5.0 Lessons Learned and Future Directions

This section addresses what has been learned during the development and implementation of SDS 2000:

What has worked well and what has not worked well?
What are the recommendations for change and improvement?

The SDS evaluation was undertaken for two purposes: To provide senior management with an independent assessment of the 2000 Strategy's relevance, success and effectiveness, and to provide considerations for the development of WD's SDS 2003. The following section outlines the key findings and their respective recommendations for each of the three areas of focus. Overall, the present evaluation revealed several learning opportunities for WD to use as a springboard for the WD SDS 2003.

Relevance

Relevance is confirmed if a program or initiative demonstrates that it addresses a verified need. Since WD is required by legislation to prepare a sustainable development strategy, the question of determining need was slightly refocused for the present evaluation. Thus, relevance was assessed in terms of the extent to which WD's SDS 2000 met the expectations of the Commissioner – specifically, the strategic focus, the identified goals, and the comprehensiveness and measurability of the plan – and whether the Strategy complemented WD's mandate and culture.

In broad terms, it can be said that the WD SDS 2000 provides a good basis for the development of the 2003 Strategy. In particular, an examination of relevant documents revealed that the WD's SDS 2000 was strong in terms of the departmental profile, the "natural" fit with WD's mandate and culture, and the focus on external sustainable development opportunities in addition to the typical internal "greening" activities. Furthermore, the format of WD's SDS 2000 met the overall expectations of the Commissioner in the sense that the Strategy included the components that were outlined in A Guide to Green Government.

However, four fundamental deficiencies were also noted:

The lack of an issue scan that would identify sustainable development issues unique to WD;
The short-term nature and general lack of a strategic perspective of the WD SDS 2000;
Goals, outcomes/objectives, outputs, activities and their associated performance indicators and targets were often defined at a level inconsistent with the specifications outlined by the Treasury Board Secretariat; and
The "immeasurability" of many components of the Action Plan Details.

The majority of the activities outlined in WD's SDS 2000 were related to internal "greening" operations, which is an area where WD will not likely have a significant impact when compared to larger federal departments and agencies. Although an issue scan was conducted during the development of the WD SDS 2000, t he list of environmental aspects and impacts outlined in Table 2 of the WD SDS 2000 is typical to that of most organizations in that it addresses issues such as procurement and waste management. Thus, the numerous activities planned for Goal 3 that were based on this issue scan are representative of the status quo and do not reflect a strategic direction by WD to advance sustainable development. The impact of the shortcomings of the issue scan is that the Strategy is not fully informed by the sustainable development areas unique to WD.

Recommendation #1: In writing the 2003 SDS, it is recommended that WD conduct an issue scan that will identify areas where WD can have the biggest impact on sustainable development. Specific examples of sustainable development policies and practices for government have been outlined in the Global Reporting Initiative and could be explored.

Although compatible with the mandate and measurable in theory, the WD SDS 2000 goals and objectives are short-term in focus. While long-term goals were not an explicit expectation from the Commissioner for the 2000 Strategy, this focus on the short-term limits the identification – and thus, the extent and significance – of long-term impacts. The CESD now expects for SDS 2003 that longer-term goals be set, and that departments will work towards goals over a number of consecutive sustainable development strategies.

It appears that part of the reason for the short-term focus may have been out of necessity, given the limited resources available for sustainable development activities and the uncertainty in the department at the time. However, a review of the Strategy also revealed confusion in the definitions of goals, objectives, activities and performance indicators. Furthermore, not all activities had associated measures to track activity completion and the focus on quantitative measures sometimes led to an inappropriate and often too rigid measurement being imposed. And finally, measurement of the progress on activities as defined in the WD SDS 2000 was sometimes not feasible in practice, due to a lack of capable databases and too few human resources in place.

Since the WD SDS 2000 was written, several advances and clarifications have been made by the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) in the area of managing for results. For example, the TBS's Guide for the Development of Results-based Management and Accountability Frameworks suggests developing a logic model or results chain that outlines how a set of activities is expected to lead to the intended outcomes. Going through this process should help to clarify the distinction among activities, outputs, immediate and intermediate outcomes, and goals, and thus, the reasons why the focus of the WD SDS 2000 is considered to be relatively short-term.

Recommendation #2: It is recommended that when writing the SDS 2003, documents written by the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) on the development of a RMAF be consulted along with the Commissioner's expectations for the third round of strategies. In particular, it is recommended that WD focus on the following when writing SDS 2003:

Developing a logic model or results chain as a means of ensuring that a long-term focus is explicit;
Defining goals, outcomes/objectives, outputs, activities and their associated performance indicators and targets in adherence to TBS specifications; and
Ensuring that outputs and outcomes are measured, that qualitative measures are considered (especially for outcomes), and that ongoing measurement is feasible given the limited resources available within WD to dedicate to the performance monitoring of sustainable development.

Success

In the present evaluation, success of the WD SDS 2000 was examined in two ways: (1) Assessing whether the Strategy was implemented as designed; and (2) assessing the progress made toward the achievement of intended goals.

WD made progress toward their major commitments from SDS 2000 in the absence of committed operational funding for sustainable development. First, WD managed to develop an EMS, although it has not been fully implemented. A full issue scan will aid in the further development of this framework.

Second, the commitment to have senior management participate in the development and implementation of WD's SDS 2000 was addressed. Senior managers that were interviewed were generally supportive of the sustainable development file. Sustainable development is being discussed during executive meetings, and managers are also thinking about the long-term outcomes when making decisions for WD.

Formal recognition could address several of the issues that WD faced with regard to the sustainable development file, such as the feeling of frustration expressed by Green Team and SDIT officers that their activities often went unnoticed. First of all, formal recognition for sustainable development initiatives from management could improve the visibility of management's role in the sustainable development file, as well as increase the visibility of the sustainable development file to other WD employees. It would also be a mechanism for providing positive feedback to employees working on the file, letting them know when their efforts are on track.

Recommendation #3: It is recommended that managerial support for sustainable development be expressed through recognition for sustainable development initiatives. Recognition could be achieved in a number of ways, including in private (such as in a performance review) or in public (such as in a newsletter).

Overall, during the period of implementation of WD's SDS 2000, WD completed many actions with relatively little staff time dedicated to the file and virtually no O & M resources allocated (though O & M dollars were spent on sustainable development activities). For example, the development of the on-line sustainable development learning tool and the WEDNA poster were major activities implemented as part of the WD SDS 2000. However, assessing the extent of progress made toward the achievement of intended goals was hampered by problems with measurement. Furthermore, there are a number of activities in which WD was engaging prior to the sustainable development strategies that support WD's sustainable development goals, such as the Community Futures program.

While some best practices surrounding "greening" operations were identified early in WD's SDS 2000, WD has not taken full account of what they are doing in terms of sustainable development. If this were done, WD's SDS could highlight these successes in reports to WD staff and partners as well as to the Commissioner. This information could also be helpful in fulfilling the requirements for the EMS, which was a major commitment in the WD SDS 2000. Finally, an inventory of current sustainable development practices and policies could be used as a basis for identifying best practices and as a springboard for developing related sustainable development policy. The development of related policy will meet the requirements of the CESD for a strategic document, and will aid in determining future directions for sustainable development in the department, as well as in Western Canada.

Recommendation #4: It is recommended that an inventory of current practices and projects that are related to sustainable development be compiled and used to inform WD staff and partners, the Commissioner, and future directions for WD's sustainable development strategies. It is further recommended that this inventory and any resulting identification of best practices or formulation of policies be disseminated through WD's public website as well as through internal mechanisms, such as newsletters.

Effectiveness

Mechanisms used to deliver the Strategy, specifically partnerships and the two teams developed to implement the WD SDS 2000, were examined for their effectiveness. Effectiveness could not be assessed in the traditional sense due to the unique nature of the Strategy. Specifically, the Strategy is legislated so an analysis aimed at examining the costs associated with engaging in sustainable development activities as opposed to those in another program was determined to be a moot point. In addition, there was no budget allocated to sustainable development activities so leverage could not be quantified. Consequently, our focus was on whether the method used for delivery was sufficient to meet its goals.

Partnerships are crucial in the effective delivery of WD's SDS 2000 and some have been well used to promote economic, social and environmental sustainability (e.g., partnerships built for the Vancouver Agreement and with Fuel Cells Canada, respectively). However, these have not been quantified as part of the Strategy. Thus, as indicated previously for WD's support of funded projects, a challenge in the future will be to recognize and measure these collaborations.

Overall, the idea of having an internal and an external team appears to complement the delivery of the Strategy. The Green Team appears to have been effective in implementing best "greening" practices in WD offices. Examples include buying new recycle bins for all offices, encouraging energy efficiency and waste reduction in the office and sending out "green tips" via e-mail to all WD employees. Their challenge now is to maintain best practices and further develop a sustainable development culture. However, because of the Green Team's many accomplishments and the need for WD to focus its major efforts on advancing sustainable development where it can have the biggest impact (i.e., externally), there does not appear to be a compelling reason to write sustainable development responsibilities into the work plan of Green Team members. In fact, it appears that the more effective way to address the issues noted by the Green Team may be to develop departmental policies around "green" operations.

The SDIT contributed a great deal toward relaying the message about sustainable development to partners and SMEs. However, some SDIT members commented that the rate of change might be slow. In addition, SDIT members have noted a change in how projects were being funded over the last several years, although they are generally unsure of whether this was attributable to the Strategy.

While progress is being made in promoting sustainable development externally – for example, through the development and distribution of the on-line learning tool – this progress has not been as strategic or as advanced as expected by the CESD. The structure of the SDIT could be changed to be more efficient in their delivery of activities. In particular, issues around slow progress, limited focused efforts, and limited accountability are imperative to address since the SDIT is responsible for delivering the message to external partners, an area where WD can potentially have a substantial impact on sustainable development.

Recommendation #5: It is recommended that SDIT members have the sustainable development file written into their work plan that is attached to their job description, and thus, be accountable for completing designated activities related to the sustainable development strategy. It is further recommended that SDIT members receive training in sustainable development, and be responsible for the communication of the Strategy within their region.

Opportunities for integrating sustainable development at WD

The recommendations that have been identified are opportunities to integrate the Strategy into business practices of WD. A full issue scan and inventory of current policies and practices will help to identify opportunities to develop policy and further sustainable development principles, particularly in the area of the delivery of programs and services through partners. This will also help to produce a more strategic document, as required by the CESD.

Targeted training of staff on how sustainable development can be a part of their daily job activities will expand the number of decisions that take sustainable development into account, whether they be procurement, funding projects or developing partnerships. While the project funding process already identifies long-term outcomes that highlight best practices, project officers will be encouraged to find innovative ways to embed sustainable development into all projects. Managerial recognition for sustainable development would also further the integration of sustainable development into programs and services, as it would provide incentive for project officers.

<< previous | next >>