Consultations
This project had its genesis in the
work of the Montebello Group of senior public servants,[3]
who provided ongoing steering and oversight. The Montebello Working Group
created by them provided advice to help refine the Tool.
In February 2002, consultations were
also held with a small group of officers who were MFR leaders in Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada, the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Canadian Heritage,
Industry Canada, Indian and Northern Affairs, and Transport Canada. The focus
was on the lessons they had learned while pioneering MFR practices. Following
are highlights of their comments:
- MFR is not easy to implement.
- You know you are progressing when people:
- spend a lot of time trying to "get it right";
- are put on teams specifically to work on MFR and they
take ownership of the process; and
- appropriately challenge what goes into a corporate
business plan.
- It's important to report on results.
- Commitment to MFR by senior managers will invigorate
the team under them.
- This Tool can be used as:
- a marketing tool;
- an assessment tool;
- a tool to develop an action plan; or
- a tool to measure the progress of a program.
- A problem-solving approach can help create a practical
results focus for line groups.
- The use of a logic model or results chain hashelped
groups to focus on appropriate outcomes.
- A key is consistent, harmonized involvement and
support across corporate and line functions, as well as between regions and
headquarters.
- Community ownership of the risk-results approach is
important; all levels must see themselves in the approach.
- A significant resource effort is required at all
levels among all groups.
- The clear and consistent integration of management
concepts into a few key management processes is important.
- Patience and persistence pay off.
The project team gratefully acknowledges the donation of time and useful
feedback received from those consulted as part of this process4:
- David Enns
- Vincent Ngan
- Bryan
Mclean
- John
Platts
- Karen Swol
- Aileen Pangilinan
- Joyce
Hue
- Tim LaForce
- Paulette
Panzeri
- Gail Young
- Robert
McDonald
[1] The Office of the Auditor General has developed a separate
self-assessment tool for rating Departmental Performance Reports on the basis
of how well departments report accomplishments -- that is, how they measure
outcomes against previously stated performance expectations. See the April 2002
OAG Report, Chapter
6, "A Model for Rating Departmental Performance Reports."
In addition, in 2001 the Treasury Board Secretariat issued principle-based
guidance on performance reporting for Reports on Plans and Priorities and
Departmental Performance Reports.
[2] This section draws on Beverly A. Parsons, "Finding Transformative
Themes Across Multiple System Change Evaluations," paper presented to the
November 1998 Annual Meeting of the American Evaluation Association. Ms.
Parsons is Executive Director of InSites, a Colorado-based organization that
conducts research and evaluation, and provides technical assistance in support
of change in the field of education.
[3] Including
Maria Barrados, Jennifer Benimadhu, Ivan Blake, Bob Cook, Keith Coulter, Bruce
Deacon, Carolyn Farquhar, Jean-Pierre Gauthier, Paul Gauvin, Blair Haddock,
Sherry Harrison, Cathy Livingstone, John Mayne, Lee McCormack, John McLure,
Janet Milne, Bruce Sloan and Judy Watling, as well as Chris Mihm and Sarah
Veale from the General Accounting Office in the United States.
[4] Work on managing for
results in the United States was kindly provided to us by the Government
Performance Project at Syracuse University.
|
