Part One: Concepts

Guidance on Governance,
Accountability, and
Performance Measurement
for the Management of
Information in Small Agencies

Part One: Concepts

Table of Contents

Preface

1. Introduction

2. Accountability, Performance Measurement, and Governance

3. The Management of Information: Concepts

4. The Small Agency Context and Information Management

Appendix A: List of Consultation Group Members

List of Key Contacts and Interviewees

Appendix B: Definitions

Footnotes

Part One: Concepts

Preface

The Government of Canada is in the information business. Everything it does from the processing of applications for licenses and benefits, to the development of policies, to the collection of revenue, to the preparation of briefing notes, to the management of human, financial, and other resources is dependent upon information. Information is the fuel that drives government programs and services and enables the Government to account for its decisions and actions.

Similar to larger government institutions, small agencies require high quality information that can be trusted (i.e. it is authentic, reliable, accurate, complete, timely, secure, and relevant). It must also be available, accessible and usablefor as long as the information has value. These quality attributes can only be attained if an infrastructure of policies, standards and practices, systems and enabling technologies, and people is in place. And a high quality, relevant infrastructure can only be established if accountability for the management of information has been assigned and an effective governance structure is in place.

Unlike larger departments, however, small agencies have specific needs with respect to the development of accountability frameworks and governance structures for the management of information. The purpose of the guidance is to help small agencies establish the kinds of accountability frameworks and governance structures that are relevant to their situation while being positioned within the broader context of the Government of Canada.

Part One of this guidance is a background document that was prepared to explain important concepts that underpin the guidance provided in Part Two. Part One provides an overview of the government's approach to governance and accountability, explains important concepts pertaining to the management of information, describes the small agency context, and presents a set of conclusions that address the implications for small agencies in establishing relevant and effective accountability frameworks and governance structures.

Part Two is the guidance itself. It is based on a decision tree that has been designed to help a small agency walk through the steps required to both analyze the existing accountability and governance situation and develop an accountability framework and governance structure that is relevant and effective. Templates and models are provided to facilitate the development of appropriate accountability frameworks and governance structures.

The guidance is far from being definitive. On the one hand, the Government's approach to governance and accountability is evolving rapidly. On the other hand, new business-oriented perspectives on what it means to manage information are leading to new ways of thinking regarding everything from information policy to the future positioning of information disciplines such as records management, library services, and Web content management. In effect, the guidance is trying to hit a moving target. As a result, while it accounts for current developments and addresses the current needs of small agencies, the guidance should be considered as a work-in-progress. Over time, and as small agencies gain experience in using the guidance within the context of what is in effect a rapidly changing environment, the guidance should be reviewed periodically and updated to ensure that it remains relevant and effective.

The development of the guidance benefited from the contributions of officials representing a wide range of small agencies. The members of the Consultation Group established for this initiative were also generous with their time and contributions. The experiences of other departments were also drawn upon as were the views of central agency officials involved in accountability and governance. The authors of this guidance are grateful for their support and commitment.

For addition information on the guidance, please contact:

Government Information Management Office
Library and Archives Canada
550 Place de la Cité
Gatineau Québec
Canada
K1A 0N4

Tel: 819-934-7519
Email: IMGI@lac-bac.gc.ca

Part One: Concepts

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

By definition, a Small Agency has less than 1000 full-time employees (FTEs). An April 2004 review of the community identified 60 different organizations in this category. In reality, however, approximately 50% of the group is composed of agencies with less than 100 FTEs.

Small agencies, similar to any organization in the Government of Canada, are information intensive organizations. All of the outputs of their programs and services – from the results of appeals, investigations and research, to the delivery of cheques and licenses, to the development of briefing notes and policies, to content placed on the Web – and all of the products generated as a result of the transactions leading to these outputs, are in the form of information. Information is the fuel that drives small agency programs. It also underpins the ability of small agencies to respect the accountability requirements of various laws and policies.

Similar to most organizations in the Government, small agencies are becoming concerned about the quality and integrity of the information they require to support their operations. Some of the challenges facing small agencies are as follows:

• The growing need for high quality, 24/7, location-independent information that can be trusted.
• The challenges in responding to the information requirements of complex horizontal initiatives spanning multiple programs, agencies, and jurisdictions.
• The need to respond to modern comptrollership and public service modernization requirements.
• The need to respond to legislation (e.g. Library and Archives Canada Act) and policy (e.g. TBS Policy on the Management of Government Information).
• The increased attention being paid to management and government accountability as a result of the Management Accountability Framework, the reports of the Gomery Commission, the Information Commissioner, etc.
• The increased costs being incurred in coping with large volumes of unmanaged information (e.g. email).
• The challenge of managing the loss of corporate memory as staff retires.
• The need to meet the expectations of a new generation of technology-literate workers who will assume that high quality, complete, accurate, and relevant information will be available to them when and as required, in the right format, and in a location and at a time of their choosing.

Government departments and agencies regardless of their size are facing these challenges. For small agencies, however, several distinct factors influence directly their ability to respond to the challenges:

• The absence of understanding about what the management of information means in a small agency context and how it should be positioned to support the program objectives of small agencies.
• The absence of resources dedicated to the management of information.
• The lack of capacity of staff that are already fulfilling multiple roles.
• The diversity across the small agency community, which inhibits the development of standards and models.
• The time and scope limitations reflected in some small agency mandates, which constrain their ability to undertake what might be perceived to be extra work.

One of the most significant factors is the applicability of standards, models and tools developed in large departments. While all agencies, regardless of their size, are required to respond to government-wide requirements such as those imposed by TBS policies, modern comptrollership, etc., it does not follow that the implementation strategies, methods and tools developed by central agencies and departments will be capable of being applied equally across all organizations. One size does not fit all.

The Small Agency Strategy (SAS) was established as a response to this concern. Funded through the TBS 'Management of Government Information (MGI)' fund and led by Library and Archives Canada (LAC) on behalf of the small agency community, the SAS initiative has become a focal point for the development of strategies and solutions for the management of information in the small agency context.

One of the seven projects established under the SAS is the 'Leadership, Governance, and Accountability' Project. This project was designed to respond to the need by small agencies for guidance in establishing effective and relevant accountability frameworks, governance structures, and performance measures for the management of information. On the one hand, they must be in line with and supportive of policies, models and guides being developed by central and lead agencies (e.g. TBS, LAC, and PWGSC) and on the other hand, they must be situated within the governance structures and accountability frameworks established for the management of small agency programs and activities.

1.2 Objectives

The goal of the IM Governance and Accountability Project that concluded in March 2006 was to:

• Identify and develop model accountability frameworks, performance measures, and governance structures for the management of information that can be used in small agencies of varying sizes.
• Provide guidance designed to help small agencies implement the accountability frameworks, performance measures, and governance structures for the management of information.
• Provide recommendations on how the accountability frameworks, performance measures, and governance structures for the management of information, and the supporting guidance, should be rolled out across the network of small agencies.

1.3 Methodology

The project was launched in November 2005. Library and Archives Canada sponsored a consultant to lead the project and identified individuals from across the small agency community who had expressed an interest in participating in the project. These individuals, together with representatives from the LAC and TBS, were brought together into a Consultation Group (CG)^[1], which met in a workshop format on November 24, 2005. The results of the workshop led to the identification of the key issues and helped to inform the structure and content of the Guidance.

Complementing the results of the workshop was information gained through interviews and research. Key contacts from across the small agency community were interviewed either over the phone or in person. Some contacts had been identified as leaders in the development and implementation of accountability frameworks, performance measures, and governance structures for the management of information while others had been involved in adapting central agency requirements in their organizations.

Officials at Treasury Board Secretariat, Library and Archives Canada, and several large departments were also interviewed to acquire information on topics including: the applicability of work underway in large departments on accountability frameworks, performance measures, and governance structures; the development of a Management Accountability Framework (MAF) for the management of information; the implications of audit and evaluation policies; the future direction of information policy; and, the potential impact of related initiatives such as those being led by TBS, LAC, and PWGSC, as well as those underway through the Small Agency Strategy.

A draft detailed outline (including draft segments of the Guidance) was presented to the Consultation Group and discussed at a workshop held on February 15, 2006. The results of that workshop and subsequent interviews and discussions with CG members led to a draft of the Guidance that was reviewed by the CG, TBS, LAC, and selected departments and small agencies. Field trials were also conducted in a selected number of small agencies. The final draft of the Guidance, together with recommendations on how the Guidance should be rolled out to the small agency community, was produced at the end of March 2006.

1.4 Organization of the Guidance

The Guidance is divided into two parts.

Part One of this guidance is a background document that was prepared to explain important concepts that underpin the guidance provided in Part Two. It contains four sections. The first three sections provide context for the fourth section. The first of the three sections is the introduction to the Guidance. The second section describes the government-wide context within which accountability frameworks, performance measures, and governance structures for the management of information must be situated. The third section describes basic concepts associated with the management of information. The fourth section describes the small agency context (i.e. why small agency requirements are so distinct from those of large departments) and describes the implications of the points raised in the previous sections for how small agencies can develop accountability frameworks and governance structures for the management of information that are relevant to their needs.

Part Two is the guidance itself (available separately). It is based on a decision tree that has been designed to help a small agency walk through the steps required to both analyze the existing accountability, performance measurement and governance situation and develop an accountability framework, performance system and governance structure that are relevant and effective. Templates and models are provided to facilitate the development of appropriate structures.

The Guidance is not intended to be a detailed 'procedures manual'. Rather, it provides a framework, supported by templates and models that can be used to guide decisions on the kind of accountability frameworks, performance measures, and governance structures that will best meet the needs of the diverse types and sizes of organizations that comprise the small agency community. By providing a systematic way of setting direction and through the adaptation of the information found in the templates and models, the Guidance can be used to 'jump start' the design and development process. The goal is not to provide an endless list of accountability and governance options covering all types and sizes of small agencies. The goal is to help small agencies guide themselves to the kind of overall framework of accountability and governance that will help them ensure that information is managed as a strategic and integral component of program and service delivery, accountability, and the achievement of their strategic plans and priorities.

For more information about the Guidance and its use in small agencies, please contact:

Government Information Management Office
Library and Archives Canada
550, Place de la Cité
Gatineau Québec
Canada
K1A 0N4

Tel: (819) 934-7519
Email: IMGI@lac-bac.gc.ca

2. Accountability, Performance Measurement, and Governance

2.1 Introduction

The Government of Canada is changing the way it works, the way it accounts to Canadians, and the way it serves them. These changes are forging a culture of management improvement rooted in accountability, responsiveness, and innovation. These same values are what Canadians deserve and expect from their government. There are varieties of documents that contribute to the government's strategy to meet those expectations and become a world-class public service. These directions directly reflect approaches to governance, accountability and performance measurement and are significant in that they affect both the department/agency level and whole of government, horizontal initiatives. They also emphasize enterprise approaches and enterprise information for effective program delivery.

The Government of Canada is renewing itself in many areas and departments/agencies, including small agencies, are required to adopt new management models for accountability, governance and performance measures to respond to these changes. The following documents are those primarily related to current government directions that have a direct or indirect impact on governance, accountability and performance measurement for all government institutions.

• Management, Resources and Results Structure (MRRS) Policy, that includes Strategic Outcomes, the Program Activity Architecture (PAA) and governance of institutions.
• Management in the Government of Canada: A Commitment to Continuous Improvement.
• Results for Canadians: A Management Framework for the Government of Canada.
• Management Accountability Framework.
• Strengthening Public Sector Management: An Overview of the Government Action Plan and Key Initiatives.
• Guidance for Deputy Ministers.
• Governing Responsibility: A Guide for Ministers and Ministers of State.
• Ethics, Responsibility, Accountability: An Action Plan for Democratic Reform.
• The Financial Administration Act: Responding to Non-compliance.

The following sections briefly describe the key themes resulting from these documents that relate to governance, accountability and performance indicators.

2.2 Management Improvement Agenda

The management improvement agenda submitted by the President of the Treasury Board in October 2005 focuses on three main areas:

• Accountable government strengthens mechanisms for transparency and forthright, descriptive reporting. These efforts improve policy development and help the government take timely decisions and account to Parliament and to Canadians in meaningful ways on the results it achieves with public expenditures.
• Responsive government means providing better service for Canadians and efficient internal operations, resulting in better outcomes that align with Canadians' values and expectations through more coherent action across government.
• Innovative governmenthas the people, processes, systems, and information it needs to be more effective, so that it can identify priorities, particularly in areas of horizontal programs, and invest in them to improve results.

Through its agenda for management improvement, the Government of Canada is:

• Strengthening governance regimes that embrace individual accountability and increase transparency.
• Taking responsible risks with the backing of sound control systems.
• Providing services that are responsive to the needs of Canadians, rather than organizational demands.
• Upholding professional public service values and standards of conduct by rewarding good performance and addressing mismanagement in a decisive and fair manner.
• Pursuing non-partisan public service excellence, through respect for public service employees and support for their learning and development.
• Ensuring that reliable, comparable performance information guides decisions and drives continuous improvement and resource allocation.

2.3 Management, Resources and Results Structure (MRRS) Policy

The MRRS Policy replaces the Planning, Reporting, and Accountability Structure policy framework implemented in 1996 and became effective April 1^st, 2005.^[2] The goal of the MRRS is to strengthen the reliability and credibility of informationupon which to base decisions, achieve value from spending, and support financial accountability. The government introduced the Management, Resources, and Results Structure Policyto develop a common, government-wide means of relating spending to results achieved that will enable it to make better comparisons across programs and of their effectiveness (see http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/dcgpubs/mrrsp-psgrr/mrrsp-psgrr_e.asp).

The MRRS is an inventory of and information on specific departmental programs. It includes financial, results and other information necessary to analyze specific programs and make decisions on these programs (e.g. where the Management Accountability Framework questions whether an institution has an effective evaluation function, MRRS asks for the most recent evaluation report on a program). The MRRS uses MAF to assist in implementing certain elements, and the intention in the future is that MRRS program information should include most MAF indicators (e.g. the employment equity status of a program activity).

The Management, Resources and Results Structure has the following three elements:

1. Clearly defined and measurable Strategic Outcomes that:
   1. Reflect the organization's mandate and vision and are linked to the government's priorities and intended results; and
   2. Provide the basis for establishing horizontal linkages between departments with similar or natural groupings of strategic outcomes.
2. A Program Activity Architecture (PAA) that is articulated at a sufficient level of materiality to reflect how a department allocates and manages the resources under its control to achieve intended results and that:
   1. Groups related program activities and links them logically to the Strategic Outcomes they support;
   2. Provides the framework by which planned resource allocations are linked to each activity at all levels and against which financial results are reported;
   3. Provides the framework by which expected results and performance measures are linked to each activity at all levels and against which actual results are reported;
   4. Provides the framework within which those responsible for activities at each level can commit to the results they intend to achieve with the resources they have been allocated and against which they can render account inside and outside the department;
   5. Establishes the structure for the Estimates, Public Accounts, and parliamentary reporting;
   6. Serves as the basis for resource allocation by Parliament, the Treasury Board, and departmental management; and
   7. Forms the foundation for constructing any horizontal program activity architectures involving more than one department.
3. A description of the current governance structure that outlines the decision-making mechanisms, responsibilities, and accountabilities of the department. Although MRRS is in its early stages, accomplishments to date include the establishment of Program Activity Architectures for 118 appropriated organizations (2005-06) and another 65 modified for 2006-07. There have been horizontal tagging efforts (i.e., Climate Change, Aboriginal, PSAT, International, etc.) for 2004-05 and on-going work on various horizontal frameworks (aboriginal, oceans, cities/communities, international, and science/technology).

2.4 Management Accountability Framework (MAF)

Introduced in 2003, MAF summarizes the government's expectations of deputy ministerial leadership in all areas of management-from financial to people management, from assigning accountabilities to reporting results. The MAF has matured through two cycles of departmental assessments and has evolved into a comprehensive framework of analysis requiring demonstrable proof from departments of their satisfactory performance against 40 indicators and 150 measures of management practice.

MAF is a framework of global corporate management, operationalized by TBS with assessments of 41 indicators for large departments and 23 indicators for Small Agencies. MAF attempts to ensure the department as an organization has the necessary practices, people and systems in place to facilitate development and management of programs.

The MAF assessment process has become a formal and large part of the annual government-wide planning and reporting cycle. Each year, all large departments and half of all small agencies undergo a Treasury Board assessment - nearly 70 organizations every round - against all MAF indicators^[3]. Priorities identified for immediate action are to become part of a deputy minister's performance agreement with the clerk each year. The third cycle of MAF assessments will be completed in January 2006 and findings will inform public and parliamentary reporting on the state of public service management in 2006.

The government is strengthening MAF as the basis of renewed oversight on the part of the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. MAF assessments will eventually inform Treasury Board decisions to reallocate resources government-wide.As year-over-year information grows, MAF should make it easier for ministers, parliamentarians, and Canadians to assess whether and how public service management practice is improving.

Through MAF, among other things, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat monitors institutional compliance with Treasury Board policies and decisions and the Board will, where appropriate, grant increased flexibility to departments and agencies that demonstrate exemplary management practices in the use of their authorities. Equally important, based on these assessments, the Treasury Board will reinforce its measures and take consistent and definitive action in cases of mismanagement (e.g. requiring audits and evaluations, constraining authorities, freezing allotments of resources, and so on).

3. The Management of Information: Concepts

3.1 Introduction

This section provides an overview of basic concepts associated with the management of information. It is based on the premise that accountability frameworks and governance structures cannot be implemented unless one first knows what it is that one is governing and being held accountable for.

3.2 The Concepts

Information is the fuel that drives program and service delivery, supports analysis, consultation, collaboration, and decision­-making, and enables agencies to hold themselves accountable for the actions they have taken. The quality and integrity of information are crucial to the success of the diverse mandates reflected in the community of small agencies. To be useful, the information required to support small agency programs and services must have "integrity" (i.e., be authentic, reliable, accurate, complete, timely, secure, and relevant). It must also be available, accessible and usablefor as long as the information has value. The management of information (MI) comprises the range of activities that ensure that the above characteristics are in place. These activities must be supported by an effective infrastructure of information-centred policies, standards and practices, systems and enabling technologies, and people. Also required are wide awareness and understanding of the value of information and clearly articulated accountability and governance arrangements.

In establishing effective and relevant governance structures and accountability frameworks, it is important to understand what is being governed and for what people are being held accountable. The following concepts are designed to provide the context required in order to enable effective decisions to be made concerning the nature and shape of the accountability frameworks and governance structures small agencies need to establish for the management of information.

The table below sets out the kinds of activities that are typically carried out to support the management of information on the one hand and information management on the other.

• Information Management (IM) is a discipline that directs and supports effective and efficient management of information in an organization from planning and systems development to disposal and/or long-term preservation.
• Management of Information (MI) is an element of every job function in the GoC that has to do with treating the information used or produced in the course of performing the job duties as a strategic business resource and in line with legal and policy requirements.

The distinctions between these two concepts are important because they not only frame the activities related to both they also suggest where accountability should be assigned. Together, they offer a comprehensive view of the application of the management of information to the business of an agency as well as the development and maintenance of the IM program itself (see table 1 below):

The concepts associated with the 'management of information' and 'information management' are based on the business process (see figure 1). A business process comprises a set of related tasks that generate an information product (e.g. license, cheque, report, etc.) that could be recorded on paper, electronically, etc. The tasks themselves also generate information products (i.e. drafts of reports, notifications, application review reports, approval notices, etc.). The business process supports the requirements of a given government program or activity that is managed by accountable individuals located inside an enterprise (i.e. an organizational entity such as a division, branch, or the agency as a whole). The basic relationship among the business process (or workflow), the information product, the program, the enterprise and the enabling policy and mandate is a constant regardless of the type of program or service being delivered.

Figure 1: The business process

Those participating in the process (i.e. staff, partners, clients, etc.) want seamless access to information and they want that information to be authentic, reliable, accurate, complete, timely, secure, available, understandable, usable, and relevant. They also expect that a trusted environment is in place (ideally transparent) within which the following information activities can be carried out:

• "Create": activities done to manifest information objects (i.e. bring them into existence) to support decision making and program delivery. These activities include: create, generate, collect, receive, etc.
• "Use": activities done with information objects to support decision making, program delivery, and to meet legal and accountability requirements. These activities include: transmit, exchange, access, retrieve, disseminate, share, exploit, etc.
• "Preserve": activities done to information objects to ensure they are authentic, reliable, available, usable, and understandable for as long as required to support decision making, program delivery, and to meet legal and accountability requirements. These activities include: organize, describe, classify, retain, protect, store, migrate, dispose, etc.

These activities and the trusted environment itself are supported by:

• An infrastructure of:
  • Policies and business rules,
  • Standards and practices,
  • Systems and enabling technologies, and
  • Qualified People.
• A set of services:
  • Knowledge Facilitation Services comprise the activities undertaken to ensure that users (staff, clients, partners, stakeholders) are provided with the information they require to make decisions and otherwise carry out their program responsibilities.
  • Architecture Services comprise the activities undertaken to identify user requirements (at the individual, group and corporate levels) and to design the high level architecture reflecting the combination of policies and business rules, standards and practices, systems and enabling technologies, and qualified people that comprise the infrastructure.
  • Infrastructure Services comprise the activities undertaken to ensure that the components of the infrastructure (policies and business rules, standards and practices, systems and enabling technologies, and qualified people) are developed and implemented in accordance with the architecture.

The characteristics of the services will vary according to the nature of the program and is supporting business processes(even when the processes may not be well defined).

Figure 2: The business process supported by services for the management of information

For an individual self-contained program the components of the infrastructure and the services are often integrated within the infrastructure and services supporting the program and its supporting business process. In other words, the program itself manages the infrastructure and services. There is no need for a separate 'information management' program.

Theoretically, each program could support its own infrastructure and services (i.e. tailored to support the specific needs of the program). For a number of reasons, however, it may be determined that some or all of the infrastructure and services should exist at the level of the enterprise (see figure 3). The rationale for consolidating some or all of the components of the infrastructure and some or all of the information services into an IM Program could include the following:

• Horizontal information requirements (i.e. transcending multiple programs) such as those imposed by central agencies, or those supporting overall management of the agency.
• Legal obligations that can only be met at the level of the enterprise (e.g. signing off on records retention and disposition schedules pursuant to the Library and Archives Act, or on responses to formal requests made under the Access to Information Act).
• Economies of scale achieved through the consolidation of similar activities performed within individual programs (e.g. consolidation of the activities involved in capturing and maintaining records into a single records management function managed by the enterprise).

These largely horizontal requirements will drive the nature and shape of the IM Program established at the level of the enterprise.

Figure 3: The IM Program: Services consolidated at the level of the enterprise

The characteristics of the IM Program and the infrastructure and services undertaken in the individual programs will vary according to the nature of the enterprise and the needs of individual programs. Some components of the infrastructure (e.g. classification, repositories, etc.) and services (e.g. architectural design) may be centralized while others (e.g. knowledge facilitation, infrastructure) may be decentralized. In some cases, components of the infrastructure and some information services might be more focused in individual programs while in other cases they might be more focused at the level of the enterprise. Typically, in larger small agencies, the IM program at the level of the enterprise may comprise some or all of the following discrete IM functions:

• Records management (planning, organizing and controlling the life cycle management of the records (regardless of form) that document decisions and actions).
• Database management (planning, organizing and controlling the life cycle management of the data associated with operational and administrative transaction-based application systems).
• Data analysis/management (planning, organizing and controlling the life cycle management of data acquired from multiple sources, analyzed, and used to respond to various management reporting requirements).
• Web content management (planning, organizing and controlling the life cycle management of content posted in an intranet and internet environment; the content is generally related to the communications and publications functions).
• Library services (planning, organizing and controlling the life cycle management of the published material used in support of decision-making and program/service delivery).
• Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) services (planning, organizing and controlling the steps involved in processing formal requests made under the Access to Information and Privacy Acts).

Regardless, the program-specific infrastructure and services and the enterprise-level infrastructure and services must respond collectively to cross-program, enterprise-wide and whole-of-government requirements. At the enterprise level, the IM program (e.g. comprising the IM functions identified above) is accountable for the policies, standards and practices, systems and technologies, and people (i.e. the infrastructure) and the services that enable the enterprise to respond to these requirements. The IM Program, by virtue of its role at the enterprise level, may facilitate the means by which individual programs integrate components of the infrastructure and services into their own environments. The programs are accountable for the integration just as they remain accountable for the infrastructure and services they require to manage their program specific information.

4. The Small Agency Context and Information Management

4.1 Introduction

The purpose of this section is to describe the landscape of small agencies and, based on an understanding of this landscape, to offer a commentary on the implications of government-wide approaches to governance and accountability (section 2) and emerging information management concepts (section 3) for the development of accountability frameworks, governance structures, and performance measures for the management of information. The commentary serves as a pointer to the guidance provided in Part Two.

4.2 The Characteristics of a Small Agency

It is clear that small agencies are not uniform in terms of their characteristics. Some are relatively large, while some are very small; some are of an investigative and regulatory nature while others are involved in delivering benefits and disseminating information. Regardless, the array of functions performed by small agencies is broad, diverse and complex. And yet this complex landscape needs to be understood if the guidance on developing accountability frameworks, performance measures governance structures for the management of information is to be effective.

Although the small agency landscape can be described in many different ways, one of thebest reviews available is contained in the report, "Models for Evaluation and Performance Measurement for Small Agencies: Summary Report"^[4]. Information from this report was used to develop an overview of the characteristics of the small agency community. These characteristics are as follows:

Size

• Between 10 and approximately 100 full-time equivalent staff (small agencies of this size may not have discrete IM functions such as records management, library services, etc.; activities supported by these disciplines may be inherent within the design of the program(s) supported by the small agency).
• Between 100 and approximately 1000 plus full-time equivalent staff (small agencies of this size may support discrete IM programs such as records management, library services, etc.; although not necessarily a factor, the larger the agency the more evidence there will be of discrete IM functions).

Number of Business Lines

• One or a few (small agencies supporting one or a very few business lines may design activities involving the management of information within the context of the design of the program or programs; even many activities typically associated with an IM program at the level of the enterprise may be inherent within the design of the program).
• Many (small agencies supporting multiple programs typically have recognized that economies of scale can be achieved through the consolidation of management of information activities that may have been duplicated in individual programs).

Degree of Centralization

• Centralized (the functions of some small agencies are highly centralized; as a result the services established to support the management of information may also be highly centralized; this will have an impact on the design of accountability frameworks and governance structures for the management of information because they will likely reflect the same characteristics as the accountability frameworks and governance structures for the management of the agency as a whole).
• Regionalized (the functions of some small agencies are located in different geographic regions; the autonomy that is often associated with regional operations may be reflected in the design of the accountability frameworks and governance structures for the management of information – i.e. they may reflect a higher degree of autonomy than that established for more centralized small agencies).

Degree of Independence

• Highly independent (some small agencies such as quasi-judicial agencies, maintain an arms length relationship with other government organizations; this makes the potential for partnerships and resource sharing as somewhat limited for many agencies that might be otherwise able to leverage and cluster infrastructure and services for managing information; it may also inhibit the degree to which standardized approaches to managing information can be applied; this in turn could have an impact on the degree to which common approaches to accountability and governance might be adopted).
• Dependent (some small agencies are highly dependent upon a parent organization (e.g. department) for resources, or for the provision of services such as records management, library services, etc.; accountability frameworks and governance structures for the management of information may be defined within the context of those established for the parent organization).

Nature of Legislation

• Mandated activities/rationale, etc. (some small agencies are required to produce information or demonstrate the effective management of information pursuant to a law or policy often rooted in a specific information related piece of legislation; such agencies are much more inclined to ensure the ongoing integrity of their information than small agencies that are not required to such legislative obligations).
• Mandated external reviews (some small agencies are subject to ongoing audits and reviews; these agencies recognize the important role that information plays in ensuring that high quality and complete information is available to support these audits and reviews).

Relationship to Policy

• Subject to TBS MGI Policy (all small agencies are subject to the MGI policy but the level of implementation varies across the community; all small agencies are required to name a senior official for the purposes of the policy).
• Subject to Audit Policy (all small agencies are subject to the new TBS Audit policy but only some are involved in the first wave of policy implementation).
• Subject to MAF (all small agencies are required to develop a MAF but only some are involved in the first wave of implementation).

Nature of Reporting Requirements

• Outcomes based (some agencies have followed the government-wide shift to results and outcomes-based governance and accountability while others have not).
• Compliance based (some agencies remain focused on compliance measurement of policy implementation).
• Level of reporting to parliament (all small agencies are required to report to Parliament either directly or through a minister; while the level of reporting may vary across the community, the need for high quality standardized information from multiple programs has grown considerably).

Type and Involvement of Stakeholders

• Low expectations for performance (some small agencies are not subject to high public or some other form of external scrutiny; these agencies tend not to focus on the quality and integrity of their policies, standards, practices, and systems for managing information because the expectation is low that high quality and comprehensive information on business performance will need to be pulled together and made available).
• High expectations for performance (some small agencies are under significant public and other outside scrutiny and expectations are high among key stakeholders that business goals and objectives can and will be achieved and that results can be measured; such agencies tend to recognize the important role that information can play in helping to respond to this level of expectation; as a result they tend to be more inclined to focus on the quality of their information management policies, standards, practices and systems).

Degree of Public Visibility

• Medium to high level of public visibility (small agencies supporting high profile programs recognize that the ability to sustain an image of competency, trustworthiness, and integrity can only be achieved through the availability of complete, timely, accurate and high quality information that can be trusted; these agencies tend to be more prone to focus on the ongoing integrity of their information management policies, standards, practices and systems).
• Low level of public visibility (small agencies that tend to be removed from the public spotlight may not be as sensitive to the role information can play in promoting competence, integrity, etc.; as a result, there is often little incentive to focus on ensuring the ongoing quality and integrity of information that might otherwise have had to be produced to respond to the public's ongoing interest in the affairs of the small agency).

Level of Risk

• Medium to high level of risk (small agencies experiencing a medium to high level of risk tend to recognize the role and importance of information in helping to mitigate risk; they understand the implications of poor quality information in terms of its risk to program delivery and accountability and, as a result, they tend to be concerned that mechanisms are in place to ensure the quality and integrity of their information).
• Low level of risk (small agencies experiencing a low level of risk tend not to be as concerned about the quality and integrity of their information because they do not expect to have to produce such information rapidly or often).

Leadership

• Strong committed leadership at the senior level (this is the single most important factor in moving forward on the establishment of relevant accountability frameworks and governance structures; if senior level leadership (either individual or collective) is in place and recognized across the agency at all levels, and if such leadership recognizes the importance of information and its management re: the business of the agency, then it could be a substantial catalyst to the development of accountability frameworks and governance structures for the management of information).
• Weak or non-existent leadership at the senior level (this factor more than most others is the reason efforts to establish accountability frameworks and governance structures for the management of information fail; the absence of leadership will seriously inhibit the establishment of governance and accountability frameworks that, by virtue of their nature, must reach to the most senior levels of the organization).

Resource Limitations

• Resource flexibility (some small agencies can find sufficient resources to sponsor the enhancement of information management in their agencies; the establishment of accountability frameworks and governance structures for managing information have a greater chance of being established in agencies that are already enhancing the infrastructure and services they require to manage information).
• No resource flexibility (some small agencies have few or no resources for enhancing the management of information; as a result accountability frameworks and governance structures are more challenging to establish especially in environments where there is no expectation of change).

Human Resources

• Availability of expertise in the management of information:
  • None (some small agencies have no expertise available in-house to support the management of information; the lack of expertise will seriously erode the possibility of establishing accountability frameworks and governance structures; outsourcing the expertise is an option but care must be taken to ensure that the expertise understands how to develop accountability frameworks and governance structures for managing information).
  • Available (the availability of expertise will accelerate the development of accountability frameworks and governance structures; however, the expertise must be knowledgeable in whole-of-government approaches to accountability and governance as well as related IM concepts).
• Degree of staff turnover:
  • Low (low staff turnover can be an advantage and a disadvantage; on the one hand the agency can draw upon the expertise of individuals who understand the agency and know what will work and what won't; on the other hand it can inhibit the development of accountability frameworks and governance structures because they may be resistant to change).
  • High (high staff turnover can also be an advantage an a disadvantage; on the one hand, the introduction of new staff willing to experience change and contribute fresh new ideas can help to stimulate the development of innovative approaches to establishing accountability frameworks and governance structures; on the other hand, the loss of corporate memory with respect to the staff who are leaving could lead to frameworks and structures that are out of tune with the nature of the agency).

Other factors such as the nature of the IM and IT issues being faced by the small agency, the ability of the agency to undergo change, and the way in which the management of information is configured in the agency (i.e. presence of an IM program, role of programs in supporting functions normally assigned to an IM program, degree to which programs assign value to information, etc.) can also inform the shape and characteristics of the small agency.

The taxonomy of characteristics described above and the multiple ways in which they are reflected across the entire community of small agencies underlines the fact that no single accountability framework, performance system or governance structure for managing information will be able to fit all small agencies. As a result, rather than develop a single model structure that can be adapted by all small agencies, it was concluded that small agencies would benefit more from a methodology that permitted them to analyze their own circumstances and weigh each factor accordingly. Based on this analysis, small agencies would be in a position to design an accountability framework, performance measures, and a governance structure that would be tailored to their own unique circumstances. In order to ensure some degree of consistency, however, it was also concluded that examples and templates should be provided to help 'jump-start' the design process.

4.3 Implications for Small Agencies

The implications for small agencies with respect to information management (IM) are primarily based on the government-wide priority to enhance accountability, the level of complexity of the IM landscape, and the characteristics of the small agency itself.

Small agencies, similar to all federal government institutions, must respond to whole-of-government requirements related to modern comptrollership, public service modernization, and accountability. These factors are having a profound impact on small agencies and their capacity to respond. The systematic rollout of the MAF as well as the new Audit policy are simply two of a number of initiatives that are requiring small agencies (as well as the rest of government) to introduce more rigor into the way in which they establish accountability frameworks and governance structures for the management of their programs.

The fact that so many of these horizontal requirements necessitate the production of high quality information has brought into focus the need to establish and/or confirm accountability frameworks and governance structures for the management of information. However, the accountability frameworks and governance structures themselves need to fit into the new and emerging frameworks and structures that are addressing accountability and performance measurement at the broader whole-of-government level. The MAF, the RMAF, the PAA and other instruments being employed to enhance government accountability and performance provide the important context within which efforts to establish accountability frameworks, performance measures and governance structures for the management of information must be situated. Failure to acknowledge and work with these important government-wide tools and approaches will lead to the marginalization of any efforts undertaken to address IM accountability, performance measurement and governance.

With respect to the IM landscape, the concepts described in Section 3 are important to understand for a number of reasons. First of all, they underline the principle that program managers in small agencies are responsible for the information they need to make decisions, deliver their programs, and hold themselves accountable. They are also responsible for the information required to respond to and support enterprise-level information requirements. Finally, they are responsible for the quality and integrity of the underlying infrastructure and services that support the management of information in their programs. They are not accountable for the quality of the standards and systems employed to establish the infrastructure and services (this accountability belongs to the IM program) but they are accountable for their effective implementation and use.

Second, the concepts break down the barriers between the individual disciplines of records management, library services, Web content management, etc. They do not eradicate the disciplines. Rather they underline the fact that each discipline reflects its own distinct approach to the provision of essentially the same services (knowledge facilitation services, architectural design services, and infrastructure services) and the same components of the infrastructure (policies, standards and practices, systems and technologies, and people). They may be configured differently for valid reasons (i.e. records are distinct from publications) but the building blocks used to support their programs are the same.

Unfortunately, in large agencies these individual IM functions often operate in their own fiefdoms thus inhibiting the agency from taking full benefit of its information resources (and possibly placing the agency at risk from an accountability perspective). By adopting the concepts (e.g. the services model) described in this section, agencies can begin to harmonize their IM landscape (especially at the level of the enterprise) without losing the qualities and strengths of the individual disciplines. Very small agencies may have an advantage in this regard as they normally do not support distinct programs for records management, library services, etc.- all of the activities may be supported by one or all of the people supporting the small agency program.

Compounding the complexity of the IM landscape is the relationship between IM and IT. In many small agencies, issues concerning IM and IT are rolled together and dealt with as a whole (even though it is still possible to distinguish between activities that are IM as opposed to IT). In larger agencies, they may be distinct. IM comprises the tools and processes to manage information in all its forms (paper, electronic, digital) and in structured and unstructured ways, whereas IT is comprised of the infrastructure and standards used to channel information. In very small agencies and using the concepts described in Section 3 as a basis, it may be possible to consider designing integrated accountability frameworks and governance structures for both IM and IT. For larger agencies where IM and IT disciplines exist as separate entities such integration may be more difficult. In fact, in only a few agencies is there evidence that both IM and IT have been addressed together as enablers to the good management of information. This reality is compounded by the historic nature of IM/IT and the greater importance most often afforded to IT. Many organizations that deal with IM/IT together have not paid much attention to IM. When IM activities are distinct from IT, it is often for areas related to records management or library services.

With respect to the characteristics of small agencies, and as illustrated in section 4.2, the diversity in the community of small agencies is considerable. From very small agencies under 10 people to larger agencies of over 1,000 the range of sizes of small agencies is substantial. The types of programs supported by small agencies, whether they are centralized or decentralized, whether they are at arms length from other organizations or dependent upon a parent department, and whether they are open or closed to change - all of these and other factors will have a bearing on the nature of the small agency and, above all, its approach to governance and accountability.

The points raised above as well as in other sections of this document have helped to shape the guidance that is provided in Part Two. Part Two provides a methodology to help small agencies develop accountability frameworks and governance structures that will best meet their needs. Given the diversity across the community, and the rapid evolution taking place in the way that accountability and governance is being viewed across the Government, the methodology and the supporting appendices are unlike a procedure manual where one simply walks through the procedures and emerges with a tightly defined accountability framework and governance structure. Rather Part Two provides a systematic way of thinking through the factors that need to be considered in developing accountability frameworks and governance structures that will best meet the needs and diverse circumstances of individual small agencies.

Appendix A: List of Consultation Group Members

Suzie Boudreau
Information Management Advisor
Quality and Evaluation
Canada Economic Development

Danielle Dubois
Policy Analyst
Corporate Planning and Reporting Directorate
Public Service Commission

Bryan Labbe
Director,
Administration
Canada Firearms Centre

Ivy Lai
Copyright Board
Manager, Corporate Services
Copyright Board Canada

Bruce Meredith
Senior Project Officer
Corporate Planning and Management Practices Directorate
Immigration and Refugee Board

Karen Nordrum
PARLMEDIA Manager
Library of Parliament

Gilles Plouffe
Chief, Administrative Services
Management Services Branch
Canadian International Trade Tribunal

Tom Pulcine
Director General/Comptroller
Corporate Management Branch
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Emma Strachan
Information Management Officer
Information Management, Information Technology Directorate
Public Health Agency of Canada

Sigrid Vila
A/Information Management and Distribution Officer
Information Management and Distribution Centre
Status of Women Canada

List of Key Contacts and Interviewees

Virginia Adamson
A/Executive Director and Senior Counsel
Royal Canadian Mounted Police External Review Committee

Suzie Boudreau
Information Management Advisor
Quality and Evaluation
Canada Economic Development

André Bourdon
Director, Application Development and Information Management
Information Management/Information Technologies
Infrastructure Canada
(also Chair, Heads of IT in Small Agencies)   

Alexa Brewer
Senior Director
Information Management Strategies
Chief Information Officer Branch,
Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat

Danielle Dubois
Policy Analyst
Corporate Planning and Reporting Directorate
Public Service Commission

Anthony Chapman
Senior Advisor
Governance
Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat

Robert Coffin
Information Management Strategies Division
Chief Information Officer Branch
Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat

Carrie Hunter
Senior Director
Governance
Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat

Rebecca Leslie
Analyst
Centre of Excellence for Evaluation
Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat

Karen Nordrum
PARLMEDIA Manager
Library of Parliament

Bruce Meredith
Senior Project Officer
Corporate Planning and Management Practices Directorate
Immigration and Refugee Board

Jean Bélanger
Director General
Corporate Planning and Services Branch
Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada

Margaret Parlor
Alignment and Stewardship
Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat

Gilles Plouffe
Chief, Administrative Services
Management Services Branch
Canadian International Trade Tribunal

Tom Pulcine
Director General/Comptroller
Corporate Management Branch
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada

Emma Strachan
Information Management Officer
Information Management, Information Technology Directorate
Public Health Agency of Canada

Ron Surette
Director General, Business Intelligence and CIO
Chief Information Office
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

Hélène Valin
IM Practice and Performance Assessment
Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat

Sigrid Vila
A/Information Management and Distribution Officer
Information Management and Distribution Centre
Status of Women Canada

Governance and Accountability Intergovernmental Steering Committee
Natural Resources Canada, Agriculture Canada, Library and Archives Canada

Appendix B: Definitions

Accountability: Accountability is the obligation to demonstrate and take responsibility for performance in light of commitments and expected outcomes.

Evaluation: The application of systematic methods to periodically and objectively assess effectiveness of programs in achieving expected results, their impacts, both intended and unintended, continued relevance and alternative or more cost-effective ways of achieving expected results.

Government information: Information created, received, used, and maintained regardless of physical form, and information prepared for or produced by the government institution and deemed to be under its control in the conduct of its activities or in pursuance of legal obligations.

Information: The intelligence or knowledge capable of being represented in forms suitable for communication, storage, or processing.

Information management: A discipline that directs and supports the effective and efficient management of information, from planning and systems development to disposal and/or long-term preservation.

Information Services:

Knowledge Facilitation Services: comprise the activities undertaken to ensure that users (staff, clients, partners, stakeholders) are provided with the information they require to make decisions and otherwise carry out their program responsibilities.
IM Architecture Services: comprise the activities undertaken to identify user requirements (at the individual, group and corporate levels) and to design the high level architecture reflecting the combination of policies, standards, practices, procedures, systems and enabling technologies, and people that comprise the IM infrastructure.
IM Infrastructure Services: comprise the activities undertaken to ensure that the components of the IM infrastructure (policies, standards, practices, procedures, systems and enabling technologies, and people) are developed and implemented in accordance with the IM architecture.

Life cycle: The life cycle of information management encompasses the following: planning; information collection, creation, receipt, and capture; information organization, use and dissemination; information maintenance, protection and preservation; information disposition; and evaluation.

Management of information: An element of every job function that has to do with treating the information used or produced in the course of performing job duties as a strategic business resource and in line with legal and policy requirements.

Program: An accountable mandate to address recognized needs of eligible target groups and to achieve specified outcomes by producing service outputs using resources

Published information:Library matter of every kind, nature, and description resulting from the act of publishing and released for public distribution or sale. Publications include material such as books, maps, periodicals, documents, working or discussion papers, audio or video recordings, online/networked publications (both static and dynamic), and compact discs. Publications can be in any format on or in which information is written, recorded, stored or reproduced.

Record: Recorded information, regardless of physical form, created, collected or received in the initiation, conduct or completion of an activity, including any correspondence, memorandum, book, plan, map, drawing, diagram, pictorial or graphic work, photograph, film, microform, sound recording, videotape, machine-readable record, any other documentary material, and any copy thereof.

Service: A means, administered by a program, of producing a final valued output (i.e. service output) to address one or more target group needs; a set of service processes that produces and delivers one service output.

Under the control of: Information is considered to be "under the control of" the institution when the institution is authorized to grant or deny access to it, to govern its use and, subject to the approval of the Librarian and Archivist of Canada, to dispose of it. Information that is in the possession or custody of the government institution, whether at headquarters, regional, satellite or other office, either within or outside Canada, is presumed to be under its control unless there is strong evidence to the contrary.

Footnotes

^[1] See Appendix A for a list of the members of the Consultation Group.

^[2] The information requirements necessary to support the production of the 2005-2006 Annual Reference Level Update (ARLU) and Estimates are to be provided to the Secretariat in accordance with this Policy.

^[3] "Management in the Government of Canada: A Commitment to Continuous Improvement", Treasury Board of Canada, October 2005

^[4] "Models for Evaluation and Performance Measurement for Small Agencies: Summary Report", Treasury Board Secretariat, 2004