INFORMATION MANAGEMENT – ORGANIZATIONAL MODELLING EXERCISE (IM/OME)

March 2002

2

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary

2. Introduction

3. Report

i. Highlights/Observations

ii. Current Organizational Models

iii. Emerging Organizational Models

iv. Focus Session

v. Trends

vi. Success Stories/Lessons Learned

vii. IM Community Demographics

3

Executive Summary

1. This IM Organizational Modelling Exercise (IM/OME) was carried out during the period September 2001-March 2002 on behalf of the Office of Organization Readiness (ORO) of the Chief Information Officer Branch of the Treasury Board Secretariat.

2. ORO funded the IM/OME in partnership with Health Canada and the work was executed by a team of organizational specialists from the Shared Human Resources Directorate of the Department of Public Works and Government Services.

3. Twelve departments and agencies contributed to the study by responding to a questionnaire, participating in interviews and contributing ideas at a focus session. The 12 departments/agencies are: Agriculture and Agri-Food (AAFC), Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA), Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO), Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), Canadian Heritage (CH), Health Canada (HC), Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC), Justice Canada (JC), Natural Resources Canada (NRCAN), Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) and Statistics Canada (SC).

4. The purpose of the study was to capture current organizations, outline emerging organizational models for the future (2004/5) and identify shortcomings between the current and the future.

5. The information submitted by responding departments varies considerably in terms of completeness, accuracy, timeliness and level of detail provided. As a result some of the information is incomplete and possibly inaccurate.

6. Approximately half of the responding departments can be considered to have fragmented IM/KM functions. Some departments and agencies are struggling to develop IM frameworks, governance and organizational structures to cope with the current situation as well as to deal with the exponential growth in information. There is a high turnover in IM-related staff and the level of skills and experience required is insufficient to effectively manage information in all organizations surveyed.

7. All departments/agencies are acutely aware of the real and perceived issues/deficiencies respecting the management of information and knowledge in their own organizations and in the Public Service generally.

8. While many current IM/KM structures are generally fragmented and the future of IM/KM remains somewhat foggy or clouded, new paradigms and models are emerging to deal with the current state of affairs and to prepare for the future. Furthermore a number of departments have undertaken major re-structuring initiatives.

4

Executive Summary (cont’d)

9. Most responding departments/agencies did not provide significant information respecting their regional operations.

10. The issues of significant under-funding, the lack of sufficiently skilled IM/KM workers and the lack of IM/KM awareness throughout organizations are recurring themes in most responses.

11. To deal effectively with the real and perceived issues facing the IM Community, it is imperative that Departments/Agencies conduct: (1) an assessment of the knowledge and skills required of their IM/KM workers to meet current and future needs of business line managers; (2) draw up an inventory of the knowledge and skills their IM workers have and identify the gaps with (1); (3) develop workforce strategies and plans for hiring, training, professional development and retaining to fill the gaps between (1) and (2); and (4) conduct ongoing progress evaluations of implementation activities to ensure continuous improvements.

12. From the findings, it appears that organizations have been dealing with IM/KM issues in isolation.

5

Introduction

• Purpose of IM/OME• The main purpose of the study was to a) capture current IM organizations, b) identify emerging future IM

organizations and c) identify gaps between a) and b).• Partners

• The IM/OME was commissioned and mainly funded by the Office of Organizational Readiness (ORO) of the Chief Information Officer Branch of the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS)

• The study was also funded in part by Health Canada.• The exercise was conducted by a team of organizational experts from the Shared Human Resources

Services Directorate (SHRS) of Public Works and Government Services Canada.• Participating Departments/Agencies

• Twelve departments and agencies contributed to the study by responding to a questionnaire, participating in interviews and contributing ideas at a focus session. The 12 departments/agencies are: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Canadian Heritage, Health Canada, Human Resources Development Canada, Justice Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Public Works and Government Services Canada and Statistics Canada.

• Time Lines and Action Plan• The study was conducted during the period of September 2001 to March 2002. (A detailed Project Plan

is attached).• The main phases of the study included Start-up, Data Collection, Data Analysis, Focus Session and

Final Analysis and Reporting. (The methodology is detailed in the Annex).• The Focus Session was held on February 18, 2002• Observations and conclusions are based on information primarily submitted to the team during the

period December 2001 – February 2002. • Timeliness and Completeness

• The late filing of responses by some departments/agencies and the lack of completeness of many returns, has had a significant impact of the depth of analysis and accuracy of some of the information contained in this report.

6

Report

i. Highlights/Observationsii. Current Organizational Modelsiii. Emerging Organizational Modelsiv. Focus Sessionv. Trendsvi. Success Stories/Lessons Learnedvii. IM Community Demographics

7

Highlights/Observations

• The information submitted by responding departments varies considerably in terms of completeness, accuracy, timeliness and level of detail provided. For example, a majority of questionnaires were incomplete or left largely unanswered, particularly respecting the future of IM.

• Many of the respondents were not in a position to provide more information as they lacked access to senior level officials or lacked awareness of their department’s strategies, plans and priorities generally and concerning IM in particular.

• There is a general perception that goals, objectives and priorities concerning IM are not adequately communicated downwards or understood properly at the lower levels.

• In general terms, the IM functions are highly fragmented and defined differently from one department/agency to the next. For example, IM and IT are not under the same senior official, ATIP is not considered an IM function, and the senior official responsible for GOL is not always connected or part of the same organization where IM, IT and the CIO are located.

• The preceding situation leads to a real or perceived general lack of leadership and vision at the departmental/agency level and in some cases at the central agency level. There is a community-wide expectation for greater commitment from senior levels of government to recognize the importance of IM issues and to provide the resources needed.

• There is no clear IM/KM governance frameworks/structures in many departments/agencies.• Many respondents have reported an appreciable lack of adequate financial and human resources. • Most of the members of the IM workforce are at the lower levels of the current classification system with a

significant number in the AS/CR Occupational Groups.• There are some identifiable successes in reorganizing work around the LS/SI Occupational Groups stream and

more limited successes in using the ES Occupational Group for some type of IM work. This approach should be pursued more actively as long as the current classification system remains in place.

• Much work remains to prepare and reorganize IM/KM work to meet the challenges of the near and medium term futures.

8

Highlights/Observations (cont’d)

• Very little information was provided respecting regional IM/KM functions and activities.• The turnover of the government’s knowledge workforce and the consequent loss of corporate memory.• There are wide-shared concerns for information security, especially post 9/11.• A number of departments/agencies are integrating their IM and IT functions.• To cope with the identified and perceived issues and concerns respecting their current workforce,

Departments/Agencies should be conducting: (1) an assessment of the knowledge and skills required of their IM/KM workers to meet current and future needs of business line managers; (2) draw up an inventory of the knowledge and skills their IM workers have and identify the gaps with (1); (3) develop workforce strategies and plans for hiring, training, professional development and retaining to fill the gaps between (1) and (2); and (4) conduct ongoing progress evaluations of implementation activities to ensure continuous improvements.

9

Current Organizational Structures

• Of the 12 departments/agencies surveyed, the degree of integration of the IM-related functions varies significantly from the highly integrated to the highly fragmented.

• The following are noteworthy for their level of integration: Health Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Justice Canada, and Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

• Others that have grouped most of their IM/KM functions are: Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Canadian Heritage and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

• The following appear to have fragmented to highly fragmented IM/KM functions: Statistics Canada, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, Public Works and Government Services Canada, and Human Resources Development Canada.

• Most of the IM-related functions are under a Corporate Services Branch or Sector.• The most integrated functions are Records Management and Library Services. • The degree of integration/fragmentation of ATIP, GOL, IT, Communications and Web Design and Content vary

significantly across departments/agencies.• Very little information on regional IM-related activities/functions have been provided.• There is a general lack of clear governance frameworks/structures to support IM/KM activities and functions.• Many departments/agencies have undertaken significant restructuring of their IM/KM functions.• A number of IM/KM units are integrated into program operations. • In a number of departments/agencies, IM/KM units at HQ exercise functional authority and provide guidance to

operating units at HQ and in the regions.• Some IM-related functions such as Mail, are currently outsourced or candidates for privatization.

10

Emerging Organizational Patterns Or Models

• Of note are the functional structures and approaches developed by Health Canada and Natural Resources Canada. As these 2 departments have a primarily scientific mandate, their approach may be useful to others who have a similar mandate.

– HC has articulated a vision of the relationship between IT, IM and KM as key underpinnings to the department’s mandate in the three broad areas of Health Care Policy; Health Promotion and Protection; and First Nations and Inuit Health. A solid information and knowledge base is seen as the platform of the department’s business.

– NRCan’s model where Business Processes, IM and People contribute to Knowledge, aims at bringing together all IM/KM stakeholders. This is an innovative approach to managing information and knowledge.

• Justice Canada is developing a more integrated model that can be useful in a policy/service delivery department.

• CIC is also building a model for the future. This model provides for a unified approach to information management. It applies a concept to the unstructured information side that has been common in the structured data world i.e. the separation of data/information from applications. A key element of this model is the creation of a “Back-end” document repository for all CIC documents.

• These models or patterns are based on the premise that Business Lines Managers and staff are the owners and users of information in the production of knowledge that serve their respective clienteles and that the IM Specialists are enablers as opposed to first line service deliverers.

• This enabling role consists essentially in providing the necessary framework of policies, plans and governance structures, and in developing guidelines, standards and other tools to assist the owners and users in managing their information and transforming it into knowledge.

• The following 4 pages depict the new patterns or structures that are emerging.• Other departments/agencies did not provide specific models for the future. However, we understand that many

of them are currently envisaging their own models to suit their respective mandates.

11

INFORMATION / KNOWLEDGE

MANAGEMENT

Health Care Policy

Health Promotion & Protection

First Nations & Inuit Health

Departmental Mandate

12

KNOWLEDG PEOPLEBUSINESS PROCESS

INFORMATIONMANAGEMENT

IM PLANNING

CREATE COLLECT RECEIVE CAPTURE

ORGANIZE MAKE

ACCESSIBLE RETRIEVE DESSEMINATE

STORE MAINTAIN PROTECT PRESERVE

DISPOSITION DESTROY TRANSFER TO

NA

GOVERNANCE MONITORING EVALUATION

WORKFLOW IM ARCHITECTURE TRENDS BUSINESS

REQUIREMENTS LEGISLATION

RDIMS IM SYSTEMS INTEGRATED

APPLICATIONS PROCEDURES PRIVACY POLICIES

TAXONOMY SUBJECT

CLASSIFICATIONSTANDARDS

PROCEDURES VIRTUAL SERVICE

DESK SECURITY POLICY

COMMONREPOSITORIES

ARCHIVING STRATEGY LOW COST

WAREHOUSING ESSENTIAL RECORDS EMERGENCY

PREPAREDNESS

DISPOSITIONAUTHORITIES

RETENTION &DISPOSITIONSCHEDULES

DECISION-MAKINGPROCESS

ADVISORY CTTEES STEERING CTTEES WORKING GROUPS IM CHARTER OF

ACCOUNTS

CUSTOMERSATISFACTIONMECHANISMS

RISKASSESSMENTS

INFORMATIONSERVICES

RECORDS ATIP LIBRARIES IM HELP DESK TRAININGWEB

ADMINISTRATORSDATABASE

ADMINISTRATORSCOMMUNICATIONS

INFORMATIONTECHNOLOGIES

MAILS &FORMS

LEGAL SERVICESAUDIT &

EVALUATIONPROCUREMENT

OFFICERSNRCAN ON-LINE

PROGRAMMANAGERS

SCIENCE-BASEDDEPARTMENTS/

AGENCIES

TBS CIOBOFFICE

HUMANRESOURCES

IM FUNCTIONS

IM TOOLS

IM ENABLERS

IM PARTNERS

MARKETING

Natural Resources Canada: Proposed Functional Model

13

CIC’s Proposed Model - Vision

Internet/Intranet

UsersOtherApps

GCMSForeign Missions

Paper Holdings

Databases( Structured Data )

Electronic Documents

Imaging

Data WarehouseRecords Management

Security

14

DM

Associate DM

ADM, CorporateServ ices

DG, Inf ormationManagement Branch

Director, Inf ormationManagement

Serv ices

Manager, CorporateInf o ManagementHoldings ( CIMH )

IM Senior PolicyOf f icer

AS-05

ADM, Integration

GOL

IM AssessmentProgram Co-ordinator

AS-05

Senior Manager, IMServ ices

AS-06

IM Tech Support

CS-04

IM Analy sis ERM Tech

Support RIMS Tech

Support

CIMS ERM

Communications andWeb Publishing

Regional and DLSUOperations

IM Training IM Operations

( Serv ice Center, MailServ ices, andRecords Disposition )

Justice Canada: Proposed Organization Chart

15

Focus Session

• The Focus Session was held on February 18, 2002 under the auspices of ORO.• Participants: An invitation was sent to members of the IM Community throughout the Public Service. 36 persons

accepted the invitation and participated in the session.• Facilitators: Tania Carrière et Dale Arsenault of the firm ACERRA facilitated the session• Discussion Themes

– How do we bring Information Management to the mahogany table?– How does the use of self-help/desktop IM business tools change the role of IM?– The IM Framework supports business needs and interests by?– It’s 2005 and you are a knowledge worker in the IM Community - Who is in the IM Community with you and

why?– As we move ahead, we successfully account for our department’s information legacy by?– As IM changes, so does central agency and institutional support; how?

• Reported Highlights– Success Stories – Trends– Self-Help/Desktop IM business tools– Bringing IM to the mahogany table– IM Framework Supports Business Needs/Interests– It’s 2005…who is in the IM Community?– Departments’ Information Legacy– Central Agency/Institutional Support

16

Reported Success Stories - Focus Session

• General– Some departments/agencies have started to define what information management means in their respective

context.– Steps have been undertaken towards the development of an IM Community and a common vision.– The promotion of IM awareness in the Public Service at large.– Basic questions and concerns raised on current situation and future.– Some departments/agencies have started looking at Knowledge Management.

• Structure initiatives (ongoing)– Development of information Blueprints/Frameworks.– Links to departmental/agency business lines/programs. – IM Action Plans.– Recognition of relationship between IM and IT.– Creation of IM working groups at various levels.

• Specific Successes– On-line access to government information by various publics.– Electronic Solutions and new tools such as departmental/agency websites, Electronic Records and

Document Management System ( ERDMS), Public Key Infrastructure (PKI), Records and Document Information Management System (RDIMS).

17

Outstanding Concerns - Focus Session

Leadership issues. Is IM driving or is it IT? – a change of perspective needs to be envisaged. Need to restructure the IM Community. IM/KM framework. Perceived lack of adequate financial and human resources. Lack of Human Resources strategies and measures. Adequacy of legislative framework. Roles of central agencies.

18

Trends - Focus Session

• Aging workforce and declining resources are leading to loss of corporate memory and human capacity.• Information creation is increasing at an exponential rate.• Government Policy is driving IM Communities in response to public demands.• Continuous evolution of technology.• Increasing public appetite for consistent information and data.• Increased access to information by public.• Creation of more information by Government and departments/agencies requiring horizontal partnerships.• Shift of strategic focus from transactional service delivery to enhanced policy framework.• Content convergence forces collaboration and common standards, guidelines and common business practices.

19

Self-Help/Desktop IM Business Tools– Focus Session

• Need to redefine IM workforce as internal clients/users manage their own information.• Information Specialists are becoming IM Analysts.• Need for understanding of technology, tools, standards and techniques required by the work of all workers.• Need to enhance IM skills of all staff as IM professionals need to have a different skill set. This will entail the

development of new competency profiles.• Need to understand departmental business goals.• IM needs to work with IT.• Need to clearly define changes in the IM role as organizations move from control to service/support orientation.

20

Bringing IM To The Mahogany Table- Focus Session

• Need for a strong IM Community with consistent definition, strategy, plans, policies and practices.• Develop and communicate simple whole-of-government business models that show how IM fits.• Need for leadership and strong commitment from higher levels, for example: IM should be headed by business

people.• Eliminate stovepipes and introduce more interoperability/partnerships, for example: sharing solutions more widely

amongst IM Community.• IM must be perceived as an asset and a solution to business requirements as business must drive the IM agenda,

for example: focus efforts on activities directly contributing to program delivery and provide solutions to specific business problems.

• More investments are needed in terms of financial and human resources.

21

IM Framework Supports Business Needs/Interests – Focus Session

• There is an urgent need to develop and deliver an IM Framework.• The necessary steps are to 1) define the business needs; 2) identify the IM requirements; and 3) set-up a

responsive IM framework and policies.• Linking the IM Framework with both the department/agency business framework and the Government’s legislative

and policy framework.• Integration of IM functions to departments’ strategic process to address horizontal issues and support

departmental business.• Foster a common department understanding and approach respecting information and knowledge management.• Framing a common body of knowledge that provides the vocabulary and proven processes and practices that

promote interoperability.• Positioning accountability for IM in terms of client/service requirement at all levels and points of contact along the

information systems platform.• Contemplating devolution/privatization of labor intensive and repetitive work to private sector.

22

Who’s In the IM Community in 2005? – Focus Session

• IM Community equals all of government as all public servants are in the information business and have a part to play.

• The IM Community should include the core groups of IM, IT and IS. • IM includes: ATIP, Records Management and Archives, Library, IT, Information Planning Analysts, Web/Intranet

Contents Administrators.• People with library science skills that perform day-to-day IM activities.

23

Departments’ Information Legacy – Focus Session

• Accounting for information legacy would be facilitated if the FIS allowed departments/agencies to value information products in the same way as “goodwill” is valued, and to report information products as assets on their financial statements.

• Information legacy must be defined in terms of business requirements.• Identify and convert only core business records required to ensure business continuity.• Legislative framework should be kept in step with ongoing information preservation needs. • Establish and adhere to disposition schedule for all information in accordance with the NA Act. • Using websites as a main source of historical information.

24

Central Agency/Institutional Support – Focus Session

• Must ensure visibility and priorities of IM issues at senior levels including committees such as TIMS and IMB.• Set IM direction, objectives and measures across government• Act as catalysts and provide alignment and convergence across government on common issues.• Make departments/agencies accountable for IM at senior levels.• Value IM workers and IM Community.• More resources should be committed (financial and human).• Central support and coordination for sharing best practices, trends, technology solutions, tools, HR solutions (e.g.

competency profiles, new IM Occupational Group).

• Foster partnerships between all stakeholders respecting information management.

25

Overall Trends - Summary

• Move towards a self-serve mode where program/line managers take responsibility for information and knowledge management and where IM Specialists create policies, standards and guidelines, and provide advice and support to program/line managers.

• Migration from data management to knowledge management.• A greater requirement for higher level of education, skills and expertise of IM/KM Specialists, which could lead to

higher classification levels. • There is a strong expectation for the creation of a distinct IM/KM Occupational Group in the Public Service. Also,

there is a trend towards more use of generic work descriptions.• There is shift towards electronic service delivery and support. • There is a trend towards greater degree of information sharing and collaboration for joint IM/KM initiatives across

departments/agencies.• The regions are expected to assume a stronger IM/KM role. Regional knowledge centres are envisaged. • The greater degree of adoption of emerging IM-related technologies will enhance interoperability and facilitate the

sharing of and access to, information.• Outsourcing/privatization of some IM-related functions will continue.• More training programs in IM subject-matter expertise.• Increasing expectation of clients and litigation resulting in increased exposure to liability due to more transparency.

More ATIP requests are also expected.• Increased partnerships with stakeholders, internal and external to departments/agencies.• Global exponential increase in information that it unmanageable.• There will be more integration of the IM and IT functions.

26

Overall Success Stories/Lessons Learned - Summary

• Five science-based departments joined efforts in two initiatives that involved their IM functions in developing an integrated search engine and S&Tclusters.

• Led by CISTI and the 5 Natural Resources departments (5NR), the Strategic Alliance of Federal S&T Libraries is exploring the creation of a virtual S&T library in Canada.

• IM should be viewed as an asset.• The knowledge and experience requirements for executives should include information management at the same

level as the management of other assets such as human and financial capital.• AAFC adopted a multi-disciplinary team approach, for example: IM/IT serves as a major enabler.• CCRA conducted an IM policy, threat and risk assessment in collaboration with all stakeholders.• CIC developed a “Value Chain” that depicts a pattern or paradigm based on various “enablers” ranging from

funding to legislation and through to policy, communications programs and internet/intranet access.• Fisheries and Oceans developed generic model work descriptions for many positions and shared them with other

departments. They also performed risk assessments for all major IM Projects.• INAC established a Training Centre and developed training programs leading to certification in Records

Management. They also put together a specific marketing package under INFO label. Furthermore, information sessions on IM are held monthly and marketing tools such as gifts are utilized.

• PCH conducted a research on IM/KM issues across the public service and in selected other government jurisdictions.

• Health Canada have identified the need to integrate the IM/KM function within the various operations of the department. They also developed a strong accountability framework for working cohesively across organizational units, including the flow of information.

• Justice has undertaken an IM/KM Renewal initiative to address the structures, policy framework, roles and responsibilities as well as the HR requirements.

• NRCan developed “Guidelines On Managing Electronic Mail Messages” which have been used as a reference by OGDs in developing their own.

• Statistics Canada set up a Certification Program for Records Management/Document Management.

27

Current Demographics In Responding Departments/Agencies

• Eleven of twelve departments/agencies provided demographic statistics about their current workforce. However, not much information was provided in terms of education/knowledge and skills.

• Most departments/agencies are of the view that a higher level of education, knowledge and skills is increasingly required to meet current and emerging requirements.

• Some of the statistical information provided does not reconcile. For example, 1154 were reported under the Total Number of workers by Status, 1136 were reported under the Gender Category, and 1039 have been tabulated under the Age Group Category.

• Out of a total of 1154 IM workers reported under the Total Number by Status Category, 64% are full-time employees, 19% are part-time and 5% are contractors. Contractors are retained primarily in mail handling and distribution.

• In the Gender Category: 62% are female and 38% male. • In the Age Group Category: 8% are under 25, 23% are between 26 and 35, 34% between 36 and 45, 29%

between 46 and 55, and 6% are over 55 years of age.• In terms of classification groups and levels, the vast majority are in the CR Group at 47% out of a total reported of

1004. 15% are in the AS Group. The LS/SI Groups combined are at 14% and are more of less equal in numbers.• The following charts show graphically the distribution of the reported workforce under the documented headings.

28

Workforce Status Across Departments

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

Full-time 88 136 87 88 14 24 113 59 126

Part-time 12 135 15 11 0 9 35 3

Contractors 8 0 1 0 25 6 14

Agri-culture

CCRA DIAND HC Heritage Justice StatsCan PWGSC CIC NRCAN DFO HRDC

29

Workforce Age Distribution Across Departments

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

under 25 2 22 40 2 0 1 2 4 5

26-35 10 79 55 22 4 9 2 3 22 19 19

36-45 27 113 7 30 1 16 23 23 30 37 42

46-55 50 54 35 8 17 6 9 33 46 44

over 55 11 11 11 1 7 1 3 7 7 7

Agri-culture

CCRA DIAND HC Heritage Justice StatsCan PWGSC CIC NRCAN DFO HRDC

30

Workforce Gender Distribution Across Departments

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

Female 60 199 77 48 7 14 24 77 55 78 61

Male 40 80 25 52 7 35 8 45 39 35 70

Agri-culture

CCRA DIAND HC Heritage Justice StatsCan PWGSC CIC NRCAN DFO HRDC

31

Distribution By Gender for All Responding Departments/Agencies

Distribution by Major Status for all Responding Departments/Agencies Distribution by Age for all Responding Departments/Agencies

Distribution by Classification for all Responding Departments/Agencies

735

220

54

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Full-time Part-time Contractors

5%

19%

64%

700

436

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Female Male

62%

38%

78

244

349302

66

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

under 25 26-35 36-45 46-55 over 55

8%

23%

34%

29%

6%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Class 4 79 57 154 473 1 99 9 82 3 7 24 3 2 1 2 4

% 0% 8% 6% 15% 47% 0% 10% 1% 8% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

EX LS SI AS CR ES CS OCEST-

SCYOM IS PM GS PC CA

GSM

ES

GLM

DO

Overall IM Community Workforce Demographics