Results of the Inclusion and Integration Committee Pilot Project and Expansion Proposal

Open Government Secretariat (OGS)

Presentation to the Executive Management Committee (EMC)

July 20, 2022

Contact OGS: cfp.cfpgouvernementouvert-pscopengovernment.psc@canada.ca

GCDoc# 14274328

Diffusion possible - Gouvernement ouvert / Candidate for Open Government

Accessibility

As of the date of publication, this document has been verified for accessibility.

If you encounter any issues with this document, please contact the author.

Presentation Objective

• Report on the facilitating “publish with a purpose” IIC pilot project
• Seek approval on the recommendation to expand pilot

Context: IIC Pilot

The pilot project proposal was approved by IIC on July 22, 2021 and officially began September 2021.

The Directive on OpenGov requires:

• Maximizing release of open data and open information
• Ensuring open data and information is released in accessible and reusable formats

What is Publish with a Purpose?

• The goal of publish with a purpose is not to publish all assets, but to identify, develop, and publish assets that are of value and informed by public interest, to the OpenGov Portal.

Available OpenGov tools provided to Presenters for identifying and developing assets for OpenGov:

• Meeting with OGS
• Themes/Assessment tool
• Accessibility PowerPoint Guide
• Accessibility toolkit
• IIC pilot flow chart
• User guide

Results 1/2

12 - The number of presenting teams who participated in the Pilot.

8 - The number of presenting teams who decided that their documents were not eligible for OpenGov.

4 - The number presenting teams who decided that their documents were eligible for OpenGov.

3 - The number of new documents in the process of being published on the Portal

Results 2/2

Objective One: Increase in awareness & understanding

• OGS met with multiple employees to discuss OpenGov at the PSC and document eligibility. Information provided included:
• What is publishing with a purpose,
• the OpenGov process; and
• OpenGov tools.
• Some teams who presented to IIC more than once during the pilot were comfortable making their own OpenGov assessment based on their original OGS meeting.

Objective Two: Identification of information of value

• Out of the 12 documents that were presented, four were identified as eligible, three of which are currently in the OpenGov process.
• The purpose of the pilot was to identify documents of value to Canadians, and not publish every document that went through governance.
• The six month pilot provided, IIC members, and employees concrete examples of documents that were considered of value and could be eligible for OpenGov.

Challenges to implementation

• Ensuring groups contact the OGS: There was a change in committee administration which required OGS to ensure that new committee administration was aware of the pilot.  There was a period of time where there was gap in ensuring that groups contacted OGS.
• OpenGov resources and tools: Not all employees utilized all of the OpenGov resources and tools.
• Quality assurance/Challenge function: OGS provides tools and resources to make content accessible, however, within the pilot there was no assurance that the documents were accessible at IIC. There was little challenge to documents eligibility or ineligibility for OpenGov.
• OpenGov decisions not consistently reflected in minutes: Not all participants spoke to the eligibility of their documents/presentation for OpenGov.  As a result, OpenGov statements were not consistently included in IIC minutes.

Proposal

There was little additional resource strain due to the pilot. Therefore, we recommend expanding the pilot project to be a permanent consideration in:

• Integration and Inclusion Committee (IIC)
• Information Management/Information Technology Committee (IMITC)
• Resource Management Committee (RMC)

Implementation

Measuring and reporting: OGS is responsible for measuring and reporting success of pilot expansion to IIC, RMC and IMITC after 1 year.

Aspects that have been added or modified since initial implementation to address identified challenges are indicated by an asterisk (*).

OGS will work with committees (IIC, RMC, IMITC) to:

• Update OpenGov requirement in committee application form to ensure that the pilot is prominent and mandatory to presenters. *
• Continue to provide supporting links to themes/assessment tool, user guide, and accessibility guidance.
• Incorporate OpenGov into committee meetings:
• Sectors presenting would be responsible for ensuring OpenGov requirements in the application form are met and submitted documents are accessible. *
• Eligibility statement from presenters to be recorded in meeting minutes. *

What does this mean for presenters?

• Application to committee:
• Tag the items being presented as a candidate for Open Government.
• Incorporate the tools created by OGS and the Communications and Parliamentary Affairs Directorate (CPAD) throughout content creation: assessment tool, user guide, accessibility toolkit.
• OGS to provide direct support to presenters: *
• Removal of OpenGov tag
• Eligibility
• Accessibility
• Presenters to comment on the eligibility of the relevant documents for OpenGov during their presentation: *
• If asked, the presenter can explain the removal of Open Government tags. (not of value, not inline with themes, internal, etc.)
• If OpenGov eligibility is not obvious the Chair can confirm eligibility to ensure it can be recorded in meeting minutes.*

Questions

Does EMC agree with the recommendation to expand the pilot project to be a permanent consideration in IIC, IMITC, and RMC?

Does EMC agree to expand the pilot project to include IMITC and RMC?

ANNEX A – Discussion at IIC

The Chair concluded the meeting by recognizing the importance of OpenGov and accessibility for the PSC. However, committee comments around logistics such as the requirements to always meet with OGS and the need to record the eligibility of documents in the meeting minutes, should be tempered before bringing the discussion to EMC.

Comments from IIC focused on the updated implementation of the pilot. Summary of comments and responses are below.

IIC comments addressing pilot logistics:

• Questions included: can the decision be made outside the official presentation at IIC and not need to be included in the minutes (OpenGov tag, email, etc.)? Can the OpenGov consideration be done in the application form or via email instead of during a meeting with OGS as meetings can be time consuming? Comments also indicated that PSC teams can use their judgement to make the decision and remove or keep the OpenGov tag.

OpenGov response/recommendation:

• The inclusion of the OpenGov statement within presentations allows for all Sectors to be aware of potential publication and express any concerns they may have with release. The Chair can also ask if they are unsure about eligibility. To address concerns about the time commitment around these meetings, the OGS recommends that presenters who are new to the pilot, meet with the OGS to discuss the pilot and open government prior to their presentation at committee to increase efficiency.  However, meetings for repeat presenters can be on an as needed basis if they feel the conversation will bring additional thought and consideration.  The meetings can last for as little at 5 minutes.

IIC comments about accessibility:

• Questions included: will the responsibility statement be enough for accessibility without a QA function?

OpenGov response/recommendation:

• Specifically including accessibility as a clear requirement in the implementation of the pilot makes it clear that it is the Sector’s requirement to be accessible to go through governance versus only an OpenGov requirement.  Including the accessibility statement available in PSC templates in presentations and reports will help to ensure that accessibility of documents has been considered.

ANNEX B – Discussion at IMITC and RMC

Comments from IMITC and RMC on the updated implementation of the pilot and expansion. Summary of comments and responses are below.

IMITC question on implementation:

• Questions included: can the implementation slide include the need to coordinate with CPAD (responsible for HTML coding for the Portal) to ensure it is clear what is being considered for publishing.

OpenGov response/recommendation:

• Coordination with CPAD is built into the OpenGov process but it will be incorporated into speaking notes for presentations at future committees.

IMITC comment on expansion:

• Comment included:  an option to expand the pilot incrementally to a second committee then after a set period of time to the remaining committee.

OpenGov response/recommendation:

• Given that there are three subcommittees and the anticipated additional resource burden is minimal, there is little, if any, additional value in expanding to one committee at a time.

RMC question on resources for the pilot:

• Questions included: what are the implications on resources and can more explanation be provided around the statement that, “there was little additional resource strain due to the pilot.”

OpenGov response/recommendation:

• The additional resource burden is limited.  Of the 12 documents that went through the pilot in the first six months, four were eligible for OpenGov.  Although this does increase the number of information assets going through the OpenGov process, the pilot is designed to address areas that have cause additional work and time delays in the past.  When a document is identified after it has been approved, there can be extensive work to do on document accessibility and official languages.  Identifying the asset earlier on in their development process such as before they go to IIC, IMITC, and RMC, allows for these considerations to be incorporated into their development and approval process.