through the supportive role of management. Open and rapid communication and information flow are apparent. Staff have access to process and client service data so they can make decisions independently for continuous improvement. Communication with clients and stakeholders is open and constant, with information and decisions being shared in partnership arrangements. Staff are involved in all decisions regarding their work environment.

Staff are treated as partners in the business with managers. Both can share ideas and assist each other in service delivery. Continuous learning is emphasized. Internal information systems are constantly used to share information, give feedback and celebrate achievements and initiatives. External communication and media use are highly rated by stakeholders. Individuals and teams are challenged to take decisions or make suggestions on any process or product that would improve client service.

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	Given the size of the organization, managers are well aware of the workload of their staff members and make adjustments as required.

	The implementation of FIS has resulted in workload adjustments such that some transactions previously being processed at HQ have been decentralized and are now being handled by the regions.

	Work/life balance is difficult to achieve given the very high workload of most TSB staff. Most investigators understand the demands of the job before joining the TSB and other than during emergencies have a reasonable work/life balance.

	Flexible work arrangements include compressed work week and flexible work hours.

	A telework program is in place on a special case basis.

	Support for flexible work arrangements varies by manager.

	The TSB does not have a process to systematically assess workload and productivity across the organization through benchmarks or other means.

	The time accounting system could be used as a work measurement method or to manage workload.

TOPIC

Sustainable workforce

The energies of staff are managed wisely to help sustain the organization’s viability

No measures exist for determining productivity or expected outputs. Work assignment is based on incoming volume with little consideration of capacity or priorities.

Work measurement methods have been applied to determining approximate times for completion of some tasks and work volumes are assigned on this basis. Standards are adjusted for new technology and experience gained.

Workloads and deadlines are assigned in accordance with performance standards and business plans. Staff have input into establishing standards that are used to measure their productivity and rate performance. Climate surveys are used to obtain staff feedback on pace and volume of work. The organization provides for flexibility in how work is carried out (e.g., flexible work arrangements).

Performance contracting is practiced for establishing agreed-to performance standards and expected outcomes. Staff are involved in the process and may request adjustment for unforeseen delays and other priorities. Managers survey staff to ensure workload expectations are reasonable, and to look for signs of stress and assist employees in coping.

Individual differences are acknowledged in both staff and clients, and workloads are adjusted accordingly. Teamwork is encouraged and work distributed in line with individual competencies and preferences. Balance between work and personal lives is encouraged and managers model the personal workload management they expect from staff. Staff surveys show that workload demands are considered reasonable and controllable.

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	Recent changes in the senior management team have led to a more inclusive approach that fosters staff participation in key activities such as the development of the TSB’s strategic plan. The management team has also been more actively involved in performance reporting.

	Although the TSB invests heavily in the training of new investigators, there are few instances of continuous learning or developmental opportunities for existing staff.

	Information is not always shared in an open and transparent manner across the organization. Regional staff feel that they do not always receive relevant information in a timely manner, which can lead to sentiments of isolation. Regions and HQ do not seem to appreciate the information that the other needs or finds useful.

	Organizational units (eg, Air, Marine, Rail/Pipeline, Information Strategies and Analysis and Corporate Services) tend to work in silos. Communication and information sharing works well within silos, but it tends not to spread across them.
	An awards and recognition program is under development; a draft policy has been completed.

The Swissair investigation forced TSB modes to work together and provides a model for teamwork.

TOPIC

Valuing peoples’ contributions

Extent to which the organizational culture fosters staff participation, team building, sharing of ideas, risk taking, innovation, and continuous learning; and rewards or provides incentives for such behaviour

Traditional “we-they” relationship exists between management and staff. Considerable resistance to change. High level of skepticism exists within organization. Mixed messages are given to staff. New initiatives tend to be delayed or never implemented. Little or no interaction between organizational units. Rewards, recognition and incentives programs are not perceived to be linked to peoples’ contributions.

People are consulted and given opportunity to participate in major change initiatives. A cautious approach is taken to implementing change. People tend to be risk averse. Organizational units tend to work independently with some interaction. Government–wide rewards, recognition and incentive programs are applied.

People in the organization are treated with value and respect. People are able to speak out and participate in discussions without fear of reprimand. Information is shared openly within the organization, and with external clients/ stakeholders. Strong sense of teamwork exists across the organization. A mix of national and local rewards, recognition and incentive programs are in place. A strong link exists between incentives, rewards, recognition and peoples’ contribution.

People are empowered to take responsible risks, and are encouraged to be innovative. Culture barriers that prevent efficient delivery of services by staff are removed. Organization fosters a culture of continuous learning and participation. Pro-active effort is made to share new ideas and approaches across the organization. Major investments are made in the development of people. Incentives are place to reward consistently high performers.

People are highly committed to the success of the organization. High level of pride exists in the organization. Strong fit exists between organizational and individual aspirations. People are continuously cited for their exemplary behavior. Organization is continuously renewing competencies required. Value of human capital in the organization is measured and tracked over time. Incentive, rewards and recognition systems are constantly being improved, and customized to the needs of the organization.

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	Accountabilities are implicitly understood within the organization; they are neither articulated in all cases nor are they linked to achievement of results.

	Specialist roles are defined but not necessarily well communicated and understood.

	IICs generally understand their resource management responsibilities in coordination with regional managers.

	There is a perception among some managers and staff that the TSB is top heavy. For example, there is confusion over the distinction between the position of Director of Investigations and DG Investigation Operations, and a sense that there is overlap in the positions. There is also a perception that there are too many senior staff members on the support side.

	Some accountabilities such as those related to the quality of investigation reports are unclear.

	Regional staff reporting to HQ do not have as clear a sense of their roles as do staff reporting within the region.

Within regions, there is no designated manager to look after local administrative and organizational issues leading to confusion as to who is accountable for what.

TOPIC	1	2	3	4	5
*Clarity of responsibilities and organization* *Clarity of assignment of responsibilities and accountabilities throughout the organization*	Management and specialists roles and responsibilities are generally not well understood in the organization. Confusion exists in accountabilities for achieving and reporting results.	Some confusion exists as to responsibilities of management and specialists. Some overlap in roles and responsibilities among managers and/or specialists. Not clear as to who has final authority for resource allocation in case of disagreement.	Authority, responsibility, and accountability are clearly defined and aligned with the organization’s objectives. Accountabilities are clearly defined at each management and specialist level, and are well understood throughout the organization. Little or no overlap in responsibilities. Accountability issues are resolved quickly. Accountabilities for controlling resources, and reporting and achieving results are clearly delineated.	Responsibility within the department for dealing with new and emerging financial and non-financial issues is clear. There is a clear understanding of responsibilities that provides the framework for modern management practices such as resource management and performance reporting.	Management and specialist responsibilities are constantly reviewed in light of external client/stakeholder and central Agency requirements. Changes to structure and responsibilities are made pro-actively.

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	In general, performance agreements are in place for all executives and managers entitled to performance pay. Performance agreements for all other staff are left to the discretion of individual managers; they exist in pockets throughout the TSB.

	Performance agreements tend to focus on completing activities, rather than achieving results.

	Managers who have performance agreements tend to feel that the activities included in their agreements reflect the TSB’s direction and keep them focused on organizational priorities.

	Information to support performance agreements is collected informally. The TSB has not established a formal or structured performance information system. The assessment process integrates feedback from functional specialists when appropriate.

The TSB is not preparing performance agreements in a timely manner. Agreements for 2001/02 were not finalized until late in 2001.

TOPIC

Performance agreements and evaluations

Extent to which the achievement of financial and operating results is embedded in performance agreements

No performance agreements are in place.

Performance agreements are in place for senior executives that define accountabilities, and establish priorities and measures of performance vis-à-vis accountabilities. Achievement versus performance agreements is a key consideration in the evaluation of the performance of the senior executives of the organization. Systems to consolidate and report performance information against financial and operating goals are not yet in place.

Performance agreements are in place on a widespread basis for most managers. The agreements reflect organizational objectives, and are closely aligned with business plans, work plans and budgets. Performance agreements are seen as a key driver of business planning and performance reporting, and form the principal basis for the evaluation of performance of managers. Performance information is collected to measure achievement of financial and operating results specified in performance agreements.

The performance agreements at the various management levels are closely linked. Information in performance agreements is shared openly between managers and staff. Managers’ performance agreements are adjusted, as required, to reflect changes to priorities and business and work plans, due to changes in the environment. Performance information is available on a trend basis to measure achievement of financial and operating results specified in performance agreements.

Priorities and performance targets in performance agreements are cascaded to the individual objectives and goals of staff. Performance agreements are revised periodically to reflect new organizational priorities and changes in strategic and business plans. Performance reporting systems and accountability agreements are closely aligned. Achievement of modern management practices responsibilities is assessed and deviations explained.

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	Most program initiatives are developed with specialist support/input but it is recognized that there are gaps in specialist competencies.

	Finance, HR and IM/IT activities are primarily compliance and control oriented and the focus is on transaction processing.

	Role of Finance is that of “gatekeeper” as opposed to business “advisor or partner”

	Some finance staff have observed that they do not have sufficient understanding of Operations and other areas outside of corporate services.

	There are limited capabilities in analysis and policy development amongst specialists. Most notably, capacity to analyze information and turn it into business advice is generally lacking.

	Most financial functions in the regions are performed by the multi-modal administrative officers who are well-qualified.

	Finance staff are occasionally called upon to provide specialist advice and support. In some instances, however, Finance staff have been asked to take responsibility for final decisions requiring managerial discretion or where the rules/regulations are open to interpretation. (e.g., relocations and car rentals).

	There are notable tensions between operations and corporate support functions. There is tendency in the TSB to view operations as superior to support functions. Some operational staff are frustrated that specialists do not seem to appreciate the complexities of their working environment and they perceive that corporate support is getting bigger at the expense of operational priorities. There is considerable work to be done to build a solid partnership between operations staff and specialists.

	FIS has resulted in the decentralization of certain financial transaction processing activities to the regions providing an opportunity to shift the focus of HQ finance staff to strategic advice, analysis, and policy development.

	The reactive nature of the TSB’s work often results in situations where some flexibility is required in the application of policies, procedures and rules; there is sometimes conflict between specialists and operational staff regarding the degree of flexibility required.

TOPIC	1	2	3	4	5
*Specialist support* *Availability of top-flight counsel to help managers make judgment calls on modern management and operational issues*	Role of specialists is primarily transaction processing. Functional specialists carry out basic analysis of information required by management to support decision making in response to specific requests and as part of their control mandate.	Departmental capacity in analytical techniques has been updated within specialists’ organizations. Specialists respond to requests from managers for both process and strategic advice. Specialists are not always familiar with the operations. The quality of service is inconsistent between functional areas.	Service is responsive. Specialists’ advice is readily available when required. Functional specialists are technically competent and work with line managers in providing both strategic and process analysis and advice. Are seen as value added partners in analysis and decision-making rather than a barrier. Specialists are proactive in suggesting new tools and techniques to managers.	Specialists work closely with managers by providing value added information, technical and citizen-responsive advice for priority setting, planning, decision-making and program design. Specialists are very familiar with the operations, and knowledgeable of the analytical techniques to support the line manager. Specialists maintain a current knowledge of related policy areas. Specialists are aware of trends in their discipline.	Challenge and expert advisory role of specialists is valued by all levels of management. Specialists are seen as key enablers in initiating change, and are often asked to assume a leadership role in change initiatives. Functional specialists are often called upon by their peers to provide advice and support in other organizations, or to speak at conferences on new trends or best practices.

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	The TSB complies with applicable legislative and regulatory reporting requirements (e.g. reporting to TBS and Parliament).

	Treasury Board Secretariat indicates that RPPs and other submissions are of high quality.

	The TSB was selected, by the CCAF panel, as one of top 3 finalists for best DPR (99/00) in the small agencies category.

	Functional specialists prepare reports, but receive input from senior management. Senior management is satisfied with the quality of reports.

While external documents are clearly linked to the internal strategic plan, this plan has traditionally been developed in isolation (i.e., by Corporate Services) and has not been cascaded throughout the TSB. Linkages between external documents and business plans are not clear.

TOPIC

External reporting

Extent to which Parliamentary, central agency and key stakeholder information reporting requirements are met

Information reported satisfies minimum external reporting requirements.

Process for consolidating financial and non-financial information required for external reporting is reviewed on a regular basis. Close contacts are maintained with central agencies, Parliamentarians and key stakeholders to ensure information meets their requirements. External reports are aligned with planning and accountability structures within the department.

Organization is recognized by external agencies (e.g., TBS), Parliamentarians (e.g., Public Accounts Committee), and key stakeholders (e.g., provincial agencies) for producing useful, consistent, and credible financial and non-financial information in a user-friendly format. External reports are easily understood and are meaningful to users. Information in external reports is reported on a trend basis so that changes can be monitored over time.

Strong linkages exist between information reported externally and strategic and business plans. Integrated information input by functional specialists and managers in strategic and business plans is used to prepare external reports. Senior management plays an active role in preparing and communicating external reports.

Department is seen as a leader in the quality of its external reporting documents. External reports demonstrate innovation. The department is often used as a pilot site for government-wide changes to external reporting processes.

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	The TSB has certain elements of a performance measurement framework in place (e.g., qualitative measures at the corporate level) but it has not progressed to the point where there is an approved framework that is used to manage operations and resources, make informed decisions and promote strong accountabilities. The existing performance measures do not address the full range of the TSB’s activities.

	Given the nature of the TSB’s business, senior management recognizes the challenges associated with quantifying the impact of the TSB’s work on advancing transportation safety. Nonetheless, the TSB sees this as its raison d’etre and is committed to capturing data on its overall impact on advancing transportation safety.

	There are plans to define qualitative and quantitative performance indicators over the short-term.

	Current performance data is largely output oriented (number of reports, number of investigations). There are no linkages between strategic priorities, resources and results.

	The TSB has been tracking costs by activity and plans to link results with activity costs.

	The TSB will also attempt to integrate financial and non-financial performance information in the next planning cycle.

	Dialogue on a Balanced Score Card approach to performance measurement is underway.

TOPIC

Integrated departmental performance reporting

Key measures exist to monitor overall organization-wide performance and best-value results

No departmental performance measures.

Each Branch measures performance at organization-wide level independently. Department-wide priority areas to be measured have been identified. Departmental performance measures have been organized in a organization-wide reporting framework (e.g., balanced scorecard). The methods of collecting the information, and sources of information, have been identified.

High level strategic measures for the department are in place, and are linked to strategic vision and priorities. Linkages between measures are evident. Performance measures have been communicated, and agreed upon. Staff have received training Measures cover both financial and non-financial, and provide historical and future oriented view. Information on the results of the performance measures is available in part. A mix of quantitative and anecdotal information is used.

Performance results are reported for the organization as a whole over time. Results are monitored against targets and the department’s strategic objectives. Information is valued by senior management and the Minister, and is often used for decision-making and external reporting. Results are used to make trade offs in organization-wide priorities. Departmental measures are refined on an ongoing basis.

Performance results indicate positive improvement. Strategic and business plans are modified accordingly based on results achieved. Information is readily accessible through executive information systems. Information needs and systems are periodically reassessed based on changing business needs and identified reporting gaps. Performance information is available so that the department can report performance to stakeholders on a horizontal portfolio basis, e.g., health portfolio.

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	Other than a milestone tracking system, no formal systems are in place to track operational performance. The TSB generally monitors operational performance through informal dialogue with clients (e.g., industry) and other transportation agencies.

	The TSB has developed some operational performance measures. These measures are tracked annually and then rolled into annual reports. Measures were developed outside of a strategic planning process, and are not formally linked to TSB objectives and priorities.

As the TSB implements a strategic planning process, opportunities will exist to analyze performance against strategic objectives and to use performance information as a decision-making tool.

TOPIC

Operating information

Measures and systems to monitor service quality and efficiency of program delivery

Information on operating measures is not collected or reported on a systematic basis.

Systems used for tracking operating results are either non-existent, unreliable or incompatible.

Operating measures exist to varying degrees by organizational unit (e.g., branch). Operating performance is monitored on an ongoing basis. Formal systems are in place to track operational performance, though systems do not always have full functionalities required. In some cases, managers maintain separate records for management purposes in addition to formal systems. System links and data flows are not well understood.

High level information is available for key operational indicators but with limited “drill-down” capability. Operating performance measures and targets are in place in most organizational units. Operating results are monitored on an ongoing basis, and actions are initiated by program managers to improve results. Staff receive training in use of performance measurement systems. Formal systems in place to track operating results are considered timely, accurate and reliable. Systems are “stovepiped”, however system links and data flows are well understood.

Information on operating results is easily accessible in organization-wide performance information systems. Service delivery teams use information on an ongoing basis to initiate process improvements. Strong linkages exist between operating results and business plans. Information is an integral element of resource allocation decisions. Operating systems are linked and interfaced/ integrated with financial and other systems. Re-keying and manual intervention is rarely needed. Customized reports are available with limited effort.

Operating results are monitored over time. Key operational measures show positive or stable trends in results. Different measures are in place for different client groups. Measures are added and deleted as priorities change. Operating measures are cascaded throughout the organization and are linked to strategic objectives and priorities. Staff can easily obtain the operating information they require through online access to drill down facilities or simple user friendly report writers. The information is accurate and timely.

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	The TSB does not have a systematic approach for measuring client satisfaction. In many cases, it has relied on informal and anecdotal information obtained by senior managers talking to industry.

	In 1999/00, theTSB commissioned an independent survey of persons with direct interest in the findings of the Board. Building on the results of this survey, the TSB contracted with a communications firm to conduct a media analysis of news coverage.

	The Board has relied on media coverage of investigations to gauge the level of client satisfaction. A number of investigations (eg, Swissair 111, TRUE NORTH II) include supportive commentary from stakeholders and praise from victims’ families for TSB’s diligence and efforts to improve transportation safety. The TSB uses structured tools for assessment of media content on an ongoing basis.

	Historically, there has been limited analysis of client/stakeholder survey information. Survey results are discussed but action plans are not developed to address key issues. Likewise, survey results are not linked to strategic and business planning to improve service delivery.

	One of the current priorities of senior management is to undertake a comprehensive stakeholder survey to obtain feedback on stakeholder needs as well as the types of services that are desirable but are currently not being provided by the TSB.

TOPIC

Measuring client satisfaction

Utilization of client survey information on satisfaction levels, and importance of services

Client satisfaction information is collected on an informal and ad hoc basis.

Approaches to collecting client satisfaction vary across the department, and tend to vary from year to year depending on management priorities. Limited monitoring and analysis of results. Information collected is not always seen to be useful.

Formal systems exist across department to survey clients on level of satisfaction. Results are tracked over time, and are considered in strategic and business planning. Limited analysis of results on a department-wide basis. Complaint information is consolidated and reported, and a complaint resolution process exists.

Client satisfaction information is collected through a wide range of techniques. Information is collected on a consistent basis across program areas. Results are consolidated on a department-wide basis, and overall trends analyzed. Results are a key element of strategic and business planning, and are used to assess service standards and service improvements.

Client satisfaction results indicate positive trends. Client satisfaction measures are published externally, and are well known to clients. Client satisfaction is a key driver of strategic and business planning, and is considered in performance evaluation and incentives. Techniques used to collect client satisfaction information are constantly being improved.

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	The TSB has a single published service standard, which is a turnaround time of one year for investigation reports. Adherence to this standard had yet to be achieved for a number of reasons including staff turnover and recruitment difficulties, and increased uptake of cases.

	Other service standards include getting to the accident site as quickly as possible (ie, usually within 24 hours unless there are unusual circumstances such as a very remote location).

	Internally, the Information Strategies and Analysis Directorate has developed a set of service standards.

	There are also some internal service standards for Finance and administration.

Very few safety organizations have formal service standards, other than very basic ones such as the one in place in the TSB.

TOPIC

Service standards

Monitoring against client service standards and maintaining and updating standards.

No formal service standards exist. Quality of service is monitored on an informal basis.

Service level arrangements and standards exist on an inconsistent basis across the organization. Systems to collect and maintain service level information are still being developed. Clients have been involved to varying degrees in development of standards.

Formal service level arrangements and standards have been established for each business line, and results are tracked and analyzed over time. Overall department standards are well known. Clients participate in the development of the standards. Results are used to identify service improvements.

Service standards are periodically reviewed with clients/stakeholders and improved to reflect changing priorities. Service standards are re-assessed based on cost of service delivery. Service standards reflect different priorities of client groups. Results are a continuing source of pressure for new service and quality improvement initiatives.

Results of service standards show positive or stable results. Service standards of the organization are published externally, and are well known to clients. Achievement of service standards is a key consideration of management in strategic and business planning.

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	The TSB has not established a formal evaluation framework.

TOPIC	1	2	3	4	5
Evaluative information Utilization of non-financial information related to program effectiveness and outcomes	No formal approach to program evaluation. Evaluations are carried out on an ad hoc basis. Information on program outcomes is limited. Methodologies for collecting the information need to be put in place.	Evaluation frameworks are in place for some program areas. Evaluations are carried out as issues arise. Information on some program outcomes is available in some program areas. An evaluation plan is in place, and is based on strategic priorities.	Evaluation frameworks, and data gathering procedures, are in place for all major program areas. Program delivery outcomes are clearly defined and are linked to the strategic priorities of the department. Performance measures are in place to measure these outcomes, and performance information is collected to measure these outcomes. Evaluative information is included in external reporting documents.	Methodologies for measuring outcomes are periodically re-assessed. Evaluation results are commonly used by managers for decision-making and input into strategic and business planning. Evaluation is seen as an integral part of program/regional management. Evaluation prioritization is closely linked to business planning and the department’s risk profile.	The department is seen as a leader in measuring program outcomes. Methodologies are “state of the art”. Linkages between program outcomes and resource allocation are considered in strategic and business planning. Evaluation results play a major role in redirecting focus of program design, and in determining the type of information required by the organization to measure its success.

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	The TSB’s primary financial system (GX) is fully interfaced with Receiver General Systems.

	GX is linked to operational systems for the creation of investigation project codes.

	Salary management functionality has been built into the GX but it has not been implemented.

	The Human Resource Management System (HRIS) is not integrated with the financial system. Batch file download has been implemented for the PWGSC pay system.

	Management information and reporting consists of:
	-	monthly budget variance reports produced at head office for senior management. There are, however, some problems with GX report production.
	-	ad-hoc reports on emerging issues (e.g., overtime costs)
	-	approved quarterly resource updates
	-	annual financial statements

	Senior management is generally satisfied with the available management information and reporting. New monthly reports are being prepared for senior management.

	Finance staff provide commentary on and variance analysis of results. Capabilities to provide robust analysis in management reports are limited due to a combination of existing skill sets and resource constraints.

	Regional financial managers have on-line access to TSB financial information.
	-	Timeliness of financial information has improved due to the decentralization of transaction processing

	All managers can query any Responsibility Centre (RC) account. Previously, this capability was limited to their own RCs. This has increased transparency over where the TSB’s budget is allocated.

Financial reports are not available in a user-friendly format. It is not possible to create different, more relevant versions of reports, which decreases their usefulness. Some reports are unclear and difficult to interpret.

TOPIC

Financial information

Reliable financial information is available in a timely and useful fashion

Voluminous hard copy reporting dictated by financial reporting timetable with monthly/ quarterly/ annual reporting taking up to six weeks. Commentary on results prepared solely by finance. There are persistent problems with data accuracy. Standard reporting from financial accounting system but its inadequacies lead managers to maintain their own records and reports which are not checked for consistency with other sources of information.

Mostly hard copy reporting to financial timetables with some on-line access to supporting data. Reporting based on information from various sources but coordination is haphazard and data integrity not assured. Detail to support high level information is not readily accessible. Finance prepares commentary on results with limited input from operational staff. Financial reporting cycles are not always in sync with operating information reporting cycles. Finance is responsible for meeting overall organization financial information requirements.

Appropriate reporting frequency. Monthly information available within one to five days. All reports and data available in appropriate media. Data availability and accuracy are seldom an issue. Financial information is available from a single source, but requires manual intervention for interfacing with other operating information. Finance works closely with operational managers to understand results and jointly prepare commentary. Managers have strong sense of ownership of financial information. External reporting requirements (e.g., Parliament) are consistently met.

Fully integrated on line, real time systems with flexible reporting. All transactions in financial, asset, human resource and other operating systems (e.g., outputs, cycle time, workload) are linked and interfaced/integrated to meet business requirements. Rekeying and other manual intervention is rarely needed for data gathering. Financial information is considered to be a corporate asset, and is fully transparent across the organization.

Information is integrated from various sources (e.g., data warehouse) with data integrity assured and with senior management clearly responsible for integrity of output. Reporting systems are linked to allow drill-down to appropriate level of detail. Low cost transaction processing providing accurate and timely information.

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	Capability for costing of corporate activities is at the early stages. While there are no formal cost management systems, the TSB has some tools for cost tracking (primarily for O&M and capital costs). Notably, incremental costs are tracked for major investigations and projects.
	The TSB has undertaken some notable initiatives in the area of cost information:
	-	As of April 1, 2000, the TSB implemented a time reporting system with a focus on investigation activities. While the quality of the data generated by the system is considered to be good, the system is not fully implemented across the TSB and it is not integrated with financial systems.
	-	The new chart of accounts resulting from the implementation of FIS has been designed to permit Activity Based Costing. It incorporates activity codes to link resources utilized to specific activities.

	Historically, the tracking of full costs has been a laborious process due to the need to manually compute salary costs and the lack of accurate timekeeping data. While improvements have occurred, overall cost data on activities and functions are not readily available to support decision-making across the organization.

	It has been suggested that the absence of a standard costing methodology has resulted in over/underestimates of some major projects such as IT.

	There are effective cost sharing agreements with insurance companies, coroners, and foreign governments (e.g., RAPS).

Despite committing to undertaking cost recovery, the TSB has not developed a framework to implement, track and monitor cost recovery.

TOPIC	1	2	3	4	5
Cost management information *Mechanisms for using activity/product/results-based costs*	Cost information is maintained based on traditional object-based ledger (e.g., salaries, travel, O&M) for each organizational unit.	Cost information is available at the activity level across the organization. Activity costs are rolled up to provide costs at the program level. Systems are in place to maintain this activity cost information. Additional analysis is done to obtain useful cost information for decision-making.	Costing systems are in place that trace costs from resources (salaries, O&M) to activities, and then from activities to specific products, services or programs. Employees update time spent on activities on a periodic basis. Product and service cost information is used for planning purposes.	Costing systems are in place that trace costs from activities to results. Costing systems consolidate cost information from many sources. Employees update time spent through an automated interface. Cost information is readily accessible through the server. Costing information is used to guide management decisions. Costing systems and budgeting approach are closely linked.	Activity, product, service, and results cost information is an integral part of management decision-making. Cost information is readily accessible to all managers in a format that can be customized for process improvement, outsourcing decisions, cost recovery, business planning and performance measurement.

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	TSB-wide business processes are reviewed on a cyclical basis, every 3 to 4 years. For instance, in 99/00, the TSB completed an initiative called TSB 2000 aimed at streamlining its operational and business processes. TSB 2000 was initiated in response to the resource cuts sustained as a result of Program Review.

	In the 1999 Public Service Employee Survey, almost 70% of respondents indicated that their work unit periodically takes time out to rethink the way it does business.

	Some work has been initiated on benchmarking with other countries.

	There are clear indications of ongoing business process improvements with respect to investigations. Other countries are impressed by the investigation methods of the TSB and TSB processes have influenced or been directly applied by other organizations in the development of their own models of investigation.

	Most operational processes are documented but there are varying degrees of understanding of these processes across the TSB.
	Some parts of the organization use the internal feedback loop to make improvements to existing processes. However, most of these improvements are undertaken in a fragmented fashion with little or no integration.

	The TSB launched a major quality assurance program for its investigations but implementation has been temporarily set aside to focus resources on business planning and the development of corporate strategic objectives.

	The TSB’s Australian equivalent is undertaking a process and resource benchmarking study geared towards linking financial and non-financial information – opportunities may exist to leverage the results of this study.

	The information systems required to support the Integrated Safety Investigation Methodology (ISIM) are not in place.

TOPIC

Business process improvement

Extent to which processes are clearly understood, are conducted in a uniform fashion, and are continuously improved in line with best practices

Major differences exist in the way services are delivered among regions/programs. Processes are not well defined. There are no systems or processes which support the analysis and assessment of service delivery options.

Processes are defined to varying degrees depending on service area. Process improvement projects are initiated on an ad hoc basis. No or limited work done regarding “most efficient organization”. Little change in processes in last three years.

Main service delivery processes are well documented and understood across the organization within each service area. Some best practice assessment has been carried out and processes updated. Major process improvements and/or most-efficient organization analyses are underway to improve program delivery. Key processes are monitored to ensure consistency in program delivery.

There are systems and processes to identify and assess service delivery options. Processes are improved on an ongoing basis. A variety of analytical techniques are used to support process improvement including best practice reviews and benchmarking. Processes are assessed on a cross functional or cross organizational basis, with client/stakeholder involvement. Parts of the organization are ISO 9000 accredited.

The department is recognized across government for innovation and success in its service delivery processes. The organization is commonly benchmarked against, and is often called upon to provide advice and participate in interdepartmental fora to explain its business processes. Major parts of the organization are ISO 9000 accredited.

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	Most TSB managers are subject matters experts. They have solid technical skills, but generally have limited training in management tools and techniques.
	Managers do not feel that they have access to analytical tools that would help them do their jobs better.

	Managers would like to receive targeted training that will enable them to adopt modern management practices and have ready access to the appropriate tools and techniques.

	This criteria is viewed as becoming increasingly relevant in the context of limited resources. It is closely related to the need for strategic and business planning at the corporate level.

TOPIC

Management tools and techniques

Range of analytical techniques (e.g., cost-benefit, sensitivity, life cycle, benchmarking) available to managers

Limited tools and techniques available at a departmental level to assist managers in conducting business case analysis. Managers tend to use their own individual approach.

Techniques such as life cycle costing, cost benefit analysis and benchmarking are primarily financially focused. Departmental capacity in analytical techniques is maintained within the organization of the functional authority.

Managers at all levels are exposed to tools and techniques. Managers have access to various analytical models and techniques (e.g., project management) and decision making support tools that integrate financial and non-financial information. Managers use tools in close partnership with functional specialists.

Well developed and a wide range of decision support tools and techniques are available and fully understood and used by all staff. Tools are an integral part of decision-making by managers. Analysis is done using integrated information. A consistent suite of tools is used across the department.

Managers have on-line access to information through sophisticated decision support tools and models. Tools and models are assessed on a periodic basis and updated based on the most recent trends and technology. A consistent suite of tools is used government–wide.

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	Informal networks to share information exist but there are no methodologies to encourage knowledge sharing across the TSB.

	Knowledge is shared within organizational silos. It is not shared as well across silos.

	Lessons learned on major investigations are shared on a small scale.

	The culture of the TSB is not receptive to information management and there is a lack of understanding of the importance of information management.

	The TSB does not have a coordinated strategy to manage paper and electronic information.

	There are also no mechanisms to facilitate the capturing and depositing of information in a corporate repository for work that is in progress.

	Until the TSB improves it ability to manage information, limited opportunities will exist to improve knowledge management.

	There are opportunities to educate staff regarding what information needs to be shared and ensure that knowledge is shared before it leaves the organization.

TOPIC

Knowledge management

Performance/management information is readily accessible to internal and external users via technology, and lessons learnt are shared across the organization

The organizational culture is not conducive to a knowledge sharing environment and limited information management processes are in place. Mechanisms or structures to encourage organizational learning or the acquisition and dissemination of modern management practices related knowledge are not evident.

Deployment of the organizational learning concept has been initiated and processes exist to support information acquisition and storage. Access to intellectual capital and knowledge sharing across organizational boundaries is limited.

Organizational learning initiatives are widespread at the organizational unit level. Senior management recognizes the importance of knowledge sharing and is supportive of collaborative mechanisms and structures to encourage knowledge transfer and lessons learned.

Organization-wide knowledge sharing technologies (e.g. groupware) have been implemented to capture, create and disseminate knowledge and best practices. The sharing of knowledge and best practices to support modern management practices is encouraged and rewarded.

The concept of organizational learning is incorporated into the values of the organization and is consistently applied to improve all management processes. Organizational learning processes within the organization are continuously assessed and revised in light of world class practices.

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	The TSB relies on Treasury Board, CICA and PSAB standards. There is a high level of accuracy in accounting records.

	The TSB is audited annually by the Office of the Auditor General. The audit report for the year ended March 31, 2001 reflects a clean opinion.

	With the implementation of FIS, accounting is done in accordance with FIS/GAAP.

	Monthly trial balances were successful at first attempt for periods 1 to 7.

	The chart of accounts has recently been revised, reflects the organizational structure and meets the needs of managers.

	The level of familiarity of line managers with accounting practices tends to vary.

	Most RC managers appear to rely extensively on the support of the administrative officers in performing financial management activities.

	Approximately 30% of operational staff have procurement cards which reduces the administrative burden that they would otherwise have to deal with in the conduct of investigations.

While managers are generally familiar with accounting practices, their level of understanding is superficial.

TOPIC

Accounting practices

Records of financial transactions are kept on a consistent and useful basis for purposes of audit and reporting, and are consistent with generally accepted accounting practices and the Financial Information Strategy (FIS)

Basic financial records are maintained. The program structure does not reflect the organization and responsibility of the organization. Significant effort is required each year to produce basic government reporting requirements including the public accounts. Cost information, when used, is expenditure based. Records are maintained primarily to meet the needs of the finance organization. Little or no use of technology enablers (i.e., credit cards) for process consolidation.

Legislative procedural and control requirements are met and transactions are accounted for as required. The program structure reflects the organization and responsibilities for program delivery. Costing information is primarily expenditure and/or FTE based. Coding structures are basic and do not meet the needs of managers for financial information. The department has taken initial steps to implement GAAP/FIS.

The cost assignment framework is largely aligned to the activities of the organization. Acceptable level of accuracy in costing records is maintained. Most of manager’s needs are met. Records are maintained on a consistent and useful basis for purposes of audit and reporting. Chart of accounts reflects the organizational structure, and is regularly reviewed. Accounting is done in accordance with GAAP/FIS. Line managers are familiar with fundamental accounting practices.

Low cost transaction processing providing accurate and timely payments fully integrated with purchasing. High level of accuracy in costing records. All government accounting and reporting policies, directives and procedures are complied with. Specialists and line managers are fully aware of GAAP/FIS requirements and implications. Managers use the information in support of informed decision-making. Auditable financial statements are prepared in accordance with GAAP.

Accounting practices are state of the art. Information is available quickly relative to government-wide standards. High integration exists with departmental information systems. Information is used in support of planning, budgeting, and performance measurement. Maximum use of electronic applications and interfaces (e.g., EDI, EAA, purchasing cards).

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	Capital assets have been identified and recorded in a departmental database for FIS. The asset management module of the financial system has been implemented.

	An inventory system has been implemented for consumable products.

	The TSB has purchased the asset management module for FIS and is finalizing policies and procedures related to the module. There are plans to implement a multi-year capital plan in conjunction with FIS.

	As a result of significant budget cuts in the last five years, emphasis on capital asset replacement has been minimal and standards for the replacement of capital assets (such as vehicles) have not been updated or applied consistently.

	In response to rust-out issues with respect to its vehicle fleet, the TSB completed a study and is in the process of finalizing an asset replacement plan.

	Replacement of IT assets has been occurring more systematically but inconsistencies have been noted regarding the types of assets purchased.

	Asset/inventory tracking standards, policies and procedures do not exist.

	Accounting for assets is done on an accrual basis.

	The TSB’s asset management approach is generally reactive and it is in catch-up mode with regard to rust-out issues.

	Multi-year planning and life-cycle management of assets are in the early stages. Efforts are being made to promote the notion of life-cycle management as part of FIS implementation.

TOPIC

Management of assets

Assets are managed and utilized efficiently based on a lifecycle approach, records of assets are maintained, and assets are accounted for on an accrual basis according to GAAP/FIS

Asset policies exist but are not understood or applied in a consistent manner. Assets are managed on a fragmented basis across the organization. Information on the asset inventory is not up-to-date. A number of assets exceed their target life expectancy, and rust-out is a major concern. A number of assets are obsolete and do not meet program requirements. Safety, reliability and supply integrity are major concerns.

Asset management policies are clear and well understood. Service standards have been established, and asset replacement cycles have been established. Up-to-date information is available on the asset inventory and the value of the assets. Periodic inspections are made of the condition of the assets. Assets meet minimum health, safety and environmental requirements.

Assets meet program operational requirements in a reliable and timely manner. Assets are managed using a lifecycle approach. A long term asset management plan is in place, and is closely aligned with the departmental strategic and business plans. A lifecycle approach is taken to determining the funding level required to sustain the assets. Accounting of assets is done on an accrual basis as per FIS. Asset funding decisions are supported by a business case and risk assessment.

Asset management is closely integrated with program management and decision-making. Asset planning is done on an integrated basis for all assets (e.g., facilities, equipment) across the department. Assets are replaced in a timely manner so as to minimize lifecycle costs and “rust-out”. Efforts are made to improve service levels and seek savings (e.g., energy-reduction, consumption reduction). Close integration between asset inventory, procurement, financial and operational information.

Facilities and equipment foster a more efficient and productive work environment. Asset lifecycle costs are decreasing while reliability and responsiveness are improving. Best practices are followed to minimize the impact on the environment, and to foster employee health and well being. The department is recognized as a leader amongst its peers.

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	The TSB does not have an in-house internal audit capability and obtains internal audit services on a contract basis. These internal audit activities are somewhat sporadic and limited in scope (e.g. audit of credit cards).

	More effective use could be made of internal audit as a modern management tool to review non-financial performance, identify improvements in program/service delivery, mitigate risks, and enhance resource utilization.

	While the TSB may be too small to warrant establishing its own internal audit function, it may benefit from undertaking selected comprehensive audits on a contract basis. (e.g., audits of effectiveness of the Integrated Safety and Investigation Methodology).

TOPIC

Internal audit

Strong internal audit program is in place, and audit results are a critical input to management decision-making

No formal approach to internal audit. Audits are carried out on an ad hoc basis. There is limited understanding of and use of, modern audit techniques and tools. No departmental audit committee exists to discuss findings and ensure follow-up where required.

A yearly audit plan is developed with input from branch managers. Main focus of audits is on compliance. The head of internal audit is unimpaired to carry out responsibilities. The internal audit function has unlimited access to all departmental documents. The internal audit function in its operations respects the spirit and intent of the Access to Information and Privacy Acts. Audit conclusions are based on a set of suitable criteria. Audit reports are issued in a timely manner and are accessible by the public with minimal formality in both official languages. Reports respect federal government internal audit reporting standards. Audit reports include a statement of assurance by the internal auditor where appropriate.

Audit provides assurance of financial and non-financial performance information used by management, and effectiveness of control mechanisms. Audit results are used by managers as an integral part of program management. Audit plan addresses department-wide issues and risks as well as specific branch issues. Audits are comprehensive, and focus on all aspects of service delivery. Audit methodologies are in place and understood by managers. Reports are reviewed by an audit committee chaired by a senior departmental executive, and a formal process exists for follow up action and continuous monitoring. A mutual respect exists between management and the internal auditor. A high level of audit standards is maintained.

Audits have a results-based focus and audit results play a role in identifying improvements to program delivery, and in determining the type of performance reporting that should be used by the organization. The internal audit approach and integrated risk management framework are aligned. Audit methodologies are constantly being refined and updated. The departmental internal audit plan identifies the expected level of assurance to be provided. The internal audit function is called on to assist managers with non-assurance services including consulting studies, and management assistance engagements.

Innovation is pursued in audit approaches and methodologies (e.g., self-assessment teams). The audit organization is seen as a leader in internal audit among its peers. Audit is seen as an attractive waypoint for top operational managers in their career progression.

Key Information

Issues/Opportunities

	The TSB is audited annually by the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) in accordance with legislative requirements. This annual audit ensures compliance with accounting rules and standards and is financially focused.

	Audits are also conducted from time to time by central agencies with respect to compliance with specific initiatives (e.g., official languages, work force adjustment, employment equity and occupational health and safety). The scope of these audits is limited to compliance with specific policies and regulations.

	Follow-up and corrective actions are taken on audit observations and feedback.

	Issues and priority areas of concern are identified and discussed in a proactive manner with external auditors

	Functional specialists recognize external audits as valuable sources of information on the activities and operations of the TSB.

TOPIC

External audit

Process for ensuring adequate attention to results and recommendations of external audits of department operations

Results of external audits are responded to on a “one-off” basis.

Coordination is carried out to ensure results of external audits are disseminated to managers, and follow-up is done.

Results of external audits are used as input into strategic and business plans. Action plans are developed to address audit findings, and project implementation teams are created where appropriate. Good linkages exist between internal audit and external audit and review. A good working relationship exists between the external and internal auditor. A formal coordination role exists in the department to monitor external audit activity.

Detailed follow-up is made to ensure decisions and plans resulting from external audits are implemented in the long term, and results are reported back to external auditors. The department is pro-active in identifying priority areas to be addressed by external auditors.

External audits are seen as a critical source of information for management, and are used to initiate changes to program delivery processes and performance measurement systems. A mutual respect exists between management and the external auditor.

Appendix B : List of Interviewees

Marcel Ayeko	Manager Quality Planning and Performance
Peter Hildebrand	Manager Central Region (Air)
David Kinsman	Executive Director
Jean Laporte	Director Corporate Service
Elizabeth McCullough	Manager Human Performance
Yves Tellier	Chief Finance and Administration

Appendix C : List of Focus

Marcel Ayeko	Manager Quality Planning and Performance
Jean Desjardins	Regional Manager Air Investigations, Dorval
Maury Hill	Manager Macro Analysis
Greg Hunter	Director General Information Strategies and Analysis
Jean Laporte	Director Corporate Services
Elizabeth McCullough	Manager Human Performance
Ken Potter	Senior Investigator Marine Engineering
Katherine Pullen	Office Administrator Toronto
Yves Tellier	Chief Finance and Administration

Introduction

Executive Summary

Project Background and Objective

Overview of the Assessment Process

Overview of Results

Key Themes by Comptrollership Element

Priority Areas for Improvement

Other Recommendations

Appendix A – Detailed Results by Criteria

Appendix B : List of Interviewees

Appendix C : List of Focus