 |
|
||
This first appeared as a PATimes column in October 2007.
Peeking Over the
Fence
by John M. Kamensky
If you’re perpetually curious, it’s always interesting to peak over your neighbor’s fence to see what’s in their backyard. In the case of “managing for results,” the northern fence has more than snow to look at!
The Canadian federal government has had a long tradition of promoting accountability for performance and results. It served as an inspiration to the U.S. federal government’s performance and results focus in the early 1990s. Some of their data collection and reporting efforts helped support the U.S. adoption of the Government Performance and Results Act back in 1993. In recent years, Canada has taken a more in-depth approach to its management improvement efforts. Starting in 2000, the Canadian government launched a continuous improvement campaign called “Results for Canadians.”
Its central management agency – the Treasury Board Secretariat -- reinforced this campaign with the creation of a “Management Accountability Framework,” in 2003. This initiative is reminiscent of the U.S. federal government’s President’s Management Agenda in that it sets agency-level standards that are centrally tracked. However, the Canadian Framework is far more comprehensive than the U.S. approach and it has been fine-tuned annually since its inception. It tends to be “how we manage” and not just a set of management improvement initiatives.
The Management Accountability Framework
The Management Accountability Framework is seen by its promoters as serving several purposes: a vision for good government, a review process, and an analytical tool. The framework is organized around 10 essential elements that collectively define “sound management,” such as values, governance, citizen-focused service, and stewardship (see sidebar for details). The Treasury Board Secretariat touts it as “a comprehensive and integrated model for management and for management improvement.”
The Framework also serves as an integrating function for a series of other Canadian management improvement initiatives in finance, human resources, and service improvement. In addition, it serves as a “basis for dialogue” between the Treasury Board Secretariat and the deputy heads of departments and agencies.
The deputy head of an agency is a senior career civil servant who is the officer accountable for implementing the framework. In the U.S., this person would be equivalent to a chief operating officer or deputy secretary.
When the Framework was first introduced in 2003, it was seen as a set of expectations for assessing the deputy heads. It has since evolved into an oversight tool for agencies themselves.
In 2004, the Framework was used to assess the performance of 35 departments and major agencies to “identify strengths and weaknesses in management practices,” according to a history of the initiative. The Framework has since been integrated into the government’s traditional cycle for planning and reporting and extended to other agencies.
How Is the Framework Applied?
Each of the 10 elements has a series of related indicators – 21 in total in its fourth year of assessments – with a series of sub-measures. Each department develops its own self-assessment around each of the 21 indicators and works with its Treasury Board analyst to come up with an agreed-upon joint assessment. These are then compiled into a departmental profile for a one-on-one “conversation” between the deputy head and the President of the Treasury Board. The 10 elements are rated on a 4-point scale (strong, acceptable, opportunities for improvement, or attention required). The resulting departmental profile is then shared annually with Parliament and the public, along with other required reports. Fifty-five agencies were assessed in the latest round.
An Example: The “People” Element of the Framework
What do the assessments look like? The assessment goal of the “People” element of the Framework is to assess the extent to which the workplace is “Fair, Enabling, Healthy and Safe.” Each of these is further described:
Canadian Public Service Agency (equivalent to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management) is the lead for assessing the “People” elements of workforce and workplace. It developed a series of 12 more specific indicators as to what constitutes “fair employment and workplace practices,” such as the percent of employees agreeing that staffing is done fairly (based on an annual survey) and the number of complaints filed about hiring practices. These are then used to assess each department’s progress.
So What Has Been the Impact?
The Framework has been in place for more than four years. Has it made a difference? According to one observer, the answer is that it is “still a work in progress.”
There is no public scorecard, like in the U.S. Presidential Management Agenda which publishes a quarterly “red-yellow-green” stop light rating for each element that sums up each agency’s progress. A 30-40 page narrative is developed and shared as a report to Parliament. So, there is no high profile report publicly released on agency performance.
Several outside observers see the Framework as producing a plethora of information that conceals more than it reveals. It serves as a basis for management discussion, but because there is no “scorecard” ranking agencies, there is little peer pressure or political pressure for improvement. It is a set of management practices, but not used for real accountability, at least not in the U.S.-style. One long-time observer said “You have to look back 30 years and see what it replaces. It replaces an informal, good-old-boy system based on anecdotes and friendships.”
Treasury Board leadership sees the Framework as an easy-to-use “Management 101” reference tool that creates a common management improvement language across agencies. However, observers say the career executives being assessed under the Framework largely have not bought into the approach and see it as a paperwork exercise. The departmental Framework assessments are used in annual performance discussions between deputy heads and the Treasury Board, but there seems to be no direct consequences of poor performance. Likewise, the assessments are made available to Parliament, but observers are unaware of instances where they have been referenced in debates or funding decisions.
Maybe “Reinventing Government” David Osborne’s observation is right – if there are no clear consequences for performance – good or bad -- then there may be no incentive for improvement. Canadian observers recognize this and they say Treasury Board leaders should actively consider creating consequences – such as linking to publicity or pay – that may make what seems to be a well thought-out approach for improving management more than a paperwork exercise.
The Ten Elements of the Canadian Management Accountability Framework
Public Service Values - Through their actions, departmental leaders continually reinforce the importance of public service values and ethics in the delivery of results to Canadians (e.g. democratic, professional, ethical and people values).
Governance and Strategic Directions - The essential conditions - internal coherence, corporate discipline and alignment to outcomes - are in place for providing effective strategic direction, support to the minister and Parliament, and the delivery of results.
Results and Performance - Relevant information on results (internal, service and program) is gathered and used to make departmental decisions, and public reporting is balanced, transparent, and easy to understand.
Learning, Innovation and Change Management - The department manages through continuous innovation and transformation, promotes organizational learning, values corporate knowledge, and learns from its performance.
Policy and Programs - Departmental research and analytic capacity is developed and sustained to assure high quality policy options, program design and advice to ministers.
Risk Management - The executive team clearly defines the corporate context and practices for managing organizational and strategic risks proactively.
People - The department has the people, work environment and focus on building capacity and leadership to assure its success and a confident future for the Public Service of Canada.
Stewardship - The departmental control regime (assets, money, people, services, etc.) is integrated and effective, and its underlying principles are clear to all staff.
Citizen-focused Service - Services are citizen-centred, policies and programs are developed from the "outside in", and partnerships are encouraged and effectively managed.
Accountability - Accountabilities for results are clearly assigned and consistent with resources, and delegations are appropriate to capabilities.
Source: Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada