Audit of Grants & Contributions Modernization

Midpoint Design and Pre-Implementation Review of the Enterprise On-line Solution Initiative

Office of the Chief Audit Executive

April 2016

Cette publication est également disponible en français.

© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2016.

Catalogue No. CH6-39/2016E-PDF

ISBN: 978-0-660-05694-4

Table of Contents

Executive summary

Grants and contributions (Gs&Cs) are used by federal departments and agencies to help achieve their respective mandates. The Department of Canadian Heritage (PCH) provides an average of $1 billion in Gs&Cs funding support each year representing more than 80% of its annual budget. The Grants and Contributions Modernization Initiative (GCMI) Enterprise On-line Solution (EOS) is intended to assist in modernizing the Department’s approach to Gs&Cs delivery and to ensure high standards of client service. The GCMI-EOS Project is a significant element of the larger PCH Grants and Contributions Modernization Action Plan (GCMAP).

Canadian Heritage is at the forefront of the Gs&Cs departments with this online solution and there has been expressed interest from other government departments in the work that PCH is undertaking. The GCMI-EOS Project is intended to provide the following outcomes:

  1. Improved client satisfaction;
  2. Increased operational efficiency; and
  3. Enhanced performance reporting.

The objective of this audit was to provide assurance that the GCMI-EOS Project is on track to deliver a system, processes and controls that will contribute to achievement of GCMAP project objectives, specifically objectives to enhance the client relationship, contribute to efficiency of business processes for programs, and improve performance measurement and reporting.

This audit included system development and pre-implementation activities undertaken at Headquarters, and in the Regional Offices, and covered the period from April 1, 2014 to the substantial completion of audit work.

The audit team observed several effective controls and good practices with respect to the project’s governance, risk management and internal controls including the following:

  • PCH has a governance structure in place that is well-structured and functions as it is designed. Documentation is consistently developed to support meetings and decisions.
    • Risk identification is considered to be a strength of the project.
    • Risk Registers, Project Dashboards and other supporting documents are frequently presented at relevant meetings.
    • Committee and working group meetings are well attended.
  • The Project has sound feedback gathering processes and procedures.
  • A GCMAP Performance Measurement Framework has been prepared and approved.
  • There is a control system in place to ensure deficiencies are identified, logged and addressed.

The audit team identified opportunities for improvement to specific management practices and processes and these are addressed through the recommendations found in the body of the report.

Audit opinion and conclusion

Based on the audit findings, our opinion is the Enterprise On-line Solution Project has a sound governance structure and manages risks appropriately. There are specific improvements which would enable the EOS Project Team and its Steering Committee to effectively implement the Project, achieve its objectives, and measure and monitor performance. A conclusion is not provided for security controls that are the responsibility of Shared Services Canada.

Statement of conformance

In my professional judgment as Chief Audit Executive, this audit was conducted in conformance with the Institute of Internal Auditors' International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing and with the Internal Auditing Standards for the Government of Canada, as supported by the results of the quality assurance and improvement program. Sufficient and appropriate audit procedures were conducted, and evidence gathered, to support the accuracy of the findings and conclusion in this report. The findings and conclusion are based on a comparison of the conditions, as they existed at the time, against pre-established audit criteria that were agreed with management and are only applicable to the entity examined and for the scope and time period covered by the audit.

Original signed by

__________________________________________________

Natalie M. Lalonde

Chief Audit Executive

Office of the Chief Audit Executive

Department of Canadian Heritage

Audit Team Members

Dylan Edgar, Audit Manager

With the assistance of external resources

1. Background

The authority for this audit was derived from the Multi-Year Risk-Based Audit Plan for 2015-16 to 2017-18 that was recommended by the Departmental Audit Committee (DAC) and approved by the Deputy Minister in March 2015. Grants and contributions (Gs&Cs) are used by federal departments and agencies to help achieve their respective mandates. The Department of Canadian Heritage (PCH) provides an average of $1 billion in Gs&Cs funding support each year representing more than 80% of its annual budget. The Grants and Contributions Modernization Initiative (GCMI) Enterprise On-line Solution (EOS) is intended to assist to modernize the Department’s approach to Gs&Cs delivery and to ensure high standards of client service given reduced resources. Canadian Heritage is at the forefront of the Gs&Cs departments with this online solution and that there has been expressed interest from other government departments in the work that PCH is undertaking.

The GCMI-EOS Project is a significant element of the PCH’s Grants and Contributions Modernization Action Plan (GCMAP). The GCMAP strategy is described in the following graphic:

Canadian Heritage’s modernization strategy

Canadian Heritage’s Modernization Strategy – text version

Vision

PCH delivers grants and contribution in an efficient, effective and modern way, making it easy for clients to access our programs and services.

Strategy

Using leading-edge technology and processes to:

  • Modernize program delivery
  • Enhance the client experience
  • Demonstrate positive results for Canadians

Enhanced Client Relationship

  • Meeting our service commitments
  • Responding to client needs
  • Interacting with clients online
  • Continuing to improve service
  • Reviewing how we communicate decisions

Standardized Business Process

  • Supporting risk-based approach to program delivery
  • Enhancing process efficiencies
  • Providing program staff with timely support training
  • Clarifying roles and responsibilities

Improved Performance Measurement

Getting the right information to tell the PCH performance story by:

  • Automating, strengthening and streamlining performance data collection
  • Gathering common PCH-wide performance information

Guilding Principles

  • Promote Continuous-Improvement
  • Balancing risks and results
  • Reduce administrative burden
  • Foster Innovation
  • Client centered service

The GCMI-EOS initiative is intended to result in the following outcomes:

  1. Improved client satisfaction:  Client satisfaction is expected to improve through the implementation of an on-line service delivery platform that will address the growing demand for such services, improve access to Gs&Cs programming, simplify client interactions and provide an appropriate level of transparency into internal processes by allowing applicants to monitor the progress of the file without program staff intervention.
  2. Increased operational efficiency:  Internal Time-Motion studies estimated that 60% of a program officer’s time is spent processing an application and thus will benefit program officers from an on-line service delivery channel. Implementing an on-line service delivery platform will, for example, ensure applications are complete before they are submitted, or allow a client to assess the status of a file throughout the life cycle of his or her Gs&Cs file.
  3. Enhanced performance reporting: Program recipients should benefit from simpler, streamlined reports that focus their reporting efforts on key metrics that address Departmental performance requirements.

2. Objective

The objective of this audit was to provide assurance that the EOS Project is on track to deliver a system, processes and controls that will contribute to achievement of GCMAP project outcomes, specifically to enhance the client relationship, contribute to efficiency of business processes for programs, and improve performance measurement and reporting.

3. Scope

This audit included system development and pre-implementation activities undertaken in Headquarters and in the Regional Offices and covered the period from April 1, 2014 to the substantial completion of audit work.

The audit sub-objectives and criteria were identified by the audit team following a preliminary assessment of applicable core management controls and an assessment of risks to the management of the GCMI-EOS Project. The audit focused on the management of the system development project and its alignment with Government of Canada direction.

4. Approach and methodology

The audit team wishes to acknowledge the openness and transparency of the GCMI-EOS Project Team, providing unfettered access to the project’s shared electronic file directories and delivering briefings and walkthroughs of the GCMI-EOS application and test files.

The audit methodology included, but was not limited to the following:

  • Reviewing the project’s documentation, guidelines and procedures, system deliverables, testing plans, policy and legislation relevant to the project;
  • Obtaining a collection of data through interviews and observations with the project’s personnel and clients to examine processes, procedures and practices; and
  • Reviewing a sample of system tests and identified deficiencies relevant to confirm the effectiveness of key internal controls.

5. Findings and recommendations

This section outlines the findings and recommendations with respect to the Gs&Cs Modernization audit. The findings are based on a combination of the evidence gathered through documentation review, analysis, testing, and interviews conducted for each audit criterion. Appendix A provides a summary of all findings and conclusions for each of the criteria assessed by the audit team. Findings of lesser materiality, risk or impact have been communicated with the auditee either verbally or in a management letter.

5.1 Governance

Governance is the internal control component that involves establishing key oversight bodies for the organization and ensuring a clearly communicated mandate that includes roles and responsibilities, accountabilities and decision-making authority is documented in a formal Project Charter.

Governance structure

The EOS Project has a governance structure in place that is well-structured and functions as designed. Documentation is consistently developed to support meetings and decisions.

The governance structure for the project functions effectively. Committees are made up of appropriate representatives who attend regularly. Committee members are aware of their responsibilities and accountabilities. The governance structureFootnote 1 for the Project is illustrated below:

GCMAP Governance – text version

Decision-making is done firstly by the Excom. Secondly, by the Program and Policy Committee (Business Stream); IPPMEC and Finance; and Human Resources and Business Services Committee (Technical Stream). Thirdly, by the GCMAP Steering Committee.

Engagement and Advice is done firstly with the Outcome Pillar Leads. Secondly by the Grants and Contributions Advisory Committee; the Program DG Working Group; and Gs&C’s Modernization PMO.

Committee and working group meetings are held consistently to support the nature of the committee or team (monthly for the Project Steering Committee, weekly to bi-weekly for the Project Management Office and Project Team, and as required for the Program DG Working Group), with documentation, such as agendas and records of decision , prepared and communicated. The records of decisions reflect a level of detail of the discussion and issues raised in the meetings and also identify decisions taken and follow-up action required.

Having an effective governance structure in place within PCH for the EOS Project provides for appropriate oversight, engagement in decision-making and risk management processes and supports and reinforces strong oversight for the implementation of the project. That said, given the DG and ADM membership of the GCMAP Steering Committee, efficiencies could be gained by elevating this committee to a Level 2 committee.

Alignment with departmental and central agency priorities

The EOS Project is aligned with Departmental and relevant Central Agency requirements.

The audit team found that the project is aligned with Departmental and relevant central agency requirements. This is the result of the frequent meetings held with central agencies and OGDs such as Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS), Western Economic Diversification Canada and the Department of Justice Canada. Additionally, EOS is clearly linked to the requirements of the TB Policy on Service and other existing TB policies. Memoranda of Understanding are under review with TBS to ensure this alignment continues.

Aligning with Departmental and TB priorities is an important element of project success to ensure the effective use of resources and organizational alignment across both PCH and the Government of Canada. Given the nature of EOS, this is especially important as there is an initiative to create standardized Gs&Cs solutions across government. By working closely with TBS and OGDs, PCH has effectively mitigated the risk that the EOS Project would not align with the wider governmental mandate for EOS applications.

Feedback & change management

The Project has sound feedback gathering processes and procedures; however, it requires a robust change management strategy to address the anxieties and concerns of impacted employees.

The EOS Project has sound processes and practices related to feedback from clients using techniques and channels such as; regional visits, phone calls, and surveys. The Project has provided clear and timely feedback and communications to its clients and OGDs. The success of engagement and feedback gathering activities is due, in part, to the shared vision and integrated strategy of the Project as two of the three pillars of the project action plan - Enhanced Client Relationship and Standardized Business Process - focus on wide spread engagement.

While there are sound processes and practices related to feedback, the audit team has concluded that improvements related to change management should be enhanced. Though EOS change management activities as part of its project plan, the GCMAP lacks an overall change management strategy. The audit team also did not find a change management work breakdown structure to address anxieties and concerns of program staff who will experience changes in the way they conduct their work as a result of EOS. Additionally, a communication strategy should be developed to articulate how Gs&Cs Modernization and the EOS will impact the delivery of Gs&Cs going forward.

While strong mechanisms for engaging with and gathering feedback from employees and OGDs exist, there may be a risk that the lack of effective change management will create resistance with the effective implementation of the project. Given the nature and reach of the project, user buy-in is critical to project success.

Recommendation

  1. The Chief Transformation and Information Officer should implement a comprehensive change management and communications strategy for GCMAP, including the implications of EOS.

5.2 Risk management

In general, the EOS Risk Management Framework is robust.

Risk management is the internal control component that involves establishing and maintaining an effective framework and process to identify, analyze, and manage risks relevant to achieving objectives.

Members of the Project Team indicated that the Risk Management Framework is robust. The objective of the Framework is to provide the structure and tools to ensure all risks are effectively identified and managed across the project. This is done primarily through the use of risk registers maintained by the GCMAP Project Office. The Risk Registers are tabled and reviewed at all meetings of the GCMAP Project Management Office and the Project Team. The top three risks and key issues are included in the Executive Dashboard that is tabled at the GCMAP Steering Committee.

Having a formal enterprise risk management framework and documented approaches to managing these risks mitigates the risk that challenges and barriers to the project will go unaddressed. Regular reporting of risks through the Risk Register and Project Dashboard mitigates the risk that decision-makers are unaware or uninformed of risks to the project.

The team concluded that risk management practices for the EOS Porject are in place and operating effectively.

5.3 Internal control

Internal control is broadly defined as a process, affected by an entity’s management, and other personnel, designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of objectives.

System security testing

Testing of system security has yet to be carried out at the time of the audit.

System security is a shared responsibility between PCH and SSC. While PCH is responsible for application level security, SSC is responsible for security at the network, operating system and platform layers of an IT solution.

For the EOS project, PCH engaged a security expert to develop a system Security Architecture Design Specification to ensure the necessary technical controls were implemented in the context of the overall solution design commensurate with the confidentiality, integrity and availability requirements of the system. The Security Design Specification identified controls required across across all layers of the IT Solution, but focused specifically on controls to be implemented at the application layer. The Security Design Specification was included as part of the RFP requirements in the selection and procurement of the EOS system.

A Security Assessment & Authorization (SA&A) process was undertaken to verify that the technical controls identified in the Security Architecture Design Specification document had been implemented and were functioning in accordance with their design. At this time, the evidence submitted to confirm the implementation of the specified controls consisted of an “attestation” that the specified controls were implemented in accordance with the Security Architecture Design; it did not include “test results” that the controls implemented were operating in accordance with their design. The attestation evidence was accepted with a “Security Improvement Plan” (SIP) which provided for the testing of controls post-release. Based on the Attestation Evidence, and the Security Improvement Plan, the CIO issued an “Interim Authority to Operate” (IAO) for 1 year.

SSC is responsible for the implementation of security controls at the network, operating system and physical layers. PCH requested a Protected B environment for the EOS system. SSC provided the environment with confirmation that it met Protected B requirements. They have not, and will not provide any testing evidence to validate this.

Testing of requirements is critical to ensuring the integrity of a system. Given the lack of security testing for the application, there is a risk that the GCMI-EOS application may have security weaknesses that could place the accuracy and privacy of program application information in jeopardy as well as expose personal or client proprietary information to access by unauthorized individuals, either inside or outside the Department. While evidence was submitted through the SA&A process that the necessary security controls have been implemented, these controls need to be tested to ensure they are operating in accordance with their design. Accordingly, there is a risk that the security controls are not operating effectively and the EOS system susceptible to security breach or undesired functionality.

Recommendation

  1. The Chief Transformation and Information Officer should:
    1. Place a high priority on completing the testing of security and operational controls of EOS; and
    2. Seek formal assurance from SSC concerning the network and data centre infrastructure that supports the application.

Transition to operation and maintenance

Planning to move from implementation to ongoing operation and maintenance of the system has yet to be developed.

The lifecycle of the EOS allows for programs to be onboarded over several fiscal years. At the time of the audit, one Gs&Cs program, Canada Arts Training Fund (CATF), had been onboarded and three additional programs were planned to be onboarded before the end of fiscal 2015-2016. The support requirements of programs that are already using GCMI-EOS have moved into an operation and maintenance mode, whereas other programs have yet to be implemented, requiring a different set of service requirements.

At the time of the audit, the IT staff in the Chief Information Officer Branch (CIOB) are supporting both the program that has been onboarded and the programs that continue to use legacy tools. The audit team observed that the full cost and resource implications of the operation and maintenance of EOS have not yet been fully defined.

However, the CIOB has developed a training strategy for its IT resources with regards to EOS. Further, as part of the contract with the external contractor, there has been a knowledge transfer from the external contractor to PCH IT staff team through formal training and regular interactions. The Department’s current Grants and Contributions Information Management System maintenance team has been included in the project to learn the newer technology and their day-to-day tasks are being conducted by temporary staff, contractors, and students. In spite of these positive steps, a clear distinction between development/onboarding and operation and maintenance support, resources, tools and procedures is not evident.

Without clear distinction between development/onboarding and operation and maintenance support, resources, tools and procedures, there is an increased risk that onboarded clients who are in operation and maintenance will continue to place demands on resources that assisted them during the onboarding exercise. There is a risk that these development/implementation resources will be conflicted in the priority of their work assignments and impact the onboarding schedule.

Recommendation

  1. The Chief Transformation and Information Officer should develop a plan, including clear roles and responsibilities, to support programs as they are onboarded and move to an ongoing operation and maintenance environment.

Overall conclusion

The main purpose of this audit was to provide assurance that the EOS Project is on track to deliver a system, processes and controls that will contribute to achievement of GCMAP project objectives, specifically objectives to enhance the client relationship, contribute to efficiency of business processes for programs, and improve performance measurement and reporting. Based on the audit findings, our opinion is the EOS Project has a sound governance structure and manages risks appropriately. There are specific improvements, as noted in the above sections, which would enable the EOS Project Team and its Steering Committee to effectively implement the Project, achieve its objectives, and measure and monitor performance. A conclusion is not provided for security controls that are the responsibility of Shared Services Canada.

Appendix A – Audit criteria

The conclusions reached for each of the audit criteria used in the audit were developed according to the following definitions.

Numerical categorization

Conclusion on audit criteria

Definition of conclusion

1

Well controlled

  • well managed, no material weaknesses noted; and
  • effective.

2

Controlled

  • well managed, but minor improvements are needed; and
  • effective.

3

Moderate issues

Has moderate issues requiring management focus (at least one of the following two criteria need to be met):

  • control weaknesses, but exposure is limited because likelihood of risk occurring is not high;
  • control weaknesses, but exposure is limited because impact of the risk is not high.

4

Significant improvements required

Requires significant improvements (at least one of the following three criteria need to be met):

  • financial adjustments material to line item or area or to the Department; or
  • control deficiencies represent serious exposure; or
  • major deficiencies in overall control structure.

Note: Every audit criteria that is categorized as a “4” must be immediately disclosed to the CAE and the subjects matter’s Director General or higher level for corrective action.

Audit sub-objective 1: To provide assurance that GCMI-EOS Project governance structures and practices are in place and operating as intended to ensure the achievement of project objectives.

Criteria #

Audit criteria

Conclusion

1.1

Senior management and oversight bodies receive sufficient, complete and accurate information to inform decision making.

1

1.2

GCMI-EOS Project’s system development procedures guidelines and assessment practices are consistently applied within the project, and are aligned with Departmental and other relevant central agency requirements.

1

1.3

Results and performance measurement are documented, (adjusted as needed), are actively monitored and are reported to required authority levels and factor into decision-making.

2

1.4

GCMI-EOS Project management allocates resources to facilitate the achievement of objectives/results.

2

Audit sub-objective 2: To provide assurance that key internal controls over the identification, monitoring, management and mitigation of risks are in place and operating as intended in regard to the GCMI-EOS Project financial and operational performance.

Criteria #

Audit criteria

Conclusion

2.1

Testing of system security and operational controls is comprehensive and duly verified.

3

2.2

Identified deficiencies of the GCMI-EOS applications are identified and addressed before proceeding to onboard additional programs.

1

2.3

Expected results are monitored and communicated on a regular basis and support management decision making.

1

Audit sub-objective 3: To provide assurance that the GCMI-EOS Project is managed in compliance with relevant PCH and central agency policies, guidelines and expectations.

Criteria #

Audit criteria

Conclusion

3.1

GCMI-EOS Project management uses independent oversight activities to monitor and provide assurance on the quality of risk management and due diligence in risk decision making.

1

3.2

Processes and practices related to change initiatives and feedback gathering (stakeholders, management and employees) are in place, and well communicated on a timely basis.

2

3.3

GCMI-EOS information technology and systems are life cycle managed and adequately protected.

3

3.4

The GCMI-EOS Project has a formal approach to knowledge and talent management to ensure PCH has the in-house expertise to support EOS going forward.

1

Appendix B – Management action plan

Grants and Contributions Modernization Audit: Midpoint Design and Pre-Implementation Review of the Enterprise On-line Solution Initiative.

Recommendation

Actions

Responsibility

Target Date

  1. The Chief Transformation and Information Officer should implement a comprehensive change management and communications strategy for GCMAP, including the implications of EOS.

Agree with some clarifications.

Change management has been integrated into the EOS project design; however, there has been additional Gs&Cs transformation.

The GCMAP team will develop a broad based change management and communications strategy to ensure that there is a clear understanding with management, program staff and clients of the benefits and impacts of a new way of doing business..

Chief Transformation and Information Officer

End of Q1 2016-2017

2.The Chief Transformation and Information Officer should:

a.Place a high priority on completing the testing of security and operational controls of EOS; and

b.Seek formal assurance from SSC concerning the network and data centre infrastructure that supports the application.

Agree with a caveat, and are on track to implement recommendation A) according to the project schedule.

  1. The system testing will be completed in accordance with the Security Improvement Plan (SIP) as submitted under the Security Assessment and Authorization process (SA&A)
  2. It has not been SSC’s practice to provide evidence of testing and/or Threat & Risk Assessments of environments under its management authority. CIOB will continue to meet regularly with SSC to discuss operational issues, including IT security.

Senior Director, GCMAP

Director, Integrated Business Solutions

IT Security, CIOB

End of Q4 2015-2016

End of Q2 2016-2017

3.The Chief Transformation and Information Officer should develop a plan, including clear roles and responsibilities, to support programs as they are onboarded and move to an ongoing operation and maintenance environment.

Agree and have begun implementation.

Some aspects of the project, such as support for legacy systems, and client support are already being delivered through operational resources.

Planning to transition all asepcts to an operational or maintenance status has been underway since Nov 2015 as part of GCMAP business case development, and will continue until Q2 of 2016-17.

The plan will clearly establish roles and resources required to support programs once they are onboard, and will identify potential sources of ongoing operational, rather than project funding.

Senior Director, GCMAP

Director, Center of Expertise

Director, Integrated Business Solutions

End of FY 2015-2016 to Q2 2016-2017

Appendix C – Glossary of acronyms and terms

Acronyms

CATF

Canada Arts Training Fund (program)

CIOB

Chief Information Officer Branch

EOS

Enterprise Online Solution

GCMAP

Grants and Contributions Modernization Action Plan

GCMI

Grans and Contributions Modernization Initiative

Gs&Cs

Grants and Contributions

OGD

Other Government Departments

PCH

Canadian Heritage

SSC

Shared Services Canada

TBS

Treasury Board Secretariat

Terms

1. Finance Committee - is responsible for:

  • Review the project business plan
  • Make recommendations to EXCOM on funding levels for the project
  • Review planned versus actual deliverables and milestones for any year
  • Review the value of the project to PCH
  • Review Project efficiencies results

2. Executive Committee – EXCOM Composed of the Department’s Assistant Deputy Ministers. Sets strategic direction for PCH; foster common understanding of G & C’s management issues; reviews and approves major investments and initiatives and policies; reviews status & budget of major Departmental projects.

3. Human Resources and Business Services Committee – HRBSC is responsible for:

  • Confirming the technical direction of the project
  • Endorsing as required releases and training around releases
  • Supporting project communications

4. Integrated Planning, Performance Measurement and Evaluation Committee - IPPMEC is responsible for:

  • Ensuring that core planning, reporting, performance measurement, integrated risk management and evaluation functions jointly contribute to a good corporate governance process, allow the telling of a coherent Departmental story ad facilitate the strategic management cycle for PCH.
  • Reviewing strategies to ensure performance data availability
  • Reviewing the project logic model and results measurement plan
  • Reviewing reports of project performance, as directed by the project steering committee.

5. GCMAP Project Team - The GCMAP Project Team is the operational lead on the GCMAP, responsible for tracking and reporting on results set out in an approved GCMAP Project Logic Model. The Project Team ensures coordination of effort across the pillars. The team is also responsible for overseeing project risks, including risks that relate to the integration of the project at PCH, and in addressing and/or escalating issues. It also responsible for bringing updates and recommendations through PCH’s governance structure. The Project Team is fed by and coordinates other teams, including the Gs&Cs advisory committee, the D/DG Gs&Cs Working Group, and the GCMPMO.

6. Gs&Cs Modernization Project Management Office – The GCMPMO focuses on modernization of PCH information technology solutions to support GCMAP objectives. It meets weekly and as small sub-teams to:

  • Refine planning and scheduling,
  • Make regular progress against timelines and deliverables;
  • Review a project update at each meeting.
  • Identify and work to manage and/or mitigate risks
  • Identify, clarify and resolve issues
  • Track actions and ensure communications among parts of the team at an operational level.
  • Oversee change management.

7. GCMAP Steering Committee - The GCMAP Steering Committee is responsible for reviewing, endorsing, and providing leadership on, the GCMAP including:

  • Project initiatives that impact client relationships, such as the client service vision, service charter and the online solution for Gs&Cs.
  • Business processes modernization, including efficiencies that reduce time to process Gs&Cs files for both program officers and PCH clients
  • Improved Gs&Cs performance measurement, while meeting Treasury Board requirements, including initiatives that reduce the reporting burden for clients, ensure client reporting is relevant to PCH strategic outcomes, simplify the work of program performance reporting, and streamline the aggregation of Departmental data towards Departmental performance reporting.

The objective of the Committee is to provide a forum for effective consultation, discussion, update, provision of strategic advice; and, as appropriate, decisions on GCMI to ensure its vision is realized, its outcomes are reviewed and achieved, its deliverables are met, and that its action plan is effectively and efficiently managed.

8. Program and Policy Committee - PPC is responsible for:

  • Endorsing project vision and directions.
  • Enabling needed supporting policy initiatives, including priority setting
  • Providing oversight and guidance for the project, including endorsing project scope and changes to the service delivery model.
  • Reviewing and endorsing the project budget and key milestones, as part of annual planning.
  • Providing input to client relationships through the Department’s client service charter and service standards.
  • Engaging, as recommended by the GCMAP Steering Committee, in intergovernmental issues.
  • Supporting project communications.

As a forum in the Department for engaging Directors General in horizontal policy discussion, consultation and debate, PPC is important to resolving policy or program issues or risks key to GCMAP project outcomes.

Report a problem or mistake on this page
Please select all that apply:

Thank you for your help!

You will not receive a reply. For enquiries, contact us.

Date modified: