Canadian International Development Agency
Classification program monitoring report
2005-2006 reporting period

Presented to Robert Greenhill
President, CIDA

By: Denis Kingsley, VP, HRCS
March 20, 2006

Table of Contents

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Classification activities 2005-2006
  • 2.1. Reorganization initiatives
  • 2.2. On-going classification requests
  • 2.3. Rehabilitation of the Organization and Classification program
    • 2.3.1. Functional Organization and Classification capacity
    • 2.3.2. Managing current and future demands
    • 2.3.3. Establishing the infrastructure and policy framework
  • 2.4. Horizontal classification initiatives
• 3. CIDA's organizational profile
• 4. Classification monitoring
  • 4.1. Classification risk assessment and impact matrix
  • 4.2. Classification monitoring program and activities 2005-2006
    • 4.2.1. Electronic support systems
    • 4.2.2. CS classification decisions review
• 5. Planned classification monitoring activities 2006-2007
• 6. Planned performance improvement activities for 2006-2007
  • 6.1. Corrective actions
    • 6.1.1. Electronic support system
    • 6.1.2. CS classification decisions
  • 6.2. Policy, procedures and guidelines instruments
  • 6.3. Training
  • 6.4. Other initiatives
• 7. Contact information
• Annex A: Organizational restructuring and classification requests policy, related procedures and approval forms
• Annex B: Senior management nomenclature policy
• Annex C: Organizational design and classification risk assessment report
• Annex D: Monitoring report: human resources electronic support system
• Annex E: Monitoring report: CS positions – CS 2, 4 and 5

1. Introduction

The following report serves to provide:

1. A summary of the organization and classification activities in 2005-2006 including information on:
   1. Reorganization and classification activity levels;
   2. Various organization and classification activities that took place in 2005-2006 to strengthen the integrity and business effectiveness of CIDA's organizational design and classification functions;
   3. Horizontal classification initiatives. 
2. An organizational profile of the Agency as of February 28, 2006;
3. Information on the results of the classification monitoring activities in 2005-2006;
4. Information on the planned classification monitoring activities for year 2006-2007;
5. Information on other initiatives planned in 2006-2007 to improve the performance of the Organization and Classification Program. 

2. Classification activities 2005-2006

Classification activities in 2005-2006 were primarily in one of the four (4) following activity areas:

1. Reorganization initiatives;
2. On-going classification requests;
3. Rehabilitation of the organizational design and classification program; or
4. Other corporate initiatives

2.1 Reorganization initiatives

To facilitate the management of reorganization initiatives in the Agency, these initiatives are grouped into four (4) categories, which identify in which phase they are.  The four (4) categories or phases are: problem definition, options analysis, decision and implementation. As of April 1, 2005, the Agency had a total of ten (10) reorganization initiatives underway.  Of these, one (1) was in the problem definition phase, two (2) were in the option analysis phase and seven (7) were in the implementation phase.  As of March 1, 2006 four (4) reorganization initiatives have been fully implemented and three (3) are still in the implementation phase. The number of initiatives in the problem definition and option analysis phases has increased from three (3) to eight (8).  In addition, the two (2) initiatives previously in the option analysis phase, will soon be presented to the Agency's Corporate Resources Committee (CRC) for approval.

The major reorganization initiatives that took place in 2005-2006 were:

• A realignment of responsibilities of some geographical Vice Presidents to address workload imbalances issues resulting from the emphasis on Africa as the main development focus for Canada and internationally; the Middle East taken on greater importance as a government priority; and the shrinking of programs in Central and Eastern Europe as countries in these regions become more self sufficient and less dependant on development or transition assistance.  This re-organization mainly affected the Africa and Middle East branch (AMEB) and the Central and Eastern Europe branch.  It resulted in the creation of an Africa branch and a Europe, Middle East and Maghreb branch.  In addition, the Francophonie Program was transferred for AMEB to the Multilateral Programs branch.
• The reorganization of the Canadian Partnership branch (CPB) to increase the branch's ability to implement approaches which reflect the Strengthen Aid Effectiveness principles; build its capacity to develop and share knowledge with CIDA, the field and partners; improve its contribution to policy development and programming; and strengthen the services that it provides to the Agency.  
• The re-organization of the Information Management and Technology branch (IMTB) to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery; create an optimum mix of employees and consultants; and correct organizational and classification anomalies created during the rush to create the branch in 2000.
• The creation of three new organizational entities: Canada Corps, the Corporate Planning and Analysis Group (CPAG) and the International Policy Statement (IPS) Implementation Secretariat.  Canada Corps is an initiative of the Government of Canada to engage more Canadians in international development and to harness their expertise and experience to deliver international assistance in the area of governance. The Corporate Planning and Analysis Group was established to support the Agency's integrated corporate planning process and conduct reviews and analyses for resource allocation purposes. The IPS Implementation Secretariat is the Agency focal point for coordination of IPS priorities and commitments.  The International Policy Statement (IPS) articulates a vision for Canada's global engagement.

2.2 On-going classification requests

Between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2005, a total of 715 individual new classification action requests were received.  This represents an average of 59 new requests per month over the time period.  As of February 23, 2006, 677 of these 715 actions were completed, 3 were on hold and 25 were active.  Many of these actions were the result of reorganization initiatives.  Of these 715 individual new classification actions, 26 were classification actions related to executive (EX) group positions.

2.3 Rehabilitation of the Organization and Classification program

Over the last three (3) years, CIDA's senior management have been scrutinizing the overall management, administration, leadership and capacity of its Human Resources Management (HRM) function.  A series of major internal audits undertaken in 2004-2005, resulted in the introduction of an HRM project targeted at a broad spectrum of improvements sought both on management and functional issues.  One of the sub-projects of the HRM project was the “Rehabilitation of the Organization and Classification Program” sub-project launched in September 2004. The objective of this sub-project was to restore strength, integrity and business effectiveness to CIDA's organizational design and classification functions.  A number of rehabilitation related activities have taken place since March 1, 2005.   The objectives of these activities were to:

1. Restore full functional capability,
2. Set in place a process to manage current and future demands, and
3. Construct the infrastructure and policy framework. 

The following describes the results achieved for each objective:

2.3.1 Functional organization and classification capacity

The Organization and Classification service delivery team

The administration of the Classification Program is centralized in the Organizational Design and Classification Section (ODCS) of the Human Resources and Corporate Services Branch. 

The ODCS is now comprised of a Chief, five fully accredited Organization and Classification Advisors (OCA) and a Classification Assistant.  The work is divided into portfolios and each advisor is responsible for providing organization and classification services to their clients.

In addition, a position of Organizational Design Specialist (ODS), reporting to the Director, Human Resources Operations, has been created.  The incumbent is also a fully accredited classification officer.   The ODS provides advice and support to management on all organizational design and restructuring initiatives, as well as, is responsible for the classification of EX positions.

EX classification committees

In December 2005, the Hay Group trained six (6) Vice-Presidents (EX-5 and EX-4 levels) and one (1) Director General (EX-3 level) in the evaluation of Executive Group (EX) positions.

EX classification committees are now held when:

• A new organizational structure is being implemented with the potential to set new or impact existing relativities;
• The position is submitted for reclassification;
• In situations involving contentious positions when the need for credibility and transparency is paramount; and
• The evaluation outcome may have a significant impact on intra-and interdepartmental relativity, results in a significant increase of salary expenditures, or be precedent setting.

To-date, two EX classification committees have been held.  The committee members have evaluated fifteen (15) EX positions. 

Other classification committees

The ODCS is in the process of updating the training program for managers and by mid-May, 2006 a new two-day course on evaluation techniques for non-EX positions will be offered to evaluators.

Work descriptions

A training program to familiarize managers with the new work description format has been developed.  Training sessions will be given to managers, employees and bargaining agent representatives in the next fiscal year. 

2.3.2 Managing current and future demands

In May 2005, the Agency put in place a new policy called ”Organizational Restructuring and Classification Requests Policy”.  The Policy aims to:

• Respect and re-enforce HRM governance roles of managers, the Human Resources Division (HRCSB/HRD) functional experts and management committees, the Human Resources Management Committee (HRMC) and the Corporate Resources Committee (CRC);
• Ensure greater transparency and consistency of decision making;
• Ensure emerging organizational restructuring or classification actions are flagged early to HRCSB/HRD functional experts and to branch senior management before staff expectations are raised and branch investments and expenditures made; and
• Encourage managers, HRCSB/HRD Organization and Classification Advisors and other HR specialists to work more collaboratively from the outset to ensure common understanding of objectives, select right option to fit the problem, flag risks and identify mitigation strategies.

This policy states that all organizational restructuring proposals and classification requests with corporate implications will be brought to the CRC, through the HRMC, for review before any decision is made to undertake any organizational or classification request with a corporate implication.  The HRMC is chaired by the DG, HRD and composed of a representative at the EX and EX minus-1 level from each branch.  The CRC is co-chaired by the Senior Vice President and the Vice President, Human Resources and Corporate Services (HRCS) branch and composed of all the branch Heads.  CRC decisions are final and binding.  The Organizational Design Specialist attends CRC meetings to provide advice on organizational design or restructuring related matters.

2.3.3 Establishing the infrastructure and policy framework

The Organization and Classification functions are managed under the same governance structure as all other Agency HRM disciplines.  The HRM governance structure clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of managers, HRCSB/HRD, HRMC and the CRC in HRM. The Agency has adapted as its own PSHRMAC Classification System and Delegation of Authority Policy.  Organization and Classification policies and procedures are being developed as HRCSB/HRD continues to design and populate a full CIDA HRM policy suite. 

The following table described the policy and procedure instruments which have been developed and implemented or are under development.

A copy of the Organizational restructuring and classification requests policy and its related procedures can be found in Annex A.  CIDA`s Senior Management Nomenclature Policy can be found in Annex B.  

Regular updates of classification decisions are provided to the Government's Position and Classification Information (PCIS) System and re-classifications are posted in accordance with central Agency requirements.

2.4 Horizontal classification initiatives

In 2005-2006, the Agency initiated three major horizontal (Agency-wide) classification projects:

1. “Information office of the future” initiative. The purpose of thisinitiative was to ensure a standardized organizational structure across all branches in the Agency for the delivery of information management related services. This initiative is in the implementation phase.
2. PG generic work descriptions initiative. The purpose of this initiative was to standardize PG levels across the Agency via generic work descriptions.  This initiative is on going.
3. FI review. As a result of FI Group Relativity Studies conducted by PSHRMAC in 2004, the Agency, as requested, has undertaken a project to-re-write and re-evaluate all FI positions within the Agency.  The project will be completed by July 2006.

3. CIDA's organizational profile

As a result of the reorganization initiatives previously described, the Agency is currently organized as follows:

Organization chart

As per SAP, the Agency information system, the Agency had, as of February 28, 2006, a total of 2,336 classified positions for a total of approx.1,700 FTEs.  The Africa branch, with a total of 385 positions, is the biggest of the four geographical branches followed by the Asia branch (228 positions), the Americas branch (193 positions) and the Europe, Middle East and Maghreb branch (152 position).  The Policy branch, with 213 positions, is the biggest corporate branch followed by the Canadian Partnership branch (203 positions), the Multilateral Programs branch (119 positions) and Canada Corps (38 positions).  As for the corporate services branches, the Human Resources and Corporate Services Branch is the biggest with a total of 339 positions followed by the Information Management and Technology branch (196 positions), the Communications branch (144 positions) and the Performance and Knowledge management branch (41 positions).  The remaining 85 positions are in the President, Executive Vice President and Senior Vice President Offices.

Of the total 2,336 classified positions in the Agency, 823 positions are jobbed against one of the Agency's 23 generics work descriptions.  Generic work descriptions can be found for the AS, CS, PM and ST-SCY groups.  The distribution of positions in the Agency is a follows:

Of these occupational groups, the PM group is the largest with a total of 745 positions, followed by the AS group (430 positions), CR (220 positions), ES (156 positions), IS (114 positions), EX (108 positions) and CS (105 positions). All other occupational groups have less than 100 positions in each group.

4. Classification monitoring

There has been no active classification monitoring in CIDA for many years.  One of the goals of HRCSB/HRD in 2005-2006 was to start re-building a classification monitoring program.  As a first step, HRCSB/HRD hired an external resource to conduct an organizational design and classification monitoring risk assessment.  The purpose of the risk assessment was to identify the inherent risks associated with the management of CIDA's organization and classification program.  The risk assessment was based on the evaluation of low, medium and high risks across the following eight (8) risk factors:

1. Quality of work descriptions,
2. Quality of classification decisions/results,
3. Volume of classification activities,
4. Complexity of classification activities,
5. Level of delegation of classification authority within the organization,
6. Availability and effectiveness of electronic support systems in place,
7. Environmental analysis of the organization's HRM practices, and
8. Availability of an early warning system to address risk areas. 

A copy of CIDA's organizational design and classification monitoring risk assessment report can be found in Annex C.

4.1. Classification risk assessment and impact matrix

The following corporate classification risk assessment and impact matrix reflects the analysis conducted by the external resource using PSHRMAC classification risk assessment model, and the seven (7) risk factors described above.

The information used in determining the preceding risk assessment and impact matrix was also used as the basis to develop the following:

1. Classification monitoring program framework for the Agency,
2. Classification monitoring program policy, and
3. Classification monitoring program procedures.

These are still under development.  An internal consultation process is currently underway with consultation planned with PSHRMAC in April 2006. 

In addition, the above corporate classification risk assessment and impact matrix also served to define the level of performance indicators and desired results from the classification program and monitoring activities.  The Agency monitoring guiding principles are as follows:

1. Higher risk and higher impact classification matters (identified in yellow and in red) will involve higher levels of monitoring to reduce their impacts;
2. Annual corporate classification monitoring activities will focus on addressing risk factors and establishing appropriate performance targets and priorities of monitoring activities will be based on level of risk and impact; and
3. Certain types of classification activities such as reclassifications will continue to be seen as high-risk transactions, which could have an impact on the application of classification values, as well as Agency and inter-departmental relativities.

4.2 Classification monitoring program and activities 2005 – 2006

The classification monitoring activities for 2005-2006 focused on:

1. The highest risk and highest impact classification area identified in the corporate classification risk assessment profile, namely, the electronic support systems, and
2. A review of the classification decisions for positions at the CS-2, 4 and 5 levels.

4.2.1 Electronic support systems

CIDA uses SAP to manage its human resources information.  The classification risk assessment identified a number of issues with the SAP system.  They are:

1. Lack of expertise on the human resource system team to monitor the quality of the entries related to human resources activities. 
2. The quality of the data in SAP is not reliable and, as a result:
   1. Organizational charts are not reliable;
   2. It is difficult to:
      1. Conduct effective organizational and classification analysis and to produce reports for senior management. 
      2. Obtain reliable information to conduct reviews in order to assess the health of the Organization and Classification program within the Agency. 
3. Increased workload for the ODCS.

HRCSB/HRD hired an external resource to further study the issues with the SAP system and to identify measures required to ensure accurate information is available to system users and to meet the expected performance results described in Table 1 below for this high-risk/high impact area. 

The issues related to the data integrity of the Agency's SAP HR system were also highlighted in a May 2004 audit report.  The audit review identified 200 cases where there were discrepancies between the information in the classification files and the information recorded in the SAP HR system.  The report states: “serious issues that were weakening the system for job classification and position management and the HR information management system”.  As a result, the HRCSB/HRD launched the “SAP HR improvement project” (SHIP) initiative.  The objectives of this project are to:

• Respond to last year HR and SAP audits;
• Rebuild the integrity of the data in the SAP HR system;
• Strengthen the administrative infrastructure of the SAP HR system;
• Improve the functionality of the SAP HR system as a management tool; and
• Meet PSMA requirements.

The first phase of the SHIP project started in July, 2005 with HRCSB/HRD as the pilot organization.  The consultant hired to further study/monitor the SAP system reinforced in his report “the need for the SHIP project to move ahead”.  Furthermore, recommendations were made to further improve project delivery and results. A copy of the consultant report can be found in Annex D.

4.2.2 CS classification decisions review

In August 2004, PSHRMAC completed a relativity review report of the Computer System (CS) occupational group across the federal Public Service.  As a result, as directed by PSHRMAC, CIDA, as part of its 2005/2006 classification monitoring exercise, reviewed all classification decisions for positions at the CS-2, 4 and 5 levels.  A total of 34 CS 2, 4 and 5 files were reviewed which, because of generic work descriptions, represented 58 positions files. The breakdown is as follows: 37 CS-2, 16 CS-4 and 5 CS-5.  The following is a summary of the key observations and recommendations made by the external resource hired to monitor the CS classification decisions at the CS-2, 4 and 5 levels.  A copy of the detailed report can be found in Annex E. 

Results of the review: key observations and recommendations

A. Quality of CS classification decisions

• Overall the quality of the classification decisions was considered good for the number of positions monitored.  However there are seven (7) positions (1 CS-2, 4 CS-4 and 2 CS-5) that need to be reviewed and updated of which five (5) (3 CS-4 and 2 CS-5) need to be evaluated by a classification committee to determine the appropriate level.

• In May 2005 CIDA instituted a new policy entitled “Organization restructuring and classification requests”. 

“In an effort to ensure that the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) is managing its organizational design and classification requirements in a corporate manner, all organizational restructuring proposals and classification requests with corporate implications will be brought to the Corporate Resources Committee (CRC), through the Human Resources Management Committee (HRMC), for review before any decision is made to undertake any organizational or classification request change.”

This policy change has been reviewed by the undersigned and is considered an excellent initiative, which should be recommended for use by all departments across the Public Service as a “best practice”. 

B. Quality of CS file documentation

• Overall the quality of file documentation was considered good for the 34 classification files reviewed.  Full work descriptions, organization charts, rationales and classification action and position record form were found on most files.  All files reviewed confirmed adherence to central agency policy that any reclassifications must be subject to an onsite review to confirm job coincidence and that reclassifications should only be completed by classification committee and not by an individual.
  However, three (3) positions files need to be updated to ensure they contain correct organizational charts and one (1) position file to ensure correct position number is on all documentation.

• The Chief, Organization and Classification should consider modifying the signature block in the classification action and position record form that includes the typed name of the signatory on the document to facilitate positive determination of the signee.

• The Central Agency considers, a “best practice”, that all requests for classification action be accompanied by a note from management requesting the classification action.  Not all the files reviewed contained a request for classification action. The Chief, Organization and Classification may wish to institute the Central Agency “best practice” that all requests for classification action be accompanied by a note from management requesting the classification action. 

• The Chief, Organization and Classification may wish to consider the implementation of a policy in use in some departments where any retroactivity of a classification decision exceeding a pre-determined time frame would be reviewed by the senior management committee if this process were not already in place. It is to be noted that CIDA already has in effect a policy on retroactivity.  However, it is also recognized that this policy needs to be reviewed.

C. Quality of CS work descriptions

• The overall quality of the CS work descriptions is considered good and the appropriate central agency format was used. 

The usage of generic work descriptions should be encouraged as it lessens the workload with regard to writing and evaluation requirements and generally leads to a better understanding of the work description with employees, supervisors and managers all being able to better distinguish between levels. 

D. Profile of CIDA's CS positions versus the 2004 PSHRMAC Report on medium sized departments

• CIDA CS % profile exceeds the government-wide profile at CS levels 3, 4 and 5 and is under the profile at CS levels 1 and 2. 

• To improve the CIDA profile in relation to the government-wide profile fewer positions should be staffed at senior levels versus junior levels, and the creation of non-supervisory positions at the CS 4 or 5 levels with limited supervisory responsibility should be curtailed.  As well, the monitoring exercise of CS 2, 4 and 5 positions identified five positions where the levels are suspect and that they should be evaluated by committee to determine the appropriate level.  Departmental management would then be in a position to determine if the amended CIDA profile (after ongoing staffing actions) is or is not in line with the government-wide profile. 

5. Planned classification monitoring activities 2006-2007

The following monitoring activities are planned for year 2006-2007.  These activities will address the medium risk / high and medium impact classification areas identified in the Corporate Classification Risk Profile.  The following Table 2 identifies the risk area to be managed, the related planned monitoring activities, the frequency and expected performance results.  The expected performance results are based on PSHRMAC expectation of a 90 per cent or higher classification performance in terms of quality of classification decisions. 

6. Planned performance improvements activities for 2006-2007.

6.1 Corrective actions 

6.1.1 Electronic support system

CIDA is committed to moving forward with its SHIP project to correct the issues identified with SAP, CIDA's electronic HR support system. In addition, the ODCS is in the process of developing draft procedures on the use of SAP for classification actions.  This will serve to guide branch administrative officer when they enter classification related data into the SAP system and will also contribute to reduce the error rate.

6.1.2 CS classification decisions

The following corrective actions will be taking by CIDA to address the issues and situations identified in the CS monitoring report. In the first quarter of 2006-2007, the ODCS will action the following:

1. Positions  #43, 1452, 2194, 2212, 2726, 4927 and 10002 will be reviewed and updated.  Positions 1452, 2194, 2212, 4927 and 10002 will be evaluated by a Classification Committee. 
2. The correct organization charts will be obtained for position # 2726, 4902 and 1452.
3. The correct position number for position # 1452 will be put on all classification documentation in the position file.
4. The ODCS will also work closely with management to identify organization and classification actions required to align CIDA's CS profile with the government-wide profile.  The creation of non-supervisory positions at the CS 4 or 5 level with limited supervisory responsibility will be curtailed. 

The ODCS will also continue to encourage the use of generic work descriptions.  In addition, the Chief, Organization and Classification will:

1. Consider modifying the signature block in the classification action and position record form that includes the typed name of the signatory on the document to facilitate positive determination of the signee;
2. Consider instituting the Central Agency “best practice” that all requests for classification action be accompanied by a note from management requesting the classification action; and
3. Review of CIDA's current policy on retroactivity.

6.2 Policy, procedure and guidelines instruments

The following new instruments are currently under development and will be completed early in 2006-2007:

1. Classification monitoring program framework, policy and procedures;
2. Classification grievance policy and procedures,
3. Guidelines for the use of generic work descriptions, and
4. Procedures on the use of SAP for classification actions. 

Other Organization and Classification policies and procedures will be developed as HRCSB/HRD continues to design and populate a full CIDA HRM policy suite. 

6.3. Training

Training for managers on the evaluation of non-EX positions will be offered starting mid-April, 2006.  This will allow for an increased number of classification committees. 

In addition, training for managers, employees and bargaining agent representatives to familiarize them with the new description format will be given.

6.4 Other initiatives

A review of all administrative support functions is planned to take place in the Agency.  The purpose of this 9 month project is to standardized the delivery of administrative support services across all branches in the Agency and develop generic work descriptions for administrative support positions.

In addition, a review will be conducted to identify where additional generic work descriptions can be created to simplify delivery and reduce the costs associated with the delivery of classification services to the Agency.

7. Contact information

For any additional information you may contact:

Monique Paquin
Director, Human resources operations
CIDA
934-0857
Contact Monique Paquin by email: monique_paquin@acdi-cida.gc.ca

Or

Suzanne Forget
Organizational design specialist
CIDA
994-5379
Contact Suzanne Forget by email: suzanne_forget@acdi-cida.gc.ca

Annex A

Organizational restructuring
and classification requests policy

1. Introduction

One of the sub-projects of the Human Resources Management (HRM) initiative launched in 2004 addressed the need to restore the strength, integrity and business effectiveness of CIDA's organizational design and classification function. In his Entre Nous message of July 15, 2004, the President outlined new measures adopted to more effectively manage service demands, both current and proposed. One of these measures was the prioritization and approval by Branch Heads of all new classification requests before any classification action would be taken. The introduction of this step has helped to reduce unnecessary workload and the collaboration between the branches and the human resources division has brought a noticeable improvement to operations.

Subsequently, at the September 2004 ExCom Retreat it was further agreed that effective immediately any organizational restructuring proposal or classification request with corporate implications for the Agency would be brought forward through the Human Resources Management Committee (HRMC) to the Corporate Resources Committee for review and decision prior to any action being taken. This policy sets out to formalize the practice that was established immediately following the September 2004 ExCom Retreat.

2. Policy objective

The Human Resources Management (HRM) initiative has, as one of its goals, to improve overall governance of Agency accountability for decision-making. Managers are expected to manage their human resources in a manner that meets their specific operational needs while also respecting the corporate need.

The objectives of this policy are to:

• Ensure the Agency is compliant with the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada (PSHRMAC) policies on classification system and delegation of authority;
• Ensure that the Agency is making informed organizational restructuring and classification decisions and that any potential impacts on intra and interdepartmental relativities, collective bargaining or salary expenditures are known in advance and can be managed accordingly; and
• Provide a tool for the standardization of practices and procedures to seek the appropriate level of approval for organizational restructuring and classification proposals.

3. Policy statement

In an effort to ensure that the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) is managing its organizational design and classification requirements in a corporate manner, all organizational restructuring proposals and classification requests with corporate implications will be brought to the Corporate Resources Committee (CRC), through the Human Resources Management Committee (HRMC), for review before any decision is made to undertake any organizational or classification request change.

4. Effective date

May 1, 2005

5. Definition of organization/classification requests with corporate implications

In order to ensure consistency in the use of terminology when applying this policy, a classification request, sponsored by a division, directorate or branch, is considered to have corporate implications when any of the following criteria apply:

5.1 The result of the organizational design request may, if implemented, create or resolve organizational performance issues (e.g. accountability, decision making and service delivery).

5.2 The result of the classification request may, if implemented, change existing Agency or Public Service relativities and result in significant increases in salary expenditures.

In these cases, it is imperative that the proposals be reviewed not only from the perspective of the sponsoring division, directorate or branch but also from the corporate, or “whole of CIDA” or “whole of Government” perspective. In this way, senior management can assess the implications of the proposed action(s) at the outset and ensure that they are in the best collective interest of the Agency and in conformity with Public Service policy and practice.

6. Application

Procedure to obtain CRC Approval

Step 1: Preliminary determination of potential corporate impact

A proposed organizational design and classification request must be brought to the attention of the Organizational Design and Classification Section (ODCS) prior to initiating any documentation. As the departmental functional authority, the ODCS is best positioned to provide Branches with a preliminary technical assessment and advice in these types of circumstances. The ODSC will advise if the case has corporate implications requiring CRC approval before proceeding. In these circumstances no further activity is to be initiated unless recommended by the ODCS.

If CRC approval is not required, the proposal will proceed in the normal manner. For cases where CRC approval is required, no further activity is to be initiated unless recommended by the ODCS.

Step 2: Preparation of organizational change proposal or request for classification action documentation

If CRC approval is required, the Branch will prepare and submit to the Organizational Design and Classification Section the documentation described in Annex A.

Step 3: Review by Organizational Design and Classification Section, Human Resources and Corporate Services Branch

Upon receipt of the required documentation, the Organizational Design and Classification Section will:

• Review the documentation, assess the viability of the request and determine its impact considering intra and interdepartmental relativities and potential broader implications for the rest of the Agency; and
• Advise and seek the views of the Human Resources Management Committee (HRMC) ) regarding the request and the Agency or Government wide impacts.

Step 4: Review by CRC

The Director General Human Resources is responsible for bringing forward to CRC the organizational design or classification request(s), the feedback and recommendations of HRMC, and will explain any implications of the proposal to the Agency. Branch Heads will be responsible to present and defend their respective organizational design or classification request(s). CRC will review and make a decision on the request(s) tabled for discussion and decision. If it is decided that the proposal should proceed, the classification request will be processed as outlined in Annex B.

The CRC decision whether or not to proceed with the proposal is final and binding. The Director General Human Resources will advise the HRMC and Organizational Design and Classification Section of the CRC decision. Branch Heads will advise their line management accordingly.

7. Roles and responsibilities

7.1 The Corporate Resources Committee (CRC)

• Reviews and makes decisions on all organization and classification requests

7.2 The Human Resources Management Committee (HRMC)

• Advises the sponsoring branch management representative and the Organizational Design and Classification Section

7.3 Branch Heads

• Approve classification requests to be forwarded to the Organizational Design and Classification Section.
• Defend respective organizational design or classification requests

7.4 The Director General, Human Resources Directorate (DG HR) of the Human Resources Corporate Services Branch

• Directs the analysis of the corporate implications
• Brings to the attention of the CRC any organizational design or classification requests, and explains their implication
• Informs HRMC and the Organizational Design and Classification Section of CRC decisions

7.5 The Organizational Design and Classification Section of the Human Resources and Corporate Services Branch

• Reviews requests and provides analysis and advice
• Authorizes classification decisions on behalf of the President.

CRC consultative draft

Annex A: Documentation required

If the request pertains to an organizational design request (re-organization initiative), submit an organizational change proposal (See attached template) describing:

• The organizational entity (ies) affected by the change;
• The proposed effective date of the organizational/position change;
• The rationale (reason/purpose) for the proposal;
• How the proposed changes will answer the purpose and complement the Agency's business objectives and corporate culture;
• All positions within the organization (division, branch or Agency, as required) potentially affected by the change;
• Potential organizational impacts, and
• The cost estimates of the change proposal.

If the request pertains to a classification request, submit a request for classification action (see attached template) identifying the:

The type of request (e.g. re-classification, creation of new unique or cloned positions, review and update, change to a position title or reporting relationship);

• The position (s) affected by the request;
• The rationale (reason/purpose) for the request;
• The proposed effective date of the request; and
• The cost estimate of the request for classification action.

The Branch Head must approve the Request for Classification Action. In addition, the following documentation, where applicable, must be provided with the request:

• Requests to reclassify, create new (unique or clones), or- review and update positions all require a work description and an organizational chart. The Branch Head must sign the organization chart. Existing or proposed work descriptions should also be signed by the manager, the supervisor and, to the extent possible, the employee.
• Requests for changes to titles and reporting relationships require an organizational chart signed by the Branch Head. In some cases, a change in title may require a work description (e.g. program analyst to program manager).

Annex B: CRC approved organizational design and classification requests

Approved organizational design requests

Once an organizational design (re-organization initiative) request has been approved by the CRC, the Branch Head or his/her designate will meet with the Organizational Design and Classification Section to:

• Establish a re-organization project team. It is important that Human Resources Division (HRD) resources be part of this team responsible for the preparation of the implementation plan and carry out actions identify any FIRM issues that will need to be addressed; and
• Assign necessary resources to assist with designing the organizational structure or with the writing of work descriptions. HRCS will advise Branches on firms / consultants suitable for the work.

Notes:

• No group and level commitment may be made to an employee concerning the classification of the position until a decision has been authorized by organizational design classification or the delegated classification authority, the President.
• All title changes requests for senior management positions must be consistent with the Agency Senior Management Nomenclature Policy

Human Resources Division (HRD), CIDA
HRD internal procedure: Human resources requests

ANNEX “A”

HRD procedure number 2005-001: Human resources requests

Purpose of procedure and applicable policy

This procedure describes the service delivery process used within Human Resources Division (HRD) to action human resources requests requiring a classification action. In addition, this procedure formalizes the process for approval of classification requests described in the Organization and Classification requests policy.

Accountabilities

Incumbents in the following positions are responsible for the implementation and quality review of the procedure.

Approval:

• Director of operations, HRD

Quality review and improvement:

• Chief, Organization Design and Classification Section (ODCS)
• Chief, Staffing, Operations Section

Quality review and improvement process

The procedure will be reviewed six (6) months after implementation (March 31, 2006) and then on a cyclical basis - once, every year, at anniversary date (October 1) or upon changes to the Organization and Classification Requests Policy.

The Chief of the ODCS and the Chief of the Staffing Section are responsible to consult stakeholders, during the review process, to determine the degree to which changes are required to the procedure to ensure optimal service delivery. Stakeholders include:

• Branch managers and administrative officers
• HRD, service delivery providers:
  • Organization and Classification officers
  • Human Resources Advisors
  • Others as deemed necessary.

Effective date

October 1, 2005

Application of the procedure

This procedure applies to all human resources requests where an interaction is required between a manager (or his/her administrative.officer), the ODCS and the Staffing Section in order to action a request. These requests are:

• Request for either a closed or open competition
• Request for a term appointment or re-appointment
• Request for an appointment without competition
• Request for a deployment
• Request for a casual appointment or part-time worker
• Request for a reclassification
• Request to change a reporting relationship
• Request to change a position title
• Request for an acting appointment

This procedure does not apply to the three following human resources requests. The interaction is direct between a manager and the Staffing Section. It does not require any action from ODCS.

• Request for a student worker
• Request related to a non-classified position (i.e. secondment, SAPP, flex...)
• Request to change the language requirements

Procedure

In all cases the manager should, prior to initiating any documentation such as a Human Resources Request form or classification documentation., contact the ODCS for preliminary determination of the potential corporate impact of the classification action. However for optimal service delivery, a collaborative approach between the Organization and Classification Officer, ODCS and the Human Resources Advisor, Staffing, Operations Section is encouraged.

Definitions: Corporate implications

In order to ensure consistency in the use of terminology when applying this procedure, a classification request, sponsored by a Division, Directorate or Branch, is considered to have corporate implications when any of the following criteria apply:

The result of the organizational design request may, if implemented, create or resolve organizational performance issues (e.g. accountability, decision making and service delivery).

Annex A
Flow chart: Step 2 A
Classification request with no corporate implication

Application of the procedure

This procedure applies to all classification requests for EX group positions.

Procedure

In accordance to HRD internal procedure 2005-01, once an EX classification request has been determined to have no corporate implications or has been approved by CRC as a result of a corporate implication, the Organization and Classification Advisor (OCA) is responsible to take appropriate action as part of the management of his or her portfolio files. In the case of EX group positions, the process described below must be followed. This process is designed to ensure sound management of the Agency EX complement and a streamlined process for Deputy Head (President) approval.

1. For proposed EX-1 to EX-3 level position with no corporate impact, the OCA evaluates the position and forwards to the organizational design specialist the following documents for review and approval of the classification decision by the President:

• A copy of the position description signed and dated by the position's superior officer, certifying that the information represents the major responsibilities and accountabilities accurately (descriptions should also be signed, when appropriate, by incumbents);
• A copy of the organizational chart, signed and dated by the superior officer, that shows the position in the departmental structure, peer and subordinate relationships;
• A copy of the evaluation rationale, including references to benchmarks, for the assigned level and rating;
• A draft memorandum from the Vice President, HRCS to the President describing the action required and the recommendation, as well as, a brief description of the position's key responsibilities and any information used to arrive at the proposed classification (i.e. internal relativities); and
• The original CIDA-330.

2. For any classification request related to EX- 4 or EX-5 level positions; any EX-1 to EX-3 classification request related to a reorganization initiative which has been approved by CRC; any EX positions submitted for reclassification or any contentious EX positions where the need for credibility and transparency is paramount, the OCA forwards to the organizational design specialist for action with the following documents;

• A copy of the position descriptionn signed and dated by the position's superior officer, certifying that the information represents the major responsibilities and accountabilities accurately (descriptions should also be signed, when appropriate, by incumbents);
• A copy of the organizational chart, signed and dated by the superior officer, that shows the position in the depai tulental structure, peer and subordinate relationships;
• A copy of a evaluation rationale, including references to benchmarks, for the proposed assigned level and rating; and
• Any other information used to arrive at the proposed classification.

3. Once approval has been obtained by PSHRMAC or TBS or the President has signed the CIDA-330, the organizational design specialist will inform the following persons of the decision (s):

• Chief, Organization and Classification,
• Organization and Classification Advisor responsible for the branch, and
• Executive Resourcing Officer. A copy of the position description will be providedd to facilitate the recruitment process.

4. The result of the classification request may, if implemented, change existing Agency or Public Service relativities and result in significant increases in salary expenditures.

Step 1: Preliminary determination of potential corporate impact by ODCS Once contacted by a manager, ODCS will:

1. Review the classification action required (i.e. creation of new unique or cloned position, reclassification, review and update, change to title or reporting relationship) and conduct a preliminary technical assessment to determine any potential corporate impact
2. Advise the manager and the Human Resources Advisor of the preliminary determination
3. Ask the manager to:

• If the request has no corporate implication, send his/her classification request with the following documents to the ODCS assistant:
  • A work description signed by the manager, supervisor and employee (if position is incumbered), and
  • An organizational chart signed by the Branch Head
• If the request has corporate implications, to prepare and forward to the ODCS a classification action request for Corporate Resources Committee (CRC) Approval with the required documentation

The next steps to follow in the procedure depend on the status of the classification request namely:

Follow Step 2A if the Classification request with no corporate implication

Follow Step 2B if the Classification request has a corporate implication

Annex B
Flow chart - Step 2 B
Classification request with a corporate implication,

HRD procedure number 2005-002: EX classification requests

Purpose of procedure and applicable policy

This procedure serves to describe the service delivery process used within Human Resources Division (HRD) to action classification requests related to executive (EX) group positions. This procedure complements HRD Internal Procedure 2005-01 related to the approval of classification requests and respect the requirements of PSHRMAC policy on Organizational Authority and Classification of EX Group Positions.

Accountabilities

The following officers are responsible for the implementation and quality review of the procedure.

Approval:

• Director of operations, HRD

Quality review and improvement:

• Organizational design specialist (ODS)
• Chief, Organization and Classification Section (OCS)

Quality Review and Improvement Process

The procedure will be reviewed approximately six (6) months after implementation (March 31 2006) and then on a cyclical basis - once, every year, (October 1) the date of the annual review of the HRD Internal Procedure 2005-01 or upon changes to PSHRMAC policy on Organizational Authority and Classification of EX group positions.

The organizational design specialist and the Chief of the OCS are responsible to consult stakeholders, during the review process, to determine the degree to which changes are required to the procedure to ensure optimal service delivery. Stakeholders include:

• The President
• Members of the executive committee
• Members of the EX Classification committee who are not members of the executive committee
• Organization and Classification Advisors
• Executive Staffing Advisor
• Others as deemed necessary.

Effective date

October 1, 2005

Corporate Resources Committee (CRC)
Approval template
Organizational change proposal / 
Gabarit d'approbation
du Comité des Ressources Ministérielle (CRM)
Proposition de changement organisationnel

Corporate Resources Committee (CRC)
Approval template
Classification request with potential corporate implication / 
Gabarit d'approbation
du Comité des Ressources Ministérielle (CRM)
Demande de classification avec un potentiel d'impact corporatif

Annex B

CIDA senior management nomenclature policy

1. Policy objectives

This policy outlines the nomenclature to be used in naming organizational entities and positions in the Agency's senior management hierarchy. The objectives of this policy are to:

Ensure the Agency is compliant with the Public Service Human Resources
Management Agency of Canada (PSHRMAC) policy on Organizational Authority
and Classification of Executive Group Positions; and

Provide a tool for the standardization in the designation of organizational entities and
in the use of titles at the senior management levels.

2. Policy statement

The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) shall ensure that the designations of organizational entities and the titles of positions in the senior management hierarchy are:

• In accordance with the Public Service Human Resources Management Agency of Canada (PSHRMAC) policy on organizational authority and classification of executive group positions; and
• Reflective of the organizational structure and relationships outlines in Annex A.

3. Effective date

May 1, 2005

4. Definitions

Branch:

organizational entities composed of several directorates and/or divisions

Directorate:

organizational entity composed of several Divisions and/or Bureau or responsible for the delivery of several programs

Division:

organizational entity composed of several sections/units bureau: office for transacting specific business

Programs:

group of related activities authorized by Parliament and designed to achieve specific objectives.

5. Application

• As organizational changes are approved, any new titles will be established in conjunction with the classification of the positions concerned, through a review of the duties and responsibilities and the organizational relationships
• The titles of Vice President, Director General and Director are to be used when the duties of the position have significant responsibility for the ongoing direction of staff and meet the following criteria:

Vice President
To be used only for those positions that:

1. Manage a Branch;
2. Are no lower than one hierarchical management level below the President; and
3. Are classified at the EX-5 or EX-4 level.

Director General:
To be used only for those positions that either

1. Manage a Branch or a Directorate;
2. Are no lower than two hierarchical management levels below the President; and
3. Are classified at the EX-3 or EX-2 level.

Director:
To be used only for those positions that:

1. Manage a Division or a Program or a Bureau;
2. Are no lower than three hierarchical management levels below the President; and c. Are classified at the EX-1.

Notes:

1. The title of Senior Vice President is to be used only for the position in the Agency that reports to the President and is responsible to assist the President in managing the Agency.
2. The title of Chief Information Officer is to be used only for the position in the
   Agency that reports to the President and is responsible to manage the
   Information Management and Technology Branch.
3. Titles with a qualifier, such as “Assistant” Director General or “Deputy”
   Director, are not to be used as they give the perception of too many management
   layers.
4. The title of a position serves to represent its reporting relationship and responsibilities within the organization. The title does not define its financial delegation or signing authority.

6. Roles and responsibilities

• The President is responsible for approving the designations of organizational entities and the proposed titles of positions, in conformity with this policy and Annex A.
• The Director General, Human Resources Division/Human Resources and Corporate Services Branch provides advise to the President on the management of this policy.
• Agency Senior Managers are responsible for respecting this nomenclature in describing organizational entities and positions in the senior management hierarchy.
• The Organizational Design and Classification Section of the Human Resources
  and Corporate Services Branch (HRCS) is responsible to:
  • Provide advice on the designations of organizational entities and the use of
    position titles; and
  • Maintain a directory of all approved designations and positions titles in both
    official languages.

Annex A: Agency senior management nomenclature

Annex C

Canadian International Development Agency

Organizational design and classification monitoring
Risk assessment report

The risk assessment is a systematic process for assessing and integrating professional judgments about probable adverse conditions and/or effects. By examining the functional and organizational classification risk, a risk assessment serves to:

• identify, focus and maximize the effectiveness of monitoring activities; and
• help determine the scope of a given performance assessment.

Based on the model developed by the Public Service Human Resources Agency of Canada (PSHRMAC) the following risk factors have been assessed:

• Quality of work descriptions
• Quality of classification activities
• Volume of classification activities
• Complexity of classification
• Delegation of classification authority
• Electronic support systems
• Environmental analysis
• Early warning system

Annex “A” shows the rating for each element evaluated under each of the above risk. 

1. Quality of work descriptions

The agency is using the new work description format as developed and proposed by the PSHRMAC. In conjunction, CIDA has developed a training program for managers/employees to familiarize them with the new format. Training sessions will be given to managers in the next fiscal year. Managers are required to provide or write the work descriptions in the new format in collaboration with the incumbents of positions. Classification training on work description writing, on classification and committee evaluation processes will be available and offered on an on-going basis. However, the updating of work descriptions is not done on a systematic manner; the new training program will emphasize the importance for managers to maintain their work descriptions up-to-date and to modify them when the responsibilities of a position changed significantly. This element of risk is rated as medium and the quality of the work descriptions on file should be assessed during the monitoring exercise.

Generic work descriptions are used for groups such as: Administrative Services (AS); Secretarial Services (ST); Clerical Services (CR); Computer Sciences (CS); Program Management (PM). In addition, the organization is in the process of developing generic work descriptions for the Financial Administration Group (FI); the Purchasing Group (PG).

There are situations where generic could be misused by managers because they are used to get a level rather than ensuring that the work description reflects the responsibilities of the position. This is likely to happen more frequently within junior levels of the AS group (AS-01, 02, and 03) and it could potentially result in creating non-coincidence situations. Also, these levels are influenced by the inter-departmental relativity that shows there is no uniform application of the AS standard for these administrative support positions. Files and on-site reviews should be conducted during the monitoring exercise.

The PM group is a large group where generic work descriptions are used. Levels PM-01 to PM-04 are development levels where incumbents are automatically promoted as they meet the requirements of the next level. PM-05 and 06 levels are the working levels and they are covered by generic work descriptions. However, these work descriptions have not been reviewed for many years and they should be updated.

There is also an issue of group allocation of program policy analyst positions. At the corporate level these positions are classified within the ES group while classified PM within the operational branches. A sample of these PM positions should also be monitored during the monitoring exercise to assess the issue and take appropriate action if required.

The Organizational Design and Classification Section (ODCS) is comprised of the Chief and five fully accredited Organization and Classification Advisors (OCA) with the appropriate support staff. The work is divided in portfolio and each advisor is responsible for providing organization and classification services to their clients. In addition, the Agency also has an Organizational Design Specialist who is also accredited and provides advice and support to management on all organizational design and restructuring initiatives. This is an acceptable ratio considering that CIDA has a total population of 1700 employees.

Classification files are maintained by the ODCS and the requirements are that each position file should contained a signed work description by the manager and if possible by the employee, an organizational chart signed by the responsible Vice-President or Director General, the classification action form CIDA-330, a rationale and any supporting documentation such as on-site report, summary of discussions with managers... etc.

There are very few job content complaints and they will normally be resolved by the ODCS further to discussions with managers and employees. Cases that are submitted at the first level as staff relations grievances are managed by the Staff Relations Section and will be assessed in collaboration with the ODCS and the union representative, as required. There are only four active cases and only one will likely go to the final level process.

2. Quality of classification decisions/results

The Organizational Design and Classification Section (ODCS) is responsible for training managers that are required to participate in classification evaluation committees. In December 2005, seven senior executives were trained in the evaluated of Executive group positions. To date, two EX evaluation committees have been held. The ODCS is in the process of updating the training program for managers and by mid-April a new two day course on evaluation techniques for non-EX positions will be offered to evaluators.

In May 2005, the Agency put in place a new policy called “Organizational Restructuring and Classification Requests”. This policy states that all organizational restructuring proposals and classification requests with corporate implications will be brought to the Corporate Resources Committee (CRC), through the Human Resources Management Committee (HRMC), for review before any decision is made to undertake any organizational or classification request change. The HRMC is chaired by the DG, Human Resources Directorate and composed of a representative at the EX-01 and EX minus-1 level from each Branch. The CRC is co-chaired by the Senior Vice President and the Vice President, Human Resources and Corporate Services Branch and composed of all the Branch Heads and their decision is final and binding. The Organizational Design Specialist attends CRC meetings to provide advice on organizational design or restructuring related matters.

The objectives of this policy are to:

• Ensure the Agency is compliant with the PSHRMAC policies on classification system and delegation of authority;
• Ensure that the Agency is making informed organizational restructuring and classification decisions and that any potential impacts on intra and inter departmental activities, collective bargaining or salary expenditures are known in advance and can be managed accordingly;
• Provide a tool for the standardization of practices and procedures to seek the appropriate level of approval for organizational restructuring and classification proposals.

A copy of the policy and the related procedure is attached in Annex “B”. Such process ensures an effective risk management of the elements listed under this risk factor and can be considered as a “Best Practice”.

The element related to coincidence between work described and work performed is the only one rated as medium risk. As previously noted there are some issues with the utilization of generic work descriptions for the administrative assistant positions at the AS-01, 02, 03 levels. As noted previously, files and on-site reviews should be conducted during the monitoring exercise.

There is also some internal relativity issues related to the classification of the Performance Management Officers and Resource Management Officers positions. At the corporate level these positions are classified within the ES Group while similar positions within the operational branches are classified within the PM Group. The situation is well known by the Classification Section and the implementation of the new EC Standard will permit to review and classify all these positions based on updated work descriptions. Files and on-site reviews of some of these positions should be done during the monitoring exercise.

The Agency provides monthly updates to PSHRMAC on all their classification activities. There is only one active classification grievance in the Agency. 3. Volume of Classification Activities

The Agency has six accredited Organizational Design and Classification Advisors and they are in the process of staffing an additional training position. Each officer has a portfolio and is responsible for providing organizational and classification advice to their clients. They also deliver classification training to managers on work description writing and committee evaluation. The organizational design specialist is also accredited and provides advice on EX related classification.

All organizational restructuring proposals and classification requests are submitted to the responsible advisor who, in discussion with the Organizational Design Specialist and the responsible manager, determines if the proposal has to go through, as per the policy, the HRMC and CRC for approval.

The classification program is administered in accordance with PSHRMAC policies and procedures. In addition, the Agency has developed internal policies and procedures to complement the Central Agency policies and guidelines. These are:

• Organizational restructuring and classification requests policy
• Organizational restructuring and classification requests procedure
• EX classification requests
• CIDA senior management nomenclature policy

The Agency is also in the process of developing an internal policy and procedure related to grievance administration process to complement the Central Agency policy. Also, the training programs on work descriptions and committee evaluation are under revision.

4. Complexity of classification

The centralized approach to the administration of the Classification Program ensures a consistent application of the standards and facilitates the maintenance of the relativity. The use of generic work descriptions also ensures a consistent application of the standards across the agency.

There are many reorganizations taking place, at this time, in different branches of the Agency and during such exercise it is critical to ensure that the intra-departmental and inter-departmental relativities are taken into consideration in the decision-making process. This risk is effectively managed by the Agency based on the application of the internal policy on “Organizational Restructuring and Classification Requests” and a committee evaluation process composed of senior managers to review and classify senior (EX) positions that are part of these reorganizations. This element of risk is considered medium because of the high number of reorganizations going on at this time. However, the Agency has put in place the required process to manage this risk effectively

During discussions with the ODCS staff it appeared that there could be situations of noncoincidence and misuse of generic work descriptions for specialized positions within the ES, PM, and CO groups. This mainly occurs when employees return from their posting abroad and where they have to be appointed to a position at their substantive group and level but not necessarily in the same branch then when they left. This element is rated as a medium risk and some on-site reviews of these positions should be conducted during the monitoring exercise.

5. Delegation of classification authority within the Agency

The classification authority is centralized within Human Resources and administered by the Organizational Design and Classification Section (ODCS). This ensures consistency in the application of the standards and the maintenance of the internal relativity. There are five accredited classification officers providing organizational design and classification services within the Agency.

Directed decisions are the exception and only for very special cases. These decisions are signed by the President and the file is documented accordingly and these cases are not used for relativity purposes.

6. Electronic support systems

CIDA is using a system called SAP to assist them in the management of Finance and Human Resources Programs.

Classification activities are inputted via five different panels. The initial two entries are made are made by managers who complete panels 1 and 2 while panels 3, 4, and 5 are the responsibility of the Organization and Classification Advisors (OCA). The content of these panels is as follows:
Panel 1:
Basic information on the position such as: position title; effective date; proposed group and level; official language designation, security level required; employment status and the type of classification action required.
Panel 2:
Management approval panel, however, all managers have delegated this function to their Administrative Officer.
Panel 3:
The OCA checks panels 1 and 2 for completeness and once the position is classified enters the rating and the classification group and level. This becomes the classification action form and it is referred to as the CIDA-330.
Panel 4:
This is the approval of panels 1, 2, 3 by the OCA. The position is then officially created (classified) and approved.
Panel 5:
Use by the OCA to reject a request.

Managers are also authorized to complete panels 1, 2, and 4 for non-classified positions such as SAPP, student employment, Flex and field posting.

In addition, managers have the rights to access the system with “expert mode” to modify a reporting relationship, a security level or a language designation. When they do so the system automatically erase historic of the position. . Managers can also delete a position when in “expert mode” and again destroying the historic of a position.

The data in SAP is inputted electronically from many different sources and the Human Resource System Team does not have the expertise to monitor the quality of the entries related to Human Resources activities. The quality of the data in SAP is not reliable and, as a result, organizational chart are not reliable either. Many managers have created their own standalone org. chart system in their organizations which does not reflect reality. In these conditions, it makes it very difficult to obtain reliable information to conduct reviews in order to assess the health of the Organization and Classification Program within the Agency.

There are many reorganizations taking place in the Agency and the Organizational Design Specialist, Organization and Classification Advisors and managers cannot rely on SAP data to assist them in their analysis. In addition, SAP database should be the source for producing organizational charts required when conducting such organizational design reviews but the link does not exist and a different system is used to produce the charts.

The lack of reliability SAP data has made it difficult to conduct effective organizational and classification analysis and to produce reports for Senior Management. This is creating an additional workload. for the OCDS because they have to create their own report template and manually collect and screen the required information.

This risk is rated as high and should be addressed during the monitoring exercise. 

7. Environmental analysis

The Agency has not been the subject of unfavourable media reports. 

8. Early warning system

The decision to centralize the administration of the Classification Program in the Organizational Design and Classification Section (ODCS) of the Human Resources Branch and to create a position of Organizational Design Specialist is contributing to a consistent approach in the application of the standards and the maintenance of intra- and inters departmental relativities. It is also facilitating the identification and the correction of potential inconsistencies early in the process including those associated resulting from re-structuring initiatives.

The implementation of the Organizational Restructuring and Classification Requests Policy ensures full implication of Senior Management in the decision-making process related to organizational design and classification activities within the Agency.

The ODCS is reviewing and updating their training programs related work description writing; classification administration and committee evaluation for managers to increase their knowledge and ownership of the classification program.

Canadian International Development Agency
Organization and Classification risk assessment

The risk assessment is a systematic process for assessing and integrating professional judgments about probable adverse conditions and/or effects. By examining the functional and organizational classification risk, a risk assessment serves to:

• identify, focus and maximize the effectiveness of monitoring activities; and
• help determine the scope of a given performance assessment.

Functional Risk Values: Effectiveness, affordability, integrity, probity, fairness, objectivity and impartiality in advice, transparency

Annex D

Monitoring report
Human Resource Electronic Support System (SAP)
Canadian International Development Corporation

March, 2006

Background

During the completion of a CIDA organizational design and monitoring risk assessment conducted in January, 2006, the Agency Electronic Support System (SAP) was identified as a “high risk” issue for the agency. The report of this assessment clearly identified that the “quality of data in SAP is not reliable” making it “very difficult to obtain reliable information”.

It was determined that a monitoring exercise of SAP was required to identify measures needed to ensure accurate information is available to system users.

It is noted that this situation had been observed in a previous audit review conducted in 2004.

Process

The Monitoring Officer reviewed background documentation on the SAP system, followed by a number of interviews with users. Those interviewed included system users from the program side, both management and at the data input levels (two interviews), personnel responsible for SAP systems (one interview) as well as user personnel , both staffing and classification, from the personnel group (4 interviews)

Detailed interview notes are not a part of this report as clearly, from the information provided to the Monitoring Officer, the issue of “reliability of data” in the system has already been identified.

Observations

The report of January, 2006 entitled “Organizational design and classification monitoring risk assessment” stated:

“The data in SAP is inputted electronically from many difference sources and the human resource system team does not have the expertise to monitor the quality of entries related to Human Resources activities. The quality of data in SAP is not reliable and, as a result, organizational charts are not reliable either. Many managers have created their own stand alone organization chart in their organizations which does not reflect reality. In these conditions, it makes it very difficult to obtain reliable information to conduct reviews in order to assess the health of the Organization and Classification Program within the Agency.

There are many reorganizations taking place in the Agency and the Organizational Design Specialist, Organization and Classification Advisors and managers cannot rely on SAP data to assist them in their analysis. In addition, SAP database should be the source for producing organizational charts required when conducting such organizational design reviews but the link does not exist and a different system is used to produce the charts.

The lack of reliability SAP data has made it difficult to conduct effective organizational and classification analysis and to produce reports for Senior Management. This is creating an additional workload for the OCDS because they have to create their own report template and manually collect and screen the required information”.

The following are further comments by this Monitoring Officer:

1. There are problems with system control (who can input data) and the data reliability and a blueprint is available on how to correct deficiencies. This should be implemented.
2. System presently deletes historical data if changes are made. For audit and monitoring purposes and this is unacceptable. This deleted historical data needs to be retained.
3. Clear procedures are needed (ie only classification personnel can authorize reporting relationship changes) to ensure the accuracy of the system.

A full work plan had already been developed, dated September 26, 2005, entitled “SAP HR Improvement Project (SHIP)” a copy of which is attached. This Monitoring Officer cannot improve on this project work plan however I offer the following comments from system users obtained in March, 2006 during the completion of this monitoring report in order to reinforce the need for this project to move ahead. It is considered to be critical to human resources operations for the Agency.

“ the present information in the [SAP] system and its accuracy [September, 2005] is so questionable that HR personnel no longer trust it and prior to staffing any position, staffing personnel send an email to classification requesting confirmation that the level of the position and its reporting relationship is correct”

“each time a request is received for information on departmental population of groups and reporting relationship, HR personnel have to pull the classification file to verify rather than referring to information on the system”.

Recommendations

1. A working group, as identified in the SAP HR Improvement Project (SHIP) should include representatives from HR (classification and staffing), from the SAP systems administration group, from IMTB (technical hardware and software specialists) and from a program organization. This will assist in ensuring that all concerns are addressed.
2. A senior management “champion” should be named to ensure that the project moves forward at a timely pace and that the necessary resources are available as required.
3. Open lines of communication to all those involved should be encouraged in order that CIDA personnel know that this project is a priority and is moving forward.
4. Once any required system changes have been made, this information must be communicated, in writing, to all users with any necessary training being provided.

Frank Longo
Monitoring Officer
March 12, 2006

Annex E

Monitoring report
Computer System (CS) Positions: CS 2, 4 and 5
Canadian International Development Agency

March, 2006
Longo & Associates

Contents

Background

Summary of recommendations

Classification monitoring process/methodology

Observations and comments:

1. Quality of work descriptions
2. File documentation
3. Organization charts
4. Use of Classification Committees to evaluate positions
5. Proper organizational setting
6. Request for classification action
7. Classification grievances
8. Official notification of classifications decisions to employees
9. Use of generic work descriptions
10. Evaluation rationales
11. National Occupational Classification (NOC) codes
12. Retroactivity of classification decisions
13. Quality of classification decisions

Annex A: Excerpts from CPSA reports

Annex B: Chart of file review findings and recommendations

Background

In August of 2004 the Canada Public Service Agency (CPSA) completed a relativity review report of the Computer System (CS) occupational group across the federal Public Service. This report, in addition to providing a group overview, included provision of various statistics related to small, medium and large size departments and average profiles as established by CPSA.

Departments and Agencies were directed to:

“monitor the application of the CS Standard within their own context and, balanced with other identified risks in their department, to take appropriate action to address issues identified by this study, particularly for the CS 2, CS 4 and CS 5 levels.”

The CS profile observations in relation to the 2004 CPSA report, were considered by this Monitoring Officer as a separate issue from the normal classification monitoring exercise. All comments on the group profile are contained in Annex A. For the purposes of this report, the profile of a group is just the number of occupied positions at each level. Also contained in Annex A is an analysis providing observations and recommendations of the Monitoring Officer on various aspects of comparing the government-wide CS profile with the CIDA profile.

The actual monitoring of Agency CS 2, 4 and 5 file documentation and decisions are contained in the text of this report and are further detailed in Annex B.

Summary of recommendations

This classification monitoring exercise was restricted to CS 2, 4 and 5's. Overall, the quality of file documentations and decisions was considered to be good. The CS positions underwent a complete re-organization in 2004, becoming the IMTB Branch and the majority of work descriptions were updated and evaluated at that time. As I did not review the CS 1's, 3's and non-CS positions, I cannot comment on whether these would be rated good as well.

It is recommended that:

1. In the case of positions #2194, 2726, 1452 and 43 it is recommended that the work descriptions be updated and submitted for classification review.
2. The classification files (position # 2726, 4902 and 1452) be updated to contain the correct/updated Organization Charts. In addition the position number (position # 1452), job title Client Services Director) needs to be reviewed with a view to ensuring the correct position number is on all documentation.
3. The work descriptions for positions 10002, 1452, 4927, 2194 and 2212 need to be updated and submitted for review by a Classification Committee.

Classification monitoring process/methodology

The classification monitoring review of CS levels 2, 4 and 5 was a review based on existing documentation on file and the classification decision itself. No discussions were held with Managers, nor were any onsite reviews conducted with employees to verify that what is down on paper as the work description is what the employee is actually doing (job coincidence).

This classification monitoring review exercise assessed the quality of the documentation on file, provides observations as to “best practices” from a classification program perspective and recommends the next steps for certain files whether either the documentation was lacking or the classification decision was questionable.

A total of 34 CS 2, 4 and 5 files were reviewed which, because of generic work descriptions, represented 58 position files.

Observations and recommendations

In addition to the more detailed information listed below, the observations and recommendations are contained in Annex B, file review findings and recommendations. It should be noted that many of the observations contained in this report are in regard to items where the writer suggests that action should be taken.

The recommendations are issues that, according to central agency policy, must have action taken to resolve the situations.

1. Quality of work descriptions

   The overall quality of the work descriptions is considered good and the appropriate central agency format was used.

   Some work descriptions were missing the signature and date of the employee and/or the supervisor or manager. At a minimum, classification requests should not be processed without the dated signature of a supervisor or manager.

   It should also be noted that the format for work descriptions was changed by the central agency (CPSA) in 2005 however CPSA left the decision on format to departments as long as they covered the Human Rights elements of work. If not already informed the Classification section should determine the format they want used within CIDA and advise all concerned. This will lead to a standardized work description format with less confusion on what is acceptable format.

   In a few cases the work descriptions were considered to be out of date or not considered acceptable. (position #'s 2194, 2726, 1452 and #43). In one case the work description was dated 1996 and in the second case there was no formal work description on file; what was on file was a photocopy of a work description of another department although it was signed and dated.

   Recommendation 1: In the case of positions #2194, 2726, 1452 and 43 it is recommended that the work descriptions be updated and submitted for classification review.

2. File Documentation

   Overall it was considered that the file documentation was good for the 34 classification files reviewed. Full work descriptions, organization charts, rationales and classification action and position record form's were found on most files.

   It should be noted that in some cases, although the classification action and position record form was signed, the signature was illegible. It is suggested that consideration be given to modifying the signature block that includes the typed name of the signatory on the document which will be useful for positive determination of the signee.

3. Organization charts

   All files reviewed contained an organization chart however in one case it was not signed or dated by management. In some cases where they were dated, this was not the same date as when the classification action occurred.

   The Chief, Organization and Classification should reinforce the requirement that organization charts be signed and dated.

4. Use of classification committees to evaluate positions

   Central agency policy dictates that an interdepartmental classification committees will be used to evaluate all CS 5 level positions and interdepartmental committees were organized in all cases.

   In 2005 central agency policy was amended so that any reclassifications must be subject to an onsite review to confirm job coincidence and that reclassifications should only be completed by Classification Committee and not by an individual. All files reviewed confirmed adherence to this criteria.

5. Proper organizational settings

   In 3 situations (position #'s 2726, 4902 and 1452) the monitoring officer was unable to determine the appropriate organizational setting. In these cases the Organization Chart on file placing the position in its organizational setting at the time of evaluation is now different when reviewing the current organization charts.

   Recommendation 2: It is recommended that the classification files (position # 2726, 4902 and 1452) be updated to contain the correct/updated organization charts. In addition the position number (position # 1452), job title Client Services Director) needs to be reviewed with a view to ensuring the correct position number is on all documentation.

6. Request for classification action

   The Central Agency, as a “best practice” considers that all requests for classification action be accompanied by a note from management requesting the classification action. Not all the files reviewed contained a request for classification action.

   The Chief, Organization and Classification for CIDA may wish to institute this practice.

7. Classification grievances

   Of the 34 files reviewed, none had been the subject of a classification grievance.

8. Official notification of classification decisions to employees

   Central agency policy requires employees to be officially notified of a decision with regard to the classification level of their position. This allows employees to determine if they wish to challenge the classification decision through the classification grievance process.

   In some departments, as the classification decision directly impacts on the employee, the required notification is on the staffing file. This should be verified and if this is the case at CIDA no further action is required with regard to a change in process or procedures as long as the employees receive formal notification by human resources. If this documentation is not on the staffing files then it is recommended that the Chief of Classification determine where CIDA would wish to have this documentation filed and ensure that this is done.

9. Use of generic work descriptions

   It was noted that in some cases the organization uses a generic work description to represent the work of more than one position. The usage of generic work descriptions should be encouraged as it lessens the workload with regard to writing and evaluation requirements and generally leads to a better understanding of the work description with employees, supervisors and managers all being able to better distinguish between levels.

   It should be noted that the onus is on management, regarding job coincidence, that what is down on paper in the work description and that significant change in the work should be reflected by a changed work description.

10. Evaluation rationales

    It was noted that the majority of files had full classification rationales with group allocation, benchmark references and signatures. As well, the increased usage of Classification Evaluation Committees was noted and is considered an improvement over the single evaluator process.

11. National Occupational Classification (NOC) codes

    The majority of files contained the appropriate codes under the National Occupational System. Exceptions are noted for four files; position # 2241, 12003, 43 and 2196.

12. Retroactivity of classification decisions

    During the monitoring exercise there were only two instances identified where there was significant retroactivity in the reclassification. One file (position #2241) was fully documented by management whereas for file position # 1452 there was no explanation on file for the retroactivity.

    As a “best practice” the Chief, Organization and Classification may wish to consider the implementation of a policy in use in some departments where any retroactivity of a classification decision exceeding a pre-determined time frame would be reviewed by the Senior Management Committee if this process is not already in place.

13. Quality of classification decisions

    Overall it is considered that the quality of the classification decisions are good for the number of positions monitored, however there are some positions that should, for a variety of reasons, be reviewed by Committee to determine the appropriate level.

    Recommendation 4: The work descriptions for positions 10002, 1452, 4927, 2194 and 2212 need to be updated and submitted for review by a Classification Committee.

    In May 2005 CIDA instituted a new policy entitled “Organization restructuring and classification requests”.

    “In an effort to ensure that the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) is managing its organizational design and classification requirements in a corporate manner, all organizational restructuring proposals and classification requests with corporate implications will be brought to the Corporate Resources Committee (CRC), through the Human Resources Management Committee (HRMC), for review before any decision is made to undertake any organizational or classification request change.”

    This policy change has been reviewed by the undersigned and is considered an excellent initiative which should be recommended for use by all departments across the Public Service as a “best practice”.

Applicability of 2004 PSHRMAC report to CIDE profile

CIDA, with its encumbered number of FTE's at approximately 1700, was placed with organizations which had a population ranging from 500 to 2000, a medium sized organization as defined by CPSA.

This CPSA report is quite lengthy so for the purpose of this monitoring exercise the undersigned has brought forward only those particular aspects of the report which are considered to relate to the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). A full copy of this report is available from Ms. Suzanne Forget at 944-5379 should it be required.

Annex A: Excerpts from CPSA study

Paqe 4, section 1.1

“In 2003 Deputy Heads were reminded of their responsibility for systematic monitoring to ensure the overall integrity of classification in the Public Service.”

Paqe 6, section 2.2.1

“Distribution of CS positions by size of department as at Sept. 30, 2003 medium sized organization profiles (500-2000) encumbered”

Government wide profile:

CS 1 - 19%
CS 2 - 40%
CS 3 - 24%
CS 4 - 10%
CS 5 - 8%

Paqe 8, section 2.5

“Further guidance was requested concerning the CS 5 level, considered for salary purposes to be an EX 1 equivalent and the use of the EX 1 level in an information technology organization. The Executive Management Group, of the Leadership Network, has confirmed that, although unusual, it would be acceptable in some cases for a CS level position to an EX 1 level position. The Position Classification and Information Systems (PCIS) show that this does exist in a few organizations. Departments are advised to be cautious when considering organization options and when determining group allocation at these levels, to not create unnecessary salary compression and potential inversion of the supervisor-subordinate positions”.

Page 13, section 2.10.2

“Medium-sized (greater than 500 less than 2000 total occupied positions) and small departments (under 500 total occupied positions)

Occupied CS positions across the public service comprise approximately 5.8% of total occupied positions for medium-sized departments and approximately 6.6% of total occupied positions for small departments. The percentage of occupied CS positions to total occupied positions varies from 0.6% to 15.9% at the departmental level.

There was limited difference in organizational usage between medium and small-sized departments reviewed. Differences are noted where they are found.

For the majority of medium and small departments reviewed, the CS community is located at headquarters. When these medium departments have regional positions, they comprise 10% to 25% of the total CS population.

In the medium-sized and small departments reviewed, the following position types and reporting relationships were found:

CS 01: Programmers and help desk technicians most typically reporting to CS 03 positions but also reported to other levels within the CS group.

CS 02: Programmer analysts and technical specialists typically reporting to CS 04 or CS 05 positions.

CS 03: Project managers, team leaders and technical analysts, typically reporting to CS 04 positions with some reporting to CS 05 positions. It was noted that, in small departments, CS 03 positions report equally to AS 07, CS 05, EX 01 or EX 02 positions.

CS 04 and CS 05: Managers and directors. Both levels typically report to EX 02 or EX 03 positions. It was noted that small departments generally have either CS 04 or CS 05 positions but not both. In small departments, CS 05 positions typically report to EX 02 positions.”

Monitoring officers observations with regard to profile comparison

Comparison of profiles of CIDA occupied positions versus 2004 CPSA report on medium sized departments

As can be seen, the CIDA % profile exceeds the government-wide profile at levels 3, 4 and 5 and is under the profile at levels 1 and 2

Correction of profile

There are of course many ways to change the profile, but hypothetically, to demonstrate the scope of the issue, if CIDA was to change the number of occupied positions from its present situation

Scenario #1

Scenario #2

Analysis

As can be seen, although the CIDA profile is high at present, a slight alteration in the number of encumbered positions would have a significant impact. Experience indicates that group profiles should not be viewed in isolation. The mandate of the organization can also impact on the profile. Further, the way that an organization conducts its business, i.e. outsourcing rather than using FTE's to meet its operational requirements, can leave an organization with a “top heavy” profile. Further it is this Monitoring Officer's understanding that a number of competitions are presently ongoing to fill a number of vacant positions which could alter the group profile of encumbered positions.

Recommendations

To improve the CIDA profile in relation to the government-wide profile fewer positions should be staffed at senior levels versus junior levels, and the creation of non-supervisory positions at the CS 4 or 5 level with limited supervisory responsibility should be curtailed.

As well, the monitoring exercise of CS 2, 4 and 5 positions identified a number of positions where the levels are suspect and that they should be evaluated by Committee to determine the appropriate level. Departmental management would then be in a position to determine if the amended CIDA profile (after ongoing staffing actions) is or is not in line with the government-wide profile.

Annex B

File review findings and recommendations
CS positions: Canadian International Development Agency