The People Management Plan 2000-2003 (PMP) at Industry Canada represents a human resource strategy and plan of action for all employees of Industry Canada in response to La Relève (1996). The end goal of the PMP is to help Industry Canada achieve its objective of becoming an Employer of Choice for people with the necessary competencies to allow the Department to achieve its lines of business. In the fall of 2001, Industry Canada sought to undertake an evaluation of the People Management Plan to assess the Plan’s continued relevance, success and cost-effectiveness. This report presents the findings from this evaluation.

The purpose of the evaluation was to provide feedback and analysis on the extent to which the Program has achieved its objectives and intended effects and to determine the perceived cost-effectiveness of this approach to the Department’s involvement in activities to address workplace issues. The focus of the evaluation was on three principal issues including program relevance, success and cost effectiveness. To address these issues, the evaluation employed multiple lines of evidence, including: a review of program documents and files; 23 key informant interviews with PMC members (n=15) and Industry Canada managers (n=8); a telephone survey of 60 project sponsors and a telephone survey of 60 project participants.

(b) Program Profile

Industry Canada’s human resources strategy and Action Plan is based on an analysis of their employee demographics both corporately and by line of business, as well as on an assessment of challenges and a review of exemplary projects already underway to renew the work force throughout the Department. The People Management Plan is predicated on the four principles of renewal, retention, recruitment and representation, as well as an understanding of the Department’s strength and areas of vulnerability. In response to the results of the 1999 Public Service Employee Survey, as well as department-wide consultation held at the beginning of 2000, the PMP priorities were reordered and revised to provide a more concrete expression of the goals and actions proposed to address priorities. The three resulting priorities of the 2000-2003 version of the People Management Plan included: improving the well-being of the workplace; investing in our people through learning and career development; and investing in our future organization by recruiting a skilled and representative workforce.

The People Management Committee (PMC) was established in the spring of 1997 to oversee the implementation of the PMP. As of 2000, the general mandate of PMC is to explore and champion good human resources management practices and to monitor and report progress to senior staff and to the members of the Departmental Management Board (DMB) on the implementation of the People Management Plan 2000-2003. The PMC is also responsible for measuring progress toward the achievement of the Plan’s objectives and to take appropriate actions to alter course for the Plan as appropriate, with the guidance and support of the Industry Canada Management Committee (ICMC).

An Evaluation Framework was established in 1998 as a basis for in-depth evaluation of the Department’s efforts relative to the broad objectives of the Plan and organizational change. The framework recommends that the timing of the evaluation approach be linked to the three-year time frame employed for the People Management Plan, using a three-pronged evaluation approach that would include: a baseline assessment of Industry Canada’s current status relative to human resource issues; an interim evaluation of progress and management of plan implementation; and a full evaluation of issues related to relevance, objectives achievement and medium- to long-term results expectations. The framework also recommended the establishment of a steering committee of managers to provide direction to the evaluation effort on a periodic basis, as well as guidelines to assess the Plan’s attainment of the medium and long-term goals.

For the individual initiatives supporting the Plan, measuring progress involves assessing the results of these activities on an ongoing basis using the performance measurement templates that have been created. At the corporate level, senior management is expected to monitor the implementation of the Plan and ensure that an adequate organizational capacity exists to achieve desired results over the long term. At the project level, monitoring involves assessing the results of individual initiatives and ensuring that managers and staff have a clear understanding of how their daily activities contribute to department-wide goals and priorities.

(c) Profile of Funded Projects

The review of project files shows that overall, projects tend to be well distributed among all three PMP priority areas, with the largest number of projects contributing to improving the well-being of the workplace (62 per cent), followed by 51 per cent of projects that addressed learning and career development issues and 44 per cent that addressed issues related to recruitment and retention. The average level of proposed funding for projects implemented during the 2000/2001 and 2001/2002 fiscal years was $87,792 and this figure was somewhat higher for the actual funding received (mean of $97,402). While not all PMP projects were designed with a participant group in mind, the number of participants was identified for only nine per cent (n=5) of the projects for which files were available.

(d) Relevance

The evaluation sought to assess the relevance of the PMP in a number of ways by gathering evidence concerning: the consistency of the Plan’s priorities with those at the federal, departmental and sector/branch level; the continued need for the Plan; the relevance and viability of the Plan as a means to support workplace initiatives; and the degree to which the Plan can and has addressed key workplace issues. Overall, the evaluation evidence suggests that the PMP is a highly relevant mechanism for the Department. Findings from the evaluation for each of these relevance issues are as follows:

Consistency of the Plan’s priorities: most respondents to the evaluation feel that the Plan’s priorities are consistent with federal, departmental and sector/branch priorities, noting that recruitment is a high priority for all sectors and branches and that the PMP has been successful at balancing the priority recruitment needs of both senior and less senior employees. Most survey respondents also note that it was unlikely that their sector or branch would have provided full financial support for their project had they not received funding through the PMP.

Continued need for the Plan: a majority of survey and interview respondents also feel there is a continued need for the PMP to address the Plan’s three key priorities, although certain factors may impinge upon the Plan’s ability to achieve these objectives (e.g., objectives that are overly broad, the need to clarify/operationalize processes to help critically review proposed projects, the absence of a strategic approach to implement the Plan’s priorities)

The relevance and viability of the Plan as a means to support workplace initiatives: most interview respondents feel that the PMP continues to be a relevant and viable means of supporting Industry Canada’s commitment to become an Employer of Choice (e.g., the Plan has: provided funds for relevant projects; brought branches and sectors together to identify/act on common issues; coordinated efforts to address human resource priorities; and provided employees a voice), although many recommend changes to enhance the PMP’s relevance and viability (e.g., more resources to address work/life balance; more promotion of the Plan; and changes to encourage more staff participation).

The degree to which the Plan can and has addressed key workplace issues: a majority of survey respondents feel there is at least a moderate need to address all of the workplace issues identified as future challenges for the Plan, and most participants would be at least somewhat likely to recommend PMP projects to other Industry Canada staff, and to indicate that the PMP project had met their expectations. Key informants identified workload and work/life balance, recruitment, and career development and training as the most pronounced needs of management and staff, and note that the PMP has supported many initiatives to address these issues.

PMC Input into the Development of the PMP

One measure of the Plan’s relevance concerns the degree to which management and staff were consulted during the development of the PMP’s priorities. The evidence suggests that roughly half of the PMC respondents had been consulted during the development of the 2000-2003 iteration of the People Management Plan and roughly the same proportion felt they were provided sufficient opportunity to contribute to the development of the 2000-2003 priorities. Nonetheless, there may have been room to involve more people in these discussions, provide more advance notice to Director Generals and heads of organizations, and coordinate activities of the HRB and the People Plan in Operations with those of the PMP.

Target Audiences

Overall, few gaps were perceived to exist in the audiences targeted by PMP projects. The file review found that approximately three-quarters of funded projects proposed to target a specific audience, and a similar distribution of target audiences was also observed for the sponsor survey. Further, a large majority of respondents to the sponsor survey and key informant interviews indicated that there were no employee groups that could have participated in their project but did not although there may be room to enhance the participation of some groups (e.g., smaller groups of employees in specific organizations, visible minority or disabled groups; the average employee, non-HRB employees, and administrative and support staff).

People Management Committee

The PMC is generally felt to be integral to the management and delivery of the Plan and is fulfilling their assigned roles, although there is may be room to improve its functioning. A majority of respondents to the sponsor survey indicated that the PMC has fulfilled its defined roles to at least a moderate extent, although there may be room to improve in terms of championing the best human resource practices and ensuring the management effort in the Department is integrated/well communicated. Furthermore, all PMC key informants agree that there continues to be a great need for PMC to manage and deliver the Plan (e.g., allows for timely response; equalizes the treatment of employees; promotes good human resource practices; avoids duplication; and representative of junior and senior staff). Specific suggestions to improve the PMC include: expanding its role/clarifying its purpose; more efforts to monitor projects progress; more effort to encourage reporting project results; improved participation at/in meetings; encouraging managers to make PMP a priority; more energy to recruit people to the PMC; reducing the size of the committee; streamlining the proposal review process; and better communication of the Plan and its benefits.

(e) Success

Performance Measurement

The evaluation findings suggest that there is a need to improve the measurement of project success relative the overall goals of the Plan. The review of project files found that one-quarter (24 per cent) of project proposals and nearly one-third (32 per cent) of final reports did not contain information concerning the measurement of objectives achievement. All project results (i.e., outputs and outcomes), however, were found to be at least somewhat consistent with the PMP priority addressed, although the performance measures most often concerned processes or outputs (53 per cent), followed by outcomes (18 per cent) and both outcomes and processes/outputs (five per cent).

There may also be room to improve the way in which the Plan’s priorities are expressed in order to facilitate performance measurement activity, as mixed feedback was received with respect to the degree to which the priorities are: well-articulated and clear (objectives do not often change and are easy to relate to versus objectives are not well communicated, too broad, hard to relate to, and over-articulated); realistic (some objectives are more realistic than others, are overly broad to be realistic); measurable (measurement tools are not in place, some objectives harder to measure than others); and results-based (Plan supports projects that yield positive results some objectives do not allow for measurable results, demonstrating results tends to be weak).

Monitoring Mechanisms

Among the monitoring mechanisms that currently exist, key informants identified the PMP Secretariat (monitors progress, financial obligations, status reports, funding levels, and provides lists of proposed projects), the project final reports and reporting templates, templates for financial reporting, project evaluations, and occasional audits and evaluations by the audit and evaluation branch. Most, however, feel these mechanisms are not adequate to capture information pertaining to PMP objectives achievement

Contribution to PMP Objectives

Collectively, funded-projects are perceived to have made considerable progress toward the Plan’s objectives, as a large majority of sponsors and participants surveyed feel their project has contributed to the priority to at least a moderate extent to the PMP priorities it was designed to address. Evidence from key informants interviews also suggests that funded projects have contributed to each of the three PMP objectives to a moderate extent, with a higher perceived contribution to learning and career development (much support of training and development projects, these projects tend to be focused/have measurable results), and slightly more moderate ratings for improving the well-being of the workplace (no clear assessment criteria, more could be done) and recruitment of a skilled and representative workforce (few projects supported in this area). To enhance the Plan’s ability to achieve its objectives, suggestions include: better communications and marketing; more cross-sector work; improved performance measurement; ongoing/open call for proposals; concrete priorities that are measurable and results-based; and more follow-through on successful projects.

Project-Specific Impacts

Overall, projects are perceived to be making a positive contribution toward addressing workplace issues, as a majority of respondents to the sponsor and participant surveys feel their project has or will have at least a moderate impact in all areas about which they were asked. Nonetheless, there may be room to improve the degree to which these impacts are demonstrated. The review of project files shows that projects have produced a variety of products (e.g., tools/resources for employees, training, workshops/events, and information/communication products) and outcomes (e.g., enhanced employee communications/relations, enhanced skills/career development opportunities, improved recruitment capacity, enhanced image, improved quality of the workplace), however, this information was not available for large proportions of project files (43 per cent lacked information on products and 82 per cent lacked information about outcomes).

Dissemination and Communication

Once again, the evidence suggests that projects are well communicated, as the majority of project files identify a communications plan or strategy, although fewer specify the means to be used to communicate the project and project results. The most commonly reported communications vehicles include e-mail bulletins, websites or website postings, meetings/briefings/presentations, and pamphlets/flyers/brochures. In terms of their effectiveness, survey respondents were most likely to have heard of the Plan or a PMP-funded project through word-of-mouth or e-mail bulletins, while 20 per cent of project participants had never heard of the PMP prior to the survey.

(e) Cost-Effectiveness

Processes and Procedures

Respondents to the sponsor survey were generally satisfied with most processes and procedures about which they were asked, although there may be room to improve the amount of time allotted for the development and submission of proposals, the process of selecting projects for funding and the use of PMP committee working groups. Results of the key informant interviews also suggest the Plan’s processes are functioning adequately, although responses were mixed and there may be room to improve most delivery mechanisms, including:

the planning process (well thought out and encourages participation need for a more strategic approach, more timeliness, better linkages to departmental priorities, earlier call for proposals);

the project selection process (more disciplined approach/concrete criteria to critically review proposals);

project monitoring (receive necessary information/positive feedback on projects, good monitoring of project progress need to reduce the number of uncompleted projects, provide information about project results);

project reporting (provide required information need for more detailed/less basic information, uniform reporting, broader communication to employees, more time to report on projects);

PMP Committee Working Groups (do good work sharing information/bringing people together most unaware of working groups, most active only at allocation time)

Overlap and Duplication

The evaluation evidence suggests that while some overlap may exist between the PMP and other similar initiatives, this overlap is not generally perceived to be negative. The majority of survey respondents feel it is beneficial to provide similar services and supports through other Industry Canada initiatives (78 per cent) or PMP projects (64 per cent). Similarly, most key informant interview respondents are unaware of duplication or overlap among PMP projects or between the PMP and other departmental initiatives, or feel that what little duplication that does exist is not a problem. Among the examples of the overlap that is perceived to exist, respondents most commonly reported overlap or duplication between the PMP and the Operations Sector People Strategy. Mechanisms to manage duplication and coordinate activities include the PMC and the PMP Secretariat.

Sustainability

The evaluation findings were mixed with respect to the sustainability of PMP projects and their impacts. On one hand, plans for the sustainability of the project or project impacts exist for only one-in-five project files reviewed and half of the PMC members interviewed question the sustainability of projects (i.e., depends on the project/its objectives, long-term results are not measured, and support for many unsustainable pilot projects). In contrast, a majority of sponsors and participants feel that projects are sustainable to a large (53 per cent) or moderate extent (32 per cent) and most managers feel that many PMP projects have had lasting impacts (e.g., developed management competencies, focused on training and development, received additional funding from Treasury Board, and led to the development of department-wide programs).

Partnership

The evidence suggests that few PMP projects are implemented in partnership. The review of project files found that only seven projects (13 per cent) reported that the project had been implemented in partnership, and these were most likely to be identified as other federal departments, or national not-for-profit organizations. On average, roughly two project partners were identified and the nature of the partnership support (reported for only three of seven projects) involved assistance with the implementation of the project.

Alternatives

Key informants generally perceive the PMP to be an effective and efficient way of achieving Industry Canada’s overall goals and objectives in the area of human resources, because the Plan: provides a presence and visibility to demonstrate that the Department is interested in promoting and retaining employees; minimizes overlap and duplication; reduces inequities among different sectors; lends credibility to the Departments efforts (PMC not viewed as a management committee); sponsors worthwhile initiatives; implements the corporate human resources plan; and provides a democratized approach. Nonetheless, many feel the Plan can be improved to enhance its effectiveness and efficiency by: adopting a more strategic focus; supporting the PMC with sub-committees within each sector; employing a more meaningful project reporting system; enhancing the visibility and communication of the Plan; more consideration of the sustainability of successful project; supporting more projects that focus on the supervisor or manager community; and providing more resources to the Plan.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Key informants noted a number of strengths of the PMP. One primary strength of the Plan was felt to be the fact that the funding and approval process is centrally managed, which is thought to yield a number of advantages by: providing an additional source of funds to cash-strapped sectors; reducing funding inequities among organizations; ensuring a common understanding of departmental priorities; allowing for inter-sectoral communication, thus reducing duplication; and providing a forum between managers and employees. Other strengths include the Plan’s: support important human resource initiatives, support of quality projects, broad focus, employee driven process, administrative processes (e.g., approval process, monitoring); and changing focus (i.e., the allocation process changes in response to changing needs).

Key informants also point out a number of aspects of the Plan they feel are not working well, the most common of which include: a lack of communication about the PMP (which may affect the quantity and quality of proposals submitted and coordination with other initiatives); the proposal review process (tools are not available to critically review proposals, need for a better costing model/earlier approval process to ensure funds do not go unspent, more timely approval, less academic/more accessible process, ongoing approval process); and the lack of focus for the Plan (which may affect the availability of firm criteria upon which to evaluate proposals, the PMP’s strategic direction, and measurement of results). Other aspects of the Plan that some respondents believe are not working as well include: the use of funds to address issues within organizations’ mandates; a lack of clear criteria to demonstrate project success; a lack of senior management direction at the sector level; a lack of follow-up on projects; and a perceived need for more focus on priorities other than learning and career development.

Adobe Acrobat Version (PDF - 1,789KB - 83 pages)

Note: to read the PDF version, you need Adobe Acrobat Reader on your system. If the Adobe download site is not accessible to you, you can download Acrobat Reader from an accessible page. If the accessibility of PDF is a concern, you can have the file converted to HTML or ASCII text by using one of the access services provide by Adobe.

Common menu bar links

Institutional links

Programs and Services

Resources For

The Department

Search

Evaluation of the People Management Plan

Executive Summary

(a) Background and Methodology