REVIEW OF MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE ... Branch Direction générale de l’examen de programmes REVIEW OF MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE, BRIEFING AND TRACKING SERVICES, AND THE SUPPORTING

Review Branch Direction générale del’examen de programmes

REVIEW OF MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE,BRIEFING AND TRACKING SERVICES,

AND THE SUPPORTING SYSTEM (CTBS)FINAL REPORT

FEBRUARY 2001

REVIEW OF MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE,BRIEFING AND TRACKING SERVICES,

AND THE SUPPORTING SYSTEM (CTBS)FINAL REPORT

FEBRUARY 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

1. MAIN POINTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3. OBJECTIVE / SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

4. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

5. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

6. FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

ANNEX A - Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

ANNEX B - CS CIMS Annual Operating Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

ANNEX C - Correspondence and Briefing Note Production and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Process Charts

Review BranchSir John Carling Building930 Carling AvenueOttawa, OntarioK1A 0C5(613) 759-6503http://www.agr.ca/review/rbmain.html

Correspondence, Tracking and Briefing System (CTBS) February 2001

Review Branch 1

OVERALL CONCLUSION

The review has identified several issues requiring remedial action in both the current ministerialcorrespondence and briefing processes and the system which supports them. The current system hasnot achieved the benefits outlined in the original business case, more importantly, it is not capable ofmeeting the requirements of senior management or users. The issues which have contributed to thissituation are captured in two main categories below; Management / Process and the Technicalcapacity of the system.

As with previous reviews, some of the issues identified in this report can be directly linked to theoriginal process for system development / implementation and the minimal involvement of keymanagement decision makers.

During the course of this review it became apparent that information and correspondence requests arereceived and responded to by the department in a variety of ways. The various mediums, including theMinisterial Correspondence Unit (MCU), Public Information Request Services (PIRS), ATIP, MediaRelations and the web sites utilize separate and independent information sources; a situation whichpresents potential for inconsistent messaging, duplication of effort and organizational inefficiencies.

1. MAIN POINTS (Further detail on main points can be found in section 7)

Management / Process Issues

No clear accountabilitySpecific accountability for themanagement and maintenance of thedepartmental process for ministerialcorrespondence and briefing, trackingand distribution has not been clearlydefined. In addition, accountability fordecisions affecting the system whichsupports the process, in this case theCorrespondence, Tracking andBriefing System (CTBS), has not beenclearly assigned. As a result, systemdecisions have, by default, beenassumed by the CorporateManagement Branch, currentlyresponsible for the technicalmaintenance and operation of the

Control Objectives for Information and InformationTechnology (COBIT) ‘Expectations’

• The responsibility for the business (or in this case IT)process must be clear and that accountability must beunambiguous.

• Clearly documented, maintained and communicatedstandards are a must for a good control process. • Clear responsibility for custodianship of these standards

also is a requirement for good control.• The control process must be well documented as to how it

works with clear responsibilities.• An important aspect is the clear definition of what

constitutes a deviation, i.e., what are the limits ofdeviation.

• The timeliness, integrity and appropriateness of controlinformation, as well as other information, is basic to thegood functioning of the control system.

• Both control information and corrective action informationwill have requirements to establish accountability.


Review Branch 2

system. This lack of clear accountability and authority over the department-wide process and thesupporting system has affected the department’s ability to effectively manage the overall briefing,tracking and distribution process, and to identify and implement necessary improvements to both theprocess and the system.

Duplication and inefficienciesCTBS users in general, lack sufficient knowledge of the system features and how to use them, leadingto unnecessary manual record-keeping and duplicate processes. These manual and duplicateprocesses are viewed by users as simpler, more efficient and more reliable. This is contributing todisparate, and often, inconsistent processes and use of CTBS which in turn, produces an incompletedatabase. This incomplete database is limiting the ability of the department to accurately and effectivelytrack documents and mine available information. Although one of the expectations for CTBS was to beable to reduce the amount of paper copies of briefings and ministerial correspondence, it appears thatthe issues identified in this review are contributing to the adoption of procedures and processes whichgenerate as much paper as before the system was introduced, and creates duplicate paper trails.

Technical Issues

The computer system is limited in meeting requirementsAs a result of technical limitations, CTBS is not capable of generating necessary information andproducing reports required by users and managers to effectively monitor and manage thecorrespondence and briefing process. The system is incapable of producing information for prioritysetting, performance management and environmental analysis.

The primary limitations of CTBS include; inadequate search capability; unacceptable reportingcapabilities; and, numerous, complex screens and time consuming operations.

Perception of inordinate system support costsThe ongoing operating and maintenance cost of CTBS is approximately $400K annually (see AnnexC). A portion of this annual operating and maintenance cost is “cost recovered” from user branches. There is a perception among departmental managers that this cost is unreasonably high given thesystem’s inability to meet basic user and management requirements. This perception has been cited asthe primary reason for their reluctance to pay their portion of the annual cost.

Potential security breaches limit the effectiveness of the system.CTBS has limited capability in defining user access rights. Consequently, the system is vulnerable tohaving users modify documents and tracking information which does not belong to them. This issue iscompounded by departmental IT system and physical security issues, identified by an RCMP based1998 Threat and Risk Assessment, which renders CTBS inappropriate for classified documents. As aresult, classified documents are being managed outside the system via diskette or paper. The absence


Review Branch 3

of these classified documents from CTBS mitigates the benefits one would expect to be derived from anautomated correspondence and briefing system.

Other

Potential for inconsistent messaging to the publicDuring the course of the review it became apparent that information and correspondence requests canbe received by the department in a variety of ways. Likewise there are diverse ways for thedepartment to respond. The two corporate processes for handling departmental correspondence,which fell into the scope of this review, are the Ministerial Correspondence Unit (MCU) for requestsaddressed to the Minister, and the Public Information Request Services (PIRS) for requests notspecifically addressed to the Minister. These groups utilize separate and independent processes andsystems. It should also be noted that no evidence of coordination between the department’s otherexternal communication vehicles (e.g., A.T.I.P., Media Relations, Web site etc.) came to light duringthe review; a situation which presents potential for inconsistent messaging, duplication of effort andorganizational inefficiencies.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the department:

Management:1. Clearly define and delineate the responsibilities and accountability for the correspondence

and briefing process and the system which supports it.

• Consideration should be given to the following best practices observed in other organizations:

• Including regular dialogue with the Minister’s Office (MO) to ensure consistent high qualitydecisions are made on the distribution of correspondence, instruction for responses anddevelopment of briefings,

• Examine the potential for integrating PIRS and MCU processes and system,• Add a 'Frequently Asked Questions' section to the departmental website using information

collected from 'environmental scanning' of correspondence, the experience gained throughPIRS and the analysis of e-mails to the Minister, currently underway.

• Re-activate the departmental user group to provide a forum for dialogue.

• Continue to participate in the interdepartmental Sub-Committee on Executive Correspondence.

• Further refine the requirements from this report to determine specific requirements and detailedspecifications before making a system replacement decision. (see Annex B)

• Ensure training, for the current and any future system, is comprehensive, timely and includesfollow-up to assess the need for reinforcement training.


Review Branch 4

Process:2. Examine the mapped correspondence and briefing processes produced from this review,

with a view to developing a standard streamlined process.

• Consideration should be given to developing a standard process which includes best practicesobserved in other organizations such as:

• MCU assignment of ministerial correspondence to the director level (copy to DG);• Point form draft responses for ministerial correspondence;• Professional writers in the MCU to formalize draft responses to ministerial

correspondence;• Branch sign-off at the director general (DG) level for ministerial correspondence (currently

practiced in some branches);• Increased use of departmental sign-off at the branch level for information requests sent to

the Minister (bypassing the Deputy Minister’s Office, the MCU and the MO); • Use of electronic approval, up to the Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) level;• Use of a telephone response system where appropriate; and• Provide a standard confirmation of receipt to correspondence addressed to the Minister,

including estimation of minimum response times, should current delays in the MO continue.

Under the direction of the person identified as accountable for ministerial correspondence and briefingas well as the supporting system, it is recommended that CMB:

System:• Test Web CIMS (new release from current vendor) using the additional management and user

requirements gathered during this review.

• Product testing should be completed and assessed before any pilots are undertaken.• Test Vantive (system used by the Help Desk) using the additional management and user

requirements gathered during this review.

• Product testing should be completed and assessed before any pilots are undertaken.

Security:• Examine network security to assess the possibility of using modern encryption network

technology so that classified documents can be included in a departmental system.

3. OBJECTIVE / SCOPE

The review was undertaken at the request of the Deputy Minister, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada(AAFC), with the assistance of Consulting and Audit Canada. The review was expected to addressthree objectives:


Review Branch 5

• Determine AAFC’s functional and operational requirements for tracking correspondenceand briefing documents;

• Identify improvements needed for meeting these needs; and• Based on operational and decision-making needs, assess the existing functional capability

of meeting these needs through the current Correspondence Tracking and Briefing System(CTBS) and examine other viable options.

4. METHODOLOGY

The Review focussed on the processes in the Department for the production of various documents forthe Deputy Minister/Associate Deputy Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of Statefor Agriculture. The principal document flows assessed were those for ministerial correspondence andbriefings.

Based on this information, process improvement options were developed and approaches wereexamined to address the gaps between the identified requirements and current functionality. The reviewalso included comparisons with Human Resources Development Canada, Finance Canada andTransport Canada, identified as organizations with possible good practices. Informal discussions wereheld with a number of other departments.

5. BACKGROUND

In 1994, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) initiated a project to replace its departmentalcorrespondence tracking system with a new broader-based computerized system, CS-CIMS (namedCTSB). This new tracking system was implemented in January 1997. It was intended to automatecritical departmental functions including the tracking of correspondence and briefing notes for theMinister and Deputy Minister as well as management of responses, transmission of dockets and themaintenance of a records registry for retrieval and analysis. The system was also expected to eliminatethe need for hard copy distribution thereby reducing paper flow and improving efficiency.

There has been ongoing dissatisfaction with CTBS, and concerns with the high cost and minimal utility.

6. FINDINGS

Overview

In terms of determining the functional and operational requirements (objective 1), interviewees wereable to easily identify specific requirements for the tracking of correspondence and briefing material aswell as potential improvements. Issues identified relate to a lack of information about the requestscaptured in the computerized system, the complexity of the system and the incomprehensible reportsthe system generates. Detailed requirements are presented in Annex B.


Review Branch 6

Improvements to the current processes (objective 2) are presented in the recommendations section andare based on the detailed findings presented below. The detailed findings are organized in twocategories - Management / Process Issues; and Technical Issues.

The assessment of existing capability of CTBS and its ability to meet the management and userrequirements identified in the review (objective 3), concluded that the system does not have thenecessary functionality.

Management / Process Issues

No clear accountabilitySpecific accountability for the management and maintenance of the departmental process for ministerialcorrespondence and briefing, tracking and distribution has not been clearly defined. In addition,accountability for decisions affecting the system which supports the process, in this case theCorrespondence, Tracking and Briefing System (CTBS), has not been clearly assigned. As a result,system decisions have, by default, been assumed by the Corporate Management Branch, currentlyresponsible for the technical maintenance and operation of the system. This lack of clear accountabilityand authority over the department-wide process has affected the department’s ability to effectivelymanage the overall briefing, tracking and distribution process, and to identify and implement necessaryimprovements to both the process and the system.

There also appears to be a need, especially in the case of briefing requests, to have better coordinationof day to day operations and clarification of requests before they are forwarded to branches forresponse.

There are a number of alternative models used in other departments, such as placing the responsibilityfor ministerial correspondence in the Communications branch, having a more integrated ministerialcorrespondence, briefing, scheduling and parliamentary affairs unit and having more senior personnelmanaging day to day operations and clarifying requests before they are distributed within thedepartment.

It should be noted that assigning responsibility for responses and briefings, often entails significant jobexperience, judgement and knowledge, both within branches and in the MCU, and is therefore a dutywhich benefits from regular assessment of qualifications.

Duplication and inaccuracyAnnex D presents detailed process charts which outline the stepsrequired to respond to a letter to the Minister as well as to produceministerial briefings. Color coding has been used to indicate automatedprocesses versus manual processes.

“Minor formatting stuffshould be changed up atthe top....you have toredo all the copies and

all the approvals.”


Review Branch 7

A mapping of the process used to respond to ministerial briefing and correspondence has revealed thatCTBS is largely duplicated by a paper copy system. As a result CTBS has not reduced the paperburden that was originally envisioned when the new system was implemented. Documents andinformation, similar to those in CTBS, are kept in hard copy folders at almost every step in the process,resulting in a myriad of duplicate information. For example, when a briefing request comes into thedepartment from the Minister’s staff, in addition to entering the information in CTBS, a paper copy ofthe request is made and placed in a BF file. When the request is received by an ADM’s office, anotherpaper copy is made and put into a BF file. An electronic request is then made to a Director General,where another paper copy is generated. This process is repeated at the Director level. In total, apaper copy of the request is generated and stored at least four times even though the information iscontained in CTBS. If changes are required then a whole new set of paper copies will be produced.

Currently, hard copy transmittal sheets are used for sign-offs. This is accompanied by paper copies ofthe request and the response. Since both the request and response are in CTBS, there is little need forthese documents to be printed and reprinted as they are revised on the way up for approval. Approvalcould be done electronically by instituting electronic signature or approval capability in the department.

Unnecessary hard copy distribution was also noted in the circulation of briefing notes already stored inCTBS, for which an electronic transfer would be far more efficient.

The reliance on paper causes delays when staff must wait for copies to be physically transferred byMCU staff who work part-time from home, even though the copies have already been sentelectronically.

The extra paper generated also raises the potential for security breaches.

Throughout the interviews, inconsistencies were noted in how CTBS is used and how data is entered. A case in point is the use of key words. When ministerial correspondence is entered into CTBS, keywords are assigned to characterize the request and assist in searching. The assignment of key words isa manual choice which can result in inconsistent descriptors for similar requests, and, consequently,database searches may not pick up all the relevant documents for a given subject.

Further inconsistencies result from the lack of mandatory fields which would ensure that certaininformation is recorded in CTBS before the new entry is accepted. For example, management maywant to track VIP correspondence such as letters from Members of Parliament (MPs), however not allletters from MPs are currently labeled as such in the system.

There are other cases where inconsistencies emerged. For example, anurgent request may arrive with insufficient time to follow the entire process,in these cases the process is usually circumvented. While the need to short

“For rush jobs Itend to worry aboutCTBS later.”


Review Branch 8

circuit the process is, in many cases, necessary and unavoidable, the request, associated documentsand a record of what happened are not always entered into CTBS. Most notorious is the practice ofministerial staff calling branch officers and requesting letters or briefs directly. Both the Minister’sSpecial Assistants and staff in the office of the Secretary of State were noted for this practice.

Efficiencies were also lacking in the area of service standards. Currently no service standards arepublicly advertised, such as how long a response can be expected to take. Even automatic replies(noting receipt of e-mailed correspondence) are only available for e-mails sent to the Minister throughthe departmental web site. All faxed and mailed requests for information or explanations receive nonotification. A test e-mail sent directly to the Minister in early November, specifically asked fornotification of receipt of the e-mail and an indication when a response would be forthcoming. Nonotification of receipt was every received.

Inefficiencies were also noted in the briefing note process. Some requests coming from the Minister’sOffice were entered into CTBS and sent directly to a particular branch without vetting to ensure therequest was clear. This results in considerable time expended by authors and their management inresponding incorrectly to a request or doing much more work than necessary to clarify the objective. Asimilar problem exists with correspondence to the Minister which may not always be directed to theappropriate branch or agency.

More thorough vetting would allow for greater delegation to the branches of responsibility for sendingout replies in cases of requests for non-sensitive information. Some departments, such as HRDC, useestablished criteria to determine whether a ministerial inquiry is for information or whether it is a policyquestion requiring the minister’s signature on the response. They estimate about half of the ministerialletters are for information and can be signed and sent out by departmental officials. Other departments,such as Transport Canada, require all letters for the Minister to have a response signed by the Ministeror his staff. It is estimated that currently 20 - 40% of AAFC’s ministerial correspondence is signed bydepartmental officials, bypassing the MO, and thereby speeding up response time to the public. It maybe possible that this percentage could be increased with greater vetting. This practice also reduces theworkload at the ministerial staff level. The aforementioned test e-mail was processed in the departmentin 15 working days, but remained unsigned in the MO for over six weeks. This delay suggests thatthere is merit in reducing the work load of the Minister’s staff.

Finally, the process of approvals is often overly cumbersome and inefficient, as displayed in the processmaps in Annex D. The standard process is to have the MCU send a request for a response to thebranch contact, usually in the ADMO, who then sends it down to the appropriate DGO, and then to thedirector’s office and finally to the officer. Each level then approves what the officer writes before thebranch contact can then send the response back up to the MCU. Any changes go through the wholeprocess again. If professional writers worked in the MCU, as practiced in Human Resources


Review Branch 9

Development Canada (HRDC), then officers could simply send a point-form response and reduce thenumber of times a response is forced through the approval stages for edits.

There are also specific cases of extra approval processes. Particularly convoluted is the process for theSecretary of State’s (SoS’s) office, where the MCU, once receiving the response back from theappropriate branch, sends the response, in both paper and electronic form, to the DMO, which sends itto the Associate DMO, from where it is returned to the DMO, then back to the MCU and only then tothe SoS. The SoS office has expressed concern that most of the assignments they receive are late. Itmight be more efficient if the Associate DMO could send documentation directly to the SoS, andelectronically only. Greater use of electronic copying (cc.s) can reduce a great number of stepscurrently used in the department.

Technical Issues

The computer system is limited in meeting requirements.Senior management has stated that information they require is generallyunavailable from CTBS and that many of the current reports wereessentially unintelligible and of little value. Management found they had torely on manual and hard copy processes to obtain the informationrequired. For example, CTBS is unable to provide a concise andcomprehensive listing of various requests which are due that day, alongwith information concerning the subject of the briefings or correspondencein order to assess the relative priority of the work. Furthermore, there is often insufficient information inCTBS to accurately interpret requests. The result is often additional work at the branch level,incomplete briefings or briefings which do not address the key questions. In the latter two cases extrawork is involved in sending the request back and forth through a complicated multi-step editing andcorrection process (See Annex D).

In some cases it would appear the data required to produce the necessary reports is simply notcollected in CTBS, or is not collected in a complete and systematic manner. In addition, even when theinformation required is collected, the search function is not capable of searching all fields in thedatabase. These factors contribute to the management perception that CTBS is unreliable and raisesthe potential for inconsistent messaging to the Minister. The fact that sensitive and secure documentsare not stored in CTBS exacerbates this situation.

Interviewees did not find CTBS particularly user-friendly. As well, CTBS was said to be slow anddifficult to navigate. In order to move from one screen to another users have to close screens and“back out” to the screen they need to view because it is not possible to work on several screens at onetime.

“The print-out doesn’ttell me enough. Peopledon’t type enough - notenough value added.”


Review Branch 10

Compounding this problem is the need to use more than one screen when performing certain searches. As well, many of those interviewed found the search function to be inadequate, time consuming andunreliable.

A primary purpose of CTBS is tracking assignments. WhileCTBS does identify all those who have been given assignments,they are not necessarily in order within one day, i.e., by time ofday, and there is no option for identifying in what unit, directorate,division, etc., the assignee works, thus making it difficult for othersto know where in the process/system the response is.

Overall the impression of the principal users of CTBS is mixed. While some felt CTBS was animprovement over the previous computerized system, most felt it still did not meet their needs. Discussion with staff at HRDC, which uses the same automated system, revealed that they also foundthe system did not meet their requirements.

Perception of inordinate system support costs.The annual cost to the department for utilizing CTBS is unknown. The CMB cost to operate andmaintain CTBS is approximately $400K per year. This cost does not include training costs for users ofCTBS. Detailed costs are documented in Annex C.

The known costs do not include potential time lost by the principal users of CTBS due to systemslowness and design. However, a bench marking exercise at HRDC concluded that the departmentlost more than 2 PY’s per year using the same system due to these factors.

It also appears that current departmental costing practices have undermined the use of CTBS. Eachbranch is billed a share of the system cost based on the number of licences in their respective branches. This, in addition to the management perception that CTBS is of minimum value, has led branches toreduce the number of people using CTBS. Given this situation, it would appear that the annual cost ofCTBS significantly outweighs the system functionality and benefits derived from using the system.

Potential security breaches limit the effectiveness of the system.CTBS is not set up in such a manner that users in the department have access to certain documents ona ‘need to know’ basis. An employee with access to CTBS can read and modify much of the contentand alter the information related to the tracking of requests. Furthermore, once a response is attachedto an electronic folder, it is possible for other users to alter the contents of the response. Intervieweesstated that it is not unusual for a folder or assignment to be closed incorrectly by another user in thedepartment, sometimes requiring considerable work to reset the appropriate information.

“It isn’t clear who else isreceiving it. You get a bunch ofnames of secretaries withoutknowing who they work for.”


Review Branch 11

In the case of most briefings the response is attached to CTBS once the Director has signed off, but atthis point in the process, the response has not been approved by the ADM and DM. However, it ispossible for the Minister’s staff, who have access to CTBS, to access this response prior to the DMreviewing and approving it on behalf of the Department.

On a related note, an RCMP based Threat and Risk Assessment undertaken in 1998, determined thatAAFC’s Wide Area Network and the Local Area Networks are accessible by individuals outside thedepartment and are therefore not secure. Since CTBS is located on the network, sensitive or restricteddocuments are not entered into the system. This limits the completeness of the database for searchesand management analysis. The irony in this situation is that most authors develop and store theirresponses for these requests on departmental LANs which could be accessible to outside individualsanyway.

It is also possible that the current building security offers less protection for sensitive documents thansecurity offered through computer encryption technology for the database.

Other

Potential for inconsistent messaging to the public.The department receives requests for information from several sources, including the web site, e-mail,letter, telephone or fax. There is no consistent, coordinated approach for responding to these requests. The two “main” units responsible for coordinating departmental responses to public requests are theMCU and PIRS. These groups reside in different units within the department and the requests arehandled using different processes and systems. This lack of coordination presents potential forinconsistent messaging, duplication of effort and organizational inefficiencies.

Public Information Request Service (PIRS)

Requests for information directed to the department (not an individual) by e-mail using thedepartmental web site, by phone or by mail, are handled through PIRS, which is managed throughthe departmental library in the CMB. PIRS staff enter information about the request into acomputer system called HEAT, which is separate and distinct from CTBS. Requests are sentdirectly by e-mail to an officer in the department with instructions to respond directly to theindividual making the request for information. According to PIRS staff, the response is generallyprovided within a “few days”. The response does not usually receive consideration or sign-off bydepartmental management. Although officers are expected to inform PIRS when the request hasbeen completed, this is not routinely followed and PIRS staff do not track the requests. Therefore,unless the officer responds back to PIRS, there is no follow-up to ensure that the request wasanswered, who answered it and the content of the response.


Review Branch 12

Ministerial Correspondence Unit

A request for information sent directly to the Minister is handled through the MCU, which is part ofthe DMO. The request follows an elaborate and complex path into the department (detailed inAnnex D), then to an officer and back to the MO. This process is supported by CTBS, whichtracks when the request was answered, who answered it and the content of the response.

The existence of the two systems raises a number of issues and concerns. The responses to the publicthrough the PIRS system are not tracked to ensure that any departmental guidelines or standardsregarding message consistency or timeliness are met. Further, responses made through the PIRSsystem are not included in the departmental database where they could be searched along withresponses which may have been addressed to the Minister directly. This leads to potential forinconsistent messaging. For example, the same request could be sent by the general public throughPIRS and through the MCU. The time-lines for a response could be quite different (days vs. weeks)and it is possible that different officers would be assigned responsibility and thereby provide differentresponses. While there was no evidence of different responses to a request, it does present a riskwhich should be addressed.

It should also be noted that no evidence of overall coordination between the department’s otherexternal communication vehicles (e.g., A.T.I.P., Media Relations, Web site etc.) came to light duringthe review; a situation which presents potential for inconsistent messaging, duplication of effort andorganizational inefficiencies.


Review Branch 13

ANNEX A

Requirements

Note: The following tables contain comments and additional requirements from interviewees.

The check marks are a preliminary indication of WebCIMS’ ability to meet these requirements basedon a brief demonstration of the product by HRDC and their opinions on the product, and as such theyare not intended to be conclusive. CMB will be doing more extensive testing.

Based on a brief demonstration of Vantive, this product has potential to be customized to meet thecurrent and additional departmental requirements. This option should be explored further

SAP and PeopleSoft do not have the capability for correspondence tracking and briefing. The otheroptions need to be assessed further.

*M = mandatory K = pre-defined keywords using a drop down selection box

* Data Requirements Web-CIMS

Vantive IntegratedSolution

RDIMS

M,K Source of the correspondence (eg, e-mail, letter, fax) U

M,K More “Action” types U U

M,K Branch, Directorate, Division and Unit of assignees(visible with assignment and folder details)

U

M,K Geographic location of correspondent (currentlyvoluntary)

U

M,K Type of correspondent U

M,K Context of request U

M,K Priority of assignments U

M System generated date and time of assignments orsequence numbers

U UU


Review Branch 14

* Information / ReportingRequirements

Web-CIMS


RDIMS

M Assignments by:• keyword and topic• type• date• branch, directorate, division• correspondent type• assigner and assignee position title

UUUUUU

UUUUUU

M Outstanding assignments requiring Minister or DMattention by:• topic• due date• type of document• type of correspondent• etc.

UUUU

UUUUU

M Calendar and status report (BF) U

M Ministers’ calendar for forward planning U

M Capability to analyze data• Summaries of trends (frequencies etc) including

days per assignment per branch and area, etc.

? U

M Performance reports ? U

* System Requirements Web-CIMS


RDIMS

M Better on-line help U

M User friendly system• easy navigation• intuitive

UU

UU

MM

Search capability:• all fields to be searchable• “drill down” into the database (progressive search)

UU

UU

M Search quality:• faster

?U U


* System Requirements Web-CIMS


RDIMS

Review Branch 15

M Capability to run user-defined reports or queries• using drop down boxes for reporting selection

criteria

U UU

M Simultaneously send assignments to multipleassignees

U U

M Attach any document type U U

M Secure system which would allow classifieddocuments to be processed• classified documents currently are copied to

diskettes

M Automatic notification of arrival of assignments U

M More comprehensive security profiles for accesscontrol

? U

M Ability to define any field as mandatory U

M Electronic sign-off / approval U

M Ability to have more information on one screen U U

Process Enhancements

Place standard responses on the Web page as FAQ’s (results of analysis)

Better tracking of document status

Notification sent to all correspondents noting receipt and expected response time

Delegate routine requests

Reduce number of steps in approval process

Eliminate final scan of response after signature by Minister

Clarification of requests for briefings done at the front end of the process

More training and awareness of the system, processes and standards

Active user group

Branch sign-off at the DG level for ministerial correspondence (currently practiced in some branches)


Process Enhancements

Review Branch 16

Increased use of departmental sign-off by branches for information requests sent to the Minister(bypassingMCU DMO/MO)

Reduced reliance on paper copies of electronic transmissions

General Observations

Screen print-outs are difficult to read (don’t look like screen)• incomprehensible to some

Too many screens• only one screen can be open at a time

‘Close’ and ‘Exit’ buttons are too close together

The system is slow = long wait times for screens to come up

Manual systems used to compensate for lack of awareness of system capabilities

Interoperability problems running on NT workstations

Users are not restricted from viewing other peoples’s assignments

Limited use of the comments box

The process is still highly paper based despite the electronic system. Cost/ benefit of the system needsto be examined


Review Branch 17

ANNEX B

CS CIMS Annual Operating Costs

CTBS Operating Budget 2000-2001 (Estimated) for Cost Centre: 145635

Exchange Rate (as of Nov / 2000) 1.51

Canadian $ US $ Sub-TotalsC$

Comments

Maintenance

CIMS License 5 mths (Apr-Aug) $22,525.43 $14,917.50 5 mths: Apr/2000-Aug/2000(Old contract)

Advanced Security Module 5mths (Apr-Aug)

$1,415.63 $937.50 5 mths: Apr/2000-Aug/2000(Old contract)

Imaging (AE) 300 seats, 5 mths(Apr-Aug)

$9,718.93 $6,436.38 5 mths: Apr/2000-Aug/2000(Old contract)

OTG DiskXtender HP20XT 5mths (Apr-Aug)

$621.84 $411.81 5 mths: Apr/2000-Aug/2000(Old contract)

OTG DiskXtender Testing 5mths (Apr-Aug)

$40.49 $26.81 5 mths: Apr/2000-Aug/2000(Old contract)

CIMS License 7 mths (Sep/2000-Mar/2001)

$10,745.29 7 mths: Sep/2000-Mar/2000(new contract)

Eastman Kodak Imaging Pro 2.5 -for OCR Server

$139.00 1 license + media

Eastman Kodak Imaging Pro 2.5 -Scanner users

$3,501.00 To Be Determined - 30 licenses(3 * $1167.00)

Eastman Kodak Imaging Pro 2.5 -Rest of users

$37,344.00 To Be Determined - 320licenses (32 * $1167.00)

Sub-Total $86,051.59 $86,051.59

Hardware/Software

New Compaq Servers - 3 yr on-site Next Bus Day

Standard Warranty

New Compaq 35/70 DLT-3 yr on-site Next Bus Day

Standard Warranty

Diskeeper v 4.0 Annual Maint (2copies)

$120.80 $80.00 Estimate

Powerchute Software (upgradesare at n/c)

$0.00

Backup Exec - Upgrade $175.00 EstimateSmartNet maint for 2 telecomswitches

$1,680.00 $70 * 2 * 12 (Check with Carey.Some switches removed)

Misc - cables, DLT tapes,shipping, manuals, accessories

$1,500.00 Estimate

Pager $150.00


Review Branch 18

Network Express - transport ofAlpaha's to Hull

$161.25 Local delivery + temp fuelsurcharge (7.5%)

Sub-Total $3,787.05 $3,787.05

Professional Services (KnowledgeFlow / FSG)

Prof Services Support as needed $30,200.00 $20,000.00 Funded in contract but OptionalWebCIMS pilot + OTG migration $12,080.00 $8,000.00 Proposal included in the new

contractOptional MEI silver service plan $8,000.00 Unfunded in contract

(prerequisite: 5 day Techcourse.)

Sub-Total $50,280.00 $50,280.00

Training Training - CIMS Administration $3,030.00 3 day Admin courseTraining - CIMS $6,060.00 5 day Technical courseTraining - WebCIMS $6,060.00 5 day Technical courseTraining - CIMS or WebCIMS $6,060.00 5 day Technical courseSub-Total $21,210.00 $21,210.00

MEI Membership fees (if AAFC joinsMEI)

$15,000.00

Sub-Total $15,000.00 $15,000.00

Operating Total $176,328.64

Salaries: Salary Salary +Benefits

CS-3 $65,000.00 $78,000.00CS-2 $54,500.00 $65,400.00CS-2 $54,500.00 $65,400.00CS-2 $54,500.00 $65,400.00Sub-Total $274,200.00

Note: The above is based on maximum CS-02 and CS-03 Salaries and reflects the charge for a full complement of staff time on CTBSNote: For the fiscal 2000-2001, one CS-02 started on CTBS in September 2000


Review Branch 19

ANNEX C

Correspondence and Briefings Production and Process Charts

(The Correspondence and Briefings Production and Process Charts may be obtained from the IT/IMAudit Manager, Rosemary Stephenson at [email protected].)