Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada

 

Information Management in the Government of Canada

The Business Problem Assessment

“What is wrong with IM today?”

 

Version Draft 2.4
April 2006

NOTE TO READERS:
The IM Program Transformation Initiative employs the Business Transformation Enablement Program (BTEP) Strategic Design and Planning (SD&P) Methodology. This process methodology for business transformation in the public sector, developed in the Chief Information Officer Branch of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, is being used for the strategic design and planning of the next generation IM Program.  For more information on BTEP, please refer to http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/btep-pto/index_e.asp.
The BTEP SD&P methodology has six phases: Start Up, Vision, Strategy, Design, Business Case, and Plan.
The direction for IM in the Government of Canada is established in the Vision Phase, and provides the foundation for work in the remaining four phases. There are two primary deliverables in the Vision Phase:
•	Information Management in the Government of Canada – The Business Problem Assessment which examines the problems motivating the transformation of the IM Program; and,
•	Information Management in the Government of Canada – The Vision, which describes the post-transformation, improved IM Program that meets the real needs of program stakeholders. 
These documents are best read in sequence: the business problem assessment first, followed by the target business vision.

Foreword 
This document, The Business Problem Assessment, is the first of the two primary deliverables of the Vision Phase of strategic design and planning for the Government of Canada (GC) Information Management (IM) Program Transformation Initiative. It answers the question: “What is wrong with IM today?”  Serious problems with IM in government are documented in many authoritative sources (see Appendix D: Reference Materials). The Business Problem Assessment summarizes the results of a broad collaborative process to review these sources, consolidate, confirm, and elaborate upon these and other known problems, uncover any missing ones, and analyse them to discover their root causes. It provides the motivating reasons for designing and planning a transformed IM Program. Its aim is to make executives, managers and staff sufficiently aware of issues with the status quo to accept the need for concerted change.
This draft is being circulated for the purposes of comment and further input by the federal stakeholder community prior to endorsement by the IM Program’s governing body, the Information Management Committee (IMC). Following that, at the end of the Vision Phase, it will go for approval to the Chief Information Officer (CIO) of Canada. 
During the Start Up and Vision Phases, more than 20 workshops and working sessions with participants from 14 departments and agencies were held to gather input and conduct analysis for the Vision Phase primary deliverables. Over 100 individuals representing IM and its clients participated in this work (see Appendix A: Acknowledegment). Subsequent phases of the IM Program Transformation Initiative will continue to rely on and broaden this participation.
When all phases are completed, the GC will have, for the first time, a government-wide strategic design and plan for an IM Program—a program that will enable it to treat information in much the same way as it treats other strategic assets critical to business success such as human and financial resources. 
At the conclusion of the Vision Phase, The Business Problem Assessment and The Vision will be approved as the basis for developing a transformation strategy, business design, business case and master plan for realizing the IM Program vision. This does not mean that the Vision Phase deliverables will be “frozen”. As the collaboration scope is broadened through the remaining phases, more stakeholders will have an opportunity to participate. Their perspectives will be reflected in all deliverables, which are “living documents” with new versions being published at the end of each phase (where required).

This page left intentionally blank

Executive Summary
Information is government’s lifeblood. The Government of Canada’s information needs are sophisticated and getting more sophisticated all the time. However, there is an increasing awareness among GC executives that IM is inadequate today and a hindrance to the changes that the GC must undertake for the future. A piecemeal approach to solving IM problems is largely ineffective. This is the impetus for concerted change.
A first step in the process of concerted change is to be certain that we have a common understanding of what the problems are. This document summarizes the results of a broad collaborative process to consolidate, confirm, and elaborate upon problems that have already been articulated, to uncover any missing ones, and to analyse them to discover their root causes.  
The IM Deficit	
Within the Government of Canada, needs at all levels are not being met because of problems with IM. These problems undermine the ability of programs to function well and achieve desired outcomes, and causes programs to incur unnecessary costs. Ultimately, problems with IM interfere with the ability of the Government of Canada to meet the needs of Canadians.
The gap between our current IM capability and what is required—the “IM deficit”—is not the same for all programs. IM needs fall into three categories, according to the type of client program IM is serving: the needs of any GC program; the special needs of executive programs; and the special needs of integrated service delivery programs. The level of sophistication in terms of need is very different for these clients. While the level of IM capability is not uniform across the Government, it is consistently lower than required, as illustrated below. 

While individual programs and departments can “make do” in this environment, operating at a level that is less than optimal, problems with IM make enterprise management at the executive or corporate level highly challenging, and horizontal initiatives for service integration are particularly difficult if not impossible to design and implement.
The Program Deficit
Programs need quality information to function and be managed well and for the delivery of their services. They need information to trace decisions and processes. They also need their information to be preserved and safeguarded and to be made available to collaborators as appropriate. 
These needs are not being fully met because of poor information availability and inadequate preservation and safeguarding of information. These deficiencies make it difficult and inefficient for programs to fulfill the needs of their clients and to be managed responsibly.
The Enterprise Management Deficit
Government-wide, corporate or executive level programs need assurance that Government of Canada’s record of processes and decisions has integrity and that clients’ rights are being upheld in the conduct of Government business, specifically in the handling of personal information. These programs need the ability to aggregate information vertically for Ministerial accountability, and horizontally for programs and services spanning departments and jurisdictions. This is essential for government to operate as an enterprise.  Executive programs also require that information holdings be organized and information management processes be structured so that the Government can undertake change with agility. Finally, the executive needs all programs in the GC, including the IM Program, to operate effectively within the context of the whole enterprise of government.
These needs are not being fully met because of poorly implemented IM rules and practices and because the IM Program is not operating effectively in the enterprise context. In some cases these inadequacies prevent the GC executive from being able to live up to information-related accountabilities to Canadians and to manage the GC effectively as an enterprise; in others, it makes it more expensive to do so.
The Horizontal Operations Deficit
In order to achieve service integration – that is, to deliver programs and services that cross organizational boundaries – integrated service delivery programs need information that is capable of being interpreted correctly out of the context in which it was captured or created, and effectively and efficiently aggregated with information collected elsewhere.
These needs are not being fully met because of misaligned information and information management processes. This inadequacy makes it inefficient and sometimes impossible for integrated service delivery programs to combine services or integrate service outputs in order to provide higher valued outputs to clients and achieve more strategic outcomes. 
Root Causes
The problems summarized above are all symptoms of problems internal to IM. These internal problems are the causes of the problems experienced by IM’s clients. Some of these are root causes. Root causes are the real source of problems. Addressing the root causes of problems completely solves them.  
The root causes of IM problems are summarized below, grouped by business area within the IM Program.
IM Program Management
•	The need for and importance of an enterprise IM program has not yet been sufficiently recognized at the GC executive level.
•	No government-wide framework exists for all IM-related legislation and policy that provides a complete and coherent picture of IM accountabilities and responsibilities, and comprehensive guidance for the design of an enterprise IM program.
•	The central services required to implement a federated enterprise capability for IM have not been implemented. In particular, enterprise strategic design and planning for IM has not been implemented.
IM Rules and Practices
•	Standards, best practices and explicit process for information handling—capturing, tagging, storing, retrieving, aggregating, using, sharing, changing, assuring quality, archiving and disposing of information—are missing or incomplete or not implemented consistently across government.
•	Standard metadata definitions are missing or incomplete or not implemented consistently across government.
•	Standards, best practices and processes are not designed with a “whole of government” perspective.
•	Guidance on the interpretation of laws and policies is incomplete and not implemented in a common way across government.
•	The accountabilities and responsibilities for IM rules and practices have not been systematically included in management accords and performance targets.
•	Sanctions and rewards for the application of IM rules are not generally in place, and, where there are sanctions in place, they are often not properly enforced.
IM Capability and Capacity
•	The requirements for IM skills and experience have not been systematically included in HR practices.
•	Training in information handling is insufficient and variable across organizations.
•	Training in IM accountabilities and responsibilities is insufficient and variable across organizations.
•	Many tools for IM are often inefficient or unreliable.
•	Often, IM tools are not designed to operate across organizations or to interoperate, or they are implemented in a manner that makes it impossible for them to do this. 
•	The availability of skilled resources for IM is poor.
Information Handling
•	Services to tell information users that the information they need exists and where to find it are inadequate, especially between organizations. 
•	Information is stored in locations that are difficult to access other than locally.
•	Those who are sources of potentially shareable information have no knowledge or control of the information’s “downstream” use.
•	There is a large, complex and widely distributed legacy of information holdings that are inconsistent, of poor quality and poorly organized.
IM Community and Culture
•	Most employees are not recognized for their contribution to IM outcomes.
•	Some employees are concerned about the repercussions of looking for, finding and sharing some information.
•	Employees have not been encouraged to adopt information sharing as a cultural value.
•	Most individuals do not understand the nature and potential use of information under their stewardship in an enterprise context.
•	IM is not seen as a distinct, valued competency (distinguished, for example, from IT).
These root causes in program management, rules and practices, capability and capacity, information handling, and community and culture will be the focus for the design of solutions to IM problems. 
The Current Environment for Change
A common understanding of the problems with IM provides the motivation for concerted change. Strategies and plans for change should take into account factors in the environment of the GC IM Program Transformation Initiative. A summary of an initial assessment of these is presented below. They will help to shape the results of the next phase—the Strategy Phase.

	Internal Factors	External Factors	
Positive Factors	Strengths
•	Strong Records Management and Library Services foundation
•	Strong CIO role in IM
•	Strong CIO role in service transformation
•	Good tools for transformation
•	Maturing IT infrastructure	Opportunities 
•	Large horizontal initiatives need better IM
•	Current public agenda (openness, transparency, duty to document)
•	Increasing recognition of IM’s importance 
•	Increasing awareness of the need to transform IM
•	Other jurisdictions’/countries’ experience
•	New workforce brings new skills and attitudes towards IM
•	Canadians’ demand for better access to service raises IM’s profile	
Negative Factors	Weaknesses 
•	Fragmented and poorly defined IM community
•	Poor availability of skilled resources
•	IT dominates IM
•	IM’s legislative and policy framework is fragmented
•	IM has been unable to make its value clear    
•	Poor alignment between CIOB and other policy/program sectors of TBS	Threats 
•	IM is poorly understood
•	IM not viewed as an urgent priority
•	Complacency about IM on the part of departments that are “muddling through”
•	Good IM practices are not widespread	
Informing Factors	Values 
•	A planned approach to change
•	IM’s purpose is to serve the business of government	Trends 
•	Electronic vs. paper media
•	24/7, multi-mode, multi-channel information access	

The IM Program Transformation Initiative
Although work has been focused at many areas of information management, no overarching design exists that brings the many solutions to IM problems together, and no master plan coordinates the way forward across the many organizations that must participate. A piecemeal approach to solving IM problems has been largely ineffective. The Government of Canada needs one coherent, explicit, broadly supported Information Management capability. Without this, over time, the government will face steadily greater difficulty meeting its policy commitments to Canadians for the responsible stewardship of their information. Barriers to collaboration, program alignment and service integration will only become more entrenched, undermining the government’s ability to adapt to change and achieve public outcomes.  Major transformation initiatives, under extreme pressure to deliver results, will be left to build their own particular solutions to IM problems. 
The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS), in cooperation with Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) and Library and Archives of Canada (LAC), is leading the GC IM Program Transformation Initiative to guide the creation of next-generation IM services for the Government of Canada. 
The outcomes of the IM Program Transformation Initiative will be better IM outcomes for the GC:
•	Better availability of information for programs to deliver services, collaborate, manage themselves and trace processes and decisions;
•	Better preservation and safeguarding of programs’ information;
•	Information and supporting processes that are better structured to support service integration; 
•	Information and supporting processes that are better structured to promote the GC’s agility, uphold clients’ rights, ensure the integrity of the GC record, and support the GC in operating as an enterprise; and,
•	An IM Program that is structured to operate effectively throughout the GC.
Recommendation
Proceed with the GC IM Program Transformation Initiative through the Strategy, Design and Business Case phases of strategic design and planning. 

This page left intentionally blank

Table of Contents
Introduction
The Impetus for Concerted Change
Problem Analysis
A Summary of the Problem with IM
The IM Deficit
Root Causes
The Current Environment for Change
Internal Factors
External Factors
Summary of Environmental Factors
The IM Program Transformation Initiative
Governance
Strategic Design and Planning (SD&P)
Alignment
Transition
Operations
Recommendation
Appendix A: Acknowledgment
For the Start Up Phase:
For the Vision Phase:
Appendix B: IM Problems
Appendix C: Glossary
Appendix D: Reference Materials
Business Transformation Enablement Program (BTEP)
Project Management Documents
Authoritative Source Documents

This page left intentionally blank

Introduction 
We know today that there are problems with IM. Why bother itemizing them? Because concerted change is necessary, and a common understanding of the problem is required for concerted change. Once approved by the CIO of Canada, this document will serve as the authoritative reference for the problems with IM in the GC.
The Impetus for Concerted Change

…information is treated as the waste by-product of the Public Service, rather than being treated as a key asset.
Ian Wilson
Librarian and Archivist of Canada, speech on The IM Journey: Maintaining the IM Momentum, September 11, 2003

The Government of Canada’s information needs are sophisticated and getting more sophisticated all the time. However, awareness among GC executives that IM is inadequate and a hindrance to the changes that the GC must undertake for the future is increasing. A piecemeal approach to solving IM problems is largely ineffective—concerted change is required.
Information is government’s lifeblood
Although raw facts are of little use by themselves, when they are presented together in the context of a business purpose they become a vital strategic asset: information. The Government of Canada is responsible for managing information as a public trust, as promised in the Government of Canada’s Policy on the Management of Government Information. The importance of information to the business of government cannot be overstated. Without it, the Government can’t govern. 
Complete, accurate, timely and authoritative information is essential to decision-making. IM – the collection, protection and delivery of information – makes an essential contribution to programs’ ability to meet the needs of their clients. IM is necessary for the Government to operate as a coherent whole, act with accountability and transparency and earn public trust and citizens’ confidence in government decisions.
The Government of Canada’s information needs are sophisticated…
The function of managing information should not be seen as something to attend to “after the fact”—it is not just “records management” or putting information somewhere following a transaction for the benefit of one business owner or program authority. Today, in effective knowledge organizations, information management is dynamic and serves multiple purposes. It is a core business function that involves the systematic use and re-use of information among different players, to the maximum advantage of the business as a whole.
In the Government, information needs occur at three levels: programs’ operational needs; whole-of-government, executive program needs; and horizontal integrated service delivery program needs. 
•	
Our goal is to provide Canadians with one-stop, easy-to-access, personalized service. Service Canada brings Government of Canada services together in a single service delivery network.
Service Canada Website

Programs need quality information to function and be managed well and for the delivery of their services. They need information to trace decisions and processes. They also need their information to be preserved and safeguarded and to be made available to collaborators as appropriate. 
•	Government-wide, corporate or executive level programs need assurance that Government of Canada’s record of processes and decisions has integrity and that clients’ rights are being upheld in the conduct of Government business, specifically in the handling of personal information. These programs need the ability to aggregate information vertically for Ministerial accountability, and horizontally for programs and services spanning departments and jurisdictions. This is essential for government to operate as an enterprise.  Executive programs also require that information holdings be organized and information management processes be structured so that the Government can undertake change with agility. Finally, the executive needs all programs in the GC, including the IM Program, to operate effectively within the context of the whole enterprise of government.
•	
Critics, both inside and outside government, talk of “shifting the paradigm” or a “change in culture.”  By seeking and attaining greater transparency...the federal government will be better managed because it will be more accountable.  That will help to create the cultural change being sought.  A change in thinking and approach would be a logical outcome of the steps taken to improve transparency and its corollary, accountability. It is the Commission’s view that improved transparency and accountability will, ultimately, elevate the effectiveness and efficiency of management throughout the Government.
 “Transparency and Better Management”, Chapter Ten of Restoring Accountability – Phase Two Report, Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities, page 178.    

In order to deliver programs and services that cross organizational boundaries, integrated service delivery programs need information that is capable of being interpreted correctly out of the context in which it was captured or created, and effectively and efficiently aggregated with information collected elsewhere.
…and getting more sophisticated all the time
Efforts to improve transparency and accountability and transform service to Canadians to deliver better outcomes and improve operating efficiency are giving new impetus to the need to manage information as a strategic resource. 
Access to information about GC processes and decisions must be improved. Barriers that interfere with the ability of departments and agencies, and other players, to collaborate and share information must come down. Programs need to be transformed to facilitate citizens’ and communities’ access to seamless service responsive to their circumstances and centred on their needs. This will require new levels of information interoperability.
Awareness is increasing among GC executives that IM is inadequate and a hindrance to the changes that the GC must undertake for the future. 
Serious problems with IM in the GC are documented in many authoritative sources (see Appendix D: Reference Materials). Although progress has been made addressing individual problems, GC executives know that IM is still inadequate, particularly in meeting the needs of executive and integrated service delivery programs. There is growing awareness and increasing unease about the GC’s ability to carry through key change initiatives without much stronger IM. The Business Problem Assessment confirms executives’ beliefs about problems with IM. It brings them together under “one cover” to support a common understanding of the reasons for change, and to enable coordinated action.
A piecemeal approach to solving IM problems is largely ineffective.

…most senior levels are recognizing that silos, independent solutions are no longer appropriate…What we need is an enterprise-wide approach.
Ian Wilson, 
Librarian and Archivist of Canada, speech to ARMA, 2004

Although work has been focused at many areas of information management, no overarching design exists that brings these solutions to IM problems together, and no master plan coordinates the way forward across the many organizations that must participate. A piecemeal approach to solving IM problems has been largely ineffective. The Government of Canada needs one coherent, explicit, broadly supported Information Management capability. Without this, over time, the government will face steadily greater difficulty meeting its policy commitments to Canadians for the responsible stewardship of their information. Barriers to collaboration, program alignment and service integration will only become more entrenched, undermining the government’s ability to adapt to change and achieve public outcomes.  Major transformation initiatives, under extreme pressure to deliver results, will be left to build their own particular solutions to IM problems. 
This is the impetus for concerted change.
The analysis summarized in this document is an important first step in the GC coming together in a coordinated and disciplined way to improve IM. 
Problem Analysis
As discussed above, GC executives already know that change is required in the IM business domain. A first key step is to be certain that there is a common understanding of what the problems are. Appendix D: Reference Materials lists a number of documents, some of which are highly authoritative, that identify IM problems. The next section of the Business Problem Assessment, A Summary of the Problem with IM on page 5, summarizes the results of a broad and collaborative process to consolidate, confirm, and analyze the problems that have already been articulated, uncover any missing ones, and to examine them all to discover their root causes.  Over 400 expressions of problems with IM were dealt with. 
Once problems are itemized, root cause analysis is essential. Otherwise, there’s a risk that solutions will be designed for problems that turn out to be just symptoms of deeper issues, which is ultimately ineffective. The development of a sound design and plan for transformation must tackle the root causes of the problems that drive the need for transformation. In fact, many problems can often be traced back to a single root cause. Consequently, fixing root causes is also the most efficient way to proceed. 
Strategic design and planning is an ongoing process and formal problem analysis activities will continue through subsequent phases for detailed design and business case development. However, at this stage in the Vision Phase, we have a solid and coherent picture of the problems with IM. 
A Summary of the Problem with IM
The IM Deficit
Inside the Government of Canada, needs at all levels are not being met because of problems with IM. These problems undermine the ability of programs to function well and achieve desired outcomes, and cause programs to incur unnecessary costs. Ultimately, problems with IM interfere with the ability of the Government of Canada to meet the needs of Canadians.
The gap between our current IM capability and what is required—the “IM deficit”—is not the same for all programs. IM needs fall into three categories, according to the type of client program IM is serving: the needs of any GC program; the special needs of executive programs; and the special needs of integrated service delivery programs. The level of sophistication in terms of need is very different for these clients. While the level of IM capability is not uniform across the Government, it is consistently lower than required, as illustrated below.

While individual programs and departments can “make do” in this environment, operating at a level that is less than optimal, problems with IM make enterprise management at the executive or corporate level highly challenging, and horizontal initiatives for service integration particularly difficult if not impossible to design and implement.
Each of these deficits is discussed in more detail below.
The Program Deficit
Programs need quality information to function and be managed well and for the delivery of their services.  They need information to trace decisions and processes. They also need their information to be preserved and safeguarded and to be made available to collaborators as appropriate. 
These needs are not being fully met because of poor information availability and inadequate preservation and safeguarding of information. These deficiencies make it difficult and inefficient for programs to fulfill the needs of their clients and to be managed responsibly.
Poor information availability is indicated by the following problems affecting programs: 
•	Information for service delivery, program management and record of processes and decisions is often difficult or impossible to find or may arrive too late to be useful; 
•	Information is often of low quality (inaccurate, incomplete, out of date, or without proper authority) or inconsistent with other information; and,
•	Information sharing is difficult and shared information is often not as useful as it should be.
Inadequate preservation and safeguarding of information is evidenced by the following problems that are affecting programs: 
•	Information is being inappropriately or erroneously altered, lost, destroyed or concealed; 
•	Security and privacy rules are being violated while handling information; and,
•	The quality of some information degrades over time.
Poor information availability and inadequate preservation and safeguarding of information undermine productivity and the ability to be accountable and transparent. They impede good program management, informed decision-making and information sharing. They jeopardize the Government’s ability to ensure that Canadians’ information is responsibly stewarded.
The Enterprise Management Deficit
Government-wide, corporate or executive level programs need assurance that Government of Canada’s record of processes and decisions has integrity and that clients’ rights are being upheld in the conduct of Government business, specifically in the handling of personal information. These programs need the ability to aggregate information vertically for Ministerial accountability, and horizontally for programs and services spanning departments and jurisdictions. This is essential for government to operate as an enterprise.  Executive programs also require that information holdings be organized and information management processes be structured so that the Government can undertake change with agility. Finally, the executive needs all programs in the GC, including the IM Program, to operate effectively within the context of the whole enterprise of government.
These needs are not being fully met because of poorly implemented IM rules and practices and because the IM Program is not operating effectively in the enterprise context. In some cases, these inadequacies prevent the GC executive from being able to live up to information-related accountabilities to Canadians and to manage the GC effectively as an enterprise; in others, it makes it more expensive to do so.
Poorly implemented IM rules and practices are demonstrated by the following problems experienced by executive programs: 
•	Many departments and agencies do not reliably follow disciplined  practices for information handling—capturing, tagging, storing, retrieving, aggregating, using, sharing, changing, assuring quality, archiving and disposing of information;
•	Practices in information handling are inconsistent within organizations, across organizations and for different media;
•	In particular, rules and processes employed to protect privacy and security are applied with varying strictness within and between organizations. In some cases, they are insufficient to guarantee the required level of information protection; and,
•	The definitions of metadata—the information used to find and organize information—are inconsistent within organizations, across organizations and for different media.
The fact that the IM Program is not operating effectively in the enterprise context is indicated by these problems experienced by executive programs:
•	Although IM is not achieving its outcomes today, the cost of the results that are being achieved is higher than necessary; 
•	IM leadership and governance is insufficient, fragmented and not sufficiently empowered;
•	Enterprise strategies, designs and plans for IM are inadequate and a clear and compelling business case for IM is lacking;
•	The process by which IM standards and practices are developed lacks coordination and clarity; 
•	Common IM solutions and shared services are lacking; and,
•	Legislation and policy for IM does not effectively support information sharing across the enterprise or ensure coherent action towards enterprise-level outcomes.
Poorly implemented IM rules and practices prevent GC executive programs from being assured that the Government record has integrity and that clients’ rights are being upheld. Horizontal aggregation of information is difficult or impossible. Vertical aggregation for Ministerial accountability is more time-consuming and costly than necessary. Inflexibly structured information holdings and parochial IM processes impede change. The fact that the IM Program is not operating effectively in the enterprise context reduces the overall ability of the GC to act as an enterprise. 
The Horizontal Operations Deficit
In order to deliver programs and services that cross organizational boundaries, integrated service delivery programs need information that can be interpreted correctly out of the context in which it was captured or created, and effectively and efficiently aggregated with information collected elsewhere.
These needs are not being met because of misaligned information and information management processes. This inadequacy makes it inefficient and sometimes impossible for integrated service delivery programs to combine services or integrate service outputs to provide higher valued outputs to clients and achieve more strategic outcomes. 
Misaligned information and information management processes is evidenced by the difficulty service delivery partners experience aligning information. This prevents integrated service delivery programs from correctly interpreting and effectively and efficiently aggregating information. 
Root Causes
The problems summarized above are felt by IM’s clients, and they are all symptoms of problems internal to IM. These internal problems are the causes of the problems experienced by IM’s clients. Some of these are root causes. Root causes are the real source of problems. Addressing the root causes of problems completely solves them.  
Addressing a problem directly or addressing its intermediate causes often proves unsuccessful. Because they are “at the source”, unaddressed, root causes just produce new problems. A single root cause can contribute to many problems—the number of problems in a business domain is typically much higher than the number of root causes. When developing solutions, identifying the root causes of problems accomplishes two important goals: 
1.	Completeness of design – When a target state is designed that addresses all of the root causes, the solution is comprehensive. Good decisions can then be taken about where to focus efforts and what to tackle first.
2.	Maximizing the return on transformation resources – There is no end to the money that can be spent addressing symptoms when root causes aren’t fixed. There will always be more symptoms. Solving the problem at the root cause means spending transformation dollars once.
The root causes of IM problems are summarized below. They are grouped by business area within the IM Program, namely program management, rules and practices, capability and capacity, information handling and community and culture.
IM Program Management
•	The need for and importance of an enterprise IM program has not yet been sufficiently recognized at the GC executive level.
•	No government-wide framework exists for all IM-related legislation and policy that provides a complete and coherent picture of IM accountabilities and responsibilities and comprehensive guidance for the design of an enterprise IM program.
•	The central services required to implement a federated enterprise capability for IM have not been implemented. In particular, enterprise strategic design and planning for IM has not been implemented.
IM Rules and Practices
•	Standards, best practices and explicit process for information handling—capturing, tagging, storing, retrieving, aggregating, using, sharing, changing, assuring quality, archiving and disposing of information—are missing or incomplete or not implemented consistently across government.
•	Standard metadata definitions are missing or incomplete or not implemented consistently across government.
•	Standards, best practices and processes are not designed with a “whole of government” perspective.
•	Guidance on the interpretation of laws and policies is incomplete and not implemented in a common way across government.
•	The accountabilities and responsibilities for IM rules and practices have not been systematically included in management accords and performance targets.
•	Sanctions and rewards for the application of IM rules are not generally in place, and, where sanctions are in place, they are often not properly enforced.
IM Capability and Capacity
•	The requirements for IM skills and experience have not been systematically included in HR practices.
•	Training in information handling is insufficient and variable across organizations.
•	Training in IM accountabilities and responsibilities is insufficient and variable across organizations.
•	Many tools for IM are often inefficient or unreliable.
•	Often, IM tools are not designed to operate across organizations or to interoperate, or they are implemented in a manner that makes it impossible for them to do this. 
•	The availability of skilled resources for IM is poor.
Information Handling
•	Services to tell information users that the information they need exists and where to find it are inadequate, especially between organizations. 
•	Information is stored in locations that are difficult to access other than locally.
•	Those who are sources of potentially shareable information have no knowledge or control of the information’s “downstream” use.
•	There is a large, complex and widely distributed legacy of information holdings that are inconsistent, of poor quality and poorly organized.
IM Community and Culture
•	Most employees are not recognized for their contribution to IM outcomes.
•	Some employees are concerned about the repercussions of looking for, finding and sharing some information.
•	Employees have not been encouraged to adopt information sharing as a cultural value.
•	Most individuals do not understand the nature and potential use of information under their stewardship in an enterprise context.
•	IM is not seen as a distinct, valued competency (distinguished, for example, from IT).
These root causes in program management, rules and practices, capability and capacity, information handling and community and culture will be the focus for the design of solutions to IM problems. 
The Current Environment for Change
A common understanding of the problem with IM provides the motivation for concerted change. Strategies and plans for change should take into account factors in the environment of the GC IM Program Transformation Initiative. An initial assessment is presented below, to help shape the results of the next phase—the Strategy Phase.
Internal Factors
Internal factors are strengths, weaknesses and the values of the IM business domain today. 
Strengths
What strengths of IM in the GC can the transformation build on?
Records Management and Library Services existed as mature disciplines before the Information Technology revolution. In fact, many records managers and librarians lament the fact that good, well-established and documented information management practices from the paper world are not always applied in the electronic domain. These practices represent a mature foundation for going forward with IM.
The CIO of Canada has taken a strong role in setting strategic direction for IM. When coupled with the CIO’s role in service delivery transformation and recent development in the CIO Branch of new tools and methods for disciplined transformation, a powerful nexus of change has been created.
Modern IM relies on mature IT. The IT infrastructure in the GC is maturing and is now ready to support enterprise IM.
Weaknesses
What weaknesses of IM in the GC must be overcome? Some of them are related to IM problems and their root causes—IM problems, in some cases, not only prevent the GC from achieving its IM outcomes now, but also impede the transformation of IM.
The IM community is fragmented and poorly defined. Consequently, it struggles to advance the cause of IM in the GC. Faced with challenges in attracting skilled resources and dominated by a more visible and constantly “hyped” IT, the IM community has been unable to demonstrate a good value proposition.
Legislation and policy that deals with IM is highly fragmented across dozens of legal and policy instruments. This makes it very difficult to present a cohesive picture of what IM is and what the GC should be doing to promote good IM.
Values
What values of IM in the GC must the transformation take into account?
Although the IM community is fragmented, IM practitioners all agree on one thing: IM’s purpose is to serve the business of Government. This value is foundational and shapes what the IM Program is.
In addition, the importance of taking a considered, planned approach to change is a shared value. This value will inform the approach to the IM Transformation.
External Factors
External factors are the opportunities, threats and trends originating outside the IM business domain.
Opportunities
What opportunities, in the GC or outside, should the transformation leverage?
A number of changes in the GC have either begun or are about to, that will drive the need for better IM. Large horizontal initiatives that integrate service delivery to Canadians and that bring internal administrative services together are underway and need improvements to IM at the enterprise level. The current public agenda places a new emphasis on openness, transparency and the duty to document, all of which will demand profound changes in the GC’s IM capability. The pressure to achieve these changes is raising awareness of the importance of IM with senior executives.
Canadians and businesses expect better information-based services, on par with those they receive from banks and other private sector service providers. This raises the importance and profile of IM inside the GC.
Important ingredients for the transformation of IM are available. Other Canadian and international jurisdictions have similar IM problems and, in some cases, have lessons to share and assistance to provide. The next generation of public sector workers has progressive attitudes about information and information sharing, and a sophisticated familiarity with information-based tools.
Threats
What threats, in the GC or outside, should the transformation seek to mitigate?
Most IM services must be executed “out there” in departments, not in central agencies; however, across the GC there is a poor understanding of IM and good IM practices have yet to become widespread in the day to day operations of program delivery. This represents a serious obstacle. Many departments are complacent about IM, and within their own frame of reference think that the current state is “good enough.” They are unaware of the hidden IM-related inefficiencies that “gum up the works” and undermine their enterprise IM responsibilities. This erroneously reduces IM’s priority in departments.  
Trends
What trends, in the GC or outside, should the transformation take into account?
Now that IT infrastructures are maturing and IT tools have become commodities, IM is “coming into its own.” Many trends in government and in the private sector must be considered. Two bear mentioning at this stage: 1) while the “paperless office” has been imminent for some time, the trend to electronic over paper-based information is real; and, 2) the availability of electronic information makes “24/7”, multi-mode, multi-channel information access is another strong trend that will change the way information is handled in the GC. 
Summary of Environmental Factors
The factors discussed above are summarized in the following table.

	Internal Factors	External Factors	
Positive Factors	Strengths
•	Strong Records Management and Library Services foundation
•	Strong CIO role in IM
•	Strong CIO role in service transformation
•	Good tools for transformation
•	Maturing IT infrastructure	Opportunities 
•	Large horizontal initiatives need better IM
•	Current public agenda (openness, transparency, duty to document)
•	Increasing recognition of IM’s importance 
•	Increasing awareness of the need to transform IM
•	Other jurisdictions’/countries’ experience
•	New workforce brings new skills and attitudes towards IM
•	Canadians’ demand for better access to service raises IM’s profile	
Negative Factors	Weaknesses 
•	Fragmented and poorly defined IM community
•	Poor availability of skilled resources
•	IT dominates IM
•	IM’s legislative and policy framework is fragmented
•	IM has been unable to make its value clear 
•	Poor alignment between CIOB and other policy/program sectors of TBS	Threats 
•	IM is poorly understood
•	IM not viewed as an urgent priority
•	Complacency about IM on the part of departments that are “muddling through”
•	Good IM practices are not widespread	
Informing Factors	Values 
•	A planned approach to change
•	IM’s purpose is to serve the business of government	Trends 
•	Electronic vs. paper media
•	24/7, multi-mode, multi-channel information access	
The IM Program Transformation Initiative 
Although work has been focused at many areas of information management, no overarching design exists that brings the many solutions to IM problems together and no master plan coordinates the way forward across the many organizations that must participate. A piecemeal approach to solving IM problems has been largely ineffective. The Government of Canada needs one coherent, explicit, broadly supported Information Management capability. Without this, over time, the government will face steadily greater difficulty meeting its policy commitments to Canadians for the responsible stewardship of their information. Barriers to collaboration, program alignment and service integration will only become more entrenched, undermining the government’s ability to adapt to change and achieve public outcomes.  Major transformation initiatives, under extreme pressure to deliver results, will be left to build their own particular solutions to their IM problems. 
The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS), in cooperation with Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) and Library and Archives of Canada (LAC), is leading the GC IM Program Transformation Initiative to guide the creation of next-generation IM services for the Government of Canada. 
The outcomes of the IM Program Transformation Initiative will be better IM outcomes for the GC:
•	Better availability of information for programs to deliver services, collaborate, manage themselves and  trace processes and decisions;
•	Better preservation and safeguarding of programs’ information;
•	Information and supporting processes that are better structured to support service integration; 
•	Information and supporting processes that are better structured to promote the GC’s agility, uphold clients’ rights, ensure the integrity of the GC record, and support the GC in operating as an enterprise; and
•	An IM Program that is structured to operate effectively throughout the GC.
Any business under transformation has activities underway in five streams: 
•	Governance;
•	Strategic Design & Planning; 
•	Alignment;
•	Transition; and 
•	Operations.
Indeed, everything going on in the business can be located in one of these five streams. 
It is the coordinated action of Governance, Strategic Design and Planning (SD&P), Alignment and Transition streams that ensures that a target state for the IM Program emerges over time, through the gradual implementation and strategic alignment of changes. Activities in these four streams make up the GC IM Program Transformation Initiative. They provide an overarching framework for implementing and aligning change.
Each of the streams is described below.
Governance
The Information Management Committee (IMC) acts as the governing body for the initiative. The IMC supports the Chief Information Officer (CIO) of Canada, who has overall accountability for IM in the GC. The IMC will recommend approval of strategic design and planning deliverables and of alignment recommendations to the CIO and provide guidance to the IM Program Transformation Initiative. Final authority for all decisions rests with the CIO.
A Steering Committee, composed of a small number of IMC members, provides guidance to the GC IM Program Transformation Initiative at a more detailed level and advises the initiative in how best to engage IMC and the CIO.
As the IM Program Transformation Initiative gains momentum and definition, additional governance structures will be required to better coordinate project work in the Transition stream.
Strategic Design and Planning (SD&P)
The IM Program Transformation Initiative uses the BTEP methodology for SD&P. Deliverables from this stream will be developed collaboratively by stakeholders, endorsed by IMC and approved by the CIO. They will then be used as the basis for aligning current projects and initiating new projects in the Transition stream. Results of detailed project work in the Transition stream and feedback from Operations as it is gradually transformed, are harvested back into the SD&P stream to inform subsequent designs and plans.
This stream proceeds cyclically through five phases: Vision; Strategy; Design; Business Case; and Plan. A sixth phase—Start Up—is added at the beginning of the cycle only when an SD&P process is being initiated for the first time. Currently, the initiative is nearing the completion of the Vision Phase of the SD&P stream. This deliverable, the Business Problem Assessment, is one of the phase’s two primary deliverables.
It is planned that a full cycle of collaborative SD&P will be completed by the end of the 2006-2007 fiscal year.
Alignment
The Alignment stream assesses the alignment of projects in the Transition stream to the emerging strategic context provided by the SD&P stream. It will deliver alignment assessments to Governance recommending action on projects that require modification to support the emerging strategic context, both those that pre-dated the SD&P and those initiated from it.
Transition
The Transition stream contains all projects that act to change IM in the GC, including those that have begun without the benefit of the overarching strategic design and plan and those that have been initiated because of it. Transition projects impact the fifth stream: Operations.
Operations
Activities in the Operations stream represent the steady state of the business. As projects in the Transition stream come to fruition they realize changes in the Operations stream. 

This page left intentionally blank

Recommendation
The strategic design and planning methodology employed by the GC IM Program Transformation Initiative calls for confirmation and refinement of project directions at the conclusion of each phase. Two phase-end milestones have particular importance in this regard: the Vision Phase end; and the Business Case end. 
At each of these milestones the motivation for the initiative is reaffirmed. At the conclusion of the Vision Phase the questions is asked, “Are the problems of sufficient magnitude and complexity that solutions require a concerted effort in the form of a formal transformation initiative?” At the conclusion of the Business Case Phase the question is asked, “Is the cost and risk of implementing all or part of the transformation worth the expected benefit?” A “no” at either of these milestones would result in the termination of the transformation initiative. IM problems would then continue to be solved piecemeal in departments and agencies, without the benefit of an overarching framework for change.
The analysis summarized in A Summary of the Problem with IM on page 5 supports a resounding “yes” to the first question: the problem is of sufficient magnitude and complexity to warrant a formal transformation initiative. Based on this, the following recommendation is made:
Proceed with the GC IM Program Transformation Initiative through the Strategy, Design and Business Case phases of strategic design and planning. 

This page left intentionally blank

Appendix A: Acknowledegments
For the Start Up Phase:
In the Start Up Phase of the GC IM Program Transformation Initiative, representatives from TBS (CIOB), Library and Archives of Canada (LAC) and Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) began work to identify the nature and scope of an IM Program, IM-related services of the lead agencies that make up an IM Program and to begin to clarify agency responsibilities for IM services with reference to current mandates. 
From September 2004 to June 2005, an inter-agency project team of IM specialists and business architects consulted with working level staff from the three agencies to develop a detailed inventory of the current IM services of the three agencies and a business model that identifies target group needs and strategic outcomes and service types of an Information Management Program. This work resulted in the first formal business design of an IM Program for the Government of Canada. 
Participants acknowledged for their work in the Start Up Phase include:
Lead Agency	Participant	
Library and Archives Canada	Pam Armstrong 
Bonnie Clark
Susan Clarke
Joanne Cournoyer
Diane Dagenais
Andrée Delagrave
Sherin Emmanuel
Sue Franklin
Julia Goodman 
Ross Gordon
Rhonda Healey
Fay Hjartarson
Roselyn Lilliniit
Marilyn Osborne
Matt Poostchi 
Ann Price
Bb Provick
Liz McKeen
Katherine Miller-Gatenby
Judith Roberts-Moore
Carole Smale
John Stegenga
Leigh Swain 
Deane Zeeman	
Public Works and Government Services Canada	Gale Blank 
Marc Clermont
Peter Cowan
Ed Fine
Conan Hunter
Elsa Van Hulst
Mike Lawlor
Luc Leblanc
Rita Moritz
Dave Thompson
Susan Thorne 
Catherine Zongora	
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat	Jim Alexander
Donald Bidd
Alexa Brewer
Nancy Brodie 
Denise Charbonneau 
Fernand Cormier
Ken Dagg
Gary Doucet
Helen McDonald
Lynda Morrissey
Greg Renaud
Laura Simmermon
Cecil Somerton
Denis Thiffault
Tom Walters	

For the Vision Phase:
Since November 2005, the GC IM Program Transformation Initiative has been engaged in the Vision Phase of the transformation.  The purpose of this Phase has been to define a transformed business having the desired business outcomes that meet stakeholders’ real needs.
The Vision Phase involved representatives, from 14 GC agencies and departments, nominated by the members of the Information Management Committee.   From November 2005 to March 2006, the project team consulted with 62 nominees from the 14 GC institutions through two major workshops and four series of working sessions to delineate the IM Program problem domain in business terms and to define a transformed IM business. 
Participants acknowledged for their work in the Vision Phase include:
GC Institution	Participant	
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada	Danielle Jacques
Dena Speevak	
Canadian International Development Agency	Alex Benay
Nicole Clermont
Joëlle Dagenais
Anne LaSalle	
Canada Revenue Agency	John D'Ermo
Richard Sharpe	
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade	Joel Denis
Barry Honeyman	
Department of Fisheries and Oceans	Julia Goodman
Sue Milks
Nancy Premdas
Duncan Saunders
Greg Steer	
Department of National Defence	John Fysh
LCol Phil Jourdeuil
Nandini Srikantiah	
Health Canada	Murray Gwyer
Marie Lalonde
Damian Londynski
Christiane Villemure	
Justice Canada	Benoit Guilbert
Nancy McMahon
Janice Zaharko	
Library and Archives Canada	Fay Hjartarson
Catherine Laforce
Bob McIntosh
Marilyn Osborne
Matt Poostchi
Leigh Swain
James Tam	
Natural Resources Canada	Yvon Claude
Jeff Labonte
Sylvain Latour
Al Simard
Marilyn Taylor 	
Public Works and Government Services Canada	Aziz Abouelfoutouh
Julie Boileau
Stephe Cooper
Conan Hunter
Angus Howieson
Yves Marion
Jacob Pabbathy	
Statistics Canada	Vicki Ross
Daniel Scott	
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat	Michael Bates
Donald Bidd
Alexa Brewer
Rick Bryson
Arvind Srivastava
Dennis Thiffault
Thomas Walters 
Catherine Zongora	
Transport Canada	Barbara Dundas
Tom Nash
Tammy Volume
Peter Wesley	
Veterans Affairs Canada	Jim Kirkland
Sylvie Regimbal	

Appendix B: IM Problems
Over 480 IM-related problem statements were harvested from a cross-section of authoritative documents (see references), which were rationalized into the 55 problems presented below.  The problems are numbered for ease of reference; numbers do not reflect any priority ranking.
1.	Publication of information is sometimes untimely: The push of information out to those who need it sometimes comes later than they need it or are able to make the best use of it.
2.	The quality of some information is inadequate: Some information, when it is available, is of a quality that is below the requirements of those who use it in terms of clarity, consistency, completeness, or accuracy.
3.	Searching for information is more difficult than it should be: Sometimes it is difficult to access or use services that find information, which adversely impacts the ability of those who seek information to obtain it.
4.	Search results can be inconsistent across navigation paths: Depending on the path or manner used to find information, a client seeking information will get different results, leading to confusion, frustration, a lack of trust, and/or misinformation. 
5.	Information sharing is limited: The exchange and sharing of information across programs or across organizational boundaries for legitimate reasons is hampered by the way the information is managed.
6.	Some information cannot be found: Information retrieval sometimes fails because the information has been lost, or it is there but cannot be accessed because of the way it is managed.
7.	Retrieval of information is sometimes slow: The time it takes to get information from where it has been stored to the client who needs it sometimes exceeds what it needs to be and/or how long the client is able or prepared to wait.   
8.	Government is not able to manage its information resources effectively: The government is not fully living up to its commitment to steward the information assets entrusted to it and that it generates through its activities. 
9.	Duplicate information exists: The same information exists in more than one place in the information management domain. This is not considered a problem if the duplication is managed for a purpose (e.g., for backup or distributed physical access). It is considered a problem when the duplication is not managed or causes other problems such as confusion or loss of synchronization. 
10.	Departments often do not know what they have or what records contain: Some government institutions lack information on their information holdings and where to find certain information, to the extent that they cannot say with any authority what information they do have or whether they do not have particular information. This means they cannot make management decisions about their holdings with any certainty.
11.	There are real and perceived cases where some records have been deliberately altered, hidden or destroyed: Either someone is deliberately altering, hiding or destroying information they should not, or somebody thinks someone is doing so.
12.	Poor IM causes personal stress: Information management problems or poor practices create unnecessary stress on individuals such as undue effort required to find information, or frustration from being unable to find information. 
13.	Poor availability of government record information reduces government accountability: Because of poor information management practices, the government is sometimes unable to produce reliable information that documents decisions and processes, thus reducing the openness and accountability of government leading to weakening of public trust.  
14.	Poor availability of management information impedes good program management: Good management of government programs is impeded by poor availability of quality information needed to support decision-making, policy development and operations.
15.	Poor availability of information content impedes delivery of services: Government programs are unable to achieve their program outcomes due to poor availability of quality information that is consumed or used in delivery of their service outputs.
16.	Information is collected, stored, processed and defined in silos: Information is often organized in application specific structures, intended and optimized for local use by specific business lines. Vertical design does not allow for horizontal sharing of information with potential business partners.
17.	Inadequate means to share info within Service Canada: Information is often organized and managed in application specific structures, intended and optimized for division or unit specific business use and is not accessible to other divisions or units within the same department.
18.	Guidance and information on best practices is inadequate: Some people who must manage information or design systems for information management are unable to do so effectively because there is missing, incomplete or poor quality instructional information available on how to go about doing it and/or best practice examples of what others are doing. 
19.	IM practices are inconsistent across departments: How information is handled (everything from what metadata is assigned, to when a record is destroyed) is not the same from one department to another, or even in some cases, between units within a department or agency. Rules, procedures, organizational design, and activities vary from unit to unit, leading to inconsistent achievement of outputs.  Enterprise-wide practices are lacking in certain critical areas, such as how long to keep employee records after retirement. 
20.	IM legislation is inadequate: Legislation dealing with some areas of information management practices is weak, missing, unclear or insufficient to set the ground rules for good information management practices within the GC.
21.	IM standards are inadequate: Standards dealing with aspects of information management are missing, unclear or insufficient.
22.	Data and metadata definitions are inconsistent across systems: Definitions in different systems for the same data or metadata item are not the same, affecting other IM or usage.
23.	Difficulty aligning info and business processes amongst service delivery partners (e.g., in Service Canada): Information formats and business processes are not aligned across service partners, making it difficult to collaborate. For example, when life cycle stages of information in a given process are different than those for the same information in another, or if business rules for moving the “file” or case from one status to another are different, service delivery relying on such processes is difficult. Delivering services on behalf of many organizations where business processes and information management principles have been developed independently compounds this problem, and constitutes a major challenge for organizations like Service Canada with a mandate to deliver services on behalf of different partners across the GC.
24.	Rules and processes employed to protect privacy and security are, in some cases, inadequate to guarantee the required level of information security: Defined rules and documented business processes may allow for information to travel from one business environment to another. Business environments may differ in the strictness with which they apply such business rules. In addition, processes may change or evolve with time and within a business context. With such constant change, the degree of privacy and security protection demanded by applicable government legislation and policies are not always reviewed to ensure full compliance or adjusted for the evolving or current business context.
25.	IM practices for electronic information are inconsistent with IM practices for paper records: Information is not being managed independent of media.  Well-developed IM practices for records on paper media have not been translated to the burgeoning digital world with the result that large amount of electronic information is poorly managed compared to paper-based records. 
26.	Governance frameworks for the IM program are weak, inconsistent and fragmented across government: Governance, roles, responsibilities, ownership, organizational design, and accountabilities for IM outcomes and activities are either poorly implemented, badly defined, unclear, incomplete, in conflict, misunderstood, ignored, or any combination thereof. Critical elements of governance frameworks that do exist are not the same in different areas of the government. There is no clear enterprise-wide standard framework for governance.
27.	IM leadership is weak: There is no clear champion influencing the behaviour of others towards GC IM objectives. Potential champions are not adequately supported in fulfilling this role and/or those who could benefit from this leadership do not recognize the need for it.
28.	IM Program design and planning is inadequate: People who must manage information or design systems for information management are unable to do so effectively because there is missing, incomplete or poor quality information available on architecture, strategies, plans, organization, policies, standards and directives governing the practice of IM.
29.	IM strategy and directions are inadequate: Strategies and plans dealing with information management are weak, missing, unclear or insufficient to be effective in implementing good information management within the GC.
30.	Incompatible IM tools and technology limit information access and sharing: Information, which could be accessed or shared, is not accessed or shared, sometimes because of incompatible design or implementations in the underlying technical infrastructure.
31.	We are not building enough common solutions and shared services: There are too many stovepipe systems in the technical infrastructure underlying information management. This prevents greater interoperability and with that, efficiency gains and better outcomes.
32.	Public servants do not possess the relevant IM education, skills and expertise: Some in the government who must manage information are unable to do so effectively because they do not possess the necessary skills. IM knowledge is missing from the work force and IM training to develop the necessary skills is either inadequate or not available. 
33.	There are real or perceived legal and policy barriers to information sharing: Laws and policies either unintentionally prevents the beneficial and desirable exchange of shareable information, or misguided interpretations of the laws and policies cause individuals to resist sharing information. (Legislated intentional prevention of sharing is not considered part of this problem). 
34.	The IM standards that do exist are poorly implemented:  Standards dealing with aspects of information management are badly implemented or ignored.
35.	Some information is destroyed before it should be, or is kept longer than it should be: Some information is destroyed before its legal expiry date. Some information is kept beyond the time designated for its legal destruction. These are violations of rules.  Other information is destroyed before all need for it has expired or it is kept well beyond any reasonable need for it. These undermine service and efficiency.
36.	Some information that should be captured is not always captured: Some information that is supposed to be captured for potential use later is not captured.  'Not Captured' means that the information exists but is not acquired to be managed as an information asset.
37.	Metadata is sometimes incorrect or incomplete: Some metadata has been incorrectly assigned, or required metadata is missing (required either by rules or for desired retrieval and other IM activities).
38.	Quality assurance for information is not always effective and/or implemented: The effort to ensure the quality of information (i.e., its clarity, consistency, completeness, timeliness, and accuracy) is not actually reaching the desired level of quality, or no effort for quality assurance is being expended.   
39.	Some information is inadequately protected vis-à-vis privacy and security: Privacy and security are being compromised in some situations by people who are not following the rules while handling information. 
40.	Poor IM causes network congestion: Information management problems or poor practices sometimes create an unnecessary load burden on information networks. For example, too much information is being stored or stored inefficiently, or too many attempts are required before the right information is obtained.
41.	Clients face unacceptable repetition and duplication of information entry and processes: Properly trained personnel should not need a client to retrieve information already captured and existing in GC repositories.
42.	Departments lack information and human resource strategies to develop IM skills and abilities in staff: Some institutions do not take into consideration information management skills and abilities in their HR planning and activities, either through oversight or because they lack the necessary tools to determine what they are and address them.
43.	There is insufficient IM staff in the current work force: In some units and departments, there are not enough IM practitioners or IM-knowledgeable people for all the IM work that must be done.
44.	Demand and expectations are overwhelming current IM capacity: In some units and departments, the human and system capacity for managing information is being outstripped by increasing demand for this capacity, and by increasing expectations for needed information management activities. Without intervention, this gap will grow wider. 
45.	Funding for IM is not sufficient: Financial resources directed at achieving IM outcomes are not sufficient. This means that other needed resources (time, manpower, systems, physical resources, services) cannot be obtained.
46.	The tools provided to protect information vis-à-vis privacy and security are not always adequate: A comprehensive and flexible tool kit does not always support the degree of privacy and security protection demanded by applicable legislation and policies. Dedicated tools do not keep up with continuously evolving threat of misuse of private information or possible breach of security
47.	A culture of IM does not exist across government: Government programs, organizations and people have not integrated good information management into their patterns of behaviour.
48.	There are cultural barriers to information sharing across government: Government programs, organizations and people resist sharing information with others, and this resistance has become ingrained in their patterns of behaviour.
49.	Some information users lack confidence in IM: Some clients of information management are unwilling to use the services of IM or to believe that information management will meet their needs.
50.	Focus on IT impedes implementation of good IM: In designing IT systems to support IM practices that fulfill business needs, more attention is given to potential technological capabilities than to real information management requirements.  'Attention' can mean resources, prominence, or measurement. Many IM projects are treated and understood to be IT projects, and at present, many of these “IT projects” don’t systematically identify IM requirements.
51.	Poor IM wasting money: Value-for-money is not what it could be.  Inefficiency; duplication; tasks requiring too much effort because of the way they, or the systems supporting them, are implemented—all have a negative impact on the bottom line. Money could be saved with better IM practices. 
52.	Some government institutions have fragmented, ad hoc, and informal approaches to IM: The governance, approach and attitude towards information management in some institutions is haphazard, lacks planning, gets little attention, and is inconsistent in terms of the practices that are in place, with the result that there are disparate pockets of IM practice, weak practices, or IM is missing where it should be present. 
53.	IM Policy has been poorly implemented: Policies on information management that exist have not been fully implemented, or have been implemented in a way that does not achieve the intentions of the policies.
54.	The process by which standards are developed lacks coordination, alignment and clarity: The process through which standards dealing with aspects of information management are developed is vague, unclear and badly implemented.  Separate bodies attempt to develop standards without clear authority, and with little or no alignment or coordination of their efforts. In the GC, it is unclear who has authority for IM standards development.
55.	It is hard to articulate a clear business case for IM: Government programs, organizations and people do not understand why good information management matters to them because it is difficult to make a clear, solid case. 

Appendix C: Glossary
In order to facilitate reader understanding of the Business Problem Assessment, the following terms have been defined:

 Term	Definition	
Best Practice	A documented and published best possible way of doing something.	
Business Transformation Enablement Program (BTEP)	A GC Program to enable coherent business design across the government with a formal, standards-based approach that will guide and expedite business transformation to meet the government's high-level business objectives.	
BTEP (SD&P Methodology)	Part of the BTEP toolkit.  Provides an overall process methodology for transformation; see also SD&P below.	
Enterprise	The level of organization at which its stakeholders (in the case of government, citizens) grant the authority to act. 	
Enterprise
Management	Those roles responsible for managing the government as an enterprise on behalf of taxpayers and citizens, which:
•	Set direction, plan and manage the Government of Canada as a whole to attain enterprise level outcomes; and,
•	Direct, control and unify Government of Canada public and provider programs (see also Program below) from a top-of-government perspective through the deployment and manipulation of resources and through the implementation of laws, policies, standards and best practices.	
Federated Approach
(Information Management)	A common government-wide approach to planning, designing and implementing the Government's strategic IM infrastructure with the responsibility for the processes and resources that realize IM services distributed across Government of Canada institutions.	
GC	Government of Canada (abbreviation)	
Information	Data presented in the context of other data for use in decision making and the generation of knowledge, including information that the Government of Canada creates, uses – including from external to Government of Canada sources – or publishes, at all levels from legislation to individual service delivery records, from formal publications to working papers and without regard to the storage or publication mechanisms.	
Information Management	Information management is the handling – creating, protecting, using, sharing and disposing – of information produced or acquired by the Government of Canada in a way that enables optimized use by all who have a share in that information or a right to that information.	
Information Management Business Domain	All roles in the Government of Canada that govern, design, develop, deliver or utilize IM services, tools, rules and best practices.	
Information Management Community	The Information Management Community is made up of specialists and managers responsible for the provision of information management services in the Public Service in Canada. It includes records managers, librarians, records and library technicians and clerks, controlled vocabulary and metadata specialists, and a host of other specialists some of whom also belong to IT communities or other business domains.	
Information Management Program Outcome	A beneficial trend in an IM Program target group's need; for example, IM Program will ensure availability of a program's information to its collaborators -- at present, while some program information is made available to collaborators when/as needed, usually via program and organization specific memoranda of understanding, there is currently no "universal where appropriate" availability.	
Knowledge	Information of which someone is aware. Also used to mean the confident understanding of a subject, potentially with the ability to use it for a specific purpose.	
Legislation	Law enacted by a legislature or other governing body; may refer to a single law, or the collective body of enacted law.	
Need 	A lack of something essential, desirable, or useful to an individual or a group of people. 	
Outcome	A beneficial trend in an IM Program target group's need; for example, IM Program will ensure availability of a program's information to its collaborators – at present, while some program information is made available to collaborators when/as needed, usually via program- and organization-specific Memoranda of Understanding, there is currently no “universal, where appropriate” availability.	
Policy	Formal direction under legislated authority that imposes specific responsibilities and accountabilities for action on departments, agencies, and other players.	
Program	An accountable mandate to address recognized needs of eligible target groups and to achieve specified outcomes by producing service outputs using resources; a mandate to achieve outcomes.   There are two types of Government of Canada programs:

Public program – A program that has one or more target group(s) outside of the Government of Canada.

Provider program – A program that has other government programs as its target groups. 	
Quality	The distinctive characteristics or properties of a thing that denote some degree of its compliance with specifications.	
Resource	An input to support and enable delivery of a business.	
SD&P	Strategic Design and Planning (abbreviation); see also BTEP (SD&P Methodology) above.	
Service	A means, administered by a program, of producing a final valued output (i.e. service output) to address one or more target group needs.	
Service Output	The desired, or anticipated, measurable product of a service. 	
Transformation	Implementation of a change for which the motivation is explicitly related to a significant improvement to program outcomes; see also Business Transformation Enablement Program (BTEP) above.	

Appendix D: Reference Materials
Three categories of reference materials are key in understanding the development and contents of the GC IM Program – Business Problem Assessment.
Business Transformation Enablement Program (BTEP)
The IM Program Transformation Project is using the Business Transformation Enablement Program (BTEP) Strategic Design and Planning (SD&P) methodology.  The methodology documentation and other BTEP materials can be found at:
www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/btep-pto/index_e.asp 
www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/btep-pto/index_f.asp 
Project Management Documents
Three project management documents form the basis of work on this project:
1.	Government of Canada Information Management Transformation Initiatives Project Charter 
2.	Government of Canada Information Management Transformation Initiatives Project Tailored BTEP Approach
3.	Government of Canada Information Management Transformation Initiatives Project Consultation and Collaboration Strategy
Authoritative Source Documents
Significant work has been done over the past number of years analysing the state of IM in the GC.  The IM Program Transformation Project selected a broad cross-section of such documents and reports – considered both authoritative in the federal domain and broadly representative of the current IM space within that domain – to harvest statements for use in the problem analysis in the Vision Phase.
A sample list of documents is shown in the table below.
Project TAG	Document Title	
AGO - 1	Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons - March, 2004, Chapter 3, National Security in Canada, The 2001 Anti-Terrorism Initiative	
OAG-1	Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons - April 2005	
OAG-2	Report of the Auditor General to the House of Commons, November 2003, Chapter 6: 
Protection of Cultural Heritage in the Federal Government	
AIRT-1	Report #7 – Information Management and Access to Information – A View into the Future (November, 2001) from the Access to Information Review Task Force	
COE-1	Information Management Centre of Expertise: Report, Version 1.1 DRAFT, 29 May, 2004, TBS-CIO
Includes as Annex a diagram, IM Core Business Capabilities 	
COMC-1	Metadata status with in the GC.CA Domain, January 6, 2004, Bruce Jackson, Communications Canada	
COMP-24	Implementing the Management of Government Information (MGI) Policy – Impact on the Federal Public Service Preliminary Assessment – Information Management and Information Technology Directorate, Environment Canada, April, 2003	
DFAIT-1	Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade InfoBank Project Charter	
DFAIT-3	Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade InfoBank Project Business Case	
EDAT-1	Government of Canada Federated Architecture - E-forms Architecture, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, E-Forms Domain Architecture Team (EDAT), July 2001 DRAFT	
ERC-1	Expenditure Review Committee (ERC) IT/IM Report: Input on People and Organizational Culture Renewal, Discussion with the IM Champions Committee, PWGSC/ITSB/Organizational Readiness Office, August 23, 2004; and IM Community Shared Practices (slide presentations)	
FAP-1	Government of Canada Federated Architecture Iteration One, June 2000	
FAP-2	Information Management e-Enabler – IT Strategy and Plan, FAP, CIOB, TBS-IM, Version 0.6, December 11, 2002	
G&C-1	Enabling Gateway And Cluster Service Delivery: Shared Metadata And Content Management -Discussion Paper, ITNet for PWGSC, V 2.0, Sept 2004	
GOC-1	Information Management in the Government of Canada - A Situation Analysis – For The Chief Information Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat and The National Archivist by John McDonald, National Archives of Canada, June, 2000	
GOC-2	Case for Action For an Information Management Strategy For the Government of Canada, Prepared for Ian Wilson, National Archivist, National Archives of Canada, May 10, 2002	
GST-1	Business Case on GST/HST Redesign Project – Spring 2005 Draft Version 4.0 prepared by the GST/HST Redesign Project Team	
ICC-1	Annual Report of the Information Commissioner 2002-2003, January 2003, Information Commissioner of Canada, Chapter II: Addressing the crisis in information management	
ICC-3	Annual Report Information Commissioner 2004-2005, March 2005, Information Commissioner of Canada	
ICC-4	Information Management in the Government of Canada, speech by the Information Commissioner of Canada, Ottawa, July 28, 2004	
ICC-5	Annual Report Information Commissioner 2000-2001, March 2001, Information Commissioner of Canada	
ICC-6	Remarks To Records Management Institute 2003 Seminar - Information Management A Progress Report, Information Commissioner of Canada, Ottawa, November 20, 2001	
IM/IT-6	Government Operations Review - Corporate Administrative Services
Review Report, Final Version, January 31, 2005 	
IM/IT-7	Shared Travel Services Initiative – Business Case, Draft version1.0, 27 May 2003	
IMD-6	Metadata Management Strategy – Business Assessment, TBS-CIOB-IMD, Version 1.e, 2004-10-21	
INTR - 1	Improving Interoperability and Data Exchange, September 2002	
LAC-11	Next Generation Information Management, LAC, presentation by Sharon Henhoeffer Aug 18, 2005	
MGIH-1	Review of the Management of Government Information Holdings (MGIH) Policy, Evaluation, Audit and Review group, TBS, August 1996	
MGIP-2	The Current State of IM in the Government of Canada – Lynda Morrissey, IMSD, March 31, 2005	
MGIP-6	Supporting Good Information Management in the GoC through implementation of the MGI Policy
Presentation to ARMA, Lynda Morrissey, CIOB-IMSD, April 16, 2004	
NA-2	Strategic Directions at the dawn of the new millennium, The National Archives of Canada 2000 - 2003	
NA-4	Information Management in Government Operations, Ian E. Wilson, National Archivist of Canada at Strategic Information Management Program, October 10, 2003	
NA-5	The Information Management Leadership Challenge, Ian E. Wilson, National Archivist of Canada at GTEC 2003, October 06, 2003	
OME-1	INFORMATION MANAGEMENT – ORGANIZATIONAL MODELLING EXERCISE (IM/OME), March 2002, PDF of presentation, PWGSC	
PCO - 1	Securing an Open Society:  Canada's National Security Policy, April 2004	
PPF-1	Information Management To Support Evidence-Based Governance In The Electronic Age, A Public Policy Forum Discussion Paper (Executive Summary Only), November 2002, by Andrew Lipchak	
RDIMS-1	Government of Canada RDIMS Program Plan, March 2004, RDIMS Project Authority, Application Manager	
SVC-1	Service Canada 3 Year Work Plan - Draft Oct 11, 2005	
SVC-2	Next Generation Public Services: Government of Canada 2005 Service Vision - Draft for discussion: June 29, 2005 Version	
TC-2	Avoiding Knowledge Collapse – Proactive Solutions for Regulatory/Inspection Organizations (Gordon Chapman’s 2003 Report)