ARCHIVED - MAF Assessment: Canadian Space Agency - 2008

1.1 Leadership: Acceptable

• Executive leadership regularly communicates and encourages ongoing dialogue on public service values and ethics among employees.

1.2 Infrastructure: Opportunity for Improvement

• Follow-up action by management to mitigate risks with regard to values and ethics is sporadic.
• The plan provides for minimal leadership participation and involvement.

1.3 Culture: Opportunity for Improvement

• No information is available to report on the current state of the organization's public service values and ethics.

2.1 PAA Consistency: Acceptable

• The Strategic Outcome(s) is at a reasonable level given the nature and resources of the organization but this must be confirmed by appropriate indicators.
• The Strategic Outcome(s) is/are (a) clear outcome statement(s) that can be understood within and outside the department as a benefit to Canadians.
• The Strategic Outcome(s) reflects the departmental area of influence and is/are adequately aligned with the organization's mandate.

2.2 Measurability: Opportunity for Improvement

• A partial inventory of programs has been developed but many listed programs do not meet the definition of a program.
• Most elements of the Program Activity Architecture are in alignment with the Strategic Outcome(s).

2.3 Quality:

• Expected results are not clear and distinct, and are not appropriate to their respective program descriptions.
• Outputs are not clearly identified as products/services and are seldom aligned with their expected results.
• The performance indicators are not clear and cannot be used for data collection to provide reliable insight into program effectiveness.

3.1 Business Plan: Acceptable

• Corporate business plan generally aligns resources and accountabilities to priorities.
• Sector or branch business plans are generally aligned with the corporate business plan.
• While progress is being made, the corporate business plan does not adequately integrate human resources, IM/IT, communications or other key corporate plans.

3.2 Governance Structure: Strong

• Management oversight of the organization's program activities is clearly evident.
• Senior corporate management structure or subordinate governance structure (e.g., committees) meet regularly.

The Canadian Space Agency exhibits sound corporate governance. Senior management has close oversight of program performance, prioritization and resources allocation.

4.2 Participation in Priority Initiatives: Acceptable

• The organization contributes effectively to priority interdepartmental initiatives.

TBS has assessed CSA with regard to its participation in Public Service Renewal (Acceptable), the Web of Rules Initiative (Acceptable), and the Federal Science and Technology Strategy (Acceptable).

5.1 Supporting Information: Acceptable

• Organization has established a capacity to assemble usually accurate, reliable and complete supporting information in TB submissions.
• The organization is highly responsive to TBS feedback.
• Response to TBS comments is appropriate.

5.3 Consultations: Strong

• Consultations with central agencies are planned and conducted in a timely manner with sufficient lead time.

5.4 Quality control: Acceptable

• TBS feedback is usually fully addressed.

Consistent with previous years, the Canadian Space Agency maintained its capacity to produce good quality TB submissions and demonstrated excellent submission planning and feedback. The Canadian Space Agency can continue to improve the quality of its TB submissions by providing appropriate background information and explanations and avoiding the use of technical terminology.

6.1 Quality: Attention Required

• No evaluation was shared or submitted to TBS for review.

6.2 Neutrality: Acceptable

• Head of Evaluation has explicit authority to submit evaluation reports directly to the deputy head. Head of Evaluation has access to the deputy head, as required.
• Senior management committee is in place to support, oversee and monitor the evaluation function and management accountabilities arising from evaluations and evaluation related products. The committee is chaired by the deputy head or senior level designate. The committee meets regularly during the year.
• The majority of resources dedicated to evaluations are directed by the Head of Evaluation.

6.3 Coverage: Opportunity for Improvement

• Option 1: The organization has committed to moving toward full evaluation coverage of their program base (e.g. over a five year cycle). However, relatively low number of evaluations are completed each year and they cover less than 10%.

6.4 Usage: Opportunity for Improvement

• The results of evaluations are sometimes brought for consideration in TB submissions, Memorandum to Cabinet, RPPs, DPRs and Strategic Reviews.

7.1 MRRS Basis: Acceptable

• Good links between performance and plans are present.
• Linkages between resources and results are adequately demonstrated in the reports.

7.2 Credible information: Acceptable

• DPR generally provides independently verifiable evidence-based performance information. Some information on the validity and credibility of data used is provided.
• Linkages between PA and Strategic Outcome (SO) level performance are generally made in the DPR.

7.3 Context: Acceptable

• DPR is not balanced – a few negative aspects of performance may be reported but insufficient explanation is provided.
• Reports adequately present the strategic context and operating environment information including challenges, risks, opportunities and capacities.
• There is insufficient discussion of lessons learned.

8.1 Change plan: Acceptable

• The organization has the capacity to evaluate whether or not change is required.

8.2 Engagement: Acceptable

• Employees are engaged in the strategy development phase.

8.3 Assessment: Opportunity for Improvement

• Assessment plans exist but are limited in scope and detail.

Similar to previous years, the Canadian Space Agency is going through transition and is finalizing a new Long-Term Space Plan. The Canadian Space Agency has the capacity in place to identify the need for organizational change, and has been actively engaging its internal and external stakeholders in the development of the new Long-Term Space Plan.

9.1 Engagement: Acceptable

• Senior management reviews the organization's Risk Management approach within the current three-year planning cycle.
• Senior management ensures that the organization's Risk Management approach is tailored to the specific needs of the organization.
• The organization has a common risk assessment approach and it has been approved by senior management.
• Senior management has reviewed/approved the Corporate Risk Profile within the past year.
• Senior management leads by example in this area.
• Accountability for key risks is assigned to senior management.

9.2 Implementation: Acceptable

• The organization's Risk Management approach is regularly communicated to staff and stakeholders.
• The Corporate Risk Profile is systematically (horizontally and vertically) implemented into most operational levels across the organization.
• Risk Management guidance and tools that enable the organization's risk management approach are made available to staff.

9.3 Integration: Acceptable

• Risk information is routinely consulted in senior management decision-making. This is done systematically and explicitly.
• Risk information and Risk Management principles influence planning and resource allocation decisions.
• Operational level risks are prioritized into key risks and are adjusted as required.
• Risk information and Risk Management principles are adequately captured in senior management reporting.
• The organization makes adequate course corrections based on Risk Management performance and new information.

9.4 Continuous Improvement: Acceptable

• Most relevant external sources are consulted during the development of the organization's CRP.
• Key risk information was adequately gathered from internal sources of the organization for preparing the CRP.
• Corporate risks are inconsistently linked to the organization's strategic outcomes.
• The CRP provides an inconsistent assessment of the quality of risk information used.
• The organization explicitly builds on past experience, better practice, and adjusts to fit any changes in management structures, priorities or strategic direction.
• The organization has implemented most recommendations provided during its last MAF assessment.

The Canada Space Agency's practice of quantifying the cost of its risk mitigation activities for dealing with risks that materialize and freezing this funding so it is available should the risk manifest.  While this practice may not be appropriate to some other organizations because of their programming area, it stands out as a note worthy approach to managing risk-related contingencies and managing project costs within budget.

10.1 Fair: Acceptable

• Organization is undertaking action to improve the classification program in accordance with its level of risk.
• Evidence shows that labour relations matters are consistently and appropriately managed/addressed.
• Evidence shows that the organization exceeds standards of timeliness in payments to employees.
• Evidence shows that the organization is in compliance with Labour Relations and Compensation Operations direction (terms and condition of employment, collective agreements and/or applicable legislation).

10.2 Enabling: Acceptable

• Organization has made progress in comparison to the previous year's representation, recruitments and promotions of the four employment equity groups.
• Organization is under-representative in one or more of the four employment equity designated groups.
• Promotions among employment equity groups are greater than or equal to previous year's performance.
• Separations among employment equity groups are equal or greater than previous year's performance.

10.3 Healthy and safe: Attention Required

• A considerable number of employees do not feel recognized for positive performance.
• Evidence indicates that the organization fails to put in place a managed program to protect employees' occupational health and safety.

11.2 Principled: Acceptable

• Organization is under-represented in one or more of the four employment equity designated groups.
• Progress against the previous year's performance on recruitment, promotion and separation for employment equity groups is less than the organization's average for all employees.
• Promotions among employment equity groups are less than representation for at least one group.

11.3 Sustainable: Acceptable

• Evidence indicates human resources planning integrated with business planning is generally in place and governance/organizational infrastructure generally exists to support it.

11.4 Adaptable: Acceptable

• A sufficient number of employees indicate their organization encourages continuous learning, improvement and innovation.

12.1 Governance: Strong

• IM accountabilities, roles, and responsibilities are formally established throughout the organization.
• IM requirements are fully integrated as a part of the approval, development, implementation, evaluation, and reporting of departmental policies, programs, services, and projects and mechanism are in place to continuously evaluate and modify the requirements.
• IM is fully represented in the corporate-wide governance structure and in the corporate-wide governance or approval committee(s).
• Participation is evident in GC-wide approaches and initiatives related to developing, implementing, sharing, and leveraging IM policies and practices.

12.2 Strategy: Acceptable

• A current and active IM strategy identifies support to business priorities and operations, information needs and accountabilities, IM policy considerations and is partially integrated with other corporate strategies, plans and planning cycles.
• An IM strategy implementation plan, including some timelines and resources, is underway and some achievements to date are identified.
• IM awareness activities are underway in the department to help staff and executives understand their IM roles, responsibilities and accountabilities.

12.3 Privacy Act: Opportunity for Improvement

• Significant collections of personal information under the control of the organization have not been appropriately identified or described in accordance with the Privacy Act.

12.4 Access to Information Act: Opportunity for Improvement

• A significant number of institution-specific Classes of Records do not meet Treasury Board Secretariat requirements.
• A significant number of the organization's functions, programs, activities and related information holdings have not been appropriately identified or described in its 2008 Chapter of Info Source: Sources of Federal Government Information. This information is a requirement of the Access to Information Act to facilitate public access to federal government information.

13.1 Leadership: Acceptable

• Senior official for information technology has only a partial scope of responsibility and accountability for information technology.
• Organization actively participates and demonstrates leadership in setting government-wide directions for information technology.

13.2 Planning: Acceptable

• Acceptable information technology plan is in place that aligns with the government-wide directions for information technology and departmental business needs.
• Organization has aligned corporate and information technology governance structures and has an integrated planning process.

13.3 Value: Acceptable

• Organization is making efforts to appropriately use and plan for further use of information technology shared services.
• Organization devotes adequate management attention to service costing, asset management, performance measurement and reporting to ensure value delivery.

14.1 Investment Planning: Opportunity for Improvement

• The organization’s investment planning documents do not cover all asset classes.
• The organization does not have a current investment planning document.
• Organizational priorities and areas of highest risk are identified and guide investment decisions.

14.2 Real Property Management: Opportunity for Improvement

• Certification of information in the DFRP is received and accepted.
• There is no evidence of a comprehensive real property management framework.

14.3 Materiel Management: Opportunity for Improvement

• Some elements of a materiel management framework are evident.
• Operating policies are absent or limited in scope.

Materiel Management: CSA has provided a basic description of its governance structure for materiel management. However, it is not clear how it is documented or disseminated. CSA has also stated it has an inventory management system. The agency has not provided further elaboration or whether it is an integrated system.

15.1 Governance and Oversight: Acceptable

• Business cases, which define expected outcomes, are required to support proposals for major projects.
• There is evidence of formal project governance and oversight mechanisms and that approved projects are generally linked with the strategic plans and priorities of the organization through established organization-wide procedures. Approval and corrective action decisions are documented.
• There is no evidence that the organization has exceeded Treasury Board approval limits.

15.2 Effective Management of Project Resources: Acceptable

• Adequate processes/procedures exist to ensure that planned projects have the required resources to achieve expected outcomes.
• The funding models used for projects support the achievement of expected project outcomes and cost estimates are generated at the work package level and consider historical data and/or industry benchmarks.
• There is no evidence that the organization has failed to meet TB conditions regarding projects.
• While project management related training is made available by the organization for employees, there are no processes to ensure that employees with project management responsibilities are encouraged to complete relevant training and the number of qualified project managers is unknown.
• While there is evidence that some managers prepare a staffing plan, it is not required prior to project execution.

15.3 Effective Management of Project Results: Acceptable

• The organization requires that outcomes are clearly defined for projects in business case documentation and most projects are subject to a review.
• The organization requires that project milestones, deliverables and outcomes are documented for major projects.
• There is a clear link between the review process and project management governance and oversight mechanisms.
• There is evidence of organization-wide procedures and processes which communicate project monitoring and performance information to project managers and project oversight mechanisms.
• There is evidence that the organization monitors project performance and uses this information to support corrective action.

16.1 Governance and Oversight: Acceptable

• Clear links have been established between procurement activities and the organization-wide program plans, priorities and long-term investments.
• Organization prepares an annual procurement plan.

16.2 Meeting Operational Requirements: Acceptable

• Procurement processes that contribute to cost savings and value for money are in use.
• Qualified procurement human resources exist.
• Results and reviews are used to continuously adjust current procurement management activities and future procurement plans.
• Timely and accurate procurement financial and non-financial reports have been submitted.

Organization prepares an annual procurement plan.

Procurement processes that contribute to cost savings and value for money are in use.

Qualified procurement human resources exist.

17.1 Authorities and Policies: Acceptable

• Audit report results show evidence of deficiencies that are of serious concerns.
• Departmental procedures, tools, training and support for those individuals delegated with Section 34 authority show evidence of good financial management practices.
• Departmental processes for classification of moneys, internal controls for receiving and recording money and depositing money show evidence of solid financial management practices.
• Departmental processes for informing those delegated with Section 33 authority of their responsibilities and dealing with requests for payments that are problematic show evidence of good financial management practices.
• Departmental processes to provide individuals delegated Section 33 authority with the information necessary to assess and approve specific transactions and to assess the adequacy of Section 34 account verification show evidence of solid financial management practices.
• The reporting of external user fee information meets or nearly meets the requirements of the reporting guidelines.

17.2 Public Accounts Reporting: Acceptable

• Ninety to 96% (Grade A) of Public Accounts reporting plates submitted on time.
• Several Financial Management Reporting System (CFMRS) coding errors.

17.3 Management Capacity: Acceptable

• A significant amount of training is provided for the financial management organization.
• A very low proportion of FIs or management team members in the financial management organization have current, approved learning plans.
• Positions, the duties of which are being performed by an individual indeterminately appointed to that position, comprise a reasonable proportion of the positions on the management team of the financial management organization.
• Positions, the duties of which are being performed by an individual indeterminately appointed to that position, comprise all, or almost all, of the FI segment of the financial management organization.
• Some processes in support of a sound succession plan for key positions are in place.

17.4 Financial Statements: Acceptable

• Several known financial internal control weaknesses remain unremedied.
• The Financial Statements are compliant with Treasury Board Accounting Standard 1.2 – Departmental and Agency Financial Statements and reporting deadlines were met.
• Voluntary participation in the audited departmental financial statements initiative as evidenced by a strong departmental commitment and an existing detailed action plan.

17.5 Internal Reporting: Acceptable

• The internal financial reporting package is accompanied by a weak discussion and analysis.
• The internal financial reporting package is presented to senior management less than 15 calendar days after period end.
• The internal financial reporting package is presented to senior management ten or more times per year.
• The process for reviewing information before it is presented to senior management to ensure no material errors or omissions is weak.
• The scope of the internal financial reporting package is comprehensive.

While the agency maintained an overall rating of Acceptable, its financial management capacity and the quality of its internal financial reporting improved.

18.1 Internal Audit governance: Acceptable

• There is an approved Internal Audit Charter in line with the 2006 Policy on Internal Audit.
• The Implementation Plan covers all of the required policy elements.
• Ongoing monitoring of, and progress in implementing, key elements of the plan are on track with planned timelines.
• Chief Audit Executive reports solely and exclusively to the Deputy Head.
• An independent Departmental Audit Committee has either recently been established or is scheduled to be in place and is on track with planned timelines.
• There is an approved Departmental Audit Committee Charter in line with the 2006 Policy on Internal Audit.

18.2 Internal Audit Professional Practices: Acceptable

• The Risk-Based Audit Plan was approved by the Deputy Head and sent to the Office of the Comptroller General in an untimely manner.
• Annual Risk-Based Audit Plan methodology is evident and applied.
• There is evidence of preparation to provide for holistic assurance.
• Most post-engagement follow-up activities are identified.
• There is partial information on the planned use of all audit function resources.
• Vast majority of planned work is on audit assurance versus other types of activities.
• No identification of continuity with previous year’s work.
• Approved assurance products are not consistent with policy and internal audit standards requirements, containing one key methodological deficiency.
• High completion rate of assurance products (number of assurance audit reports) against 2007-2008 Risk-Based Audit Plan.
• Internal Quality Assurance and Improvement Program is well documented and in place.
• Assurance products (reports) are not produced in a timely manner.
• Approved assurance products are made accessible to the public in a very timely manner.
• Post-engagement follow-up process is well documented, and recommendations are followed up using a risk-based approach.
• The department or agency provides notification to the Treasury Board Secretariat on issues of importance on an ad hoc basis or is aware of this requirement.
• The department or agency does not provide notification to the Treasury Board Secretariat on the posting of reports.

18.3 Administration of the Internal Audit Function: Strong

• Some elements of a comprehensive Human Resources Plan have been documented, and evidence of recruitment and external resourcing activity exists.
• Investment in Certified Internal Auditor certification, learning and training represents a minimum of 5% of FTE salaries.
• Planned spending, * was given to the Office of the Comptroller General. When comparing current spending of 2008-2009 with planned financial resources of 2007-2008, resource levels identified exceeds the resource level identified in 2007.
• Planned FTEs dedicated to internal audit fall well below the resource level identified in the planned internal audit function’s budget for 2008-2009.

18.4 Internal Audit Performance: Opportunity for Improvement

• Insufficient evidence to determine if a Chief Audit Executive Annual Report for 2007-2008 was prepared.
• Limited periodic reporting on the follow-up of Management Action Plans.

The agency has made further progress in the area of Internal Audit Governance. In particular, the Chief Audit Executive (CAE) reports solely and exclusively to the President.

19.1 Departmental Security Program: Opportunity for Improvement

• Organization has a partially developed security program that contains some of the required policy elements.
• Some deficiencies in meeting key policy requirements for the departmental security program.

19.2 Management of IT Security (MITS): Acceptable

• Organization has achieved the three priority objectives that form the foundation for Management of Information Technology Security (MITS) and complies with most MITS requirements.
• No significant deficiencies in meeting key MITS requirements.

19.3 Business Continuity Planning (BCP):

• Organization has conducted a Business Impact Analysis (BIA) and has determined that it does not provide critical services to the public and private sectors.

NB: The evaluation methodology for Line of Evidence 19.3 will be revised for Round VII of the MAF. Please consult the evaluation for details.

20.1 Management Engagement – Service and CLF: Opportunity for Improvement

• The institution may have committees or sub-committees which consider and/or make decisions about service. Such committees or sub-committees may not be composed of senior management accountable for services. The institution, however, does not have a committee which is responsible for making decisions about and overseeing service at the institutional level.
• There are generally documented and communicated priorities and goals for service at the institutional level; these priorities and goals are generally set by senior management based on the use of performance evidence.
• There are limited expectations set by senior management for an institutional focus on meeting the needs of clients, specifically with respect to service standards and client satisfaction measurement.
• There is little monitoring by senior management to ensure that the requirements of CLF 2.0 are being met institution-wide; there is limited information on which to make decisions and course correction.
• There is monitoring of progress by senior management towards the achievement of the institution-wide goals for service, with course correction if necessary.

20.2 Public/client views: Acceptable

• Evidence of incorporating feedback in the implementation of its services, programs, policies or initiatives.
• Few tools used to obtain views from clients.
• Little evidence of making consultation results available to the public.
• Minor plans to obtain views from clients.
• There is a clearly identified target clientele for public consultations.

20.3 Official Languages: Strong

• Analysis of the Annual Review on OL shows the institution is fully meeting its obligations.
• Audits reveal very good performance in active offer and service delivery in both OL.
• No complaint or minimal number of founded complaints exits.
• The institution has the necessary linguistic capacity to serve the public in both OL.