4. Effectiveness

This effectiveness issue examined the design, and delivery of the ITPP and FJST as they relate to quality client service, including the application process, reporting requirements, program awareness, and graduate recruitment. Possible future directions for the Programs were also considered within this issue.

4.1 Program Design and Delivery

In your view, are ITPP and FJST being delivered in an efficient and effective manner?

For example: Is the application process seen as clear and reasonable to client firms? If not, why not?

Most clients interviewed stated that the application process is simple, clear and reasonable. Some companies were able to submit business plans that they had prepared for other purposes, such as a bank which facilitated their application. Some who had applied on previous occasions noted that the application process had become simpler and faster. While the old forms were complicated, and perhaps excessive for the amount of money WD was providing, the new forms are viewed as streamlined. There have been instances of consultants assisting firms with their application. However, we did not gain the impression from the interviews that this was a common practice, as it is for example in the SRED program.

The survey results (Q 28) confirmed support for the application process. A high proportion strongly agreed (74.9% - box scores 4 and 5) that the application forms did not take too long to complete, that the program guidelines were clear (78.7%), and strongly disagreed (67.5%) that the information required was too detailed, and that the staff took a long time to process the applications (73.2%).

Some issues in the application process were, however, brought to our attention.

According to BC WD officials, 90% of the projects have site visits as part of the approval. This has tended to restrict project approvals to urban areas.
Graduate approval is an area for improvement. It can easily take two months to complete the process of recruiting and hiring an individual. In a slow labour market this is not a problem, but there have been situations where companies have felt that they might be in jeopardy of losing their preferred candidate (and thus have to go back to the beginning again for graduate qualification). These companies wanted to see movement on hiring on the basis of agreement in principle without everything being signed.
Another issue has been the turnover and reassignment of WD staff, and the frequent splitting of the application process among several WD officers. Clients have complained that “I don’t know who to talk to now.” Another problem has been the WD website: it does not have a clear path that leads an inexperienced user to ITPP and FJST program information.
An industry interviewee felt that WD should not impose a cap (maximum) number of times a firm can apply to the programs (FJST in this case). The respondent argued that if a firm had a good track record of keeping their graduates on as full-time permanent employees, they should be encouraged to re-apply.

These shortcomings have been recognized in most instances and WD staff in the regions has been actively working to improve the application process. For example, for graduate approval, WD staff has created a form to check-off items, although it still requires resumes and proof of graduation. Some clients believe the program delivery units should be encouraged to adopt an Internet-based system to run due diligence and generate letters of offer.

Have firms found the reporting requirements acceptable? If not, why not?

The reporting requirements were considered by some clients to be repetitive, given that usually, for a successful firm, it is “more of the same”. However they are not seen as onerous. Also they provide a suitable check for unsuccessful cases.

In general, clients have found the reporting requirements acceptable. The survey respondents (Q 28) strongly disagreed (70.8%) with the statement that the information required in the progress reports is too detailed. One WD official commented that all WD really needs to know is if the graduate is still employed or not. Some companies send extensive reports, while others just provide the minimum required. From a due diligence point of view, it is understood that the quarterly reports justify payments. Sometimes the reports are written by the graduates themselves – which in itself provides an element of training. Again the issue of not knowing who to talk to at WD came up if clients have questions.

Have clients been able to attract qualified graduates to participate in the Program? If not, why not?

WD interviewees noted that, for the most part, clients appear to have been able to attract suitably qualified graduates. The programs are not as well known as they should be; there has been limited promotion at universities and colleges, stemming from earlier publicity that generated interest beyond the capacity of the programs to respond. The survey showed (Q 21) that common routes for hiring graduates were referral, direct contact of the firm by the graduate, and advertising.

Some difficulties were encountered in remote regions or where specific technical training has been required. In some cases, the three years from graduation limit was relaxed. Several commented that some companies, particularly in the ITPP, tried to pay lower than market wages, thus finding it difficult to attract qualified graduates. It was noted in the previous chapter, the concern of some that, for ITPP, an inexperienced graduate was probably not the most suitable candidate because networks/contacts could be needed to do the job successfully. On the other hand, some industry clients indicated that the graduates they hired had more educational qualifications than they would have been able to afford in the absence of ITPP support.

4.2 Future Directions

Are there alternative ways of delivering the Programs that would improve efficiency and effectiveness? Are the most appropriate and efficient means being used to achieve the objectives of the Programs?

A number of suggestions were made for improving delivery of the programs.

Provincial Delivery: The possibility of provincial program delivery was raised, but this was not thought to be a likely alternative because provinces, certainly BC, are explicitly phasing out subsidies to business. Further, even though ITPP and FJST were in line with provincial priorities and did not overlap or duplicate provincial programs, provincial governments were not considered to have sufficient budget to fund the programs themselves. It was suggested that provinces might be enlisted as cosponsors, or co-deliverers, and that the original idea of provincial advisory councils might be pursued. It was understood that this would require sensitive negotiations given the reluctance of provinces to get directly involved.

Third Party Delivery: Some respondents felt that ITPP and FJST no longer fit with WD’s approach to program delivery, and that the programs would be more appropriately delivered by a third party. Delivery by community development organizations such as community capital corporations, or community futures might be considered. The question raised was whether this removal of direct contact with SMEs would eliminate an important source of policy information for WD, and possibly deflect the programs from their focus on new economy firms.

Program Promotion: A number of respondents noted that WD needs to get behind the programs and promote them better, e.g., more advertising with industry associations, university campuses, and improving the web site so that the programs are easier to find. Both WD and other respondents noted that WD needs to reach out to rural small businesses more. We understand that WD offices away from urban areas may have no part in the delivery of FJST and ITPP.

Linkage to Other Programs: Closer linkages to IRAP and HRDC programs, particularly for FJST, were proposed as being beneficial to companies. We did not have an opportunity to follow-up on an HRDC connection but we did discuss the idea with IRAP. IRAP officers in western Canada are familiar with FJST and its benefits, and in some cases companies come to FJST through reference from an IRAP officer (Q 27 in the survey revealed federal programs including IRAP as a source of program awareness). In the regions, away from WD offices, IRAP officers could be trained and authorized to deliver the program rather than advise clients on the current ad hoc basis. This would probably assist the inclusion of more rural businesses in the program.

Eligibility Constraints: To qualify for the programs, companies must have revenues. Thus, the programs tend to focus only on companies that are already established – start-ups are excluded (unlike, for example, the situation for SRED claims). Additionally, the projects must be incremental. The firm must acquire, develop or integrate a new technology and must own the technology – this severely limits many companies from possibly applying.

Pre-Screening Graduates: There were suggestions that WD should pre-screen the graduates, and then list the qualified candidates on WD’s web site. Firms would only need to go to this “one stop”, knowing that any graduates they select had been pre-qualified by WD as being eligible to participate in the programs. This would not prevent companies coming forward with graduates not on the list but it would be intended to accelerate the approval process for those companies that wanted a faster decision.

Regional Program Focus: One respondent noted that in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, there are far more graduates than jobs, particularly when compared to Alberta and BC. It was recognized that while it may be difficult for WD strategically to limit the programs to these two provinces, it might be useful to apply more effort to publicizing the programs in these two regions with a view to stimulating demand. Given the success of the programs in helping to overcome the “Catch 22” situation faced by some new graduates, that is experience required but no firm willing to give them their first experience, this focus could push more firms to take the risk and hire young graduates.

In your view, should the programs continue?

Most interviewees and survey respondents believe that the programs should continue (Q 30 – 93.1% said yes). As evidenced by the results reported earlier, most considered the programs to have been very useful to small businesses and to graduates judging by the proportion that stayed with their employers. There were, however, some dissenting views.

As noted above, some WD officials said WD should close off the programs. They felt that the time for general programs was over, and that the programs might be redesigned and targeted to certain sectors and certain technologies, or, if retained in their present form, their administration might be devolved to a third party. The more common view was that WD needed a direct window onto its clients. It needed to be able to determine the economic climate in the West directly without the distortions introduced by second-hand reporting from contract service providers. Their thinking was that ITPP and FJST provide a unique source of information for WD policy makers on the status of small businesses in western Canada, and should continue to be delivered by WD.

The possible targeting of sectors did not receive much support (19.6%) from survey participants (Q 31). If there was targeting, WD and other interviewees saw that it would be difficult to convince the public that the right choices had been made. Mention was made that it might be possible to identify gaps in skill sets through considering the work of HRDC’s sector councils.

In a continuation of the programs, it was proposed that WD should open up its programs to provide more than a wage subsidy to including business development support, as WD used to offer. This support might cover, for example, management skills instruction for technology companies, and marketing assistance for exporters eg finding local agents, advising on local taxes and regulations.

<< previous | next >>