We are currently moving our web services and information to Canada.ca.

The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat website will remain available until this move is complete.

FIS Benefits Report and Strategy Paper using Benefits Realization


Archived information

Archived information is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject à to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

2.0 THE FIS BENEFITS RESULTS CHAIN – MANAGER'S VIEW

DMR developed the initial Results Chain based on the initial discussions and available FIS documentation and descriptions. It was added to and refined during the facilitated workshops. The Benefits Register was then derived from the key outcomes of the Results Chain. A brief description of the standard Results Chain components and the FIS Benefits – Manager's View Results Chain are provided in this section.

2.1 RESULTS CHAIN COMPONENTS


A Results Chain represents the reasoning used to associate outcomes with one or many initiatives and what is required for their realization. Four components are used in creating a Results Chain as follows:

Outcome
  • an outcome is a change in result. It can be the consequence of one or more initiatives or prior outcomes. It encompasses the concepts of "results" and "benefits". On the FIS – Manager's View Results Chain, intermediate outcomes are coloured gray, key outcomes are green, and the four outcomes of Results for Canadians are dark blue. Outcomes should ideally be measurable in order to determine if the change program was successful in achieving its goals.

Contribution
  • a contribution refers to the role that an initiative or outcome plays in helping to bring about a subsequent outcome. Contributions may be labeled or left unlabelled.

Initiative
  • an initiative is an action that can be taken to support the desired change. It is something over which the program exerts control. It may be a simple task, or an entire project. It can contribute to the production of one or more outcomes.

Assumption
  • an assumption is a condition that is necessary to realizing the outcome or initiative it is associated with. Assumptions represent risks, or the likelihood of achieving the benefit, as long as they remain uncertainties. Assumptions may be within or outside the control of the program.

Table 2: Results Chain Components

2.2 FIS BENEFITS – MANAGER'S VIEW RESULTS CHAIN

The FIS Benefits – Manager's View Results Chain is found below:

The FIS Benefits - Manager's View Results Chain

This Results Chain shows how FIS helps to support a Manager's overall objectives in their department. The overall framework for the Results Chain shows how FIS provides Managers and departments with certain capabilities, which enables more informed decisions and better reporting. This takes into account the new Treasury Board publication Results for Canadians – a Management Framework for the Government of Canada, which includes: Managing for Results; keeping a Citizen Focus; promoting Public Service Values; and maintaining Responsible Spending. The following are brief descriptions of the Results Chain elements as they were described throughout the workshops.

2.2.1 INITIATIVES

Initiative Description
Develop Accrual Accounting Policies Develop new policies to support accrual accounting and GAAP.
Upgrade the Chart of Accounts Specify a standard Chart of Accounts that accommodates an accrual accounting environment and GAAP.
Implement Accrual Accounting in departments Put in place all the policies, procedures and systems required to actually start using the accrual accounting approach in all departments.
Implement Costing Systems Put in place any costing systems that will permit more accurate costing of assets, people or any other resources that are consumed by departments in their operations.
Identify Assets & Liabilities and their historical costs List all assets above the threshold value, and put them into an asset inventory along with their historic cost. Include any liabilities that either pertain to those assets or are independent. For example, value the asset of a base (land and building), but also include the cost of the environmental cleanup as a liability, in case the property was to be sold.
Modernize Departmental Management Systems This can refer to new implementations / releases of financial systems software (such as the shared systems SAP, Oracle Financials or Free Balance), or HR systems (such as PeopleSoft) or other applications that help run the departmental programs.
Modernize Receiver General Systems Develop and/or upgrade the interface from Departmental Systems to the RG's systems. Modify the interface from the RG to the Department of Finance systems for Financial Reporting. Upgrade the appropriate RG systems (such as Pay) to support current data and reporting needs. This includes eliminating the detailed transactions that used to be duplicated between departments and the RG.
Train the Functional Communities Provide the proper level of training for the various functional communities such as Finance, Real Property or Material Management, in order for them to become more competent in using both financial and non-financial information.
Deliver Integrated Change Strategies and Communications In addition to training, Managers need to be provided with an understanding of the goals and outcomes of the FIS change program. This initiative seeks to inform these managers that the change is coming, what's in it for them, and keeps a regular communication channel open.
Launch Learning Strategies for Managers Develop the high-level learning approaches targeted at managers.
Implement Learning Strategies for Managers Implement the specific learning approaches for managers so they develop a deep understanding of FIS and Modern Comptrollership and what it means for them and their department.
Examine ways to benefit from FIS Examine if there are additional benefits to be gleaned from FIS, once managers and staff have been trained on the basis use and applicability of FIS.
Establish baseline for non-financial information Determine what current non-financial information (such as service levels, or program mandate) needs to be considered for the comparability analysis.
Identify Program Performance criteria Determine what relevant program performance criteria needs to be considered for the comparability analysis and as input for decision making.
Performance Agreement Criteria Established Determine the criteria by which managers will be evaluated, in terms of accountability for program performance.
Define Managers' roles & responsibilities, timelines This initiative was only briefly discussed during the workshops, and was not linked in to the Results Chain.
The idea was to establish what roles and responsibilities Managers would have in order to implement FIS in their departments, and over what expected time period.
Provide practical, tangible toolkit This initiative was only briefly discussed during the workshops, and was not linked in to the Results Chain.
The idea was to provide managers with a set of tools and techniques that would help them implement all the various aspects of FIS in their departments.
Show Best Practices / examples of success This initiative was only briefly discussed during the workshops, and was not linked in to the Results Chain.
The idea was to identify and share the Best Practices approaches to implementing FIS in the public sector, and to use an "early win" to demonstrate a success story for others to hear.

2.2.2 OUTCOMES

Bolded Outcomes in this table are those key outcomes that are included in the Benefits Register.

Outcome Description
Basis to implement accrual accounting Created the capability and favourable conditions under which it would be possible to implement accrual accounting policies, systems, tools and techniques.
Assets & Liabilities are valued Created the inventory of all assets and liabilities of the department, having identified them and followed the policies to evaluate them. They then show up on the balance sheet.
Basis for asset management Created the capability to manage assets in a meaningful way, through establishing their value, depreciating them over time, and preparing to manage them actively over their useful life.
Integrated reporting capability Created the capability for integrated reports using new information systems (financial and non-financial), that pull together data from various sources in a meaningful way.
Timely reports of relevant information Given the above capability for integrated reporting, increase the timeliness (relevant speed) of the reporting, such that the management of assets is facilitated.
Efficient Controlled Transaction Processing Increased level of efficiency of the majority of transactions through the department's information systems, thereby decreasing turnaround time and increasing accuracy. It should also eliminate PAYEs (Payables Adjustments at Year-End).
Efficient Receiver General Interfaces Increased level of efficiency of the transactions and summaries that go from the department's information systems to the Receiver General's systems. This can also be accomplished by eliminating unneeded transactions.
Timely Government-wide reports (Statistics,RG,Finance) Increased timeliness in feeding the financial and performance reporting to central agencies, to allow them to prepare the Consolidated Monthly Statement of Financial Operations, as well as the Annual Financial Statements for Public Accounts.
Competence to use the new information Increased level of ability to use the new financial and management information, once training has been done in the functional communities.
Managers show leadership in FIS Created a level of commitment and leadership towards the success of FIS and Modern Comptrollership on the part of managers.
Staff are engaged in FIS As a result of Managers showing leadership, the staff will increase their interest and commitment to the use and success of FIS.
Increased competence in using management information Increased skill and comfort level in using and interpreting the new and existing management information that is available. Likely gained through various training methods as well as samples from other organizations.
Increased understanding of TCO Increased understanding of the Total Cost of Ownership of an asset over its useful life. This includes not just the acquisition price, but any maintenance, repairs, upgrading, retrofitting and eventually disposal (salvage) value of the asset. This gives the complete picture.
Facilitate maintain, retrofit, sell analysis Increased quality of analysis as to asset options, whether to keep investing in the asset or to dispose of it. This improvement will be visible in Treasury Board submissions as well as internal analyses and justifications.
Increased understanding & evaluation of all costs Increased level of comprehensiveness in examining and evaluating the various cost options for capital and non-capital assets, that will consider the full-up costs of deploying that asset, not just the direct cost. This will lead to and increased ability to compare costs against other alternatives.
Increased comparability of costs Given the full-up costs established in the above outcome, the manager will have an increased ability to compare similar cost types to other comparators, such as elsewhere in the department, in other departments, or to a similar operation in the private sector. For example, the annual cost of running a standard configuration of a vehicle can be compared.
Increased visibility of Assets and Liabilities Now that a trial balance must be prepared on a monthly basis and gets rolled up and consolidated, the number and value of both assets and liabilities is greatly increased. This will lead to public accounting, queries from MPs and the public and a need to be aware of and monitor asset and liability levels.
Better case to maintain / replace assets An increased quality of business case to either reinvest or dispose of the asset will be the result of the increased visibility of the asset, as well as the overall asset information that will become available.
Optimized asset use The increased quality of business case and understanding of the life of an asset in support of program initiatives leads to an increase in the optimization of the use of that asset. This is fundamental to the Better Stewardship of Assets that is a key benefit of FIS.
Better information for planning and decision making Created a integrated framework of financial and non-financial information that is timely, relevant, accurate and complete, and assists the manager in more informed decision making.
Created capability to compare program results Integrating financial and non-financial information combined with the overall program performance criteria leads to an increased capability to compare program results.
Clarified accountability for performance achieved Increased quality of information to link Manager's performance agreement to program outcomes / results. This will show up in the annual performance evaluation.
Key Results achieved / improved Increased ability to achieve or improve upon the department's key program results / mandate. These program outcomes are specified in the DPR and reported upon in the RPP.
Better Performance Assessment For the Manager, if the key program results are achieved or improved, and accountabilities have been clarified, this will reflect well on the manager's annual performance assessment.
Increased return on Pay-at-risk Following the above outcome, a better performance assessment will lead directly to successfully achieving the criteria for pay-at-risk.
Better negotiation with third parties With better information for planning and decision making, the opportunity for better negotiations with third parties exists. These could be suppliers, partners or joint deliverers of programs / services to clients, and the negotiation could be on price, service level, type of service, etc.
More informed decision making The key result of FIS, this combines better information for planning and decision making with Manager's increased competence in using the management information. This should lead to better justified and defendable decisions, and in some cases may increase the quality of the decisions being taken. Specifically, it will support the government's new management philosophy of disclosing all resources managed and consumed in achieving program objectives.
Better relations with clients The modernization of the various systems will lead to better relations with clients, through improved reports and statements, as well as more timely and accurate information. This will reduce disputes and smooth the relationship with clients in any capacity.
Increased Client Satisfaction This increase in efficiency of reporting, timeliness and accuracy, leading to better relations with clients will ultimately result in increased client satisfaction. The client is any end-user of a program.
Better management of relations with Partners Similar to better relations with clients, the integrated reporting capability will provide more information to deal with Partners. These can be co-providers of services, other government agencies, outsourcing suppliers, etc.
Other opportunities with Partners Better management of relations with Partners will lead to other potential opportunities, such as co-sourcing, single window access to services, etc.
Decreased costs of goods and services Better management of relations with Partners will also likely result in lower costs to provide the program results required.
Eliminated multiple sets of books Modernizing departmental and RG systems is intended to require only one unique set of financial books and statements. This will eliminate the multiple sets of books that have been kept by departments, and in turn the reconciliation between systems
Opportunity to reengineer business processes Modernizing departmental and RG systems will provide departments with the opportunity to reexamine and reengineer business processes around the systems.
Decreased non-value-added activities Reexamining business processes as described in the above outcome will allow departments to decrease or eliminate non-value-added activities in the overall business process.
Better management of resources The various management decisions and outcomes will permit managers to better deploy and manage all resources, including fixed assets and people.
Increased service / program delivery efficiency Ultimately, More Informed Decision-Making will result in lower costs of resources as input to program delivery, or "Doing the same with less". It can also mean providing new or increased services with no increase in costs, or "Doing more with the same".
Increased service / program operational effectiveness Ultimately, More Informed Decision-Making will result in increased operational effectiveness for the department, as measured by the program's DPR and RPP. This will lead to the four key objectives stated in Results for Canadians.

2.2.3 CONTRIBUTIONS

During the course of the workshops, none of the contributions were explicitly stated or captured during the workshops. To ensure that the FIS Project receives the full value of the Results Chain technique, a follow-on exercise should complete and describe all contributions. This exercise helps to clarify how the outcomes link to achieving the success of the initiative.

2.2.4 ASSUMPTIONS

The following eight assumptions were explicitly documented during the course of the workshops. They need to be recognized and actioned to mitigate the effect of the risk to the desired outcome.

Assumption Description Accountability
Parliament will agree to Accrual appropriations As FIS moves towards accrual accounting of costs, the Parliamentary appropriations process must change to reflect the new accrual approach, in order to match expenses with inflows of money. Multi-year funding of capital assets (e.g. buildings, ships, etc.) must be provided for, in order to prevent "rust-out" of assets. TBS is actively pursuing this issue with the Public Accounts committee.
Assets & Liabilities can be valued There will be difficulties encountered in first finding all assets and liabilities, and then attaching a value to them. Assets such as vehicles are straightforward, but establishing the value of historic buildings or artistic materials are difficult to determine. TBS FISPO has a working group dedicated to asset valuation.
Policy on low value assets (in systems) A policy must be established for components that are themselves below the threshold value of materiality, but are combined in systems or networks to function as one unit. Do these get valued, and how, is the issue. TBS FISPO has a working group dedicated to asset valuation.
Relevant information provided to managers Establishing what information a particular manager requires is a key component of providing timely and relevant information. Requirements will likely differ by manager, and standard reports from shared systems may not be sufficient. Departmental functional groups must work with managers to determine requirements and modify reports.
Learning must match needs of managers The change strategies and learning techniques must be tailored to meet the unique needs of managers in order to be most effective and obtain buy-in and leadership from the managers. TBS FISPO with FIS Change Management and Learning Advisory Working Groups.

Departmental Change Management teams.
Includes all identified costs and revenues The Total Cost of Ownership of assets must include all costs (including salary and benefits or any revenues, as appropriate.) This may include costing allocations from other areas, such as Real Property. Departmental Managers
Information is factual, relevant and integrated The information provided to managers must be reliable, appropriate, accurate, and presented in a manner that is meaningful to the manager. Departmental functional groups
Other factors are considered (legal, environmental, political) Managers must consider other factors in either making a decision or recommending a course of action to senior management. In some cases, the Financial and Programs Performance Measurements are not sufficient to reflect the total view of the decision. Departmental managers



Date modified: