Archived – Audit of Classification

Archived information

The Standard on Web Usability replaces this content. This content is archived because Common Look and Feel 2.0 Standards have been rescinded.

Archived information is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Project Number 6B204
Final Audit Report
December 17, 2010

Table of Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Introduction

Background

Classification establishes the “relative value of all work in the public service”1 and is a cornerstone of other human resources disciplines such as staffing and labour relations. Classification operates under the legal authority of paragraph 11.1(1)(b) of the Financial Administration Act, with emphasis on stewardship of financial resources.

The Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) 2008 Corporate Risk Profile identified human capital as one of its most significant risks, whereby the department will be unable to attract, develop, and retain sufficiently qualified human resources to deliver on its mandate. At the January 2009 DFO EX conference, classification was identified as a high priority area within the human capital risk.

This audit was included in the DFO Multi-year Risk-based Audit Plan 2009-2012 approved by the Departmental Audit Committee in March 2009.2

Roles and responsibilities

The Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) directs classification activities through a classification framework, related policies, and directives, as well as Occupational Group Classification Standards which serve as the basis to evaluate job descriptions and render classification decisions for the entire Public Service. Through the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer (OCHRO), TBS acts as an oversight agency, monitors overall performance and ensures accountability for results. The TBS delegates the authority to classify positions to the Deputy Minister of DFO.

To exercise the authority delegated by the TBS, the Deputy Minister is responsible for establishing management practices that ensure the integrity of DFO’s classification system. The Deputy Minister grants accreditation to classification advisors and sub-delegates certain classification authorities to responsibility centre managers, for all positions except executives (EX).

1.2 Objective and Scope of the audit

The objective of this audit is to provide assurance that DFO has an adequate and effective management control framework in place for the classification function.  A management control framework is understood as the suite of controls management has put in place to manage the risk and increase the likelihood that established organizational objectives will be achieved.

The audit scope includes the review of the Management Control Framework, operations and transactions from 2004/05 to 2008/09.

1.3 Statement of Assurance

In our opinion, the auditors have examined sufficient, relevant evidence and obtained sufficient information and explanations to provide a high level of assurance on the reported opinion or conclusions.

1.4 Overall Assessment

Overall, the Management Control Framework governing the department’s classification function is mostly in place; however, the audit identified opportunities for improvement in the areas of planning, client service, monitoring, and performance measurement.  The audit recommendations should contribute to further improve the Management Control Framework of the classification function for DFO. 

1.5 Summary of Observations and Recommendations

1.5.1 Planning

The planning process within the Organization and Classification Centre of Expertise (OCCOE) involves consultation with key stakeholders in establishing the strategic priorities, goals and objectives of the classification function.  However, strategic and operational plans do not clearly describe the key activities that will be undertaken to achieve organizational and strategic objectives.

Recommendations:

1. The Director, OCCOE should ensure operational plans include clear objectives, activities, outputs, expected outcomes, resources, timelines and associated quantitative indicators to measure actual performance.

2. The Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources and Corporate Services and the Director General, Human Resources, should oversee and support Sector/Agency Heads, as functional authorities responsible for determining classification priorities, in implementing a formal process for determining classification priorities within their area, including consultation and communication with their managers.

1.5.2 Organizing

OCCOE has made significant progress in streamlining classification processes but relies on paper files as well as two information systems that are not linked.  It exercises some best practices in its use of model work descriptions specific to the department but the department remains at risk of not achieving the departmental goal of 80 percent of department positions being covered by model work descriptions by 2011.

Recommendations: 

3. The Director, OCCOE should undertake to further streamline the classification process in order to find efficiencies and decrease the time it takes to classify positions.

4. The OCCOE should develop a strategy to coordinate and support Departmental Management Committee members' efforts to ensure that their managers pursue and exercise their delegated authority, and the development and implementation of model work descriptions in order to achieve the departmental goal of having 80 percent of positions covered by models.

5. The Director, OCCOE should improve information management including the management of classification files through the use of information technology.

6. The OCCOE should ensure that responsibility centre managers are reminded of their responsibility to review and update the work descriptions in their area of responsibility by providing them with a list of those that are up for cyclical review.

1.5.3 Client Services

Communication and client engagement have improved recently.  However, the classification function does not have a comprehensive, up-to-date suite of policies, processes, service standards and formal client feedback mechanisms that would serve as a basis for facilitating an improved service experience.  

Recommendations:

7. The Director, OCCOE should update the DFO Organization and Classification Policy, establish service standards for all classification processes and continue to offer training and opportunities for departmental management to participate in classification committees in order to ensure the process is clearly understood and to manage client expectations.

8. The Director, OCCOE should undertake to improve the productivity level by establishing service standards for all classification transactions.  This should be supported by two measures: transactions per advisor, and the time necessary to complete a classification transaction.

9. The Director, OCCOE should monitor productivity against service standards, measure client satisfaction and address any fluctuations.

1.5.4    Monitoring and Reporting

The classification function developed a monitoring framework to assess the quality of classification decisions through the collection and analysis of quantitative information related to the classification function, however there is no evidence of any active or cyclical monitoring and reporting on classification activities. Performance measurement is an area which would benefit from improvement.

Recommendations:

10. The Director, OCCOE should complete annually, all monitoring activities described in the Monitoring Action Plan to assess the integrity of the DFO OCCOE Program.

11. The Director, OCCOE should monitor performance on an ongoing basis and prepare regular internal departmental reports on the management and administration of the classification system.

Top of page

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Background

Source of the Internal Audit Engagement

The Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) 2008 Corporate Risk Profile identified human capital as one of its most significant risks, whereby the department will be unable to attract, develop, and retain sufficiently qualified human resources to deliver on its mandate.  DFO’s overall human resources capacity is described as constrained. There is a concern that, in response to the competitive labour market, other government departments use “levers at their disposal to attract resources (e.g., providing higher classifications for positions).”3 At the January 2009 DFO EX conference, classification was identified as a high priority area within the human capital risk.

This audit was included in the DFO Multi-year Risk-based Audit Plan 2009-2012 approved by the Departmental Audit Committee in March 2009.4

Background on the Activity

Classification establishes the “relative value of all work in the public service”5 and is a cornerstone of other human resources disciplines such as staffing and labour relations. Classification operates under the legal authority of paragraph 11.1(1)(b) of the Financial Administration Act, with emphasis on stewardship of financial resources. It is generally recognized that the classification framework has challenges which are beyond DFO; for example, the Administrative Services standard has not been updated since 1972.

Roles and Responsibilities

The Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) directs classification activities through a classification framework, related policies, and directives, as well as Occupational Group Classification Standards which serve as the basis to evaluate job descriptions and render classification decisions for the entire Public Service. Through the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer (OCHRO), TBS acts as an oversight agency, monitors overall performance and ensures accountability for results. The TBS delegates the authority to classify positions to the Deputy Minister of DFO.

To exercise the authority delegated by the TBS, the Deputy Minister is responsible for establishing management practices that ensure the integrity of DFO’s classification system. The Deputy Minister grants accreditation to classification advisors and sub-delegates certain classification authorities to responsibility centre managers, for all positions except executives (EX). Finally, the Deputy Minister has authority to make classification decisions based on senior management recommendation (i.e. management-directed decisions).

The Director General, Human Resources, administers the departmental classification system. The classification program is comprised of two functions: the Director, Executive Group Services provides classification services for all EX positions; and the Director, OCCOE, is responsible for classification services for all positions excluding EX.

The OCCOE is a national virtual centre of excellence. A core of advisors is located in the national capital region, with others dispersed geographically across the country; all report through team leaders to the Director, OCCOE. All advisors are classification specialists and are responsible for client transactions, and those at the senior level are also responsible for corporate initiatives (e.g. monitoring, policy development, systems and classification grievances).

DFO managers are responsible to ensure that work descriptions in their responsibility centre reflect the work being assigned and that their organizational chart is up to date. Managers with sub-delegated classification authority can also authorize a number of transactions with classified model work descriptions. This includes, for example, the update and review of positions with classified model work descriptions where there is no change in group and level.

For a summary of the governance structure and roles and responsibilities; key TBS and DFO policies, directives and guidelines; and the DFO operational framework, please refer to Appendix A DFO Framework for Classification.

2.2 Objective and Scope of the audit

2.2.1 Objective

The objective of this audit is to provide assurance that DFO has an adequate and effective management control framework in place for the classification function.  A management control framework is understood as the suite of controls management has put in place to manage the risk and increase the likelihood that established organizational objectives will be achieved.

2.2.2 Scope

The audit scope includes the review of the Management Control Framework, operations and transactions from 2004/05 to 2008/09.

Exclusions

The audit did not undertake to assess compliance with classification standards or review classification decisions.

Given that approximately 2% of DFO positions are in the EX category, and that these are classified through a different framework operating through the Director, Executive Group Services, classification of EX positions was excluded from this audit.

2.3 Overall Assessment

Overall, the Management Control Framework governing the department’s classification function is mostly in place; however, the audit identified opportunities for improvement in the areas of planning, client service monitoring, and performance measurement.  The audit recommendations should contribute to further improve the Management Control Framework of the classification function for DFO. 

2.4 Lines of Enquiry and Audit Criteria

Lines of enquiry are the broad subject headings describing areas determined during the planning phase, to be the most productive for the audit to examine. The lines of enquiry and associated audit criteria presented below provide details of the specific areas of focus.  They are based on a preliminary risk assessment and consultations with the Departmental Audit Committee, and were vetted with Human Resources.

Line of enquiry 1 – Effectiveness and efficiency of operations

Audit Criteria

1.1  OCCOE has the ability to adapt to, influence, or efficiently meet environmental changes (internal and external).

1.2  OCCOE activities, priorities and resources are aligned to DFO service expectations.

1.3  OCCOE streamlines classification processes to ensure they are risk-based and result in timely decisions.

1.4  OCCOE recruitment and retention is sufficient to ensure a qualified organization and classification workforce to meet DFO demands.

1.5  OCCOE practices include sufficient consideration of relativity and interdepartmental consistency in application of classification standards.

1.6   Classification across the organization shows appropriate use of generic work descriptions covering a significant percentage of positions.

Line of enquiry 2 – Monitoring and reporting

Audit Criteria

2.1  Performance of the overall DFO classification framework is monitored, and corrective actions are taken based on relevant targets and indicators.

2.2  OCCOE has an active monitoring program in place—as well as an early warning system—to review classification decisions rendered by its advisors.

2.3  Managers periodically update work descriptions as required.

2.4   There are mechanisms in place to assess trends and risks in management practices, as well as to inform senior management decision-making regarding the departmental classification framework.

2.5  Systems are in place to capture and generate timely and useful reports for the deputy head and meet central agency requirements.

2.5 Methodology

The audit team carried out its mandate in accordance with Government of Canada internal audit standards, as set out in Treasury Board’s (TB) Policy on Internal Audit.  The approach included the following activities:

  • Risk Assessment – as per the Internal Audit Standards, a risk assessment was conducted as part of the preliminary survey in order to help define an audit that would be of greatest value to both OCCOE and DFO.  A preliminary list of risks was identified from a review of internal reports and then rated in terms of likelihood and impact by the audit team.  The high risks then served as the basis for the audit criteria that comprised the audit program and were included in the Terms of Reference. 
  • Terms of Reference – were vetted with the Departmental Audit Committee, endorsed by the Director General, Human Resources and Director, OCCOE, before being signed off by the Deputy Minister.
  • Document Review - a detailed document review was conducted in both the planning and conduct phase, with the document review being more directed during the conduct phase as the audit team identifying specific documentation requirements.
  • Interviews - during the planning phase, the audit team conducted 14 interviews with departmental management, and OCCOE management and advisors to help gain an understanding of the audit entity and define the audit scope and lines of enquiry.  In the conduct phase, four additional interviews were held with OCCOE Team Leaders and the Director of OCCOE.
  • Data Analysis - analysis of data related to resources (human and financial), activity levels and position status was completed.
  • File Review – a review of a sample of 92 classification files was undertaken to identify information related to the use of other governmental department relativity information and the composition of evaluation committees.
  • Focus Groups - conducted two simultaneous focus groups (one in English and one in French) with OCCOE advisors and administrative personnel to gather information concerning the classification system, and the opportunities and challenges it presents.
  • Benchmarking - completed a benchmarking study with four other classification organizations in order to develop a basis for a comparative analysis of the performance of DFO’s classification framework and identify existing best practices.  See Appendix B for a summary of results.
  • Internal Quality Assessment and Improvement Program – the entire working paper file covering all aspects of the internal audit engagement was reviewed and approved by the Internal Audit Directorate's quality assurance function.

Top of page

3.0 OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 Statement of Assurance

In our opinion, the auditors have examined sufficient, relevant evidence and obtained sufficient information and explanations to provide a high level of assurance on the reported opinion or conclusions.

3.2 Effectiveness and Efficiency of Operations

The ultimate output of operations is a classification decision—either made by an OCCOE advisor or a manager—and its application to DFO positions. Effectiveness is understood as ensuring both the management of work and classification of approved work descriptions is in line with TBS Policy on Classification System and Delegation of Authority in order to meet DFO’s organizational objectives; and efficiency is interpreted as accomplishing departmental classification objectives in a timely manner with minimal use of resources commensurate with risk exposure.

3.2.1 Planning

The planning process within OCCOE involves consultation with key stakeholders in establishing the strategic priorities, goals and objectives of the classification function.  However, strategic and operational plans do not clearly describe the key activities that will be undertaken to achieve organizational and strategic objectives.

Strategic Planning

One of management’s fundamental responsibilities is planning.  Strategic planning identifies where an organization wants to be at some time in the future and how it is going to get there.  This requires continuous attention to changes in the organization and its external environment in order to anticipate the effects on the organization.  Strategic planning is critical to the long-term success of any organization.

One of the key success factors in planning is involving the right people in the planning process.  This is reflected in part of the OCCOE’s mission to, ‘establish and maintain partnerships with management in the development and implementation of their organization and classification plans, priorities and related National Model Work Descriptions (NMWDs)’6.  This is being realized through the use of a consultative approach to strategic planning for the OCCOE.  Organization and Classification management, along with the Director General, Human Resources, often present challenges facing Organization and Classification along with strategic alternatives to address these challenges for the Departmental Management Committee’s consideration.  The Committee’s recommendation then becomes the basis of the Organization and Classification’s strategic priorities. 

Operational Planning

An operational plan is a subset of a strategic plan.  It establishes the activities that will be carried out at an operational level with the required resources to achieve the organization’s strategic goals and objectives.  Operational plans should be prepared by those involved in their implementation and contain clear objectives, activities to be completed, desired outcomes, staffing and resource requirements, timelines and a process for monitoring progress.

In 2008-09, the OCCOE did not have a formal operational plan.  In 2009-10, the Director developed a work plan for the OCCOE that outlined the key activities and associated outcomes.  Timelines were indicated for each of the activities but no resources were assigned.  Expected outputs were not stated which does not enable the measurement of progress toward the achievement of these outcomes and subsequently the organization’s strategic goals and objectives.  Further to the OCCOE Work Plan, work objectives were established in consultation with classification advisors for each substantive level.  The work objectives were described using performance objectives, key activities and performance criteria.  The performance objectives clearly describe what the advisor is expected to do; the key activities outline ways in which to achieve these objectives; but the performance criteria do not include associated quantitative indicators to measure actual performance. 

The 2009-10 OCCOE Work Plan developed in September 2009 states that, “corporate level functions are performed on ‘corner of desk’ due to integrated functions and dominance of operational needs, thus risk to management of departmental program is increasing”.  This statement indicates that priority is placed on operational needs rather than corporate and management responsibilities, which also play an important role in supporting the achievement of strategic objectives.  More effective planning would help to mitigate these types of risk and assign responsibility for the completion of activities in other functions.  Investing in planning will pay dividends in maximizing use of limited resources.

Workload Planning

There were 14,830 positions in DFO as of March 2009. To manage its transactional volume, the OCCOE has national portfolios distributed based on staff workload, client and nature of business (e.g. by classification standards). The OCCOE has 25 employees, including 20 classification advisors, three of whom are team leaders. On average, for each classification advisor there are approximately 729 positions, just below the average of 804 positions per advisor as determined through the benchmarking study conducted for the purpose of this audit. 

Workload planning, used to address operational requirements, is conducted at the level of classification teams.  The Department recently implemented a prioritization process, whereby the Sector/Agency establishes the classification priorities for the year.  The way in which these priorities are established and subsequently communicated is left to the discretion of the Assistant Deputy Ministers or Directors General who serve as functional authorities for national programs.  Through interviews with departmental responsibility centre managers, the audit team found that these managers often are not apprised of the classification priorities for their Sector/Agency including the status of their own request.  The outcomes of the prioritization process feed directly into the workload planning.  Team leaders then conduct monthly and quarterly meetings with the functional authorities representing their client group to determine if there are changes to the priorities and to advise them of the progress made over the last month.  Again, responsibility centre managers are not apprised of the outcomes of these meetings.  In addition, the monthly reports on progress made are not cumulative and therefore do not allow OCCOE to measure results including the timing and volume of transactions processed over an extended period of time.  

Recommendations:

1. The Director, OCCOE should ensure operational plans include clear objectives, activities, outputs, expected outcomes, resources, timelines and associated quantitative indicators means to measure actual performance.

2. The Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources and Corporate Services and the Director General, Human Resources, should oversee and support Sector/Agency Heads, as functional authorities responsible for determining classification priorities, in implementing a formal process for determining classification priorities within their area, including consultation and communication with their managers.

3.2.2 Organizing

OCCOE has made significant progress in streamlining classification processes but relies on paper files as well as two information systems that are not linked.  It exercises some best practices in its use of model work descriptions specific to the department but the department remains at risk of not achieving its goal of 80 percent of department positions being covered by model work descriptions by 2011.

Organization and Classification Center of Expertise

DFO Human Resources states that the concept of the national “virtual” centre of expertise is a best practice within the Public Service.  During interviews and the focus groups, advisors and human resource management confirmed that the concept is working well.  The OCCOE delivers organization and classification services across the country with the assistance of the regional human resources offices as required.  During interviews with departmental managers, they expressed concerns with the time it takes to classify positions and some, with the level of client service. 

Classification Processes

In Human Resources' Integrated Performance and Risk Management Framework, one of the expected outcomes is to decrease the time required to classify positions. A number of initiatives have been undertaken by OCCOE to streamline classification processes by adopting a risk-based approach to classification.  In DFO's most recent Management Accountability Framework assessment (MAF VII), it recognizes that the ‘organization is undertaking action to improve the classification program in accordance with its level of risk’.  There are a number of different types of classification transactions, with varying levels of complexity.  Some transactions, such as a change in title, reporting relationship or deletion of positions are considered simple and relatively low risk. They have been included in the recent fast-track initiative whereby managers submit their requests and the OCCOE processes them without review.  An initiative to sub-delegate classification authority to departmental managers to create new indeterminate and term positions, change from term to indeterminate and update and review positions in the case of positions related to classified model work descriptions was undertaken in an effort to streamline classification.  We understand this was introduced in 2008-09 and that, as of March 31, 2009, 131 managers had received classification sub-delegation.     

In 2008-09, a total of 3,494 classification transactions were processed.  This included 1682 fast-track and 323 sub-delegated classification actions.  These actions comprise 57 percent of all classification requests received.  This results in a significant reduction in workload for the classification advisors.  Based on the benchmarking study, DFO was the only classification organization employing a risk-based approach to streamline classification. 

National Model Work Descriptions

According to OCCOE’s Guide to Sub-Delegation, the key to faster classification decisions and increased use of management delegated authority is the development and use of national organizational structures and National Model Work Descriptions (NMWDs). 

The approach to model work descriptions is not exclusive to DFO. There is a definite trend across the Public Service to move to generic work descriptions. The OCHRO7, recommended that departments move towards increased use of generic work descriptions as they are efficient and provide for fairness where it establishes relativity in position classifications.  As these transactions are more complex and time consuming, they remain under the purview of accredited classification advisors.  Based on the benchmarking study, DFO was the only department developing NMWD specific to their department.  The others were developing generic work descriptions and some were attempting, often unsuccessfully, to adjust generic work descriptions developed by other government departments or those developed as part of the Universal Classification Standard initiative for use in their department.

The Department has set the overall objective of having 80 percent of its positions linked to a classified model work description. The objective was first set in 2003 with a 2008 timeline and has since been delayed to March 31, 2011. It does not appear that any milestones were established since 2003 to manage intermediary progress towards this objective. While the OCCOE is responsible for classifying model work descriptions, managers are responsible for linking them by identifying all other positions to which the description applies.  At the end of 2008/09, only 29 percent (4,352) of DFO’s 14,830 positions were linked to model work descriptions while another 15 percent (2,309) of positions identified for linking had not yet been linked by responsible managers. This means that 45 percent8 of DFO positions could be linked to model work descriptions.  Based on progress to date, there is a risk that the department will not meet this objective by the stated timeline. 

Review and Update of Work Descriptions

The policy on Classification System and Delegation of Authority states that in exercising classification authority, Deputy Heads shall promote competence in their managers, by ensuring that all managers ensure that work descriptions in their area of responsibility reflect the work being assigned and performed by their employees within the organizational structure and have a reasonable and defensible effective date.  As of March 31, 2009 approximately 70 percent of work descriptions in DFO were out-of-date, and the trend is that this percentage is increasing as descriptions are becoming out-of-date at a faster rate than they are being updated.  Managers with sub-delegated classification authority are able to update and review positions where a classified work description can be applied, provided it does not result in a reclassification.  For review of a work description for an existing position, where there have been few or no changes to the functions assigned or where there is a risk of reclassification, the analysis and approval of an advisor is required.  In order to have an advisor review and approve the updated work description, it must be a priority for the Sector/Agency.

Information Management

The TBS Directive on Information Management Roles and Responsibilities9 states that managing information is an essential component in the effective management of the business of a department. Using and managing information is part of how the Government of Canada conducts business.  Information is created, gathered, stored and made available in various formats and for various purposes.  Information technology (IT) is a key enabler to achieving well-managed information in support of policies, programs and services.

Management of classification files was identified as an area for improvement during the interviews and focus groups.  In particular, advisors expressed concerns about classification file storage as practices differ across regions.  One classification organization who participated in the benchmarking study explained that they are using electronic classification files with a standard format.  This not only creates an electronic record but allows electronic files to be accessed from anywhere for review, relativity and monitoring.

Recommendations: 

3. The Director, OCCOE should undertake to further streamline the classification process in order to find efficiencies and decrease the time it takes to classify positions.

4. The OCCOE should develop a strategy to coordinate and support Departmental Management Committee members' efforts to ensure that their managers pursue and exercise their delegated authority, and the development and implementation of model work descriptions in order to achieve the departmental goal of having 80 percent of positions covered by models.

5. The Director, OCCOE should improve information management including the management of classification files through the use of information technology.

6. The OCCOE should ensure that responsibility centre managers are reminded of their responsibility to review and update the work descriptions in their area of responsibility by providing them with a list of those that are up for cyclical review.

3.2.3 Client Services

Communication and client engagement has improved recently.  However, the classification function does not have a comprehensive, up-to-date suite of policies, processes, service standards and formal client feedback mechanisms that would serve as a basis for facilitating an improved service experience.  

Policy

The DFO Organization and Classification Policy posted on the OCCOE intranet site is out-of-date.  The Policy has not been revised since 2004 and therefore does not reflect the level of delegation of classification given to departmental management and the associated responsibility, the new prioritization process for submitting classification requests or any of the changes resulting from the implementation of sub-delegation and fast tracking.  With this, departmental clients do not have access to up-to-date information regarding the DFO policy on organization and classification.  In delivering complex services such as classification, where clients share responsibility for the process, having a clear, concise policy helps to facilitate service delivery and actively manage client expectations.

Training for Departmental Managers

The DFO Organization and Classification Policy states that the Department will provide Organization and Classification training for managers, evaluation committee members, work description writers and others to ensure a better understanding of the OCCOE programs, systems and processes.  During focus groups and interviews, OCCOE staff expressed concern that managers had not received adequate training.  While participation on evaluation committees is an excellent learning opportunity, based on the review of files, DFO managers participated in only 21 percent of evaluation committees.  OCCOE is not effectively leveraging the use of qualified managers as subject matter experts in evaluation committees.  Without sufficient training and involvement, managers will not have an adequate understanding of the classification framework or processes within DFO. 

Service Standards and Client Satisfaction

According to the TBS discussion paper, Performance Measurement for the Human Resources function10, one of the key criteria for developing and sustaining a productive workforce that delivers goods and services in a cost-effective manner and strives for continuous improvement, is the establishment of clearly defined service standards and productivity targets.  The organization must also have systems in place that produce information that enables management to monitor productivity and address fluctuations.  Given the national distribution of OCCOE employees, this is of particular importance.  Currently, nearly half of the OCCOE advisors work in locations other than the National Capital Region with their respective team leaders often residing in other locations.  Therefore, it is important that there are standards and/or targets for performance and actual performance is measured against them to ensure that goals and objectives are consistently met across the organization.  In our benchmarking study we found that another department with a similar organizational structure has developed services standards for exactly this purpose.

OCCOE has established a service standard of five business days for the fast-track initiative and sub-delegation but does not have service standards for any of the other classification processes. There are Service Level Agreements for the review of model work descriptions at DFO. Agreements are established between OCCOE advisors and departmental managers on a case-by-case basis.  These agreements are not based on a predetermined standard, nor are actual times to complete monitored and/or managed.  However, they are monitored by the team leaders and discussed in regular bilateral meetings.  As per the benchmarking study, three out of four other classification organizations have a complete set of service standards for all classification processes, including the development of generic work descriptions. 

Client engagement has improved significantly in recent years with the introduction of a prioritization process for submitting requests, monthly client meetings and the use of Service Level Agreements. At present, OCCOE does not solicit formal client feedback outside of the monthly meetings. Based on the benchmarking study, other classification organizations conduct client satisfaction surveys and provide an email address to collect any feedback outside of their regular surveys.  OCCOE plans to develop and implement similar feedback mechanisms in the future.

Productivity level: 

Our benchmarking results show that DFO has a lower than average volume of classification transactions (see Appendix B).  Firstly, the OCCOE has fewer classification transactions per position, (items 6 in Annex B Table 1). Secondly, if we look at the number of classification transactions rendered by classification advisor, the audit team found that the OCCOE is below the average of other departments involved in the analysis. DFO conducts an average of 175 transactions compared to the average of 379 (item 8 Annex B Table 1) which represents a gap of 46%. It should also be noted that the number of transactions per DFO classification advisor includes both fast-track and sub-delegated transactions that are completed by managers.  However, it does not include positions identified to be linked to classified models if management has not done so.  OCCOE has attributed their lower transaction rates per advisor to the OCCOE advisors’ strict adherence to the classification standards and the significant amount of work involved in the development of national model work descriptions (NMWD).  The lower number of transactions per advisor indicates, on average, longer classification times compared to other classification organizations, increasing the risk related to Human Capital that DFO will be unable to attract, develop and retain sufficiently qualified human resources to deliver on its mandate.  As a result of the benchmarking study and the work completed during the audit, we found that productivity is an area which requires attention to bring it to a level that is comparable to that of other government departments.

Recommendations:

7. The Director, OCCOE should update the DFO Organization and Classification Policy, establish service standards for all classification processes and continue to offer training and opportunities for departmental management to participate in classification committees in order to ensure the process is clearly understood and to manage client expectations.

8. The Director, OCCOE should undertake to improve the productivity level by establishing service standards for all classification transactions.  This should be supported by two measures: transactions per advisor, and the time necessary to complete a classification transaction.

9. The Director, OCCOE should monitor productivity against service standards, measure client satisfaction and address any fluctuations.

Top of page

3.3 Monitoring and Reporting

Monitoring and reporting are cornerstones of the TBS classification framework and the delegation of authority to deputy heads. To manage the DFO classification framework on a risk-basis, performance information must be available on outputs, outcomes and trends in classification decisions. DFO must also ensure there is a proper monitoring framework to assess overall departmental performance as well as the performance of the OCCOE and managers.

3.3.1 Monitoring and Reporting

The classification function developed a monitoring framework to assess the quality of classification decisions through the collection and analysis of quantitative information related to the classification function, however there is no evidence of any active or cyclical monitoring and reporting on classification activities. Performance measurement is an area which would benefit from improvement.

Monitoring

Monitoring and reporting are cornerstones of the TBS classification framework and the delegation of authority to deputy heads.  As such, TBS provided departments with an Active Monitoring Policy. Driven by the TBS Active Monitoring Policy, the Office of the Chief Human Resource Office provided departments with a Classification Monitoring Framework. A few years ago, the President of the Treasury Board requested Deputy Ministers to invest resources in classification monitoring with a view of improving the integrity of the classification system.  In response to the request, OCCOE produced a monitoring action plan and a performance report in 2008. 

The Monitoring Action Plan is a useful tool for managing the monitoring of the quality of classification decisions rendered by DFO OCCOE each year. The Monitoring Action Plan states that OCCOE will review a sample of 100 positions per fiscal year and produce an annual monitoring report during the first quarter of each fiscal year and submit it to the Deputy Minister. The sampling will be carried out on classification actions rendered by the OCCOE since January 2006. The OCCOE produced a monitoring report covering the period of 2008-09, in April 2010. The audit team was provided no evidence of monitoring as per the Monitoring Action Plan for transactions taking place from April 2006 to April 2008. Through the benchmarking study, the audit team noted a similar trend amongst other classification organizations as none of them performed monitoring. 

Monitoring the quality of decisions is of particular importance to DFO as it was identified as the main mitigation strategy for dealing with the risk of National Model Work Descriptions being misapplied by sub-delegated managers. The OCCOE stated that they will conduct monitoring activities on an annual basis and take corrective measures, if required. Sub-delegation was approved in December 2007 and implemented during 2008-09 in DFO.  In the annual report on the Health of HR 2008-09, OCCOE identified that 323 sub-delegation activities were completed in 2008-09 with no monitoring of these activities until November 2009, prior to a report being produced in April 2010.

The Director, OCCOE has indicated that they have no full time resource dedicated to monitoring activities.  Each of the senior level advisors are expected to participate in monitoring as part of their corporate responsibilities in addition to one team leader who spends up to 20 percent of the time doing this corporate task.  OCCOE has expressed that they would like to carry out more monitoring activities, but lack the necessary resources.  By not conducting regular monitoring, the OCCOE is not able to ensure the integrity of the DFO organization and classification program including the quality of classification decisions, the quality of position file and master file documentation of work description models and their variants, and effectively mitigating the risks associated with the fast-track and sub-delegation initiatives. 

Performance Measurement

The DFO Human Resources management team developed a performance management framework for the entire Human Resource function in 2007, which includes classification performance indicators. The framework does not include an action plan for implementation. However, it appears to be a sound basis to measure performance on a periodic basis and to track progress towards the achievement of outcomes. These measures are important in supporting decision-making. 
 
The TBS Policy on Classification System and Delegation of Authority11 states that Deputy Heads shall prepare internal departmental reports on the management and administration of the classification system and provide them to TBS upon request. To report on the performance of the organization and classification program and to identify the risk areas, OCCOE produced an Organization and Classification Performance Report in 2008. This report used the performance indicators proposed by TBS as opposed to those contained in the DFO HR performance management framework. The audit team found no indication of how performance is measured, and the alignment of results with indicators in the Organization and Classification Performance Report, and ensuring corrective action to address any issues brought forward. 

Recommendations:

10. The Director, OCCOE should complete annually, all monitoring activities described in the Monitoring Action Plan to assess the integrity of the DFO OCCOE Program.

11. The Director, OCCOE should monitor performance on an ongoing basis and prepare regular internal departmental reports on the management and administration of the classification system.

4.0 GENERAL CONCLUSION

Within the OCCOE, the audit team found capable, professional management and staff committed to providing quality classification decisions for the application to DFO positions.

The Management Control Framework governing the department’s classification function is mostly in place; however, the audit identified opportunities for improvement in the areas of planning, organizing, client service, monitoring, and performance measurement.  These should be addressed in order to make the OCCOE more efficient and effective in its support of the achievement of DFO’s objectives.  The audit recommendations should contribute to further improve the Management Control Framework of the classification function for DFO. 

5.0 MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN

Recommendations

Management Action Plan

Status Report Update

Actions Completed

Actions Outstan-
ding

Target Date

1. The Director, OCCOE should ensure operational plans include clear objectives, activities, outputs, expected outcomes, resources, timelines and associated quantitative indicators to measure actual performance.

 

1.1 Corporate Activity Action Plan:
To support departmental strategic and policy objectives, such as classification sub-delegation to management and meeting 80% of positions linked to National Model Work Descriptions, the OCCOE management team is developing the 2010/2011 and 2011/2012 Organization and Classification Corporate Activity Action Plan. This plan will allow the OCCOE to prioritize corporate activities and will include the establishment of clear objectives for each corporate activity (e.g. training, policy review and update), specific outputs, expected outcomes, the resources to be allocated, OPI and OCI identified, and projected timelines for all corporate activities. To execute this plan, the OCCOE management team will ensure that a minimum of 20% of staff time is spent on corporate activities, until performance measurements are established with Benchmarking exercise (reference 1.2 for more details).

1.2 Operational Activity Action Plan:
Phase 1 – Operational plans with clear objectives, activities and outputs will be produced for each advisor, and will include the priorities as set and agreed to by Sector/Agency Heads and advisors (reference 2 below).

Phase 2 – In order to determine quantitative indicators to determine expected outputs per advisor, a Benchmarking exercise will be performed. The Performance Measurement for the Human Resources Function: A Discussion Paper (Edition #2) – 2008, discusses a number of measurement approaches/ methodologies that might be used in human resources field, such as the Benchmarking approach. The latter is described as a twelve step process that allows for the analysis of current practices, the collection of internal and external data, and the identification of gaps (see 8 below for details). This approach will be used by the OCCOE in 2010/2011, to research and collect information to establish quantitative indicators to measure actual performance for application as they are developed and confirmed, and for full implementation to the 2011/2012 Corporate Activity Action Plan and future Operational Activity Action Plan. Furthermore, this initiative will support the implementation of the Human Resources Common Business Process in the department (reference 3 below for additional information).

1.3 A new Classification Tracking System (developed by the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer (OCHRO) based on the Human Resources Common Business Process) is being piloted by DFO, in collaboration the OCHRO before further implementation in the core public service. Once operational, it is expected to facilitate the tracking of activities and the measurement of performance relative to current service standards.  Its limitations will be identified during the testing phase in September and October. Mitigation strategies have been discussed internally with the group presently supporting the Organization and Classification Tracking and Reporting System (out-dated tracking system) as well as with OCHRO. Dependencies:  OCHRO- TBS for sustainment and interdepartmental governance to be established.

 

 

 

1.1 September 2010 – Draft Corporate Activity Action Plan will be shared with DMC HR Sub-committee -  October 5, 2010; and final 2011/2012  Corporate Activity Action Plan will be shared  January 11, 2011; recommendations on performance measurement suite will be presented to DMC HR Sub-committee in  September 2011.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


1.2 Phase 1 – October 31, 2010

 

 

 

 


Phase 2 - September 2011 - Operational Activity Action Plans to be presented to DG, HR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.3 December 31, 2010

2. The Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources and Corporate Services and the Director General, Human Resources, should oversee and support Sector/Agency Heads, as functional authorities responsible for determining classification priorities, in implementing a formal process for determining classification priorities within their area, including consultation and communication with their managers.

2.1  In response to this recommendation and 1 above on activity planning, the OCCOE will reinstate the formality around the planning of classification activities that can be supported by OCCOE capacity, and priority setting by Sector/Agency Heads. To do so:

   a) a presentation to the DMC –HR will be made by the DG HR in January 2011;

   b) the DG HR and the Director, OCCOE will meet quarterly with Sector/Agency Heads to discuss and confirm priorities, timelines and resources assigned for next quarters in order to meet Sector/Agency Head priorities;

   c) the OCCOE National Team Leaders will attend monthly Sector/Agency Head management committee meetings and provide progress reports, identify issues and risks, which could include the changes in priorities. The following will also form part of the discussions:
- the OCCOE requirements in priority setting;
- proposed roles and responsibilities;
- current  best practices in setting priorities;
- how to best communicate, to other levels of management, the priority setting process and which priorities have been set.

 

 

December 31, 2010

 

 

 

 

 

 

a) Presentation to DMC-HR Sub-committee - January 11/11

b) Next round of meetings with Sector/Agency Heads – November  30, 2010

 

 

c) Monthly

3. The Director, OCCOE should undertake to further streamline the classification process in order to find efficiencies and decrease the time it takes to classify positions.

3.1 Further to a Public Service Management Advisory Committee decision, all core public service departments have to implement the Human Resources Common Business Process by 2013/2014. As work is undertaken in 1.2 (i.e. Benchmarking exercise), processes will be mapped and streamlining possibilities and gaps identified with the target of identifying a 10% reduction in time and effort which will be adjusted as benchmarking/ efficiencies are identified and implemented. Plans will be developed to address deficiencies and gaps.  In doing so, among other things,

  1. the OCCOE will identify more efficient means of using technology in the handling of requests and documents and defining and developing the business requirements. Dependency for implementation: existing department technology and available resources to adjust or introduce new tools;
  2. to meet the program’s business requirements and for efficient processing by the OCCOE, the OCCOE will update the checklist on intranet and make it a mandatory attachment to documentation submitted for fast-track and sub-delegated action requests.

3.2 In the meantime, OCCOE will update, at year end, the DFO data in Table 1 of the report for comparative purposes.

3.3 As part of increasing efficiencies, the new Classification Tracking System will facilitate the identification and monitoring of the various components of the overall organization and classification process and facilitate reporting. (Reference is made to 1.3 re: Dependency.)

 

 

3.1 & 3.2  June 30, 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.3 December 31, 2010

4. The OCCOE should develop a strategy to coordinate and support Departmental Management Committee members' efforts to ensure that their managers pursue and exercise their delegated authority, and the development and implementation of model work descriptions in order to achieve the departmental goal of having 80 percent of positions covered by models.

4.1 The OCCOE will update the existing strategy and present to DMC members on January 11, 2011. The presentation will demonstrate progress made and confirm actions/process described in 2 above (establishing classification priorities by Sector/Agency). This will support Sector/Agency Heads in the establishment of priorities and in their implementation.

 

 

 

4.2 OCCOE will further support senior management:

  • through classification actions as per confirmed priorities,
  • by working with Sector/Agency Heads when issues are identified
  • by regular reporting on status of model work descriptions implementation, and
  • by presenting resourcing strategies to supplement OCCOE capacity if and when increased volume is required by Sector/Agency Heads..

 

4.3 To provide formality and rigour to the objective of 80 percent of positions covered by models, the DG  HR will develop a mandatory commitment on this departmental objective to be inserted in the Performance Management Agreement (PMA) during the 2010/2011 mid-year review and that it be maintained in the annual PMAs until the objective is met. Sector/Agency Heads will set annual targets in the 2010/2011 PMAs establishing the percentage of positions in their organization to be covered by national model work descriptions in the fiscal year. In turn, and as stated above, the OCCOE will engage to meet regularly with management committees to establish priorities and to meet the established commitments agreed upon with the management teams, by reinforcing the standard model organizations and the use of national model work descriptions.

The OCCOE will continue to work with DMC members in the development of plans and the establishment of Service Level Agreements for the organization and classification services related to the development of planned models, as well as provide on-going related support, training (see point 7.2), advice and tools.

As management proposes models for the standard organizations, the OCCOE will continue to look for opportunities to leverage the number of models developed by recommending the grouping of similar jobs.

To support managers in the exercise of their sub-delegation, training and e-tools will continue to be updated, developed and communicated.

 

4.1 Presentation to DMC HR Sub-committee meeting – January 11, 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

4.2
Ongoing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.3 DMC HR Sub- committee meeting on October 5, 2010

 

 

 

5. The Director, OCCOE should improve information management including the management of classification files through the use of information technology.

5.1 As part of the response to recommendation 3 related to streamlining, the OCCOE will undertake an initial assessment of current documentation and the possible e-solutions to elaborate options which could address classification file management.  The options will be evaluated to determine the need to develop a work plan to address internally, if some options are cost neutral, or to develop a business case to further an initiative.   

Model work descriptions and organization charts already exist on the departmental intranet site which facilitates the use and exchange of documents during the classification process.

In addition, the OCCOE maintains a shared drive for its own purpose which also provides the staff access to common information, files and resources. 

Work has already been initiated in the development of an electronic repository of non-model work descriptions and in the consolidation of position files in Ottawa (e.g. for the Information Management & Technology Services organization).

 

5.1 Initial Assessment by June 30, 2011

Evaluation of options and decision - September 30, 2011

6. The OCCOE should ensure that responsibility center managers are reminded of their responsibility to review and update the work descriptions in their area of responsibility by providing them with a list of those that are up for cyclical review.

6.1 To facilitate the Departmental Management Committee members’ of review and update of work descriptions, the OCCOE will develop and produce annual reports on positions and models coming up for cyclical review and communicate same to Sector/Agency Heads. Messaging on same, including the roles and responsibilities, will be developed to accompany reports.

6.1 Ad hoc reports are presently available.

 

6.1 March 31, 2011

 

7. The Director, OCCOE should update the DFO Organization and Classification Policy, establish service standards for all classification processes and continue to offer training and opportunities for departmental management to participate in classification committees in order to ensure the process is clearly understood and to manage client expectations.

 

 

7.1 An evaluation of the work to be done on the policy suite for its update will be performed to ensure the suite properly reflects current departmental decisions and practices. An action plan, as well as a communications plan, will be developed for implementation, which will include posting finalized documents on the intranet.

 

 

7.2 The OCCOE is establishing a plan for the delivery of training sessions in 2010/2011 and 2011/2012. The plan will be shared with DMC HR Sub-committee on October 5, 2010.

7.3  The OCCOE will continue to actively invite managers to participate in classification committees. Furthermore, the OCCOE will develop a report on managers’ participation in training sessions and in classification committees and share it with Sector/Agency Heads.

The OCCOE will continue to actively invite the engagement and participation of managers with sub delegation classification authority to participate in classification committees. Participation to classification committees will be reported on by the OCCOE (refer to 7.3).

 

7.1 Evaluation of the work and an action plan will be developed by March 2011, for full implementation by March 2012.

 

 

 

 

 


 

7.2 Presentation to DMC HR Sub-committee on October 5, 2010

 

 

 

7.3 Report by June 30, 2011 for 2010/2011 fiscal year

8. The Director, OCCOE should undertake to improve the productivity level by establishing service standards for all classification transactions.  This should be supported by two measures: transactions per advisor, and the time necessary to complete a classification transaction.

8.1 As described above in 1.2 (identification of quantitative indicators through benchmarking exercise) and 3.1 (identification of streamlining opportunities), the OCCOE will perform a benchmarking exercise with the objective of identifying a 10% reduction in time and effort.  The exercise will include the generic steps, as described in the Performance Measurement for the Human Resources Function: A Discussion Paper (Edition #2). These steps are the following:

a) identify a business practice, work process or result to be improved;
b) analyze the practice, flow-chart process, identify results indicators;
c) measure own performance;
d) identify benchmarking partners (external);
e) determine data collection methods;
f) collect data;
g) determine performance gap;
h) project future performance which includes service standards and performance measures;
i) develop action plan;
j) implementation action plan;
k) monitor results;
l) recalibrate benchmarks (repeat process).

Also, and as stated in 3.2, in the meantime, OCCOE will update at year end, the DFO data in Table 1 of the report for comparative purposes in June 2011.

Service Agreements and the establishment of priorities with Sector/Agency Heads will continue to be the norm for the development of models.

Furthermore, service agreements were streamlined in 2009-10.

 

 

8.1 August 31, 2011

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9. The Director, OCCOE should monitor productivity against service standards, measure client satisfaction and address any fluctuations. 

9.1 The new Classification Tracking System is expected to produce reports that would allow the monitoring of classification activities. The new system will be implemented by December 2010. Reference is made to 3.1 re: dependency.

9.2 In 2010, the OCCOE will further research and analyze ways of how to best measure client satisfaction and consult with management on these for identification of the best options for its implementation.

 

 

9.1 June 2011 for fiscal year 2011-12

 

 

 

 

 

9.2 Research and analysis September 30, 2011
and
Implementation March 31,  2012.

10. The Director, OCCOE should complete annually, all monitoring activities described in the Monitoring Action Plan to assess the integrity of the DFO OCCOE Program.

 

10.1 The OCCOE will establish the annual monitoring plan exercise and identify resources to be assigned to specific monitoring activities as per resource envelope.

 

 

Monitoring framework developed and on OCCOE website.

2010/2011 Monitoring Plan developed and resources assigned.

Monitoring activities scheduled and are underway for this fiscal year.

2009-2010 monitoring completed against the highest risk processes from 2008-09 and a report submitted to the DG HR in the first quarter of 2010-11. The report concluded that classification actions being addressed during the course of 2008-09 were well supported, if not well documented. Corrective measures had already been undertaken by the OCCOE to address various discrepancies. The report also identified a need for the review of a larger sample of Fast-track activities during 2010-11, more specifically the changes in reporting relationship. This is being addressed in the present monitoring exercise

 

Plan has been developed

10.1 March 31, 2011

 

 

 

 

11. The Director, OCCOE should monitor performance on an ongoing basis and prepare regular internal departmental reports on the management and administration of the classification system.

 

11.1 As per the TBS requirements, an Annual Organization and Classification Performance Monitoring Report will be prepared and submitted to the Deputy Head in the third quarter of 2010.

11.2 Input is provided to the Health of HR report.

This will be supported by on-going quarterly reporting to the Departmental Management Committee.


2009/2010 fourth quarter was distributed to DMC members in April 2010.

 

 

11.1
December 31, 2010

 

 

 

11.2
September 30, 2010

 

   Appendix A – DFO FRAMEWORK FOR CLASSIFICATION

   Appendix B – BENCHMARKING STUDY HIGHLIGHTS

An interdepartmental benchmarking study was undertaken to address the question of how DFO’s classification function compares to others with respect to performance, timeliness, resourcing, monitoring and departmental approach to classification.  Eleven classification organizations (both Treasury Board employed and other employers) were invited to voluntarily participate in this benchmarking study.  The selection of organizations invited to participate included classification organizations with similar organizational structures to DFO.  They were either largely science-based, highly operational and/or decentralized organization.  The results of this study are only reflective of those participating organizations and do not represent any population (i.e., all government classification organizations).

Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected.  The following is a list of highlights from the analysis of this data.  Figures for comparison can be found in Table 1 on the next page.  It should be noted that these are not to be interpreted as a comment on staff capacity within Organization and Classification but rather, a series of comparative information that can be addressed by the recommendations of this report.

  • Classification client groups in DFO are equal to approximately 729 positions per classification advisor.  The average for other participating classification organizations is 804 positions per advisor.

  • Classification transactions per position, indicates the equivalent number of classification transactions performed for each position in the organization.  This indicates the volume of classification transactions relative to the number of positions within an organization, or the coverage of classification activities in relation to the number of positions.  DFO performs 0.24 transactions per position, whereas the average for the other participating classifications is nearly double, at 0.45 transactions per position.  A similar statistic arises when the number of transactions performed is expressed as a function of the number of classification advisor positions.  Each DFO incumbent advisor executed an average of 175 transactions in 2008/09 compared to the average of 379 transactions per incumbent advisor in other participating classification organizations.  These statistics indicate that the DFO classification function processes a lower volume of classification transactions relative to their population and therefore classification advisors whose client group sizes are only slightly smaller than average are processing, on average, fewer classification transactions than their colleagues in other classification organizations.    
  • Positions covered by generic work descriptions is a percentage that indicates how many positions in the organization are covered by a generic work description, or in the case of DFO, National Model Work Descriptions.  As of March 31, 2009, DFO reported 29% coverage of total positions to be covered by National Model Work Descriptions.  This is similar to the average for other classification organizations of 30%.  It should be noted that what other participating classification organizations consider to constitute a generic work description varied quite significantly. 

  • Classification Expenditures per position indicates the 2008/09 cost of managing the classification of each position within the organization.  In 2008/09, DFO spent a total of $131 in Salary and Operations and Maintenance funds per position compared to the average of $120 for the other participating classification organizations.  Just in salary, DFO spent $127 per position, compared to an average of $110. 

Top of page

Table 1: Summary of Benchmarking Results

08/09

DFO

Average
12

Dept A

Dept B

Dept C

Dept D

Positions Encumbered

74%

64%

69%

57%

69%

63%

Classification Advisor
Positions (encumbered)

80%

98%

94%

100%

100%

100%

Positions per Advisor Position

583

796

488

863

785

1049

Positions per
Advisor (encumbered)

729

804

520

863

785

1049

Positions Covered by
Generic Work Descriptions

29%

30%

10%

54%

40%

15%

Classification Transactions
per Position

0.24

0.45

0.26

0.43

0.56

0.55

Classification Transactions
per Advisor Position

140

377

125

367

438

577

Classification Transactions
per Advisor (encumbered)

175

379

133

367

438

577

Classification Expenditure
per Position

$131

$120

$172

$59

$150

$98

Classification Salary Expenditure per Position

$127

$110

$165

$50

$137

$87

Classification Advisor
Turnover Rate

33%

18%

31%

25%

15%

0%


1Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Classification monitoring framework, 2004-05.

2 Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2009-2012 Multi-year Risk-based Audit Plan, March 30, 2009, p. 9.

3 Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2008 Corporate Risk Profile, April 29, 2009, p. 29.

4 Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2009-2012 Multi-year Risk-based Audit Plan, March 30, 2009, p. 9.

5 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Classification monitoring framework, 2004-05.

6 http://intra.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/hr-rh/class/occoe-ceoc-eng.asp

7 Formally, the Canadian Public Service Agency (CPSA)

8 Exceeds the sum of 29 and 15 percent due to rounding.

9  Treasury Board Secretariat,  Directive on Information Management Roles and Responsibilities,  October 8, 2007

10 Human Resources Council and Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.  Performance Measurement for the Human Resources Function, modified January 1st, 2001

11 Treasury Board Secretariat, Policy on Classification System and Delegation of Authority, modified  July 23, 2007

12 Average of Departments A through D