Appendix B: Results-based Management Accountability Framework (RMAF) for SD Strategy 2007-2010

• Next page

1.0    Principles

The CRA recognizes that better measurement is an important aspect to continuous learning and better reporting. For our progress reports we concentrate our measurement efforts on the areas of greatest materiality to the Agency and its stakeholders with respect to the SD program, namely:

• compliance with legislation and regulations;
• achieving Environmental and SD results;
• contributing to government-wide SD priorities; and,
• effective program management.

In measuring our performance in these and other areas, we recognize that developing and acquiring data can be resource intensive. Therefore, to the greatest extent possible, the CRA exploits existing data sources for measuring environmental and SD performance, and wherever feasible, seeks to expand these sources of information to include SD components. This approach minimizes costs, and is in keeping with the principle of integrating SD into the way we do business. In some cases, the reliance on existing data sets can limit the robustness of performance indicators and measures. Other limitations related to the availability, cost, and timing of data, play a role in determining the focus, coverage, and availability of performance information contained in SD reports. Managers of the SD program are continuously seeking to improve the availability, timeliness, and quality of data.

It is at the activity level in our national SD action plan where concrete actions are taken to influence SD outcomes. At the activity level, program resources are applied daily to effect organizational change. Accordingly, each activity has its own detailed blueprint that includes precise objectives, outputs, performance indicators, data sources and availability, detailed risk and project management plans. The objectives of the EMPs are achieved in the same way. Daily implementation of activities that support EMPs targets ensure that objectives are reached, SD goals are attained, and ultimately, that the SD vision is realized.

Our approach to SD performance measurement and reporting is outlined in Agency's SD Strategy 2007-2010 RMAF. It describes our measurement, reporting and evaluation strategies, and discusses the importance of accurate and timely data as the foundation of performance measurement.

2.0 Performance Measurement Drivers

The development of an RMAF for the CRA's fourth SD strategy is a requirement of the Treasury Board Secretariat, and an expectation of the CESD. A public commitment to develop the RMAF was also made by the CRA in its 2006-2007 Report on Plans and Priorities. The RMAF was developed using the Treasury Board Secretariat's guide for creating RMAFs, and contains the five recommended elements:

• an organizational profile that includes a description of the program's governance structure;
• a logic model illustrating how program activities are expected to achieve the final outcomes;
• a performance measurement strategy for measuring progress against commitments over the three year implementation period of the strategy;
• a reporting strategy describing how program reporting requirements will be met; and,
• an evaluation strategy that sets out the evaluation work to be done over the lifecycle of the program.

3.0 Results-based Management Accountability Framework Approach

CRA-specific values and drivers have also been integrated into these individual elements to ensure the framework is consistent with the operational realities of the CRA's SD program and to optimize cost-effective delivery. These are: 

• Integration:  to the greatest extent possible, integrate SD into existing policies, plans, and programs, and make use of existing information databases.
• Focus:  to meet our targets requires effective implementation of the activities and EMPs that support them. Activities and EMPs are the focal point for action in SD strategy 2007-2010, and are where accountability structures, project management, performance measurement and risk management efforts are concentrated.
• Use of S.M.A.R.T. Indicators:  performance indicators that are specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, time-bound.
• Simplicity:  simple to administer, easy to understand, and appropriate to the overall level of risk associated with the overall SD program.
• Value for money approach:  balancing the need for data quality and frequency with the optimal use of resources.
• Flexibility:  over the SD strategy's three year lifespan, flexibility in delivery will be necessary to adapt to possible changes to the operational and policy environments, and to take advantage of new opportunities.

4.0    Results-based Management Accountability Framework Highlights

• The strategy is designed to provide management stakeholders with performance information in three key areas: implementation, results, benefits and costs.
• Each of the 65 national activities that support the achievement of SD targets will be implemented according to a detailed 'blueprint', containing a profile of its resource allocation, accountability structure, performance indicators, risk management profile, and project management plan.
• Performance measurement will rely to a great extent on existing data sources.
• The timing of performance reporting will also be closely linked to the availability of data.
• Progress on targets will be reported annually, except where restricted by data availability.
• Progress on implementation to be reported quarterly; results (outputs, outcomes) will be reported according to the schedule outlined within individual activity blueprints.
• Report cards on performance will be issued to branches and regions on a semi-annual basis.
• Evaluation of the SD strategy is expected to be conducted in two parts and will focus on both process (i.e., formative evaluation) and on results (i.e., summative evaluation). The former will be conducted at the end of year two. The latter will be conducted at the end of the third year and will include an examination of overall program cost-effectiveness (i.e., costs, benefits). The exact form and timing of our evaluations will be determined after appropriate internal consultations.

• Next page