ARCHIVED - MAF Assessment: National Research Council Canada - 2008

1.1 Leadership: Strong

• This section is based on the assessment submitted by this separate employer to TBP.
• Executive leaders engage employees and stakeholders on an ongoing basis in ethical discussions and openly address organizational ethical issues through public statements and internal messaging.

1.2 Infrastructure: Acceptable

• This section is based on the assessment submitted by this separate employer to TBP.
• This section is based on the assessment submitted by this separate employer to TBP.
• 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

• This section is based on the assessment submitted by this separate employer to TBP.
• Managers and staff are encouraged to engage in values and ethics dialogue.
• Organization has a good understanding of the current state of public service values and ethics as evidenced by qualitative or quantitative information.
• Public service values and ethics are generally understood.
• Values and ethics principles are reflected in communications.

2.1 PAA Consistency: Opportunity for Improvement

• The Strategic Outcome(s) does/do not represent (an) outcome statement(s) that is/are understood within and outside the department as a benefit to Canadians.
• The Strategic Outcome(s) is/are not at an appropriate level given the nature and resources of the organization.

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.
• A Program Activity Architecture has been developed with major issues to be resolved.

2.3 Quality:

• The organization has developed a weak performance measurement framework.

3.1 Business Plan: Acceptable

• Corporate business plan generally aligns resources and accountabilities to priorities.
• Corporate business plan generally integrates human resources, IM/IT, communications or other key corporate plans.
• Sector or branch business plans are generally aligned with the corporate business plan.

3.2 Governance Structure: Acceptable

• Adequate management oversight of the organization's program activities and underlying programs is evident.
• Management decisions and interventions are generally proactive and timely.
• 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).
• 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.

4.2 Participation in Priority Initiatives: Acceptable

• The organization contributes effectively to priority interdepartmental initiatives.

TBS has assessed NRC with regards 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.
• 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

• Established capacity for appropriate responses to TBS comments is acceptable.
• Generally, the correct policy authorities are used.
• Some links to MRRS, strategic objectives, etc., are present.

5.3 Consultations: Strong

• Consultations are always on time (6 weeks or earlier before TB meetings).
• Organization is usually able to avoid lateness by predicting and planning for uncontrollable factors.

5.4 Quality control: Acceptable

• Clarity and consistency of language are good.
• 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.
• TBS feedback is usually fully addressed.

In general, NRC showed greater consistency in the quality of its TB submissions.

6.1 Quality: Strong

• Evaluations submitted to TBS usually present findings, conclusions and recommendations that are supported by the evidence found in the evaluation report.
• The majority of evaluations submitted to TBS consistently address questions of program relevance, success and effectiveness.
• The majority of evaluations submitted to TBS consistently employ appropriate methodologies to gather data and inform the analysis.
• The majority of evaluations submitted to TBS include a management response and an action plan detailing timelines and management accountabilities.
• The majority of evaluations submitted to TBS include analysis of the limitations of the methodology and data sources used.
• 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.
• Head of Evaluation has explicit authority to submit evaluation reports directly to the Deputy Head and has direct and regular access to the deputy head.
• 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

• Option 2: The organization is working according to its evaluation plan. Evaluation coverage of direct program expenditures fluctuate highly from year to year, however, organization appears on track to achieve 100% coverage over a set year cycle (e.g. over a five-year cycle).
• The organization has shared its risk-based evaluation plan with TBS. The evaluation plan has information on evaluations planned, completed and carried over. It also includes links to the organization's PAA.

6.4 Usage: Acceptable

• Evaluation commitments, plans and requirements are delivered on time or extensions are due to circumstances beyond the department's control. Organization occasionally requests extension from TBS.
• The results of evaluations are usually brought for consideration in TB submissions, Memorandum to Cabinet, RPPs, DPR and Strategic Reviews.

7.1 MRRS Basis: Opportunity for Improvement

• RPP and DPR present a somewhat clear PAA.

7.2 Credible information: Acceptable

• Informative financial tables are included and explained with text, as necessary.

7.3 Context: Opportunity for Improvement

• DPR is not balanced – a few negative aspects of performance may be reported but insufficient explanation is provided.
• There is insufficient discussion of lessons learned.

9.1 Engagement: Acceptable

• Senior management reviews the organization’s Risk Management approach within the current three-year planning cycle.
• Each year, senior management reviews/approves the Corporate Risk Profile more than once.
• Senior management encourages effective Risk Management and a risk-smart culture.
• Accountability for key risks is assigned to senior management and performance is assessed.

9.2 Implementation: Strong

• The organization’s Risk Management approach is regularly communicated to staff and stakeholders in a variety of ways.
• 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 inconsistently considered and 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 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.
• The CRP provides an inconsistent assessment of the quality of risk information used.
• 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.

NRC has demonstrated steady progress in implementing its CRP into operational levels. The CRP and approach to developing the CRP is communicated to staff and stakeholders, and the organization has made several RM tools, guidance and training material available to its staff. The CRP development and implementation process is also linked to NRC’s business planning processes.

10.1 Fair: Acceptable

• This section is based on the assessment submitted by this separate employer to TBP.
• 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.

10.2 Enabling: Strong

• This section is based on the assessment submitted by this separate employer to TBP.
• The Official Languages portion of this evaluation has been made by CPSA.
• Work instruments, electronic systems and communication tools are generally available in both official languages.
• Organization demonstrates a generally adequate linguistic capacity to provide personal and central services and supervision in both official languages.

11.2 Principled:

• The Official Languages portion of this evaluation has been made by CPSA.
• Adequate linguistic capacity is generally in place as shown by the majority of incumbents of bilingual positions who meet the language requirements of their position.
• Communications with and services to the public in both official languages are generally available.
• Employees consider that they generally can communicate in the official language of their choice within their organization and work instruments, electronic systems and communications in both official languages are generally available.

11.3 Sustainable: Opportunity for Improvement

• This section is based on the assessment submitted by this separate employer to TBP.
• Evidence indicates some human resources planning integrated with business planning exists.
• Support by means of governance/organizational infrastructure is not always present.

12.1 Governance: Opportunity for Improvement

• IM accountabilities, roles, and responsibilities are only partially established in the organization.
• IM requirements are not identified.
• IM is somewhat represented in the corporate-wide governance or approval committee(s).
• Some responsibilities are identified for IM policy development/implementation.
• Participation is evident in GC-wide approaches and initiatives related to developing, implementing, sharing, and leveraging IM policies and practices.

12.2 Strategy: Attention Required

• Organization has no IM strategy or the existing strategy is outdated, inactive, and there are no existing plans to update.

12.3 Privacy Act: Acceptable

• Some 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.
• Although the organization has made several improvements to its 2008 Chapter of Info Source: Sources of Federal Government Information, revisions are still necessary to meet all Treasury Board Secretariat requirements.

IM governance, strategy and awareness are not present in the organization.  Therefore, it is apparent that the stewardship of information in this organization requires attention.

13.1 Leadership: Acceptable

• Senior official for information technology has only a partial scope of responsibility and accountability for information technology.
• Some participation in setting government-wide directions for information technology is evident.

13.2 Planning: Opportunity for Improvement

• Organization currently has information technology plan that does not fully meet expected content requirements.
• No efforts have been made to align corporate and information technology governance structures and planning processes.

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: Opportunity for Improvement

• The organization’s investment planning document has not been approved by the proper authority.
• The organization has a planning document that ranks priority investments.
• The investment planning process integrates investments decisions across all asset classes.

14.2 Real Property Management: Opportunity for Improvement

• Some elements of a real property management framework have been implemented.
• Reliable and integrated information systems are in place.
• Certification of information in the DFRP is received and accepted.
• Certification of information in the FCSI is received and accepted.
• Some indicators of real property performance are monitored.

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.
• The organization recognizes project management as a discipline and most employees with project management responsibilities have completed relevant project management training.
• 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.
• 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.

The organization recently eliminated the requirement for review and approval of project proposals by an organization-wide oversight committee. Approval of funding for projects is now integrated into senior management review and approval of Institute/Branch/Program business plans. It is not clear if project details are included in the plans and if formalized review and approval of individual project proposals and associated business cases occurs.

16.1 Governance and Oversight: Opportunity for Improvement

• Clear links have been established between procurement activities and the organization-wide program plans, priorities and long-term investments.
• Some procurement management processes and controls are in place (e.g., contract review mechanisms, documented decision making, guidance documents, delegation instruments or proper use of delegated authorities).
• Some procurement planning.

16.2 Meeting Operational Requirements: Acceptable

• Competent (highly qualified or certified) procurement human resources are in place.
• Consistent procurement training and certification programs exist.
• Efficient, effective and integrated procurement information systems and processes are evident.
• Informed decision making and oversight exist.
• Integrated, timely and accurate procurement financial and non-financial reporting exists.
• Links to human resources planning are inconsistent (e.g., insufficient succession planning and recruitment strategies for procurement staff).
• Procurement processes that contribute to cost savings and value for money are in use.
• Results and reviews are used to continuously adjust current procurement management activities and future procurement plans.

17.1 Authorities and Policies: Acceptable

• Audit report results show evidence of good financial management practices.
• Departmental procedures, tools, training and support for those individuals delegated with Section 34 authority show evidence of solid 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: 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.
• Many 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.
• There is a position (or positions) established in the financial management organization that is dedicated to community management and development.

17.4 Financial Statements: Strong

• The Financial Statements are compliant with Treasury Board Accounting Standard 1.2 – Departmental and Agency Financial Statements and reporting deadlines were met.
• The organization received an ‘unqualified audit opinion' with respect to its financial statements.
• There are no known financial internal control weaknesses.

17.5 Internal Reporting: Strong

• The internal financial reporting package is accompanied by a good 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 obtained a consistent Strong rating with slight improvements in some areas and slight decreases in others.

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 substantively 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 a Departmental Audit Committee Charter in line with the 2006 Policy on Internal Audit.
• There is an approved Departmental Audit Committee Annual Plan for fiscal year 2008-2009.
• There is a written statement indicating that a Departmental Audit Committee Annual Report will be produced for fiscal year 2008-2009 and future years.

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 a very timely manner.
• Annual Risk-Based Audit Plan methodology is evident and applied.
• There is evidence of preparation to provide for holistic assurance.
• All post-engagement follow-up activities are clearly identified.
• There is complete and comprehensive identification of planned use of all audit function resources.
• Vast majority of planned work is on audit assurance versus other types of activities.
• Continuity of previous years work is clearly identified with status and rationale.
• Approved assurance products are consistent with policy and internal audit standards requirements.
• Moderate 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 produced in a somewhat timely manner.
• Approved assurance products are made accessible to the public in a reasonably timely manner.
• Post-engagement follow-up process is well documented, and all 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 provides sufficient advanced notification to the Treasury Board Secretariat of 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 exceeds 10% 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 have been maintained comparatively to 2007-2008. They meet the resource level identified in the planned internal audit function’s budget for 2008-2009.

18.4 Internal Audit Performance: Acceptable

• A Chief Audit Executive Annual Report for 2007-2008 was presented to the Departmental Audit Committee and the Deputy Head and submitted to the Office of the Comptroller General.
• Regular periodic reporting on the follow-up of Management Action Plans is evident.

The organization has made ongoing progress in the areas of Internal Audit (IA) Governance, Professional Practices and Reporting on IA Performance. In particular, the Chief Audit Executive and President hold regular bilateral meetings on substantive audit matters. The Risk-Based Audit Plan exceeds the Office of the Comptroller General’s expectations.

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 has achieved the three priority objectives that form the foundation for Management of Information Technology Security (MITS) and complies with most MITS requirements.
• Some deficiencies in meeting key MITS requirements.

19.3 Business Continuity Planning (BCP): Attention Required

• Organization does not have measures in place to provide for the continuity of critical business operations and services.
• Business Impact Analysis (BIA) has not been completed to identify and prioritize the organization's critical services and assets.

20.1 Management Engagement – Service and CLF: Opportunity for Improvement

• 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 a committee at the institutional level, composed of senior management accountable for service, which has a documented and communicated responsibility for making decisions about the overall management of service.
• 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.

20.2 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.
• There are 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.