Introduction – Module 1Ruth DantzerPresident, Canada School of Public ServiceNovember 2009

Management Accountability Framework (MAF) and the Way Forward

2

Three central agencies share responsibility for supporting the Government of Canada in its planning and objective setting

Treasury Board (TB) is the management board of government:• Management office• Budget office• Employer

• Develops fiscal policy • Overseas the fiscal framework • Responsible for developing the Budget

• Secretary to the Cabinet• Department of the Prime Minister heads the Public Service

Responsible for MAF*

*MAF: Management Accountability Framework

3

TBS developed the Management Accountability Framework (MAF) in 2003 to better clarify expectations regarding a Deputy Minister ‘s leadership responsibilities and to assess the management capacity and performance of organizations on an annual basis.

Began as “framework for a conversation” between the Treasury Board Secretary and Deputy Ministers.

Used to comprehensively assess management capacity and performance in all departments and one-third of small agencies every year.

Direct impact on Deputy Ministers’ performance commitments and performance pay.

Iterative assessment process; information managed in a comprehensive Treasury Board database.

MAF assessments prepared by the Treasury Board Secretariat represent its ‘opinion’; summary of findings are made public.

Deputy Ministers increasingly using MAF results in their appearances before Parliamentary committees.

Assessments will be used as input to resource allocation decisions and to risk-manage departmental business with Treasury Board.

Management Accountability Framework (MAF) has evolved into one of the Treasury Board Secretariat’s (TBS’) key instruments for management oversight

Deputy Ministers are using MAF to improve their management practices

4

MAF is intended to assess and evaluate management performance in key areas of management (AoMs) that impact on the overall performance of the organization.

All major federal departments and a third of the small agencies are now assessed by MAF on an annual basis – between 55 to 60 departments and agencies.

19 areas of management and 65 lines of evidence underpin the assessment process.

Assessments are conducted by designated “Leads” within Treasury Board Secretariat that are each responsible for one Area of Management (AoM).

In September 2009, MAF launched its seventh round of assessments.

MAF is an information gathering and assessment system that makes informed judgements about the state of management in federal government organizations

5

MAF distils the vision behind various management reforms into 10 expectations of each Deputy Minister

6

• Little corporate attention

• Gathers little information regarding its conditions

• Little effort to understand vulnerability

• Little done about key issues

• Aware of deficiencies and taking steps to redress

• Plans/activities may be underway and accountabilities may be assigned

• Corporate engagement not yet sustained

• Plans are not yet fully integrated and implemented

• Robust corporate engagement

• Compliant with Treasury Board policies

• Effective plans and demonstrated accountability

• Integration and implementation is in place

• Uses outcome/result-based management

• Continuous learning and improvement to achieve highest standards

• Sets best practices

• Derives greatest value from its management

• Is a leader, proactive and sets an example to others

Attention Required

Opportunity for Improvement

Acceptable

Strong

In most areas of management, focus is on planning, growing capability, implementation and improved practice

In areas where new Treasury Board policies are being phased in (e.g. audit, evaluation), focus is on progress towards full implementation

‘Maturity’ of practice and capacity are assessed

7

The MAF Assessment Process

The Secretary of the Treasury Board informs departments that they will be assessed by MAF.

Departments upload documents through the MAF Portal.

Documents are assessed by the Treasury Board Secretariat.

Preliminary reports are produced.

Reports are reviewed by departments for errors and/or misinterpretations.

Assessment reports are finalized, approved by TBS senior management.

The Secretary of the Treasury Board and respective Deputy Ministers have discussions on the results of the MAF report.

Assessments are forwarded to the Privy Council Office (PCO).

The Clerk of the Privy Council Office, in conjunction with a committee formed of Deputy Ministers, uses MAF in determination of Performance Pay and Performance Agreements with Deputy Ministers.

MAF Assessment Results are released on-line to the public.

8

Round VI overall performance trends continue to be positive…

• % of Positive Ratings (Acceptable or Strong) have generally increased each year sinceRound III.

Note 1: LDA refers to Large Departments and Agencies. Small agencies and micro-agencies are not included in these calculations

3-year Rating Comparison by Area of Management (LDAs only) as of May 5, 2009

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

% o

f L

DA

s R

ated

as

Acc

epta

ble

or

Str

on

g

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

• There was a decline in ratings for Workforce (AoM #11) as a result of changes in the measures used.

… indicating improved management performance remains a priority for departments and agencies.

9

Progress was made in the majority of the AoMs identified as priorities in the previous Round of MAF

Progress on Areas of Management identified as Priorities for 2008/09(as of May 5, 2009)

64%

54%

63%

82%

76%

90%

73%

41%

72%

80%

47%

74%

67%

82%

95%

68%

92%

86%

46%

80%

82%

79%

Corporate Performance Framework

Security and Business Continuity

Internal Audit

Risk Management

Asset Management

Financial Management and Control

Evaluation

InformationManagement

Quality of Analysis

Corporate Management Structure

Performance Reporting

Areas of Management most often identified to organizations as

priorities for 2008/09

(in ranked order) % of LDAs rated as Acceptable or Strong 2007-08 2008-09

10

Round VI assessments were positive with all Areas of Management (AoMs), except Information Management, receiving an average score of acceptable or higher…

Note: LDA refers to Large Departments and Agencies as Small agencies and micro-agencies are not included in these calculations

Round VI Ratings Distribution (LDAs only)

(as of May 5, 2009)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% o

f L

DA

s R

ated

Strong Acceptable Opportunity for Improvement Attention Required

… providing evidence that the Government of Canada is well-managed.

11

An independent five-year evaluation of MAF was undertaken during Round VI

In November 2008, TBS commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers/ Interis to conduct an independent Five-year Evaluation of MAF.

Objectives of the Evaluation:

• Evaluate how TBS is assessing public sector management practices and performance within and across the Federal government (i.e., is MAF relevant, successful and cost-effective?);

• Compare MAF as a tool for assessing public sector management practices and performance across jurisdictions; and

• Identify and recommend areas for improvement to MAF as an assessment tool and its supporting reporting requirements, tools and methodologies.

Key conclusion: “MAF is meeting its stated objectives.”

12

The Evaluation Recommendations and TBS’ Management Response will support the continued evolution of MAF as a performance enabler

Recommendation TBS Response

1. Implement a risk/priority based approach to the MAF assessment process.

TBS will implement a risk-based approach with a view to preserving the benefits of MAF while reducing reporting burden by at least

20%.

Large Departments and Agencies:

Core AoMs: Core management functions on which each organization must be assessed annually (e.g. Ethics, HR, Financial, Risk, Audit and Evaluation).

Department Specific AoMs: Have a particular relevance to the organization’s mandate and activities.

Remedial AoMs: Areas of weakness and priorities identified by TBS in the previous Round.

Rotational AoMs: A three-year cycle of remaining AoMs not captured in the previous categories.

Small Departments and Agencies:

• Small agencies will continue to be assessed every three years.

• Only AoMs materially relevant to the mandate/ business of the entity will be assessed.

• Should the entity have poor results, it may be assessed more frequently.

13

Evaluation Recommendations (cont’d)

Recommendation TBS Response

2. Develop guiding principles for MAF methodologies.

TBS will ensure consistency and transparency across the MAF

assessment framework by applying guiding principles that will aim to ensure a balance between qualitative and quantitative measure and ; and recognize innovative management practices (Rounds VII and VIII).

3. Introduce or leverage an existing governance body with senior representatives from stakeholder departments to assist MAF.

TBS will increase dialogue and build shared MAF accountability

through senior official engagement and collective discussion on

GoC priority setting and horizontal issues (Round VII).

4. Develop a stakeholder engagement strategy and communication plan.

TBS will formalize and expand existing stakeholder engagement and internal and external communication plans to increase awareness and transparency of the MAF process (Round VII).

5. Assign formal responsibilities within TBS to oversee the MAF methodology and horizontal issues management.

TBS will strengthen horizontal issues management capacity while respecting and fostering the relationship between TBS policy sectors and functional communities.

14

Moving forward with the Next Generation of MAF…

The MAF 5-Year Evaluation and the TBS Management Response will be posted on the Publiservice Website Fall-Winter 2009

External Launch of Round VII took take place on September 29th - 30th

Round VI Assessments will be posted on PublicService Website during Fall 2009

Implementation of MAF 5-Year Evaluation Recommendations will occur over Round VII and Round VIII (2009/10 - 2010/11)

Continue to engage stakeholders (e.g. using existing committees, newly formed working groups, and regular information sessions and bulletins)

The Second Annual Leading Management Practices Conference with departments/agencies to be held Winter 2010

Round VII results will be released to departments/agencies April 30, 2010