ARCHIVED - Library and Archives Canada

1.1 Leadership: Strong

• For more detailed information, please consult the organization's Values-based Leadership and Organizational Culture Scorecard, which can be found at the following link: http://publiservice.ochro-bdprh.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pmi-igp/default.aspx.¹

1.2 Infrastructure: Opportunity for Improvement

• For more detailed information, please consult the organization's Values-based Leadership and Organizational Culture Scorecard, which can be found at the following link: http://publiservice.ochro-bdprh.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pmi-igp/default.aspx.

Strengths: harassment complaints and grievances

Apparent Weaknesses: employee perception that senior management will resolve concerns raised in the survey and that essential information flows from senior management to staff

Direct comparisons with last year cannot be made, as the performance measures have changed.

¹ Please note that this website is internal to government and is not available to the general public. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and invite those who are interested in viewing the Organizational Culture Scorecard to email us at ScorecardResults-ResultatsCartedepointage@tbs-sct.gc.ca and we will make available the Scorecard.

2.1 SO Clarity and Measurability: Acceptable

• The Strategic Outcome statement(s) can be understood within and outside the organization as a benefit to Canadians, however its/their clarity should be improved.

2.2 PAA Completeness and Alignment: Opportunity for Improvement

• An inventory of programs has been developed but many listed programs in the Program Activity Architecture do not meet the definition of a program.

2.3 PMF Quality: Unrated

• Many performance indicators are not clear and cannot be used for data collection to provide reliable insight into program effectiveness.
• Many targets are not stated appropriately as a performance level of the indicator.

3.1 Business Plan: Acceptable

• Organization's corporate business plan is well aligned to corporate 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

• 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).
• Adequate management oversight of the organization's program activities and underlying programs is evident.
• Resource reallocation is generally proactive when or where required.
• Management decisions and interventions are generally proactive and timely.
• Senior corporate management structure or subordinate governance structure (e.g., committees) meet regularly.
• Senior corporate management structure (e.g., committees) interacts with and provides oversight to the supporting governance structure.

4.1 Participation in Priority Initiatives:

• Please note that there is no written assessment for this Area of Management as the rating is carried over from Round VI as one of the organization's Rotational AoMs.

5.1 Supporting Information: Opportunity for Improvement

• Emerging capacity to assemble supporting information in TB submissions.
• Organization has the capacity to respond effectively to most TBS feedback.
• Policy and budget authorities are not identified.
• Inaccuracies in information relative to TBS financial data.
• Funding information is not aligned with project authorities.
• Adequate information is submitted for business cases.
• Submission contains an adequate level of detail.
• Response to TBS comments is appropriate.

5.2 Analysis: Acceptable

• Business cases may have comprehensive information and demonstrate good analysis.
• Established capacity to analyze value for money, effectiveness and efficiency is evident.
• Established capacity for appropriate responses to TBS comments is acceptable.

5.3 Consultations: Acceptable

• Established capacity to initiate consultations with TBS with sufficient lead time is evident.
• Submissions are usually on time (six weeks before TB meetings).
• Organization should be better able to predict factors that lead to occasional lateness.

5.4 Quality control: Opportunity for Improvement

• No apparent quality control process exists.
• Good writing and translation standard have been used.
• Clarity and consistency of language are good.
• TBS feedback is usually fully addressed.

6.2 Neutrality: Strong

• All resources dedicated to evaluations are directed by the head of evaluation.
• Resources dedicated to the evaluation function appear to be commensurate with the organization's evaluation obligations under section 42.1 of the FAA.
• Head of evaluation has explicit authority to submit evaluation reports directly to the deputy head. Head of evaluation has unencumbered access to the deputy head, as required.
• The organization has shown evidence of moving towards full evaluation coverage of all its ongoing programs of grants and contributions over a five year cycle as per section 42.1 of the FAA. The organization has a demonstrated track record of completing planned evaluations. Average annual evaluation coverage of Gs&Cs is 20% (or higher).

6.4 Usage: Opportunity for Improvement

• The results of evaluations are sometimes brought for consideration in TB submissions, Memoranda to Cabinet, RPPs, DPRs and, where applicable, Strategic Reviews.
• Active, systematic and regular tracking of management action plans arising from evaluation recommendations is in place. Periodic reporting on the status of implementation of the evaluation recommendations is not in place.

No standardized text appears above for line of evidence 6.1 because Library and Archives Canada did not submit any evaluation reports as evidence. The rating from the last round - Opportunity for Improvement - has simply been carried over.

7.1 MRRS Basis:

• Please note that there is no written assessment for this Area of Management as the rating is carried over from Round VI as one of the organization's Rotational AoMs.

8.1 Scanning or planning for change: Acceptable

• The organization has the capacity to evaluate whether or not change is required.
• Organizational change plan exists and is consistent with the scope of change identified.

8.2 Engagement and capacity: Acceptable

• Employees are engaged in the strategy development phase.
• Change management related training programs are available to some components of the organizations.

8.3 Achieving results: Opportunity for Improvement

• Change plans and strategies are included in Performance Management Agreements of Senior Executives.
• Assessment plans exist but are limited in scope and detail.
• Results are not apparent.

9.1 Senior management is accountable: Opportunity for Improvement

• Organization is using a common IRM approach that has been approved by senior management, which is in practice across most of the organization (addresses key risk areas).
• Organization's IRM approach is tailored to the needs of the organization, and it addresses organizational requirements. There are mechanisms in place for future review of the IRM approach.
• There are mechanisms in place for future review of the IRM approach.
• Senior management reviewed corporate risk profile or similar tool within the past two years.
• IRM approach has been somewhat communicated within the organization.
• Clear and integrated IRM governance structures are in place across the organization.
• Senior management has been somewhat involved in establishing sound governance for IRM.
• Senior management may have provided some leadership in the development of an overall approach; however, there is little evidence of ongoing senior management leadership/support for implementation.
• Accountability for managing key risks appears to be inconsistently assigned to senior management.
• Senior management is beginning to encourage IRM; however, tools and resources are lacking to support the development of a risk-smart culture.

9.2 Implementation: Opportunity for Improvement

• Actual practice of IRM is well-implemented into most operational levels across the organization.
• IRM approach and planning, performance, and key business processes are well-linked.
• Tailored mechanisms and approaches are used to manage risks across functional areas and business lines.
• Organization uses a CRP or similar tool that provides practical and comprehensive risk information.
• Key operational risks are informally or inconsistently used to inform the development of corporate risks and priorities.
• Corporate risks are consistently linked to the organization's strategic outcomes.
• Risk information flows inconsistently within the organization.
• IRM guidance and tools are routinely communicated and disseminated to ensure that affected staff and management have access to required resources.
• Training and learning resources are reasonably up to date.
• IRM training is supported and available to key staff and managers.
• There is some evidence of ad hoc internal communications efforts to explain to managers and staff matters such as the importance of IRM and its linkages with the strategic direction and its relevance to the day to day operations of the organization.
• There is some evidence of informal risk-related communications to inform or engage partners and stakeholders.

9.3 Integration: Acceptable

• IRM principles or corporate risk information links to operational activities and risk assessments. This may be accomplished through formal or informal processes.
• Key risks are narrowly communicated.
• Key risks are clearly-defined and well-documented.
• Key risk information and IRM principles are valued as an important part of decision-making.
• RPPs describe mitigation strategies for the key risks included in the CRP or similar tool.

9.4 Continuous Improvement: Acceptable

• The organization has implemented some or most recommendations provided during its last MAF assessment, and acceptable rationale was provided for those recommendations not addressed.
• The organization makes adequate course corrections based on performance and new information.
• Notable improvements have been incorporated since the previous assessment.

LAC seems to be continuing its gradual implementation of integrated risk management (IRM). The Department has implemented a number of the projects described in the previous MAF evaluation and is encouraged to continue meeting the commitments it made in its three-year action plan.

10.1 Employee Engagement: Acceptable

• For more detailed information, please consult the organization's Excellence in People Management Scorecard, which can be found at the following link: http://publiservice.ochro-bdprh.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pmi-igp/default.aspx.¹

10.2 Leadership: Acceptable

• For more detailed information, please consult the organization's Excellence in People Management Scorecard, which can be found at the following link: http://publiservice.ochro-bdprh.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pmi-igp/default.aspx.

10.3 Employment Equity: Acceptable

• For more detailed information, please consult the organization's Excellence in People Management Scorecard, which can be found at the following link: http://publiservice.ochro-bdprh.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pmi-igp/default.aspx.

10.4 Employee Learning: Opportunity for Improvement

• For more detailed information, please consult the organization's Excellence in People Management Scorecard, which can be found at the following link: http://publiservice.ochro-bdprh.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pmi-igp/default.aspx.

10.5 Performance Management: Strong

• For more detailed information, please consult the organization's Excellence in People Management Scorecard, which can be found at the following link: http://publiservice.ochro-bdprh.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pmi-igp/default.aspx.

10.6 Integrated HR and Business Planning: Acceptable

• For more detailed information, please consult the organization's Excellence in People Management Scorecard, which can be found at the following link: http://publiservice.ochro-bdprh.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pmi-igp/default.aspx.

10.7 Staffing: Opportunity for Improvement

• For more detailed information, please consult the organization's Excellence in People Management Scorecard, which can be found at the following link: http://publiservice.ochro-bdprh.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pmi-igp/default.aspx.

10.8 Official Languages: Strong

• For more detailed information, please consult the organization's Excellence in People Management Scorecard, which can be found at the following link: http://publiservice.ochro-bdprh.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pmi-igp/default.aspx.

Strengths: retention, leadership stability, employee perception of a respectful workplace, rigorous performance management regime, employee perception of freedom to use language of choice and percentage of supervisors who meet the language requirements of their position

Apparent Weaknesses: employee perception that senior management makes effective and timely decisions and confidence in senior management, proportion of budget spent on training, staffing based on PSC SMAF assessment

Direct comparisons with last year cannot be made, as the performance measures have changed.

¹ Please note that this website is internal to government and is not available to the general public. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and invite those who are interested in viewing the Excellence in People Management Scorecard to email us at ScorecardResults-ResultatsCartedepointage@tbs-sct.gc.ca and we will make available the Scorecard.

12.1 Governance: Acceptable

• There is evidence that adequate IM governance and accountability structures are in place, including representation of IM in organization-wide governance and/or approval committees.
• IM roles and responsibilities for senior executives and managers are defined.
• Extensive participation is evident in GC-wide approaches and initiatives related to developing, implementing, sharing, and leveraging IM policies and practices.

12.2 Strategy Planning and Implementation: Acceptable

• Organization has an IM strategy that is current, active, and formally approved.
• IM strategy implementation is underway and there is evidence of progress against plans.
• Organization has defined and implemented IM awareness and training activities, which are included as part of an overall awareness strategy/program.

12.4 Access to Information Act: Opportunity for Improvement

• A significant number of institution-specific Classes of Records do not comply with Treasury Board Secretariat requirements.
• Response to Treasury Board Secretariat feedback is uneven and not always fully addressed.
• While progress is being made to improve the organization's Info Source chapter, additional revisions are required to ensure compliance with Treasury Board Secretariat requirements.

12.5 Privacy Act: Acceptable

• Most of the organization's collections of personal information are described in registered Personal Information Banks and/or Classes of Personal Information in accordance with the Privacy Act.

13.1 Leadership:

• Please note that there is no written assessment for this Area of Management as the rating is carried over from Round VI as one of the organization's Rotational AoMs.

14.2 Materiel Management: Acceptable

• Governance structures, approval processes and authority limits are documented and disseminated.
• Experience and best practices are shared internally and government-wide.

14.2 Materiel Management

• Internal policies on materiel management were updated to reflect the 2006 Treasury Board policy changes and have been disseminated to staff.
• There is an adequate information system in place but it is not linked with the financial system.
• Performance monitoring is done on an ad hoc basis and there are no targets or measures in place.

15.1 Investment planning: Opportunity for Improvement

• The planning document does not include a strategy to manage risks related to planned investments.
• The organization's investment planning documents do not cover all asset classes.
• The organization's investment planning process considers investments over multiple years.

15.2 Management of Project Resources: Acceptable

• Adequate processes/procedures exist to ensure that planned projects have the required resources to achieve expected results.
• There is no evidence that the organization has exceeded Treasury Board approval limits, or failed to notify TB/TBS when it did.
• Cost estimates are generated at the work package level only and do not use historical data or industry benchmarks.
• There is evidence that most employees with project management responsibilities have completed relevant project management training.

15.3 Management of project results: Acceptable

• There is evidence that the organization monitors project performance and uses this information to support corrective action.
• The organization requires that project milestones, deliverables and outcomes are documented for major projects.
• There is no evidence that lessons learned are used to improve project management governance and oversight.

16.1 Governance and Oversight:

• Please note that there is no written assessment for this Area of Management as the rating is carried over from Round VI as one of the organization's Rotational AoMs.

17.1 Authorities and Policies: Opportunity for Improvement

• Departmental compliance with the Policy on Financial Management Governance shows evidence of deficiencies that are of some concern.
• Departmental tools and procedures for those individuals delegated with delegated with Section 34 authority show evidence of deficiencies that are of some concern.
• 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 deficiencies that are of some concern.
• 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.
• Departmental processes and procedures for control and safekeeping of petty cash funds show evidence of good financial management practices.
• Departmental systems currently identifying and reporting on supplier payments show evidence of deficiencies that are of noted concern.
• Departmental processes and/or procedures that govern the management of its non-petty cash standing advances show evidence of deficiencies that are of a noted concern.
• The department has completed an internal audit of at least one financial management policy in the past five years, and/or it has one currently underway and/or it has one included in the approved Internal Audit plan for the next three years.
• Progress on the alignment of costing practices with the Guide to Costing is limited.
• Reporting of service or cost information for external user fees does not meet some requirements or guidelines.
• Approach to fee reviews shows moderate development.

17.2 Quality of financial reporting–internal & external: Acceptable

• The Financial Statements are compliant with Treasury Board Accounting Standard 1.2 – Departmental and Agency Financial Statements and reporting deadlines were met.
• The department has performed limited work in assessing or monitoring controls, thus potentially reducing its ability to prevent or detect material errors if any, in its financial statements.
• Few Central Financial Management Reporting System (CFMRS) coding errors.
• Greater than 97% (Grade A) of Public Accounts plates completed on time.
• No accounting period 15 adjustments.
• The scope of the internal financial reporting package is reasonable.
• The process for reviewing information before it is presented to senior management to ensure no material errors or omissions is weak.
• The internal financial reporting package is presented to senior management ten or more times per year.
• The internal financial reporting package is presented to senior management less than 15 calendar days after period end.
• The internal financial reporting package is accompanied by a weak discussion and analysis.

17.3 Management Capacity: Opportunity for Improvement

• 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.
• Positions, the duties of which are being performed by an individual indeterminately appointed to that position, comprise a low proportion of the FI segment of the financial management organization.
• A reasonable amount of training is provided for the financial management organization.
• A low proportion of FIs or 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.

17.4 Financial systems and internal control frameworks: Attention Required

• Departmental Financial Management System (DFMS) governance model completely supports the organization's financial management business needs, completely supports the Chief Financial Officer's (CFO's) responsibilities, such that the CFO manages the DFMS budget, manages the functional configuration of the DFMS, and the CFO provides final approval on functional changes/ enhancements.
• The organization has a robust training plan that enhances employee knowledge on the full capabilities of the DFMS functionality, including optional functionality.
• Acceptable information in annual plan that aligns with OCG directions: for standard business processes, Master data and a common configuration.
• The organization's financial information requirements have not been identified and analyzed.
• Interfaces between the DFMS and the organization's human resources system, and for some organizations, the Grants and Contribution system and Salary Management have not been documented.
• There is little or no evidence of effort in managing the departmental system of internal controls over financial reporting.

17.5 Independent reviews: Opportunity for Improvement

• There are an insufficient number of internal audit reports of financial management practices.
• A qualitative assessment of audit report shows opportunities for improvement of financial management practices.

17.6 Community leadership, innovation & new initiatives: Acceptable

• The organization has identified a number of financial management initiatives in areas such as policies, reporting, systems and community development and leadership.

With regards to 17.3, there were reductions in ratings from Round VI in stability of FI component of financial management organization and learning plan coverage.

18.1 Internal Audit governance structure: Opportunity for Improvement

• Independence of Chief Audit Executive is demonstrated through compliance with 4.1.2 of the Directive on Chief Audit Executives, Internal Audit Plans, and Support to the Comptroller General.
• Annual report of the Chief Audit Executive meets some of the key expectations set out in the Directive on Chief Audit Executives, Internal Audit Plans, and Support to the Comptroller General and Practice Advisory 2060-1 (Reporting to Senior Management and the Board).
• Audit charter is reviewed periodically by the Department and Agency Audit Committee.
• Internal quality assessment process is performed regularly. External Quality Assurance Review is planned or underway.
• Independent Department and Agency Audit Committee is in place that meets the requirements of the Directive on Departmental Audit Committees.
• Independent Department and Agency Audit Committee has recently been established.
• Department and Agency Audit Committee has established a risk-guided focus and cycle for the review of Values and Ethics, Risk Management, and Management Control Framework.
• Department and Agency Audit Committee periodically advises the Deputy Head on the effectiveness of arrangements in place to monitor and follow-up on Management Action Plans.

18.2 Policy and Directives on Internal Audit: Opportunity for Improvement

• Risk-based Audit Plan is based on a partially defined audit universe and on a risk assessment exercise that prioritizes audit engagements.
• Risk-based Audit Plan is reviewed by the Department and Agency Audit Committee, approved by the Deputy Head, and received by the Comptroller General in an untimely manner.
• Risk-based Audit Plan identifies the audit engagements to be conducted and the type (assurance or advisory), timing and cost of each engagement to be conducted in the first year of the Plan.
• Planning, conduct and reporting of internal audit engagements conform to the key Internal Auditing Standards for the Government of Canada.
• Audit reports are reviewed by the Department and Agency Audit Committee, approved by the Deputy Head, and made accessible to the public in a somewhat timely manner. (Penultimate draft is ready within three to six months of exit conference; approved report is usually made public within three to six months of approval by the Deputy Head.)

18.3 Progress: Opportunity for Improvement

• Performance reports provided by the organization partially demonstrate results/progress of the internal audit function including the effective implementation of Management Action Plans arising from audits, and adequate capacity and performance of the internal audit function.
• Processes for managing human resources are planned and mostly documented.

Under the leadership of the current Chief Audit Executive, Library and Archives Canada has made progress in the implementation of the Policy on Internal Audit, such as the development of a Risk-Based Audit Plan, and the demonstration of leadership/contribution to strengthening the internal audit function government-wide. The DAC is fully established and a DAC Annual Plan that has a risk-guided focus.

19.1 Departmental Security Program: Strong

• Organization's security program is fully developed and sustainable, and comprises all key policy elements.
• Organization's security program is completely aligned and integrated with its corporate priorities and business plan.
• Organization continuously improves its security program.
• Senior management is actively engaged in the management of security risks.
• Organization demonstrates leadership and innovation, and contributes to the government-wide security program.

19.2 Management of IT Security (MITS): Opportunity for Improvement

• Organization has achieved the three priority objectives that form the foundation for Management of Information Technology Security (MITS), but does not fully comply with MITS requirements.
• Some deficiencies in meeting key MITS requirements.
• Senior management is actively engaged in the management Information Technology security risks.

20.1 Sound Service Management Practices:

• Please note that there is no written assessment for this Area of Management as the rating is carried over from Round VI as one of the organization's Rotational AoMs.