|
|
Modern Comptrollership Capacity Assessment
|
|
|
Transportation Safety Board of Canada
Modern Comptrollership Capacity Assessment
FINAL REPORT MARCH 2002
Table of Contents
Introduction
Modern Comptrollership - A government-wide initiative
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:
Strategic Leadership - consists of the commitment to create and sustain a climate for change that promotes the integration of modern comptrollership concepts into day-to-day decision-making; |
Motivated People - refers to a public sector environment that promotes continuous learning, ensures that people have the required competencies and skills to perform their jobs well and discharge their responsibilities, and provides appropriate incentives for achieving results; |
Shared Ethics and Values - refers to the promotion and adoption of ethical behaviors, attitudes and decisions; |
Integrated Performance Information - focuses on combining financial and non-financial information to support decision-making coupled with results management and reporting; |
Mature Risk Management - consists of a risk management framework (methodology, tools, etc) that is an intrinsic part of the decision-making process and consistently applied to manage risks; |
Rigorous Stewardship - refers to responsibilities associated with the safeguarding of public assets; |
Clear/Improved Accountability - consists of increased transparency, clear internal accountability tied to performance management, more thorough and concise reporting to Parliament, and heightened public confidence in the public service. |
About the Transportation Safety Board
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:
Public Interest in Transportation Safety : new information demands have evolved in the aftermath of such as accidents as Swissair Flight 111, the April 2001 VIA rail train derailment in Nova Scotia and the February 2001 explosion of a pipeline compressor in Quebec’s Eastern Townships. The news media expect real-time, round-the-clock, on-site coverage. The expectations of the next-of-kin for support from investigation agencies have also increased. Lastly, the TSB is also facing increasing demands from the Access to Information Program, especially given the increasing trend toward litigation resulting from accidents. Fulfilling these evolving needs is placing considerable pressures on existing resource levels. |
Impact of Technology on Transportation : Over the last 10 years there have been significant technological advances that have affected all modes of transportation. These advances, while enabling investigators to work more effectively, have also made investigation and safety analysis work more complex and specialized. The increased reliance on automation poses particular problems for analyzing failures at the human-machine interface. |
Level of Activity : More than 3000 transportation occurrences are reported each year in accordance with federal reporting requirements. The TSB bases its decision to investigate based on its Occurrence Classification Policy. Due to limited resources, the Agency does not investigate some accidents that are less likely to results in safety actions, even if they involve fatalities. This has resulted in some adverse public reaction and the TSB has come under increased public scrutiny. |
Swissair Flight 111 Investigation : The crash of Swissair Flight 111 near Peggy’s cove Nova Scotia severely tested the resources of the TSB. This complex investigation required the mobilization of the majority of the Agency’s resources creating backlogs in other work. Efforts to complete this investigation are continuing to consume considerable resources and limited progress has been made in addressing the backlog. |
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:
Modern Comptrollership Element : Strategic Leadership
|
Key Observations
- The Executive Director of the TSB is clearly committed to introducing more rigor and structure into the existing management practices. At the middle management level, however, commitment to modern comptrollership is minimal. Managers have a narrow understanding of modern comptrollership that is primarily focused on financial controls and accounting (ie, the traditional view of comptrollership).
- Senior managers representative of the functional areas such as Finance, Human Resources and IM/IT are part of the executive team and are called upon to provide strategic advice as well as participate in strategic decisions.
- Business planning is done primarily at the corporate level to meet central agency requirements. There is little linkage between planning, budgeting/forecasting and resource allocation.
Key Recommendations
- Initiate dialogue on modern comptrollership, with emphasis on its benefits, to raise awareness, increase understanding and build commitment amongst all levels of managers.
- As part of the new planning cycle, establish close linkages between resource allocation decisions and strategic and business plan priorities. Develop processes to regularly review resource allocations based on changing and/or new priorities.
|
Modern Comptrollership Element : Shared Values and Ethics
|
Key Observations
- Ethics and values are implicitly understood and high ethical standards are evident in the conduct of the TSB’s work. However, ethics and values are not formally documented or championed.
|
Modern Comptrollership Element : Mature Risk Management
|
Key Observations
- There is a strong understanding of the need to manage the risks inherent in delivering the services and products of the TSB. Notwithstanding, there is no comprehensive risk management framework that is applied by all parts of the organization. While there is a structured risk assessment process for investigations, there is no similar process for non-investigation related decisions.
Key Recommendations
- Develop an integrated risk management framework that extends beyond investigation operations. Provide managers with training on risk management concepts, tools and techniques.
|
Modern Comptrollership Element : Motivated People
|
Key Observations
- Modern management competencies have not been defined and assessed for the organization as a whole.
- The TSB does not have any formal mechanisms such as surveys to collect information on employee satisfaction. It relies on a variety of other means such as trends in grievances and absenteeism to collect this information.
- Staff are regarded as key assets of the TSB but there are few opportunities for advancement due to the size of the organization. Although the TSB invests heavily in the training of new investigators, there are few instances of continuous learning or developmental opportunities for existing staff.
Key Recommendations
- Conduct an assessment of modern management competencies to confirm gaps and develop a targeted training strategy.
|
Modern Comptrollership Element : Clear Accountability
|
Key Observations
- Accountabilities are implicitly understood within the TSB; they are neither articulated in all cases nor linked to the achievement of results. Performance agreements are in place for all executives and managers entitled to performance pay. These agreements tend to focus primarily on the completion of activities as opposed to the achievement of results.
- The role of specialists such as Finance, HR, IM/IT are defined but not necessarily well communicated and understood. Finance, HR and IM/IT activities are primarily compliance oriented and the focus is on transaction processing.
Key Recommendations
- Set up a TSB-wide performance agreement protocol that is tied to strategic priorities and business plans. Incorporate Modern Comptrollership priorities (as they are developed) into the performance agreements of managers.
|
Modern Comptrollership Element : Integrated Performance Information
|
Key Observations
- The TSB has certain elements of a performance measurement framework in place but it has not progressed to the point where there is a formal 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.
- There is minimal integration of financial and non-financial information and capability for costing of corporate activities is in the early stages.
Key Recommendations
- Educate the management team on the meaning of performance measurement, the benefits and mechanisms for application. Continue exploring options such as the Balanced Scorecard for developing and implementing a results-based performance measurement framework.
- Build a cost recovery model that will enable the full recovery of costs for the two short line rail investigations that the TSB is conducting on behalf of the provinces and other such investigations going forward. Enlist external expertise as required to develop the model.
|
Modern Comptrollership Element : Rigorous Stewardship
|
Key Observations
- The TSB has a number of strengths in this area including ongoing business process improvements with respect to investigations and a high level of accuracy in its accounting records.
- There are no policies and procedures in place to support information management and enable knowledge sharing across the TSB.
- Multi-year planning and life cycle management of assets are in the early stages. Where asset plans have been prepared, they have not been implemented due to the lack of resources.
|
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
The Capacity Check Model
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:
- Strategic Leadership
- Shared Values and Ethics
- Mature Risk Management
- Motivated People
- Clear Accountability
- Integrated Performance Information
- Rigorous Stewardship
Key assessment criteria in each area are presented in the table below.
Comptrollership Element : Strategic Leadership
|
Assessment Criteria
- Senior management’s awareness of and commitment to establishing and implementing a modern management practices environment
- Awareness of managers of their modern management practices, responsibilities and commitment to implementing them
- Extent to which senior departmental functional authorities are used for objective commentary and independent advice
- Linkages between strategic, business and operational planning
- Robustness of mechanisms for ranking program options, identifying funding requirements and allocating resources, and for budgeting and forecasting
- Degree to which partnerships are used to support service delivery
- Commitment to consciously strengthening relationships with client organizations, and to integrating and coordinating how client services are developed and delivered
|
Comptrollership Element : Shared Values and Ethics
|
Assessment Criteria
- Visibility of policies and activities that support the ethical stewardship of public resources and give priority to modern management practices
|
Comptrollership Element : Mature Risk Management
|
Assessment Criteria
- Extent to which measures are in place to identify, assess, understand, act on and communicate risk issues in a corporate and systematic fashion
- Appropriateness of management controls in place, and linkages between controls through an integrated control framework
|
Comptrollership Element : Motivated People
|
Assessment Criteria
- Extent to which modern management practices competencies are defined and managers have access to training
- Mechanisms used to monitor employee morale and staff relations
- Effectiveness of communication, wellness, safety and support practices in enabling staff to provide client-focused delivery while reaching their full potential
- Extent to which the organizational culture fosters staff participation, team building, sharing of ideas, risk taking, innovation and continuous learning
|
Comptrollership Element : Clear Accountability
|
Assessment Criteria
- Clarity of assignment of responsibilities and accountabilities throughout the organization
- Extent to which the achievement of financial and operating results is embedded in performance agreements
- Availability of top-flight counsel to help managers make judgment calls on modern management practices issues
- Extent to which Parliamentary, central agency and key stakeholder information reporting requirements are met
|
Comptrollership Element : Integrated Performance Information
|
Assessment Criteria
- Existence of measures to monitor overall organization-wide performance, service quality and efficiency of program delivery
- Utilization of non-financial information related to program effectiveness and outcomes
- Availability and use of reliable financial information
- Mechanisms used to cost activities/products/results
|
Comptrollership Element : Rigorous Stewardship
|
Assessment Criteria
- Extent to which processes are clearly understood, conducted in a uniform fashion and continuously improved in line with best practices
- Range of analytical tools and techniques available to managers
- Availability of performance/management information
- Extent to which 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)
- Strength of the internal audit program and extent to which audit results inform management decisions
|
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.
Non Existent / Undeveloped |
Early Stages of Development |
Good Management Practice |
Advanced Practice |
Best Practice |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Our Approach
We followed the following key steps in conducting this assessment:
- Migration – to avoid duplication of effort, our starting point was to build on the information obtained from the TSB’s initial modern comptrollership assessment and map it against the 33 criteria of the Capacity Check.
- Interviews – the original assessment included interviews with 20 TSB managers and staff. As part of this update, we conducted an additional six interviews with TSB managers and staff to update the information obtained from the initial assessment. The list of additional interviewees is provided at Appendix B.
- Document Review – we reviewed selected documents such as the Report on Plans and Priorities, the Strategic Plan and the Departmental Performance Report to supplement the information obtained through interviews.
- Consolidation and analysis – we integrated, analyzed and summarized information obtained through interviews and the document review for each of the 33 criteria.
- Validation - we conducted a focus group session with a group of TSB managers and staff to review and validate the results of the assessment and agree upon the ratings for each criteria of the Capacity Check. The assessment ratings in this report reflect the consensus reached by the focus group participants. The list of focus group participants is provided in Appendix C.
- Reporting – we prepared a draft and final report detailing the results of the assessment and presented the results to the senior management committee.
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.
|
Overview of Results. |
Key Themes by Comptrollership Element
Comptrollership Element : Strategic Leadership
- The Executive Director of the TSB is clearly committed to introducing more rigor and structure into the existing management practices from strategic and operational planning through to performance measurement and reporting. Notwithstanding, some staff are of the opinion that there is visible inertia and lack of commitment on the part of some senior managers regarding the need to implement modern comptrollership in the TSB.
|
- At the middle management level, commitment to modern comptrollership is minimal due to competing priorities and scarce resources. Managers have a narrow understanding of modern comptrollership that is focused on financial controls and accounting (ie, the traditional view of comptrollership). In order to increase the level of managerial commitment, there is a need to explain what modern comptrollership is about with emphasis on its benefits in the context of the TSB.
|
- Senior managers representative of the functional areas such as Finance, HR and IM/IT are part of the executive team (ie, the Senior Management Committee) and are called upon to provide strategic advice as well as participate in strategic decisions. Functional experts, such as the Chief of Human Resources, participate in senior management meetings to provide advice on issues in their areas of expertise, as required.
|
- To date, business planning has been done primarily at the corporate level to meet central agency requirements. There has been little linkage between planning, budgeting/forecasting and resource allocation.
|
|
- |
Some managers have prepared business plans for their areas of responsibility in isolation and with minimal linkages to the corporate plan. There has been little consistency across business plans. |
|
- |
The TSB has started work on a formal, and integrated strategic and business planning cycle that will eventually be linked to resource allocation. While this is a step in the right direction, the need to plan around organization-wide objectives and priorities is not recognized, understood, and accepted across the TSB. |
- The TSB has a number of formal and informal partnership arrangements in place with Other Government Departments (OGDs), industry, and provinces for the exchange of services. 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.
|
|
- |
For the most part, existing partnerships are renewed and/or maintained. Opportunities exist to manage partnerships more proactively and to form additional partnerships (eg, with universities and OGDs such as Statistics Canada). |
|
- |
Staff and managers have also identified a need for dialogue on partnerships. Specifically, there is a need to clarify the scope of partnerships and build an understanding of key concepts such as arm’s length relationships and how they would work in a partnership. |
- A focal point for monitoring client relationships and ensuring coordinated action on client satisfaction and other issues does not exist within the TSB. Client relationship management is a shared responsibility across the organization. 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 fashion and client feedback information is collected.
|
|
- |
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 OGDs. |
|
- |
A 1999 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 strong concerns regarding the timeliness of investigation reports. The TSB has been unable to achieve its one year standard for the completion of investigation reports. |
Comptrollership Element : Shared Values and Ethics
- High standards of ethics and values are recognized and promoted by senior managers.
|
- Ethics and core values are implicitly understood and reflected in the way that the TSB’s business is conducted. This is primarily due to an experienced and senior work force that has been with the TSB for a number of years.
|
|
- |
Core values are not highly visible amongst TSB staff. Given the diverse backgrounds of 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 TSB. |
Comptrollership Element : Mature Risk Management
- There is a strong understanding of the need to manage risks inherent in delivering the services and products of the TSB. However, the TSB does not have a comprehensive risk management framework that can be applied consistently across all activities and functions. While there is a structured risk assessment process for investigations, there is no similar process for non-investigation related decisions.
|
- The TSB relies on a combination of system and manual controls which are seen by some managers and staff as hindering the performance of their work.
|
|
- |
There is no corporate repository detailing internal controls for Finance, HR and IM/IT. Internal control related documents exist in a fragmented fashion. |
|
- |
Controls are not reviewed regularly to ensure that they are sufficient, efficient, or effective. |
Comptrollership Element : Motivated People
- Modern management competencies have not been defined and assessed for the organization as a whole. As part of the FIS project, a self-assessment of financial and modern management competencies was completed for finance staff/specialists.
|
- The TSB does not have any formal mechanisms such as surveys to collect information on employee satisfaction. Managers use a variety of different means for monitoring and collecting input on employee satisfaction such as trends in grievances and absenteeism, work groups, and feedback from employee exit interviews. They do not believe the TSB’s size warrants a formal mechanism to monitor employee satisfaction.
|
- Staff are regarded as key assets of the organization; however, there are few opportunities for advancement due to the size of the organization. In addition, although the TSB invests heavily in the training of new investigators, there are few instances of continuous learning or developmental opportunities for existing staff.
|
- 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. Going forward, the challenge is ensuring the sustainability of the inclusive approach that has been initiated.
|
- Organizational units (eg, Air, Marine, Rail/Pipeline, Information Strategies and Analysis and Corporate Services) tend to work in silos. Information sharing occurs within the silos but not across them. The Swissair investigation forced TSB modes to work together and provides a model for teamwork.
|
Comptrollership Element : Clear Accountability
- Accountabilities are implicitly understood within the TSB; they are neither articulated in all cases nor linked to the achievement of results.
- 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. Performance agreements tend to focus primarily on the completion of activities as opposed to the achievement of results.
- The role of specialists such as Finance, HR, IM/IT are defined but not necessarily well communicated and understood. Most program initiatives are developed with specialist support or input but it is recognized that there are gaps in specialist competencies. Most notably, there are limited capabilities in analysis and policy development amongst specialists. The capacity to analyze information and turn it into business advice is lacking.
|
|
- |
Finance, HR and IM/IT activities are primarily compliance oriented and the focus is on transaction processing. |
|
- |
There are notable tensions between operations and corporate support functions. There is a tendency to view operations as superior to support functions. Some operational staff have expressed frustration over the fact 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. |
|
|
Comptrollership Element : Integrated Performance Information
- The TSB has certain elements of a performance measurement framework in place but it has not progressed to the point where there is formal 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.
|
- The TSB does not have a systematic approach for measuring client satisfaction. One of the current priorities of senior management is to undertake a comprehensive stakeholder survey to obtain feedback on stakeholder needs.
|
- The TSB has a single service standard which is a turnaround time of one year for investigation reports. This standard has yet to be achieved due to a number of reasons, including staff turnover, recruitment difficulties, and increased uptake of cases.
|
- There is minimal integration of financial and non-financial information. The financial system is linked to the operational system for the creation of investigation project codes. However, linkages with other systems such as the Human Resources Management System do not exist.
|
- Capability for costing of corporate activities is in the early stages. While there are no formal cost management systems, the TSB does have some tools for cost tracking for major investigations and projects and has implemented a time recording system.
|
Comptrollership Element : Rigorous Stewardship
- 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’s processes have influenced or been directly applied by other organizations in the development of their own models of investigation.
|
- Most TSB managers are subject matter experts. They have solid technical skills but generally have limited training in management tools and techniques.
|
- Informal networks exist to share information but information management is a challenge. There are few policies and procedures to manage paper-based and electronic information. Likewise, there are no policies and procedures in place to encourage knowledge sharing across the TSB, especially before knowledge leaves the organization. Until the TSB improves its ability to manage information, there will be limited opportunities to improve knowledge management.
|
- There is a high level of accuracy in the TSB’s accounting records and the report of the Auditor General for the year ended March 31, 2001 on the financial statements of the Board reflects a clean opinion.
|
- The TSB’s asset management approach has generally been reactive and it is in catch-up mode with respect to rust-out issues. Multi-year planning and life cycle management of assets are in the early stages. Where asset plans have been prepared, they have not been implemented due to the lack of resources.
|
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:
- Initiate dialogue on modern comptrollership, including its benefits, to raise awareness, increase understanding and build commitment.
|
- As part of the new planning cycle, establish close linkages between resource allocation decisions and the priorities articulated in strategic and business plans. Develop processes to regularly review resource allocations based on changing and/or new priorities.
|
- Educate the management team on the meaning of performance measurement, its benefits, and mechanisms for application. Continue exploring options such as the Balanced Scorecard for developing and implementing a results-oriented performance measurement framework.
|
- Set up a TSB-wide performance agreement protocol that is tied to strategic priorities and business plans. Incorporate modern comptrollership priorities (as they are developed) into the performance agreements of managers.
|
- Conduct an assessment of modern comptrollership competencies to confirm gaps and develop a targeted training strategy. Possible training topics include:
|
|
a. |
Delegated authorities (eg, Section 34 of the FAA) |
b. |
Internal controls, especially new system controls arising from FIS implementation |
c. |
Contracting |
d. |
Budgeting and financial analysis |
e. |
Staffing and recruitment |
f. |
Information management |
|
- Develop an integrated risk management framework that extends beyond investigation operations. Provide managerial training on risk management concepts, tools and techniques.
|
- Build a cost recovery model that will enable the full recovery of costs for the two short line rail investigations that the TSB is conducting on behalf of the provinces and other such investigations going forward. Enlist external expertise as required to develop the model.
|
Other Recommendations
Strategic Leadership
- Develop and agree upon a process to actively solicit input from operational and other managers in the TSB’s business planning and reporting cycle.(ie, reporting to central agencies).
|
- Consider proactively seeking additional partnerships such as partnering with universities on research work. Develop and implement appropriate safeguards to ensure that partnerships do not impair the TSB’s objectivity and independence.
|
- Establish a focal point to monitor the effectiveness of client relationship management and ensure a coordinated response to client issues as they are identified.
|
- Review the role, membership and operation (what they do and how they do it) of senior management committees (e.g., SMC, IMSC) to ensure that they meet the needs of the TSB and promote a more inclusive approach to decision-making.
|
Shared Ethics and Values
- Incorporate dialogue on ethics and values into a new employee orientation program.
|
Mature Risk Management
- Perform compliance checks on regional and HQ internal controls in order to gauge the effectiveness of existing controls and initiate corrective action as necessary.
|
Motivated People
- Leverage the Swissair investigation to highlight lessons learned on breaking down silos, capitalizing on synergies across the modes and working as an integrated team composed of operational and corporate support staff.
|
Clear Accountability
- Define the standards that specialist staff need to work to in order to better meet the requirements of Investigation Operations. Ensure there is clear agreement on services that can realistically be delivered given current resource levels.
|
Integrated Performance Information
- Review the service standard of publishing an investigation report within one year for continued relevance and compare with the service standards of transportation investigation bodies in other jurisdictions such as the US and Australia. Explore the possibility of replacing the existing standard and/or adopting other service standards.
|
Rigorous Stewardship
- Establish off- ramps for large, multi-year investigations based on rigorous cost/benefit analysis. Present analysis to the Senior Management Committee for approval to continue or cease the investigation.
|
- Treasury Board Secretariat has allocated funds to help small Agencies implement its new audit and evaluation policy – explore the possibility of tapping into this funding to establish an internal audit capability within the TSB.
|
Appendix A – Detailed Results by Criteria
Leadership Commitment
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 |
Managerial Commitment
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 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
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. |
Senior Departmental Functional Authorities
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.
|
Planning
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.
|
Resource Management
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. |
Management of Partnerships
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 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
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. |
Client Relationship Management
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 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
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.
|
Values and Ethics Framework
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 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
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. |
Integrated Risk Management
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 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
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. |
Integrated Management Control Framework
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. |
Modern Management Practices Competencies
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. |
|
TOPIC |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Modern management
practices competencies
Extent to which modern management practices
competencies are defined and managers have access to training |
Little or no
information exists on competency requirements for modern management
practices for either functional specialists or managers.
|
Modern management practices
competencies have been defined. Additional knowledge requirements for
modern management practices have been identified. Skills gaps have been
established. There has been limited focus on improving modern
management practices competencies (e.g., training, sharing of best
practices). |
Managers’ skills gaps in modern
management practices are being addressed. Learning plans have been
developed. Training requirements on modern management practices are
being sourced. There is “cross-fertilization” between functional
specialists and line managers. Mechanisms are in place to share best
practices. |
Managers are applying modern
management practices in their day-to-day operations. Training and
funding in modern management practices have high priority. Functional
specialists and managers have been trained. Modern management
practices are an integral element of the departmental training program.
|
Modern management practices
competencies and training are an integral component of goal setting/
performance evaluation. Managers have suitable knowledge of modern
management practices, and are knowledgeable of functional disciplines and
legislation. Functional specialists are knowledgeable of programs and
operations. |
Employee Satisfaction
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 |
|
TOPIC |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
Employee satisfaction
Mechanisms in place to monitor employee morale and
staff relations
|
Information on employee
satisfaction is collected on an informal and ad hoc basis. |
Different
arrangements for surveying employee satisfaction exist across the
organization. Limited monitoring and analysis of results on a trend
basis. |
Formal mechanisms are in place
to survey employee satisfaction on a regular basis, and results are tracked
over time. Results are communicated across the organization.
Improvement teams are created to develop plans to address high priority
issues. |
Employee satisfaction is a key
consideration in strategic and business planning, and in the performance
evaluation of managers. Employee satisfaction issues are addressed on
an ongoing basis. Results of employee satisfaction surveys have been
improving.
|
Employee satisfaction survey
tools are regularly reviewed and improved. New programs are introduced
as appropriate to improve employee satisfaction. The linkage between
employee satisfaction and organizational performance is quantified.
The organization is recognized externally for its leadership in this area. |
Enabling Work Environment
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 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
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. |
Sustainable Workforce
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 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
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.
|
Valuing People’s Contributions
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 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
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. |
Clarity of Responsibilities and 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. |
Performance Agreements and Evaluations
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 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
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.
|
Specialist Support
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. |
External Reporting
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 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
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. |
Integrated Departmental Performance Reporting
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 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
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. |
Operational Information
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 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
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. |
Measuring Client Satisfaction
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 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
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. |
Service Standards
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 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
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. |
Evaluative Information
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. |
Financial Information
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 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
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. |
Cost Management 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. |
Business Process Improvement
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 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
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. |
Management Tools and Techniques
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 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
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. |
Knowledge Management
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 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
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. |
Accounting 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 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
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). |
Management of Assets
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 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
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. |
Internal Audit
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 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
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. |
External Audit
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 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
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
Groups Participants
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 |
|
|