JULY 2003
CLASSIFICATION MONITORING FRAMEWORK -
A Conceptual Model for the
Classification Monitoring Program
Treasury Board Secretariat
Organization and Classification Sector
We gratefully acknowledge the partnership and support of our
colleagues in the Public Service Commission in the development of
the Treasury Board Secretariat's 'Classification
Monitoring Framework - A Conceptual Model for the
Classification Monitoring Program.' The TBS model has
benefited significantly from the years of conceptualizing,
consultation, testing and implementation that have resulted in
the PSC's family of documents entitled 'The
Values-Based Merit Framework,' and specifically the
document entitled 'Staffing Accountability
Framework.'
CLASSIFICATION MONITORING FRAMEWORK -
A Conceptual Model for the Classification Monitoring
Program
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
- Objective of this Document
- BackgroundManagement Board Role
- Management Board Approach in New Classification
Policy
- Enabling Policy
CLASSIFICATION ACCOUNTABILITY
- The Three-Tier Continuum
- Public Service-Wide Classification Values
- Accountability Indicators and Measurements
- Incentives
- Other Initiatives
AN APPROACH TO MONITORING AND RISK
ASSESSMENT
- Characteristics of a Classification Monitoring
System
EARLY WARNING SYSTEM
- Components of the Early Warning System
- Status of the Early Warning System
REPORTING AND ASSESSMENT
- Reporting - A Guideline to Classification
Performance Reports for Departments
- About the Reports
- Completion of Departmental Classification Reports
- Conclusion
- Treasury Board Secretariat Assessment
- Completion of A Departmental Classification Performance
Report
- Model of Attestation of the Reliability of Departmental
Classification Performance Reports
Appendix A - Definitions
- Classification
- Result Values
- Process Values
Appendix B - Classification System and
Delegation of Authority Policy: Excerpt on monitoring
Appendix C - Part 1 Risk Assessment Model:
Functional Risks
Appendix D - Part 2 Risk Assessment
Model: Organizational and Systems Risks
Appendix E - Checklist for A Departmental
Report
Appendix F - Template Report
Introduction
The objective of the classification system of the federal
public service is to establish the relative value of all work in
the public service in an equitable, consistent and effective
manner and to provide a basis for the compensation of public
service employees.
Classification standards determine the relative value of
work. The Treasury Board Secretariat develops and issues
guidelines with respect to the management and monitoring of the
classification system and the implementation of this policy.
Deputy Heads are authorized to classify positions in their
respective departments in accordance with Treasury Board policy,
the appropriate classification standards and any guidelines
issued by the Treasury Board Secretariat.
Deputy Heads are required to make classification decisions
that are consistent with this policy, the classification standard
that applies to a particular group, and the guidelines developed
and issued by the Treasury Board Secretariat.
Please refer to (See Appendix A) for a list of terms
and their definitions that will be useful to you in reading this
document.
Objective of this Document
- To introduce the new classification monitoring
framework.
Background
- In March 2000, the President of the Treasury Board issued Results for Canadians: A Management Framework for the
Government of Canada.
- In this document, the government makes four management
commitments: citizen focus, values, results and responsible
spending.
- To enhance performance, departments and agencies must, among
other things, integrate modern comptrollership into their
management practices.
- In April 2001, in response to a commitment made in Results for Canadians, the
Integrated Risk Management
Framework articulated a whole-of-government view grounded in
rational priority setting and principles of responsible
spending.
- Risk management is a systematic approach to setting the best
course of action by identifying, assessing, understanding, acting
on and communicating risk issues. It is a:
- corporate and strategic approach to understand and manage
risks;
- means to address high risks linked to corporate
objectives;
- tool to strengthen priority-setting, resource allocation and
decision-making;
- contributor to better results management and innovation; and
an
- essential element of modern management and well-performing
organizations.
- As part of the implementation of Results for
Canadians, on June 1, 2001, a TB Policy on Active Monitoring
came into effect.
- This new policy requires that the “right systems be in
place to provide appropriate monitoring and control. To this
end, using a risk management approach, departments are expected
to actively monitor the state of their management practices and
controls and TBS is expected to actively monitor the overall
situation in this area across government.”
- The expected results of active monitoring include:
- better information sharing and improved understanding of the
effectiveness of management practices and controls, both within
departments and across government;
- timely assessments and preventative or remedial actions in
areas where control deficiencies or failures have been
identified;
- improved assessments of the effectiveness of TB policies;
and
- earlier identification of the need for adjustments to
existing TB policies or for new policies.
This risk management framework and TBS approach to Active
Monitoring will inform all monitoring initiatives/programs.
Management Board Role
- In June 1997, the Prime Minister
designated the Treasury Board and its Secretariat as the
government's management board.
- Its mandate is to work with and support
departments and agencies as they improve their management
practices.
- Designation as the management board did
not supplant the traditional roles of the Treasury Board and its
Secretariat, such as:
- acting as the employer of the Public
Service;
- establishing financial, administrative
and other corporate policies;
- performing resource management functions;
and
- approving the design, delivery and
resource components of departmental reporting initiatives.
These important traditional roles were overlaid with
additional responsibilities, such as leading and providing
expertise in the development of an agenda to improve management
practices in federal departments and agencies.
Management Board Approach in New Classification
Policy
The new policy follows the management board approach in the
following features:
- The Treasury Board sets the principles in
the policy for the delegation of classification authority to
Deputy Heads.
- Deputy Heads must follow these principles
in managing classification in their departments
- The policy will officially provide Deputy
Heads with authority to classify all groups and levels except
those described in another policy (EX, CAP, MTP).
- Deputy Heads will have flexibility to
sub-delegate classification authority to:
- managers within their respective
departments, and/or
- human resources advisors who are
employees in their respective departments or in another
department.
- Departments will decide how to establish
their own accountability frameworks.
- Departments will be able to choose
management practices and appropriate measures to meet their needs
within the parameters of the framework prescribed in the policy
and the information provided in the guidelines.
- The Treasury Board Secretariat will
monitor and assess the manner in which a Deputy Head exercises
classification authority.
Enabling Policy
Policy must enable the leadership approach. A key theme of
the Human Resources Modernization agenda is to improve service to
Canadians by clarifying roles and strengthening the
accountability of the institutions and individuals responsible
for managing the Public Service. In support of this theme, a new Classification System and Delegation of Authority Policy
(See Appendix B) and its guidelines will be issued during
the 2003-04 fiscal year. The policy will strike an appropriate
balance between TBS leadership and oversight and the needs of
departments to meet their classification accountability. The new
approach will:
- simplify the directive and prescriptive
“command and control” approach of the existing policy
by replacing it with principles that are consistent with modern
comptrollership;
- delegate greater flexibility to Deputy
Heads in managing classification in their respective
departments. The new policy eliminates restrictions on their
delegated authority for the classification of particular groups
and levels and on their sub-delegation of classification
authority to managers;
- reduce the lengthy procedures and
reporting requirements that departments were expected to follow;
and
- provide an active monitoring framework,
which gives departments flexibility to meet their monitoring
needs.
CLASSIFICATION ACCOUNTABILITY
The Three-Tier Continuum
The classification accountability continuum has
three tiers:
Tier 1: Treasury Board Ministers
Tier 2: Departmental Deputy Head accountable to
the Treasury Board Ministers through the Treasury Board
Secretariat/Secretary of the Treasury Board accountable to the
Treasury Board Ministers
Tier 3: Departmental managers and/or HR advisors
accountable to departmental Deputy Head
There are three levels of reporting within each
tier: processes, outputs and outcomes. See Appendix A for
a definition of the terms.
Recent discussions on accountability, including
the Report from the Task Force on Public Service Values and
Ethics, distinguish between the interrelated concepts of
Responsibility, Accountability, and Answerability.
Responsibility: identifies the field within which
a public office holder (whether elected or un-elected) can act;
defined by the specific authority given to the office holder (by
law or by delegation).
Accountability: the means of enforcing or
explaining responsibility; it involves:
- rendering an account of how responsibilities
have been carried out and problems corrected, and
- accepting personal consequences for problems the
office holder caused or problems that could have been avoided or
corrected if the office holder had acted appropriately.
Answerability: a duty to inform and explain.
- It is a part of accountability but does not
include the personal consequences associated with it.
- Public servants are answerable before
parliamentary bodies but not accountable to them…”
(A Strong Foundation - Report on the Task Force on Public
Service Values and Ethics - A Summary, page 3).
The following table shows the Responsibility, Accountability
Mechanism and Answerability continuum for classification authority.
|
Responsibility
|
Accountability Mechanism
|
Answerability
|
Tier 1
|
Treasury Board Ministers
|
FAA 11, 2c “…the Treasury Board may… provide for
the classification of positions and employees in the public
service…”
|
Secretary of the Treasury Board/
Departmental DH
|
Tier 2
|
Secretary of the Treasury Board
Departmental DH
|
Accountable to the Treasury Board Ministers through their
assignment of duties and functions as specified in the
classification policy
Accountable to the Treasury Board Ministers through delegation
as specified in the classification policy
|
Associate Secretary of the Treasury Board/Assistant Secretary,
Organization and Classification Sector
Departmental Head of Human Resources and HR
Advisors/Departmental managers
|
Tier 3
|
Departmental manager and/or HR advisor
|
Accountable to DH through a departmental delegation
framework
|
Departmental manager and HR advisor
|
Public Service-Wide Classification Values
In the accountability framework, Deputy Heads are
accountable for using their classification authorities in a way
that respects a series of values. Some of these classification
values originated with the Report from the Task Force on
Public Service Values and Ethics and others with Results
for Canadians (See Appendix A for definitions).
Performance indicators reflecting outcomes, outputs and process
measures can measure adherence to these classification
values.
Accountability Indicators and Measurements
The following chart links accountability indicators with the
values they support and identifies potential methodologies for
measurement.
Values
|
Indicators
|
Suggested measurements/methodology
|
Result values
|
-
classification practices and strategies which satisfy the
organization's operational needs (output)
-
departmental client's satisfaction (outcome)
-
productivity level (outcome)
-
results of classification data input / grievance / dispute
resolution analysis (process)
-
classification practices and strategies which result in
consistent and appropriate classification decisions (output)
-
results of classification data input / grievance / dispute
resolution analysis (process)
|
-
departmental reports on the linkage of business plan with
classification strategy
-
departmental review of classification practices (with sound
explanations for deviations)
-
manager/employee/client surveys and/or consultations
-
departmental review of number and type of client
complaints
-
departmental study of ways/mechanisms in place to ensure
departmental service/quality standards are met
-
review of classification data input, grievances, dispute
resolution
-
review of environmental scanning reports (complaints)
-
departmental review of and reports on classification
practices (with sound explanations for deviations)
-
review of classification data input, grievances, dispute
resolution
-
review of environmental scanning reports (complaints)
-
observations from other departments and bargaining
agents
|
Values
|
Indicators
|
Suggested measurements/methodology
|
Process values
|
-
management and employee satisfaction (output)
-
departmental classification policy which operationalizes
these values (output)
-
results of classification data input / grievance / dispute
resolution analysis (process)
|
-
conducting employee and manager surveys
-
departmental review of classification practices (with sound
explanations for deviations)
-
review of classification data input, grievances, dispute
resolution
-
review of environmental scanning reports (complaints)
-
observations from other departments and bargaining
agents
|
Departments should use the Classification Values as the basis
for their monitoring and reporting. The Secretariat is prepared
to assist departments in determining the type of measurements and
how to measure the various indicators. The Secretariat will
monitor departments' progress in their capacity to measure
their performance in delivering the classification program.
Incentives
The report commissioned by the President of the Treasury
Board, Modernization of Comptrollership in the Government of
Canada, outlines the conditions that must be met to
modernize comptrollership:
- leadership in departments and at the centre,
- clear and understood responsibilities,
- competency and capacity commensurate with needs, and
- incentives.
The Comptrollership Report emphasizes the need for incentives
to create an effective environment (often referred to as
sanctions, rewards and corrective action). The report suggests
that Deputy Heads who provide good information and effective
control should be subject to less scrutiny and direction from the
centre. At the same time, where this condition is not
satisfactorily fulfilled, the system should have the flexibility
to respond with a greater measure of scrutiny and oversight and,
if necessary, intervention.
Activities that serve to contribute to an incentive system for
good classification in departments are indicated in the following
chart.
Encouraging Best Practices
|
Discouraging Poor Practices
|
-
Positive input in DH performance assessment (TBS)
-
Public reporting of good practices (TBS)
-
Incentives and awards for good practices (DH)
|
-
Total removal of delegation (TB)
-
Negative input in DH performance assessment (TBS)
-
Partial removal of delegation (TB)
-
Public reporting of irregularities (TBS)
-
Note to DH of concerns regarding their
departmental classification system (TBS)
-
Departmental disciplinary action (DH)
|
Other Initiatives
Other initiatives that can be taken to ensure the effective
management of the classification system are:
- investigation of
irregularities
|
(TBS/DH) |
|
(TBS/DH) |
- thematic reviews, such as reviews of work descriptions,
evaluation committees, a specific occupational group
|
(TBS/DH) |
- advice and consultation in classification matters
|
(TBS/DH) |
- advice/tools/assistance in performance evaluation,
audit and risk management
|
(TBS/DH) |
|
(TBS/DH) |
An Approach to Monitoring and Risk
Assessment
Classification risk assessment models need to include a
regular and systemic monitoring program. The Treasury Board
Secretariat considers monitoring to be a process of examining
classification activities, capacity and outcomes to provide
reasonable assurance that classification decisions are conducted
with the following goals in mind:
- to obtain information on the health of classification in
departments,
- to provide timely information to decision makers, and
- to implement corrective actions if and where needed.
Characteristics of a Classification Monitoring System
All departments are accountable for the classification
authority they have been delegated. While the overall objectives
are the same for all, departments should adopt monitoring
practices that suit the needs of their particular organization.
Departmental frameworks should have the following
characteristics:
- clearly identified responsibilities;
- trends that are examined against values and agreed upon
performance indicators;
- results of the system are brought to the attention of senior
management; and
- corrective actions that are taken on the basis of
results.
Departmental monitoring systems also have the characteristics
of reliability and scope. A reliable monitoring system is
achieved by having the appropriate mechanisms to safeguard the
quality and timeliness of the classification information, along
with the safety of the actual data. A monitoring system has the
proper scope when it examines the values and performance that
have been articulated in this framework.
The actual implementation of the monitoring system depends on
the departmental context. Sources of information include:
- statistical data;
- classification practices; and
- interviews and/or surveys with human resources managers,
clients and employees.
Departments will determine the frequency of their monitoring
activities, ranging from a semi-annual basis to yearly basis
depending on the departmental needs. In addition, they may be
required to participate in monitoring initiatives lead by TBS and
to respond to requests for information from TBS.
The specific monitoring activities of each department should
be derived from a classification risk assessment. The risk
assessment is a systematic process for assessing and integrating
professional judgments about probable adverse conditions and/or
effects. (See Appendixes C and D). By examining the
functional and organizational classification risk, a risk
assessment serves to:
- identify, focus and maximize the effectiveness of monitoring
activities; and
- help determine the scope of a given performance
assessment.
EArly Warning System
The TBS policy on active monitoring states the following:
To meet the requirements of this policy, departments must
actively monitor their management practices and controls using a
risk-based approach. This includes having an “early
notice” capability in place with the department to detect
and communicate unacceptable risks, vulnerabilities or control
deficiencies or failures; taking early and effective preventive
and remedial action whenever significant potential or actual
deficiencies are identified; and providing early notice of
significant management concerns to TBS.
The Treasury Board Secretariat will use the Early Warning
System as a complement to departmental classification performance
reports in the context of the accountability framework.
In the context of classification in the Public Service, risk
can be described as:
a classification environment that does not adhere to the
requirements
of the Financial Administration Act and the policies,
guidelines and values of the Treasury Board and the Treasury
Board Secretariat.
The Early Warning System is a tool used to identify potential
risks to the Public Service classification system. The Early
Warning System:
- identifies risks that are Public Service-wide and in
departments;
- constitutes a performance assessment tool for the Treasury
Board Secretariat and departments; and
- contributes to the determination of the health of the Public
Service classification system.
The targeted objectives of the Early Warning System are to
share the following types of information within the Treasury
Board Secretariat and with departments:
- a departmental contextual picture versus the overall Public
Service trends,
- specific departmental trends versus Public Service
trends,
- departmental potential risk areas versus Public Service
potential risk areas.
In addition, the results obtained through the Early Warning
System will allow the Treasury Board to identify potential Public
Service classification thematic studies and reviews.
The new Early Warning System reflects the new approach to
comptrollership, which emphasizes reporting on results supported
by appropriate information.
Components of the Early Warning System
The Early Warning System is based on various types of
information including:
- functional indicators,
- organizational indicators (at the departmental level
only),
- job evaluation data,
- grievance data,
- audit/monitoring/thematic review findings,
- qualitative inputs from various Treasury Board Secretariat
stakeholders (HQ and regions), and
- trends in classification levels.
The combining of qualitative and quantitative trend
information in the Early Warning System can identify potential
risks in classification. The type of trends and their potential
risks are presented in the following table. It is important to
note that a trend does not automatically mean that a problem
exists. Rather, it might identify a potential concern, which may
cause the Treasury Board Secretariat to request contextual
information.
Trend
|
Potential Risk
|
Inadequate training of managers
|
Lack of efficiency, effectiveness,
affordability, integrity, probity, fairness, objectivity and
impartiality in advice, transparency
|
Deficiency of accredited classification
advisors
|
Lack of efficiency, effectiveness, integrity,
probity, fairness, objectivity and impartiality in advice,
transparency
|
Work descriptions outdated
|
Lack of effectiveness, integrity, probity,
fairness, objectivity and impartiality in advice,
transparency
|
Gender neutrality of work descriptions
questionable
|
Lack of efficiency, effectiveness, integrity,
probity, fairness, objectivity and impartiality in advice,
transparency
|
Deviations in relativities
|
Lack of effectiveness, affordability, integrity,
probity, fairness, objectivity and impartiality in advice,
transparency
|
Job evaluation not being done in committee
|
Lack of effectiveness, integrity, probity,
fairness, transparency
|
Appropriate documentation missing
|
Lack of effectiveness, integrity, probity,
fairness, transparency
|
Grievances
|
Lack of integrity, probity, fairness,
objectivity and impartiality in advice, transparency
|
Status of the Early Warning System
An analysis of the Early Warning System for classification
will be conducted on a yearly basis, and any revisions
subsequently deemed required will be made.
Reporting and Assessment
Reporting - A Guideline to Classification
Performance Reports for Departments
The TBS recognizes that the new framework requirements will
involve a learning process for the departments. We are taking
into consideration that it will take some time for departments to
develop, with the help of TBS, their ability to render an account
regarding outcomes. It is recognized that departmental reports
will initially concentrate on descriptions of the processes that
are currently in place and contain limited discussion of the
outputs. However, over time the departmental reports will have
more emphasis on outputs and outcomes.
It is expected that departments will want to include the
following information in their Departmental Classification
Report, which will be used by Departmental senior management for
decision-making purposes:
- Departments should link their
classification strategy with their departmental business plan in
the departmental reports.
- Departmental reports adequately cover the
TBS Result Values (Affordability, Effectiveness, Efficiency,
Integrity, Probity) and Process Values (Fairness, Objectivity and
impartiality in advice, Transparency).
- Departmental reports should include more
than just the positive results that were achieved.
- Departments are encouraged to report on
TBS policies and guidelines with regard to how they facilitate or
pose problems for sound management of the classification
system.
About the Reports
The TBS has developed a checklist for a departmental report (see Appendix E) and a report template (see Appendix
F), for departments who wish to utilize or refer to the
report. The format and content of the document may vary
according to certain factors, such as the volume and complexity
of classification in departments.
Completion of Departmental Classification Reports
The Departments who have completed their Departmental
Classification Reports are required to submit a copy to TBS.
Conclusion
This framework has presented guidelines to help the
departments design their reports to the DH.
We encourage Departments to provide TBS with feedback to
enable us to play our governance role as effectively as possible
and evaluate the health of classification in the Public Service.
We also want you to tell us about your successful initiatives.
In addition, it is important that we be informed of problems you
encounter, as well as of efforts made or measures taken to
correct weaknesses you have found.
Treasury Board Secretariat Assessment
The new accountability framework and approach to delegation
are based on a relationship of trust between the Treasury Board
Secretariat and departments. In accordance with the
comptroller's agenda, and to respect due diligence required
of the TBS as the employer, it is important that the departmental
reports be reliable.
Completion of A Departmental Classification Performance
Report
Upon completion of the Departmental Classification Performance
Report, the Department provides a copy to TBS, which will attest
to its validity.
To do so, the TBS will take into account information related
to the:
- departmental infrastructure in place, which should contribute
to good management of the classification activities; and
- content of the departmental report, which should be in line
with the values and performance indicators.
The TBS will maintain a capacity to obtain further assurance
about the reliability of the reports where the information
related to the infrastructure in place is judged insufficient and
where there is a lack of evidence in the content of the reports.
The TBS may then conduct on-site reviews to ascertain the
relevance of the information.
Upon completion of the attestation of reliability process, the
Organization and Classification Sector (OCS) will use the
information in the assessment of the performance of the
organization and make appropriate suggestions and/or
recommendations. These will be communicated to the Deputy
Head.
The following section identifies and explains the elements
that the OCS will use to proceed to the attestation of
Reliability of Department Classification reports.
Model of Attestation of the Reliability of Departmental
Classification Performance Reports
The new accountability and reporting regime will result in the
TBS being dependent on information provided by departments and
agencies. It is important, therefore, that there be provisions
for the TBS to receive objective evidence about the reliability
of the information coming from these sources. The reports
submitted by departments and agencies should be able to meet the
test of an audit based on a generally accepted audit standard,
used in conjunction with the provision of assurance services by
auditing professionals.
The TBS will maintain a capacity to evaluate the reliability
of these reports when submitted.
The expression attestation of reliability applies to
the department's infrastructure in place for generating
their performance assessment and to the content of the
report.
The elements used to proceed to an attestation of
reliability are shown in the following example:
Department's Performance Assessment
Infrastructure
|
Reliability Elements
|
-
|
|
|
|
+
|
Reliability Elements
|
-
|
|
|
+
|
-
Coverage of performance assessment plans
-
The dept has HR assessment plans within the HR Branch or
Audit/Evaluation Branch
-
The assessment plans include consideration of the risk areas
in classification
|
|
|
|
|
|
-
Assessment of extent of coverage (process/output/
outcome)
-
Assessment includes HQ and regions if applicable
-
Use of adequate methodology (measurements used by
department)
|
|
|
|
|
-
Classification content expertise (HR specialists are the
Assessors)
-
Audit and evaluation expertise (Audit/Evaluation Group are
the assessors)
-
Outside consultants with classification expertise are
contracted
|
|
|
|
|
|
-
TBS risk analysis results reviewed for comparison of
trends
-
TBS decision makers (Branch Heads, account executives, etc.)
will be consulted
-
Results of thematics will be reviewed if applicable
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
-
Scanning of media for departmental classification issues
-
Scanning of Debates of the House of Commons
-
Parliamentarians' interventions in the department
-
Review of the departmental web site
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If non conclusive results
|
If non conclusive results
|
TBS conducts potential on-site review of the Activity Reports
(if and where needed)
- Level varies:
-
- Interviews (HR Advisors and sub-delegated managers)
- Spot checks
- More in-depth focus in specific areas
|
Overall Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
- +
|
- +
|
Appendix A
DEFINITIONS
To ensure consistency in the use of terminology, certain terms
used in this document are defined as follows:
Classification Definitions
Classification committee - a group of at least three
persons authorized by their respective departments to evaluate
work. The committee should have knowledge about the work being
evaluated and the organization in which the work occurs.
Where practicable, classification committees should be composed
of both men and women.
Classification standard -a document that
describes the factors, elements, and other criteria used to
establish the relative value of work for an occupational
group.
Classification system - the infrastructure
for the effective management and control of the classification of
positions in the Public Service, including policies, guidelines,
classification standards, occupational groups, work descriptions,
job evaluations, active monitoring, and grievance mechanisms.
The system ensures the determination of the relative value of
work and provides a basis for employee compensation in the Public
Service.
Department -a department or other portion of the
Public Service of Canada listed in Part I of Schedule I to the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
Deputy Head-the deputy head or the chief
executive officer of a department.
Evaluation -the process of assessing work
against a classification standard; it determines the relative
value of work, based on the work requirements.
Generic work description - a work
description for two or more positions that have the same work
requirements (client-service results, key activities, and work
characteristics).
Human resources/classification advisor- an
employee who provides organization and classification advice to
managers and, where so authorized, is considered by the Deputy
Head to have met all the requirements of the Treasury Board
Secretariat to make classification decisions (see sections 6.9
and 6.10).
Job - a unique position, or a
number of positions that are similar or identical and whose work
is described by one work description.
Level - a numerical indicator of the
relevant ranking of a position within its occupational group
according to its value as established by its evaluation using the
appropriate classification standard.
Model work description - a work
description that can be used as a model to write another work
description. A model work description may apply to a few
positions or many in an organization. It can be used as it is,
or adapted to reflect the work being described.
Occupational group-a series of jobs or
occupations related in broad terms by the nature of the functions
performed.
Outcomes- the consequences of a
program (organization or service) that can be plausibly
attributed to the program outputs. The outcome of a
classification system forms the basis for a motivated public
service which is responsive to the business objectives of the
government.
Outputs- the products and services
produced or directly controlled by program activities. The
outputs of the classification system are a direct result of
processes; for example, appropriately classified positions are
the result of effective position description and evaluation.
Position- the work requirements assigned
by the respective manager that can be performed by one
person.
Processes- the administrative systems that
combine a variety of inputs and result in an output.
Risk - the uncertainty that surrounds
future events and outcomes. It is the expression of the
likelihood and impact of an event with the potential to influence
the achievement of an organization's objectives.
Risk management - a systematic approach to
setting the best course of action under uncertainty by
identifying, assessing, understanding, acting on and
communicating risk issues.
Work description- a document approved by
the respective manager that describes the work requirements of a
position or a job. A work description contains all the
information that the appropriate classification standard requires
for its evaluation.
Definitions of Values
Result Values
Affordability
Affordability is linked to the responsible spending of public
funds given their limited nature. It is the ability to link the
costs of initiatives with results to ensure value for the
taxpayer. Existing programs as well as new spending proposals
must be systematically assessed and management frameworks must be
in place to ensure due diligence and proper stewardship of public
funds. Affordability implies that activities critical to the
public interest are resourced in a sustainable way over the long
term.
Effectiveness
Effectiveness is the ability to achieve set objectives. Thus
effectiveness is assessed on the basis of the objectives stated
in the organization's mission.
Effectiveness can be defined as the relationship between the
results achieved by a system (or a person) and the objectives
sought. The closer the results match the objectives, the greater
the effectiveness of the system (or person).
Efficiency
Efficiency is the ability to be productive without waste.
Efficiency can be defined as the relationship between the output
of a system (or a person) and the cost of production. The lower
the ratio of the cost to the output, the greater is the
efficiency of the system (or person).
Integrity
Integrity is the virtue of consistency and firm adherence to a
code of moral values always practiced with a view to doing
justice.
The constraints of integrity come from the individual and are
personal, relating to the individual's conscience.
Probity
Probity is a virtue that consists of adherence to the highest
principles and ideals.
Simply stated, probity is the quality of a person who
conscientiously acts in accordance with justice by applying its
written and unwritten rules.
Process Values
Fairness
Fairness is a moral quality that consists of being impartial
and honest.
People who are fair are willing to acknowledge the truth and
to act in "good faith", without consenting to deceive themselves
or others. They are free from self-interest, prejudice or
favouritism.
Objectivity and impartiality in
advice
Objectivity and impartiality in advice can be defined as the
action of guiding someone and making recommendations in a neutral
and equitable manner, without favoritism, bias or prejudice, so
that the advice provided follows the path of justice and
truth.
Transparency
Transparency means being free from pretence or deceit.
Transparency implies that there is open communication with
employees and applicants about classification so that
classification practices are readily understood.
Appendix B
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM AND DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY POLICY:
EXCERPT ON MONITORING
Monitoring
7.1 The Treasury Board Secretariat shall maintain central
classification information systems, establish performance
indicators, and carry out audit, evaluation as well as other
measures to monitor and assess the manner in which a Deputy Head
makes classification decisions by:
7.1.1 monitoring the effectiveness of the classification
system and the manner in which it is implemented;
- ensuring the integrity of the classification system;
7.1.3 identifying areas of strength and weakness in the
classification system and its administration including
unacceptable risks; and
- assisting departments in the improvement of the
classification system by ensuring that best practices are shared
and that remedies and follow-through are appropriate.
- If a Deputy Head does not take timely and appropriate
corrective action, the Secretary of the Treasury Board may direct
the Deputy Head to correct cases of misclassification.
- Deputy Heads shall:
7.3.1 establish management practices to ensure the integrity
of the classification system;
7.3.2 provide input for classification standard review and
update by the Treasury Board Secretariat;
7.3.3 provide timely input to the classification information
system of the Treasury Board Secretariat;
7.3.4 promptly identify conditions that could lead to a
failure of the control system and take early and effective
remedial action;
7.3.5 provide early notification of significant management
concerns in relation to the classification system to the Treasury
Board Secretariat;
7.3.6 prepare internal departmental audit reports on the
management and administration of the classification system and
provide them in a timely manner with electronic copies in both
official languages to the Treasury Board Secretariat; and
7.3.7 prepare internal departmental monitoring reports on
the management and administration of the classification system
and provide them to the Treasury Board Secretariat upon
request.
7.4 The Treasury Board Secretariat shall establish an
evaluation framework and shall evaluate and review this policy
within five years.
Appendix C
Part 1 Risk Assessment Model: Functional Risks
Values:
Effectiveness/Affordability/Integrity/Probity/Fairness/Objectivity
and Impartiality in Advice/Transparency
Risk Factor
|
Definition of a low risk
|
Departmental Risk Level
|
Information Sources
|
Low Risk
-
|
High Risk
+
|
Quality of work descriptions
|
-
The organization has in place a training, writing and review
process that involves employees and management
-
Work descriptions are updated when work requirements
change
-
The writing and review process minimizes gender
stereotypes
-
Generic and unique work descriptions are developed and used
appropriately
-
Advice is available from qualified HR advisors and sought by
managers before making classification decisions
-
Employees accept work description content
|
|
-
Training records
-
HR advisors and managers
-
Departmental managers
-
Review of work descriptions
-
Monitoring exercises
-
Internal audit
-
On-site reviews
-
Cyclical reviews
-
Grievance outcomes (job content)
-
Observations from bargaining agents
-
Observations from other departments
-
Additional information sources to be determined
|
Risk Factor
|
Definition of a low risk
|
Departmental Risk Level
|
Information Sources
|
Low Risk
-
|
High Risk
+
|
Quality of work descriptions (cont'd)
|
-
Management approves work descriptions in a timely
fashion
-
Files are appropriately documented
-
Job content complaints are resolved through an informal
review process or at the first step of the grievance
procedure
-
Job content grievances are resolved in favour of the
Employer
|
|
|
Quality of classification decisions/results
|
-
The organization has a training process in place for
evaluators
-
All job evaluation is done by people who have met
departmentally established criteria
-
The organization has accredited classification advisors that
play an active role in the classification process
-
Generic work descriptions and decisions with significant
impact are evaluated by committee
-
Intra- and interdepartmental relativities are considered in
the evaluation
|
|
-
Monitoring reports on intra- and interdepartmental
relativities
-
Observations from other departments, bargaining agents,
colleagues, etc.
-
Outcomes of classification grievances
-
Outcomes of audits and reviews
-
Outcomes of monitoring exercises, e.g. cyclical reviews,
targeted interventions
-
Files reviews
|
Risk Factor
|
Definition of a low risk
|
Departmental Risk Level
|
Information Sources
|
Low Risk
-
|
High Risk
+
|
Quality of classification decisions/results (cont'd)
|
-
Decisions are approved in accordance with the departmental
delegation framework
-
Decisions are approved as recommended by evaluator(s)
-
Decisions are duly documented
-
Coincidence exists between work described and work
performed
-
Corrective action is taken in a timely manner
-
Updates to information in the departmental HR systems and the
PCIS are made in accordance with TBS requirements
-
Grievance outcomes rarely result in a change to the group and
level
|
|
|
Appendix D
Part 2 Risk Assessment Model:
Organizational and Systems Risks
Risk Factor
|
Definition of a low risk
|
Departmental Risk Level
|
Information Sources
|
Low Risk
-
|
High Risk
+
|
Volume of classification activities
|
-
The organization has a sufficient complement of trained
resources to meet classification demands, including provision of
classification advice as required, and to respect established
departmental quality service standards.
-
Managers and HR advisors are trained to understand what type
of classification activity is required and in what type of
circumstance to meet the needs of the organization. (The
corollary to this is they also understand what would be
considered inappropriate, e.g. three requests for reclass of a
position in a short period of time).
|
|
-
Internal capacity reports
-
Data on training of managers/HR practitioners
-
Reports on service delivery
-
Complaints from managers and employees
-
Retention rates for HR practitioners
-
Sick leave usage for HR practitioners
-
Results from surveys
-
Tracking of number of services requested by type and time
required to provide service
-
Tracking of classification workload costs
Additional information sources to be determined
|
Risk Factor
|
Definition of a low risk
|
Departmental Risk Level
|
Information Sources
|
Low Risk
-
|
High Risk
+
|
Complexity of classification
|
Classification in the organization shows these
characteristics:
-
Similarity in occupational groups
-
Appropriate use of generic work descriptions
-
Generic work descriptions cover a significant percentage of
positions
-
No significant reorganizations underway
-
Very little classification of highly specialized
positions
-
The HR advisors providing advice are knowledgeable about the
evaluation tools, the work itself, and the organizational
context.
|
|
-
PCIS data
-
Departmental management reports
-
Relativity studies
-
Audit, review and monitoring reports
-
Demographic studies
-
Additional information sources to be determined
|
Risk Factor
|
Definition of a low risk
|
Departmental Risk Level
|
Information Sources
|
Low Risk
-
|
High Risk
+
|
Delegation of classification authority within organization
|
The delegation structure within the organization shows these
characteristics:
-
Delegated classification authority is centralized from a
geographic and organizational point of view
-
Classification authority is delegated to a small number of HR
advisors and/or trained line managers
-
There are accredited classification advisors in the
organization
-
Decisions are made in a transparent fashion by delegated
managers acting with advice from accredited/ trained HR
advisors
|
|
|
Risk Factor
|
Definition of a low risk
|
Departmental Risk Level
|
Information Sources
|
Low Risk
-
|
High Risk
+
|
Delegation of classification authority within organization
(cont'd)
|
|
|
|
Electronic support systems
|
|
|
|
Environmental analysis
|
|
|
-
Organization's Communication Branch
-
press clippings
-
parliamentary intervention
-
observations from other departments
-
third parties
|
Risk Factor
|
Definition of a low risk
|
Departmental Risk Level
|
Information Sources
|
Low Risk
-
|
High Risk
+
|
Early warning mechanism
(identification and addressing of risk areas)
|
-
Organization has mechanisms in place to actively monitor
management practices and controls within the organization and
identify potential high risk flags
-
Organization reports to senior management and to TBS in a
timely manner on significant management concerns
-
Organization takes early and effective remedial action in
areas where significant deficiencies are encountered or
improvements are needed
|
|
-
Monitoring, audit and review reports
-
Observations from within the organization
-
Observations from third parties
-
PCIS shifts and trends data
-
Significant deviation from interdepartmental
relativities
-
Grievance outcomes
-
Proposed increase to cost of salary budget/ envelope
-
Increased spending resulting from classification
activity
|
Appendix E
Checklist for A Departmental Report
This document is to help departments and agencies identify
information that should be considered for inclusion in the
classification performance reports for the Deputy Head.
General Information
- The format of a written report may vary
- Reports should be balanced, reviewing both positive and
negative results
- Reports on the health of the classification program should be
submitted to the Deputy Head of the department who is accountable
for demonstrating the effectiveness of management practices and
controls
- Reports should be signed by the senior human resources
official in the organization
- Copy of the report must be sent to TBS
Content of Reports
- Reports might start with a background summary dealing with
issues such as:
- Reorganization/amalgamation
- Activity Level
- Demographic information
- Data on shift and trends in departmental classification
- Other quantitative and qualitative data
- Reports must reflect all classification activities
- The contents of the reports may be used to meet the
information needs of departments and central agencies, and add to
the total knowledge of Human Resources Management
Future Prospects
- Openness to innovations proposed by departments
- Consideration of potential comments on performance following
internal consultation
Template Report
DEPARTMENTAL CLASSIFICATION PERFORMANCE
REPORT
Submitted to the Deputy Head
Name of Department
Reporting Period:
Submission Date:
Section 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Section 2 CLASSIFICATION PERFORMANCE RESULTS -
REPORTED BY RESULTS AND PROCESS VALUES
Section 3 CONCLUSIONS / OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVED
PERFORMANCE
Section 4 SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Section 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
|
DEPARTMENTAL INFORMATION
- Context
- Organizational Profile
- Corporate Key Performance Results Expectations
HUMAN RESOURCES
- HUMAN RESOURCES KEY PERFORMANCE RESULTS EXPECTATIONS
- THE CLASSIFICATION FUNCTION - ITS CONTRIBUTION AND
IMPACTS
- KEY PERFORMANCE ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Section 2 CLASSIFICATION PERFORMANCE RESULTS
- REPORTED BY RESULTS AND PROCESS VALUES
|
RESULT VALUES
ACCOMPLISHMENTS/RESULTS, IMPACTS, EFFECTS
- Overview
- Accomplishments/Results
REPEAT THIS SEQUENCE FOR EACH ACCOMPLISHMENT/RESULT
REPORTED
- Description of Accomplishment/Result
- Link to Corporate Objectives
- Link to other Values (If applicable)
- Impacts & Effects
PROCESS VALUES
ACCOMPLISHMENTS/RESULTS, IMPACTS, EFFECTS
- Overview
- Accomplishments/Results
REPEAT THIS SEQUENCE FOR EACH ACCOMPLISHMENT/RESULT
REPORTED
- Description of Accomplishment/Result
- Link to Corporate Objectives
- Link to other Values (If applicable)
- Impacts & Effects
Section 3 CONCLUSIONS/OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVED
PERFORMANCE
|
In this section, this is an opportunity to include any
observations, impressions or advice to others; you can provide
feedback to TBS regarding problems encountered, need for
services, and suggestions for the future.
|
- CONCLUSIONS
- OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT
- EXPECTATIONS OF TBS
For additional information you may contact (Name, Position
Title and telephone)
|
|