Prepared for: Assistant Secretary, Expenditure Management Sector
Treasury Board Secretariat
Prepared by HDP Inc., Ottawa, Canada, December 1996
Executive Summary
The focus of this evaluation is on how well the Treasury Board and the
Secretariat have used business plans, what value they have added and the
identification of suggestions for improvements to the process for coming years.
Key issues addressed in this evaluation include -- the single-window, horizontal
issues and government priorities, departmental objectives and strategies,
resource and program design decisions and guidelines.
In general terms, the value of business planning is widely recognized. The
challenge is to build on the successes to date and to continue demonstrating
value added to both Ministers and departments. Our findings are presented in two
parts -- those that deal with strategic issues in terms of the evolving
government-wide business planning process and those that specifically address
the five key evaluation issues established for this review.
Strategic Issues
There are three major strategic issues/areas that provide opportunities for
the Treasury Board/Secretariat to add greater value to the current business
planning process -- managing the process, developing the Treasury Board
management role in government and integrating the elements of the broader
government planning process.
(1) Managing with Business Plans
Opportunities exist for the Treasury Board/Secretariat to synthesize
information from the analysis of departmental business plans and to make it
available as a strategic input to government planning. This would reinforce the
value added of business planning among all stakeholders including Ministers.
Similarly, further Treasury Board/Secretariat work to facilitate the application
of portfolio management would contribute to the objectives of the Expenditure
Management System. At present, the merits of the portfolio management concept
are generally recognized but there is no common understanding or approach for
moving this complex issue forward.
(2) Role of the TB/TBS
The evaluation identified opportunities for the Treasury Board to clarify its
management role in government. Consistent with this evolving role, a clear
vision and common understanding is needed of the management board concept as
well as its associated roles and responsibilities.
(3) TBS and the Business Planning Process
Departments are increasingly concerned with establishing a 'single, seamless
process' for planning, resourcing and reporting. The majority of those consulted
feel that the business planning process could serve this purpose. Given the
evolution of the business planning process and other competing government
planning initiatives, the opportunity exists for the Treasury Board/Secretariat
to provide a management and communications focal point within government. This
will contribute to clarifying the fit and requirement of the various initiatives
which are all part of rationalizing the government planning, expenditure and
reporting environment. In this role, the Secretariat can provide leadership in
moving the business planning process forward, in addition to taking the lead on
developing key concepts such as portfolio management.
Process Issues
There is considerable support for the single-window. Many in
the Secretariat and departments view the single-window as a basis for improving
Treasury Board Secretariat service to departments. The potential for the
Secretariat to put forward a more consistent view to departments as well as the
efficiency and effectiveness of the single-window were recognized. At the same
time however, the single-window concept and the mechanics of working with
departments require further work.
While the Secretariat was able to report to the Treasury Board Ministers on
progress in implementing government priorities, business plan review team
leaders indicated that the development of horizontal issues was a
weak link in the business planning process. At best, results were mixed. The
strategic analysis of the business plans submitted by departments and the
synthesis of this work by the Secretariat would provide a systematic means of
identifying and monitoring horizontal issues across government and of providing
substantive feedback to departments on their contributions to government
priorities.
The evolving business planning process has contributed to a greater awareness
and understanding of departmental objectives and strategies in the
Secretariat. This has focused primarily on funding pressures and the status of
program review commitments. Meetings between the Secretary and Deputy Ministers
are viewed as particularly important in setting the stage for engaging Ministers
in broader, more active discussions. Opportunities exist though to further
strengthen the dialogue between Ministers and departments in terms of the timing
and scheduling of presentations.
While the Secretariat used the business plans in Cycle 2 to provide a general
context for resource and program design decisions, the plans were
not seen to be used to the extent originally envisaged. The process has provided
a basis however for further dealings between the Secretariat and departments to
work on/resolve outstanding issues.
Departments expressed concerns with the Secretariat's guidelines
for business planning in Cycle 2 in terms of the lack of context and strategic
framework and the lateness of the guidelines. In working with departments, the
opportunity exists to provide guidance that reflects the full range of
management issues that departments need to work on.
Summary and Conclusions
Summary
Although the quality of the business plans submitted and the commitment to
the process ranges widely, the value added and potential of the business
planning process are widely recognized and accepted; so too is the realization
that the process and the plans are evolving. The challenge is to build on the
successes to date and to continue demonstrating the value added to both
Ministers and departments.
With this iterative approach to implementation, the objectives for moving
into the third cycle must focus not only on moving the yard sticks, but also on
capturing the tremendous effort and progress made by the majority of departments
within the first two cycles. There is unanimous agreement that improvements to
both the process and the plans must/will evolve; the challenge is to target the
appropriate issues and generate the required buy-in at all levels to ensure
success.
Conclusions
The conclusions drawn from this evaluation are best captured by defining two
distinct groups; those that deal with strategic issues concerning the evolving
business planning process and those that are mechanical in nature and deal
specifically with the five criteria established for this review.
Strategic Issues
From a macro perspective, there is a requirement to take the strategic
information stemming from the analysis of departmental business plans and make
it available as strategic input to the government planning cycle. A high level
synthesis of key issues across government would provide tangible evidence of the
value added of business planning to Ministers.
Portfolio management is an important component in the Expenditure Management
System. While the need to advance this initiative is acknowledged by senior
managers from both the Treasury Board Secretariat and departments, there is no
common understanding/approach in terms of next steps. A senior departmental
official stated: --
'while we recognize the importance of the portfolio approach, we are having
difficulties as there does not exist a common framework or understanding
across government. We would welcome the opportunity to participate in a TBS
working group to establish a workable, common approach.'
From a Treasury Board/Secretariat perspective, it is crucial that the broad
vision of transforming the current Board to focus increasingly on strategy and
to become more of a management board be clearly articulated. Currently, a common
understanding does not exist of the management board concept or, of the
prospective roles and responsibilities of the Secretariat in supporting such a
board.
Business plans, the PRAS, revised Estimates Part III, performance reporting
are all competing for resources, time and management attention in departments.
As a consequence, a clear management and communications strategy is required to
clarify the fit and requirements of these various initiatives which are all part
of rationalizing the government planning, expenditure and reporting environment.
Evaluation Criteria
From a macro perspective, the Secretariat has used the business plans as an
effective window into the strategic issues facing departments. What is missing
however is a comprehensive analysis and synthesis of the business plans to
provide Ministers with strategic information on key departmental and
government-wide horizontal issues.
Business Planning Process Issues
The Single-Window
Did Treasury Board Secretariat make use of the
business planning process to provide a more cohesive response to
departments?
|
There is considerable support for the single-window. Many of those
interviewed view the single-window as a basis for improving Treasury Board
Secretariat service to departments. The potential for the Secretariat to put
forward a more consistent view to departments was recognized. Work is required
by the Secretariat however, to clarify the single-window and its application and
to refine the mechanics of working with departments.
Horizontal Issues and Government Priorities
Did Treasury Board Secretariat use business plans to
identify horizontal issues and assess whether departments are taking
into account government priorities and Treasury Board policies?
|
While the Secretariat was able to report to the Treasury Board Ministers on
progress in implementing government priorities, business plan review team
leaders indicated that the development of horizontal issues was a weak link in
the business planning process. At best, results were mixed. The strategic
analysis of the business plans submitted by departments and the synthesis of
this work by the Secretariat would provide a systematic means of identifying and
monitoring horizontal issues across government and of providing substantive
feedback to departments on their contributions to government priorities.
Departmental Objectives and Strategies
Was Treasury Board and its Secretariat able to develop
an understanding of departmental objectives and strategies and related
issues and opportunities?
|
The business planning process has provided a basis for the Secretariat to
develop an overall appreciation of department issues, funding pressures and the
status of program review commitments. Meetings between the Secretary and Deputy
Ministers of departments that will be presenting to the Board are viewed as
particularly important. These meetings are a focal point for the discussion of
Treasury Board Ministers' concerns and interests.
Resource and Program Design Decisions
Did Treasury Board Secretariat use business plans to
provide a context for resource and program design decisions?
|
While the business plans in Cycle 2 were used to provide a general context,
the Secretariat did not use the plans to the extent originally envisaged. The
process did provide a basis for further dealings between the Secretariat and
departments to work on/resolve outstanding issues. Portfolio management is
recognized as a potentially important contributor to improved strategic
management across government; the principles and mechanisms to facilitate its
implementation need to be further developed.
Guidelines
What was the contribution of Treasury Board
Secretariat
guidelines to cycle two?
|
Departments -- both large and small -- expressed concerns with the guidelines
for business planning in Cycle 2 in terms of the lack of context and strategic
framework presented by the guidelines and their lateness. Working with
departments, the opportunity exists to develop the guidelines as part of a
government-wide environmental scan of key and emerging management issues. This
would provide balanced, more strategic guidance that reflects the full range of
management issues that departments need to work on.
|