Accountability Guide - Module I: Implementing the Staffing Management and Accountability Framework (SMAF)

Purpose of this Module

• To enhance understanding of the nature of the SMAF and to assist in its implementation.
• To facilitate measurement and reporting of organizational staffing performance and the extent to which elements for a well-managed staffing system are in place.

Table of Contents

1. Background
2. Purposes and Benefits of the Staffing Management Accountability Framework (SMAF)
3. Structure of the SMAF
4. Developing Supporting Measures
5. Additional Guidance and Information

• Annex - Examples of Possible Supporting Measures (under development)

I. Background

The Public Service Commission (PSC) is dedicated to building a public service that strives for excellence. Its objective is to safeguard the integrity of staffing and the political impartiality of public servants.

As noted in the introduction to these modules, the new Public Service Employment Act (PSEA) gives the PSC the authority to make appointments to and within the public service, as well as to delegate appointment and appointment-related authorities to deputy heads for positions within their organizations. The Act also requires the PSC to hold deputy heads accountable for the proper use of these authorities.

The PSC uses various means for oversight and for holding deputy heads accountable, including:

• providing appointment policies, tools and assistance to organizations;
• monitoring appointment trends;
• requiring organizations to report to the PSC on their conduct of staffing;
• conducting an integrated assessment of staffing;
• providing feedback to organizations to improve the staffing system;
• conducting audits, studies and investigations;
• applying a range of interventions or remedial measures when it finds abuses or questionable practices; and
• reporting to Parliament on the health of the public service staffing system.

This module of the Accountability Guide focuses on one of these oversight tools: the Staffing Management Accountability Framework (SMAF). Implementation of the SMAF in the organization is a condition for maintaining delegation. For this reason, the SMAF is attached as an annex to the Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument (ADAI), the instrument by which the PSC delegates its authorities to a deputy head and communicates how he or she will be held accountable.

The SMAF is also aligned with the government's larger modern management agenda. It serves as the staffing-focussed application of the expectations for good human resources management established in the Management Accountability Framework (MAF) developed by the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS). The People Component of the MAF (PCMAF), established by the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada (PSHRMAC), applies the MAF to all other areas of human resources management.

Top of Page

II. Purposes and Benefits of the Staffing Management and Accountability Framework (SMAF)

The SMAF is an accountability tool and measurement framework. Its multiple purposes and potential benefits include:

• setting out the expectations, indicators and measures for a well-managed staffing system that respects the new PSEA, and is conducive to the achievement of desired staffing results;
• providing deputy heads and the PSC with information useful for decision-making;
• serving as the basis for deputy heads to report to the PSC on the staffing performance of their organizations;
• enabling consistent reporting on staffing management and results across the public service;
• facilitating comparisons between organizations on the health of the staffing system;
• enabling the identification of public service-wide staffing trends;
• assisting deputy heads with ensuring that their sub-delegated managers are accountable;
• providing input for assessing risks to the staffing system; and
• fostering continuous improvement of the staffing system.

Top of Page

III. Structure of the SMAF

This section defines and explains the components of the SMAF and their application. These components, from the general to the specific, include management elements and their expectations, indicators, and measures. These components are presented in the table entitled "Mandatory Measures for The SMAF".

The Management Elements and Expectations

The SMAF is comprised of five management elements identified by the PSC to categorize management and accountability expectations concerning the staffing system. These include governance, planning, policy, communication and control. Each management element has a corresponding expectation.

The PSC has defined each element and its corresponding expectations as follows:

The Indicators and Measures

The indicators in the SMAF identify conditions that need to be in place to ensure that staffing system in the organization is well-managed and is achieving intended results. The assessment of actual conditions and results against the indicators serves to identify:

• the extent to which each expectation is being met;
• strengths in the staffing system; and
• risks and opportunities for improvement.

Use of the indicators developed by the PSC is mandatory for all delegated organizations. However, departments and agencies may use additional indicators if these will help them meet their accountability and performance measurement requirements.

As with the indicators, collectively the measures in the SMAF are used to assess both:

• organizational performance in terms of progress toward achieving desired results; and
• the extent to which components necessary for sound management are present in an organization.

Following is an example of an indicator and its measures for the "governance" management element.

"Contributing to" the Foundations for Appointments

The PSC has identified Foundations for Appointments based on the principles, values and results outlined in the new PSEA. The foundations are merit, non-partisanship, fairness, access, transparency, and delegation and accountability. Information yielded by each indicator of the SMAF contributes to an assessment of how well the foundations are being upheld. In the example above, the notation "contributing to" signals that the indicator addresses the delegation and accountability, and transparency foundations.

In addition to requiring information from delegated organizations based on the indicators in the SMAF, the PSC will also review available information from central systems and central agencies to identify trends and risk areas in the staffing system. Information from all these sources will be used by the PSC to complete an integrated assessment of whether the delegated organizations are respecting the foundations for appointments of the new PSEA. This integrated assessment provides the basis for reporting on integrity and results of the staffing system to Parliament, and for providing feedback to departments and agencies.

Basis for the Indicators and Measures

The indicators and measures contained in the SMAF:

• are based on sound management practices, the legislative framework, including the new PSEA, the PSC Appointment Policy, the Foundations for Appointments, and the Appointment Delegation and Accountability Instrument (ADAI);.
• reflect areas of the staffing system that the PSC has determined to be at higher risk. The SMAF helps ensure that these areas will be monitored closely and that risks identified by individual organizations can be managed proactively; and
• are interrelated. To illustrate, the state of control in an organization has the potential to affect the other elements of governance, planning, policy and communication in that organization. For example, the extent of monitoring, as examined under one of the control indicators, will affect the ability to make conclusions about indicators dealing with whether staffing actions are complying with policy requirements or whether staffing is consistent with human resources (HR) planning. As another example, an assessment of the indicator on the state of communications is likely to be influenced by how senior management gives direction and sets priorities.

The SMAF indicators and measures are considered to be "evergreen". It is expected that they will change and develop as experience with applying the SMAF grows, and as objectives and priorities for public service human resources management (including staffing) change. While it expects that the indicators will evolve slowly, the PSC may modify the measures more frequently in order to obtain the most information possible on staffing management and results.

Mandatory and Supporting Measures

The PSC has grouped the SMAF measures into two categories: "mandatory" and "supporting." As an aside, the PSC also uses in its assessment, other measures linked to information obtained through central sources and by means other than directly from organizations as part of accountability reporting.

Mandatory Measures

The PSC has established mandatory measures against which all organizations must report. For some mandatory measures, annual reporting will be required. For other mandatory measures, only periodic reporting will be required; for example, when there has been a significant change in an organization's status, or the PSC has determined that annual reporting is neither appropriate nor necessary.

The mandatory measures enable the PSC to obtain consistent public service-wide performance information, which can be used to determine the overall staffing performance of the public service, including system-wide strengths, as well as areas where adjustments to the staffing system are required.

The PSC may, under certain circumstances, impose additional mandatory measures on an organization for a determinate or indeterminate period. This will occur when the PSC:

• observes, on an ongoing basis, an area where an organization's staffing performance does not meet the PSC's expectations;
• identifies areas of staffing it deems to be at high risk, and for which the organization has not satisfactorily demonstrated that it is managing appropriately;
• finds that existing measures are not yielding adequate information; or
• notes audit or other oversight findings which indicate aspects of performance that need to be strengthened.

Supporting Measures

The PSC encourages organizations to create a more comprehensive and accurate picture of their staffing performance by supplementing the mandatory measures in the SMAF with supporting measures. An organization may add these organization-specific measures when it wishes to:

• measure and report more fully to its own management and the PSC on its performance in specific areas of staffing;
• ensure that its organizational context is recognized when its staffing management and results are assessed;
• monitor areas of its staffing program that it considers at risk; and
• more precisely reflect its HR and staffing priorities (desired results).

An organization may develop its own supporting measures or it may select from possible supporting measures developed by the PSC (refer to the Annex - Examples of Possible Supporting Measures). Supporting measures may be used for a determinate or indeterminate period. Section IV provides Information for organizations wanting to draft their own supporting measures.

Top of Page

IV. Developing Supporting Measures

This section provides guidance on considerations when developing, selecting or refining supporting measures.

Whom to involve

The SMAF should be aligned and, where possible, integrated with existing organizational management processes and approaches. Therefore, when developing the organization-specific measures, potential partners to HR staff may include:

• other stakeholders, such as managers, with different perspectives on the program;
• evaluation or performance measurement specialists knowledgeable about developing measures, and whose familiarity with other organizational management processes can foster integration or alignment where appropriate; and
• specialists in information technology and staff familiar with the HR information systems, the information currently being gathered, the information it is possible to gather, and the information that is impossible or unreasonable to gather due to time, cost or other considerations.

Are supporting measures needed?

The need for supporting measures will be based on answers to such questions as:

1. Do the mandatory measures clearly depict the state of staffing, or is additional information needed for an accurate picture of the staffing process and its results?
2. Does the organization have a clear picture of its intended staffing results and the aspects or dimensions of these results that are of interest to management such as effectiveness (eg. in staffing positions), cost, efficiency, extent of compliance with policy, client satisfaction, and so on?
3. Is the organization adequately measuring its compliance with its own organizational staffing policies, as well as those that are required by the PSC, and the effectiveness of its policies?
4. What specific risks to staffing are faced by the organization, and what measures might shed light on the extent of these risks? Examples of situations that may point to risks that could influence the choice of supporting measures include:
   • findings on areas for improvement in staffing from previous assessments;
   • location of positions in remote or overseas locations;
   • sub-delegation of staffing authorities in an organization without prior sub-delegation experience;
   • regional decision-making with regard to the sub-delegation of staffing authorities; and
   • constraints in the capacities of HR information systems.

As with all SMAF measures, supporting measures may help determine:

• whether the conditions for a well-managed staffing system are being met, including whether staffing is conducted in accordance with legislation, policy and the Foundations for Appointments, and sound management practices; and
• the extent to which the desired staffing results are being achieved.

As noted earlier, all of the SMAF indicators articulate the conditions for a well-managed staffing system. Discussion of results achieved will usually fall however, under either of the following SMAF planning or policy indicators identified as:

• PLN3: Staffing is consistent with HR planning while variances can be explained; and
• POL3: Appointment processes and decisions respect statutory as well as organizational and PSC policy requirements.

The following table provides examples of possible supporting measures for intended staffing results, as well as desired staffing conditions.

With this information on supporting measures in mind, organizations can apply approaches to systematically develop measures, rather than using a hit-and-miss approach. Specifically, both risk management and performance measurement can help organizations focus on what should be measured.

Information on how to identify staffing risks is provided in Module 2 of the Accountability Guide, "Active Monitoring and Risk Assessment in Staffing." It provides a systematic approach to identifying, evaluating and responding to staffing risks. With this knowledge of risks, organizations can determine the need for measures and monitoring.

The key to measuring performance in terms of results (as opposed to determining if the necessary components for sound management are present), is being clear as to intended results. These results may include direct outputs produced by the activity, and significant longer-term consequences or outcomes. The process of articulating program activities and their links to desired results provides a structured basis for developing measures. Information on creating these "logic models," and on performance measurement is available from the Treasury Board Secretariat. Internal evaluation specialists may also provide assistance in this endeavour.

With the application of these approaches, organizations are able to identify those staffing results and risks not addressed by the existing indicators and measures developed by the PSC. Supporting measures can then be established.

Drafting, Selecting and Refining Measures

Having determined that supporting measures are required, the process of drafting measures can begin. Keep in mind that the goal of measurement is to generate useful information for building an accurate picture of the management and results of staffing. Too few measures may result in an inaccurate understanding of performance for a particular indicator. Too many measures may result in an undue reporting burden, lack of use of the information gathered or an unnecessary overload of information. Frequently, several measures are required for each indicator in order to gain an adequate picture of the status of that indicator.

Factors to consider when drafting measures include:

• Information needs of the potential users which may include senior management, HR staff, the internal evaluation group, the PSC, central agencies and other stakeholders. The different users may wish to use this information for such purposes as decision-making, accountability, communication and information sharing.
• Feasibility of obtaining the measurement information. Does adequate data exist to support the measure? Can current information systems be enhanced to capture the information desired in support of the measure?
• Measures should be selected based on what will provide the best information, and not on what will be easiest to implement. Often, time is required to implement systems to generate the desired measurement information. For this reason, a short-term solution, as well as a longer-term strategy, may be necessary.
• Characteristics of measures depend on their use. Measures dealing with how staffing is managed will often be expressed in general terms to provide flexibility in demonstrating that particular conditions are met. On the other hand, measures focussed on results should be:
  • SPECIFIC - clearly tied to the staffing system and based on a single theme;
  • MEASURABLE - stated in measurable terms;
  • COMPARABLE - provide results that allow for comparisons over time, with other organizations, etc.;
  • RELIABLE - enable others to arrive at the same results;
  • RESULTS-BASED - clearly tied to outputs or outcomes; and
  • TIMELY - provides measurement information when needed.

• Qualitative versus quantitative measures. Some measures may be qualitative and focus on providing descriptive information along with documented support (e.g. plans, minutes etc.). Other measures will be quantitative. Depending on the context, it is often advisable to express these measures both as numbers and as percentages.
• Use of indirect measurement information. An indirect or proxy measure relies on indirect information which can be linked logically to portray the extent to which the indicator has been achieved. A proxy measure is used when it may not be feasible to readily obtain a particular type of data directly. Two examples of indirect measurement follow:

It is common to find that the initial drafting of measures results in a lengthy list. Often several drafts are necessary before an optimal number of measures is reached.

Where to Find Measurement Information

Staffing-related information sources for reporting against the measures may include:

• human resources management information systems;
• information that is already being collected in program files or databases or could be collected with adjustments to the regular processes;
• information that needs to be gathered through specialized data collection; exercises such as focus groups, experts panels or surveys (internal employee, client surveys);
• organizational strategic, human resources and staffing plans;
• the Departmental Performance Report;
• PSC feedback on departmental staffing performance;
• the PSC's statistical information site;
• internal or external audit findings (e.g., PSC and Office of the Auditor General audits); and
• recourse and complaint decisions.

Keeping Track

To help ensure that required data is being gathered and used in a timely fashion, it is useful to document measures in a table by indicator for each management element. For each measure, identify:

• the data source and collection method;
• the timing and frequency of the data collection;
• the person or area responsible for collecting the data; and
• the user of the information.

For reporting purposes, it may also be useful to create a second table, again organized by indicator for each question that the measurement information will answer. Measures will be aligned with the indicators to which they provide information, and a third column will present the data (or summary as appropriate) in relation to each measure.

Ensuring Relevancy of Measures

Organizations should periodically review supporting measures and any additional organization-specific indicators to ensure the ongoing relevance, usefulness and accuracy of measurement information. The review should answer such questions as:

• Were the desired staffing results achieved?
• Does the information being collected respond to the organization's and PSC requirements?
• Do our measures continue to reflect the Foundations for Appointments and staffing-related priorities?
• Can the measures be improved to collect higher quality or more appropriate information?

The preparation of the annual Departmental Staffing Accountability Report (DSAR) for the PSC is an opportunity for the organization to review its staffing performance and the measures. Where there are concerns with the mandatory measures, the PSC needs to be informed. Mandatory measures can only be adjusted by the PSC. The PSC regularly reviews and adjusts its mandatory measures and the supporting measures it has developed to ensure that they continue to yield the desired measurement information. Changes are communicated to all organizations.

Maintaining Momentum

The following are some ways to maintain momentum after implementation of the SMAF:

• senior management periodically reiterates the importance of measuring and monitoring staffing management and results;
• senior management regularly sees and uses the SMAF measurement information to make management decisions;
• responsibility is assigned for the timely collection of SMAF measurement data;
• the organization pilots management and performance reports based on SMAF measurement information, where applicable;
• the organization periodically re-examines SMAF measures and notes lessons learned; and
• the organization recognizes that measurement requires time to perfect.

Conclusion

Quality and timely information on the management and results of staffing serves accountability requirements both with the organization and beyond to the PSC and Parliament. At the same time, the information generated through measurement is needed by the organization's HR group, its senior management, and the PSC as an essential requirement for ensuring a well-managed staffing system.

Top of Page

V. Additional Guidance and Information

Who in the PSC can help me with SMAF-related concerns?

An oversight analyst available to provide advice on accountability is assigned for each delegated organization. The list of analysts is maintained on the PSC's Web site.

Accountability Directorate

In addition to developing accountability tools and providing guidance on their implementation, the Accountability Directorate focusses on:

• ongoing monitoring and assessment of departmental staffing performance;
• integrated gathering and analysis of information to identify "at-risk" areas of the staffing system that are public service-wide or specific to an organization; and
• facilitating corrective actions.

Where can I get more information on staffing accountability?

• PSC Accountability web site
• PSC Annual Report

More Guidance on Staffing Oversight

• Audits and Studies
• Investigations

Top of Page

Annex - Examples of Possible Supporting Measures

(Under development.)