ARCHIVED - MAF Assessment: Infrastructure Canada - 2008

1.1 Leadership: Acceptable

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

1.2 Infrastructure: Acceptable

• Organization has a plan that includes a strategy championed by senior management with medium-term activities to raise awareness of the importance of public service values and ethics.
• Risks in regard to possible breaches in public service values and ethics are regularly assessed, documented and followed up with mitigation plans and action by management.

1.3 Culture: Acceptable

• Organization makes general assessments of its current state of public service values and ethics.

2.1 PAA Consistency: Acceptable

• The Strategic Outcome(s) is/are measurable and represents an end-state.

2.2 Measurability: Acceptable

• An inventory of programs has been developed and most of the listed programs meet the definition of a program.
• An adequate Program Activity Architecture has been developed with some issues to be resolved.

2.3 Quality:

• Expected results are not clear and distinct, and are not appropriate to their respective program descriptions.
• Targets are not stated appropriately as a performance level of the indicator.

3.1 Business Plan: Opportunity for Improvement

• Sector or branch business plans are not 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: Acceptable

• Organization's corporate governance structure is generally aligned to the organization's PAA.
• Recordkeeping is generally complete and current. (minutes of meetings and records of discussion, decision, and follow-up).
• Resource reallocation is generally proactive when or where required.
• Senior corporate management structure (e.g., committees) interacts with and provides oversight to the supporting governance structure.
• Senior corporate management structure or subordinate governance structure (e.g., committees) meet regularly.
• Terms of reference are generally current and complete.

4.1 Leadership of Priority Initiatives: Acceptable

• The organization has established an effective management structure for its initiative, and roles and responsibilities of all parties are clear.
• The organization is effectively leading its priority interdepartmental initiative.

4.2 Participation in Priority Initiatives: Acceptable

• The organization contributes effectively to priority interdepartmental initiatives.

TBS has assessed Infrastructure Canada with regards to its leadership of the Building Canada Plan - Acceptable, and with regards to its participation in Public Service Renewal - Acceptable.

5.1 Supporting Information: Acceptable

• Adequate information is submitted for business cases.
• Funding information aligns fairly well with project authorities.
• Information aligns fairly well with TBS financial data.
• Organization has established a capacity to assemble usually accurate, reliable and complete supporting information in TB submissions.
• Organization has the capacity to respond effectively to most TBS feedback.
• Policy and budget authorities are usually identified.
• Response to TBS comments is appropriate.
• Submission contains an adequate level of detail.

5.2 Analysis: Acceptable

• Business cases may have comprehensive information and demonstrate good analysis.
• Established capacity for analysis on implementation is evident.
• Established capacity for appropriate responses to TBS comments is acceptable.
• Established capacity for options analysis is demonstrated.
• Established capacity in the understanding of external pressures exists.
• Established capacity to analyze value for money, effectiveness and efficiency is evident.
• Generally, the correct policy authorities are used.

5.3 Consultations: Opportunity for Improvement

• Consultations are sometimes late (less than six weeks before TB meetings).
• Organization should be better able to predict factors that lead to occasional lateness.

5.4 Quality control: Acceptable

• Clarity and consistency of language are good.
• Description of resource requirements is clear.
• Established capacity for consistency of information throughout documents is evident.
• Generally rigorous and effective quality control process is in place and is usually followed for TB submissions.
• Good writing and translation standard have been used.
• Submissions usually have SFO or Head of Evaluation sign offs when appropriate.
• TBS feedback is usually fully addressed.

6.1 Quality: Opportunity for Improvement

• All evaluations submitted to TBS employ appropriate methodologies to gather data and inform the analysis.
• All evaluations submitted to TBS include a management response and an action plan detailing implementation strategies, timelines and management accountabilities.
• Evaluations sometimes have findings, conclusions and recommendations that are not supported by the evidence found in the evaluation report.
• Evaluations submitted to TBS discuss in a cursory way the limitations of the methodology and data sources used.
• Evaluations submitted to TBS sometimes but not consistently address questions of program relevance, success and effectiveness.
• The majority of evaluations submitted to TBS use multiple lines of evidence. Evaluations reflect the diversity and perspectives of multiple program stakeholders.

6.2 Neutrality: Strong

• All resources dedicated to evaluations are directed by the Head of Evaluation.
• Evaluation function resourcing is commensurate with the organizational evaluation plan and support monitoring and oversight demands.
• 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 and is attended by designated committee members.

6.3 Coverage: Acceptable

• The organization has shown evidence of moving towards full coverage of all ongoing programs of grants and contributions over a five year cycle as per 42.1 of the FAA. Year to year percent coverage indicates organization is on track to achieve 100% coverage.
• The organization has shown evidence of moving towards full coverage of all ongoing programs of grants and contributions over a five year cycle as per 42.1 of the FAA. Current annual evaluation coverage of G&Cs is more than 15%.
• The organization has shown evidence of moving towards full evaluation coverage of its program base (e.g. over a five-year cycle). Current annual coverage is over 15% of direct program expenditures. The organization has a demonstrated track record of completing planned evaluations.

6.4 Usage: Opportunity for Improvement

• Evaluation commitments, plans and requirements are regularly missed or deadlines extended. Organization almost always requests extensions from TBS.
• Passive tracking of management action plans arising from recommendations is done by the organization.
• Some evaluations submitted to TBS incorporate data from a performance measurement system to support the evaluation. Submitted evaluations usually cite data availability and/or quality as constraints.
• The results of evaluations are sometimes brought for consideration in TB submissions, Memorandum to Cabinet, RPPs, DPRs and Strategic Reviews.

INFC has established the foundation, including a strong governance structure, on which to build an evaluation function that will be positioned to provide evaluation information to support departmental expenditure and policy decision making.

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.
• DPR is based on the PAA, i.e. performance is usually reported by Program Activity (PA) at the PA level.

7.3 Context: Opportunity for Improvement

• DPR is not balanced – a few negative aspects of performance may be reported but insufficient explanation is provided.
• DPR uses some comparisons, but they are not effective.
• 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

• Change management related training programs are available to some components of the organizations.
• Individual and organization-wide change-related training programs are available.

8.3 Assessment: Acceptable

• Change plans and strategies are included in Performance Management Agreements of Senior Executives.
• Results are apparent.

9.1 Engagement: Acceptable

• Senior management reviews the organization’s Risk Management approach on a regular basis – scanning the environment to anticipate changes. This takes place often during the three-year planning cycle.
• The organization has a common risk assessment approach and it has been approved by senior management.
• Senior management ensures that the organization’s Risk Management approach is tailored to the specific needs of the organization.
• Senior management has reviewed/approved the Corporate Risk Profile within the past year.
• Senior management encourages effective Risk Management and a risk-smart culture.
• 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 adequately consulted for senior management decision-making.
• Risk information and Risk Management principles influence planning and resource allocation decisions.
• Operational level risks are prioritized into key risks.
• Risk information and Risk Management principles are inconsistently captured in senior management reporting.
• The organization makes adequate course corrections based on Risk Management performance and new information.

9.4 Continuous Improvement: Acceptable

• The CRP provides a reliable assessment of the quality of risk information used.
• 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 consistently linked to the organization’s strategic outcomes.
• The organization adequately 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.

INFC actively reviews, monitors and updates its Corporate Risk Profile (CRP) and mitigation strategies, indicating that the organization has embraced risk management as a key element of integrated planning.

10.1 Fair: Strong

• Organization is undertaking action to improve the classification program in accordance with its level of risk.
• Evidence shows that the organization exceeds standards of timeliness in payments to employees.

10.2 Enabling: Strong

• Organization demonstrates the necessary linguistic capacity to provide personal and central services and supervision in both official languages.
• Organization is representative of all four employment equity designated groups.
• Organization progress remains unchanged from the previous year in representation, recruitment, promotions and separations of the four employment equity groups.
• Promotions among employment equity groups are equal or less than previous year's performance.
• Separations among employment equity groups are less than or equal to previous year's performance.
• Work instruments, electronic systems and communications with employees are always or nearly always available in both official languages.

10.3 Healthy and safe: Strong

• Evidence indicates that the organization has in place a well-managed program to protect employee's occupational health and safety.
• The majority of employees feel recognized for positive performance.

11.1 Productive: Strong

• A significant number of employees indicate their organization supports their career development and learning needs.

11.2 Principled: Strong

• Communications with and services to the public in both official languages are always or nearly always available.
• Employees consider that they always or nearly always can communicate in the official language of their choice within their organization and work instruments, electronic systems and communications in both official languages are always or nearly always available.
• Necessary linguistic capacity is in place as is shown by the vast majority of incumbents of bilingual positions who meet the language requirements of their position.
• Organization is representative of all 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: Opportunity for Improvement

• Evidence indicates some human resources planning integrated with business planning exists.
• Support by means of governance/organizational infrastructure is not always present.

11.4 Adaptable: Acceptable

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

12.1 Governance: Acceptable

• IM requirements are somewhat integrated as a part of the approval, development, implementation, evaluation, and reporting of departmental policies, programs, services, or projects.
• IM is represented in the corporate-wide governance structure and/or 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

• The IM strategy is in development but it is not clear how it supports departmental business priorities and operations nor how it integrates 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

• Organization submitted an Annual Report to Parliament but did not address all of the mandatory reporting requirements.
• 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.
• Organization submitted an Annual Report to Parliament but did not address all of the mandatory reporting requirements.

13.1 Leadership: Acceptable

• The senior official has responsibility and accountability for the full scope of information technology responsibilities and ensures that information technology supports organizational outcomes.
• Adequate participation in setting government-wide directions for information technology is evident.

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: Opportunity for Improvement

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

14.1 Investment Planning: Acceptable

• The organization has a current long-term investment planning document that has been approved by the proper authority.
• The organization’s investment planning process considers investments over multiple years.
• The investment planning process integrates investments decisions across all asset classes.

14.3 Materiel Management: Acceptable

• All elements of a materiel management framework are evident.
• Governance structures, approval processes and authority limits are documented and disseminated.
• Comprehensive internal policies are documented and disseminated.
• Reliable and sufficiently integrated information systems are in place.
• Some indicators of materiel performance are monitored.

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.
• Cost estimates are generated at the work package level only and do not use historical data or industry benchmarks.
• There is no evidence that the organization has failed to meet TB conditions regarding projects.

15.3 Effective Management of Project Results: Acceptable

• The organization requires that project milestones, deliverables and outcomes are documented for major projects.
• There is evidence that the organization monitors project performance and uses this information to support corrective action.
• While lessons learned are used to improve project management governance and oversight in some instances, there is no formal or organization-wide mechanism which supports continuous improvement.

16.1 Governance and Oversight: Acceptable

• Effective and accountable procurement management processes and controls are in place (e.g., contract review mechanisms, documented decision making, guidance documents, appropriate delegation instruments or proper use of delegated authorities).

16.2 Meeting Operational Requirements: Acceptable

• Efficient and integrated procurement information systems and processes are in place.
• Informed decision making and oversight exist.
• Qualified procurement human resources exist.
• Results and reviews are used to continuously adjust current procurement management activities and future procurement plans.

Effective and accountable procurement management processes and controls are in place. Qualified procurement human resources exist. Efficient and integrated procurement information systems and processes are in place. Informed decision making and oversight exist. Results and reviews are used to continuously improve the procurement function.

17.1 Authorities and Policies: Acceptable

• Audit report results show evidence of deficiencies that are of some concern.
• 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 good 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 transactions and to assess the adequacy of Section 34 account verification show evidence of good financial management practices.

17.2 Public Accounts Reporting: Strong

• Greater than 97% (Grade A) of Public Accounts plates completed on time.
• Minimal Central Financial Management Reporting System (CFMRS) coding errors.
• No errors found during the course of the OAG Public Accounts audit.

17.3 Management Capacity: Strong

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

17.4 Financial Statements: Acceptable

• "There is evidence of some work undertaken to assess and/or monitor and/or improve internal control over financial reporting."
• The Financial Statements are compliant with Treasury Board Accounting Standard 1.2 – Departmental and Agency Financial Statements and reporting deadlines were met.

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 established.
• The scope of the internal financial reporting package is comprehensive.

17.6 Other Initiatives: Acceptable

• Evidence of some initial measures taken towards implementing the Guide to Costing.
• The organization has identified financial management initiatives in such areas as policies, reporting, systems and community development.

The department's performance rated as a strong Acceptable with Strong ratings for the quality, timeliness and accuracy of reporting for the Public Accounts and the strength of its financial management capacity.

18.1 Internal Audit governance: Attention Required

• There is an approved Internal Audit Charter in line with the 2006 Policy on Internal Audit.
• The Implementation Plan is missing some of the required policy elements.
• Absence of ongoing monitoring of the Implementation Plan and /or progress is not being achieved.
• An independent Departmental Audit Committee is scheduled to be in place but is not on track with planned timelines.
• There is an approved Departmental Audit Committee Charter in line with the 2006 Policy on Internal Audit.
• The Chief Audit Executive does not report to the Deputy Head but to the Assistant Deputy Minister level or below.

18.2 Internal Audit Professional Practices: Opportunity for Improvement

• The Risk-Based Audit Plan was approved by the Deputy Head and sent to the Office of the Comptroller General in a very timely manner.
• Annual Risk-Based Audit Plan methodology is, for the most part, evident and applied.
• There is complete and comprehensive identification of planned use of all audit function resources.
• All post-engagement follow-up activities are clearly identified.
• Vast majority of planned work is on audit assurance versus other types of activities.
• Continuity of previous years work is not clearly identified, or there is limited identification of status and rationale.
• Approved assurance products are consistent with policy and internal audit standards requirements.
• Low completion rate of assurance products (number of assurance audit reports) against 2007-2008 Risk-Based Audit Plan.
• Internal Quality Assurance and Improvement Program has not been documented.
• Post-engagement follow-up process is in draft or partially documented, and some recommendations are followed up using a risk-based approach.
• 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: Acceptable

• 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 maintain the resource levels 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

• Limited periodic reporting on the follow-up of Management Action Plans.

The Departmental Audit Committee (DAC) is nearing completion with the department anticipating the appointment of one external member in January 2009 and two in February 2009 for a common DAC shared with Transport Canada.

19.1 Departmental Security Program: Acceptable

• Organization has in place a fully developed security program that comprises key policy elements and is administered by an appointed Departmental Security Officer (DSO) who is positioned to provide strategic advice and guidance to senior management.
• No significant deficiencies in meeting key policy requirements for the departmental security program.

19.2 Management of IT Security (MITS): Acceptable

• Organization fully complies with Management of Information Technology Security (MITS) requirements.
• No significant deficiencies in meeting key MITS requirements.

19.3 Business Continuity Planning (BCP): Organization has initiated a Business Impact Analysis. Preliminary results indicate that the organization may provide certain critical services.

Note: The assessment methodology for Line of Evidence 19.3 will be revised for MAF Round VII.  Please refer to the assessment 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 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 are priorities and goals for service, but not always at the institutional level; these limited priorities and goals are set by senior management based on the use of limited performance evidence.
• There is limited monitoring of progress by senior management towards the achievement of the goals for service, making course correction difficult.
• 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.

20.3 Official Languages: Strong

• Analysis of the Annual Review on OL shows the institution is fully meeting its obligations.
• No complaint or minimal number of founded complaints exits.
• The institution has the necessary linguistic capacity to serve the public in both OL.