Evaluation of the Centre for Expertise on Real Property

To what extent is there an ongoing need for the RP‑COE?

There is strong evidence of an ongoing need for the RP‑COE to facilitate collaboration and provide leadership on the horizontal management of federal real property.

• Most interviewees and half of the community questionnaire respondents said that there is little horizontal collaboration across DAs.
• The document review indicates an ongoing need for a centralized or enterprise-wide perspective of real property and centralized management. Since the 1960s, multiple reviews and audits have highlighted this need. The RP‑COE’s role is seen as key, as it also advances broader government priorities discussed under this evaluation report’s Implementation section.
• Most interviewees supported the RP‑COE’s role and the current placement within TBS.
• Within this centralized role, almost half the interviewees identified the need for stronger authority and leadership for real property management within the federal government to mobilize the real property management community.
• The comparative study of international jurisdictions showed that having a central body to lead real property management and delivery was a best practice. Several interviewees suggested this model for Canada. They recognized that strategic leadership and government-wide direction would be well met through a central function.

Interviewees from small DAs called for more hands-on support from the RP‑COE. Others identified a need for additional monitoring and tools, emphasizing a need for policy compliance as opposed to merely encouraging DAs to advance their real property management practices.

To what extent has the RP‑COE been effectively implemented?

The RP‑COE’s implementation has been effective to a large extent Implementation was less effective as the RPCOE’s focus became less strategic over time..

• The document review confirms that the RP‑COE monitors the progress of all 119 FAR recommendations with a government-wide view. The RP‑COE:
  • created a GC work plan that identifies which DA is responsible for each recommendation
  • developed tailored work plans for each of the 28 custodians to implement the recommendations for which they are responsible
• According to the document review and interviewees, the RP‑COE has:
  • implemented many different activities (see Appendix B)
  • collaborated with DAs on broad issues such as housing
  • supported the Centre for Greening Government and Public Services and Procurement Canada’s Office Footprint Reduction Plan

The RP‑COE has also directly supported emerging areas, such as right-sizing the real property portfolio and disposal. Both the document review and interview evidence show that these varied and complex activities drew heavily on the RP‑COE’s modest resources. This demand resulted in a move away from the original focused approach on FAR recommendations, particularly those related to governance and portfolio management and post-COVID-19 return-to-work arrangements. These more immediate needs impacted the RP‑COE’s ability to simultaneously advance work on pre-existing priorities such as real property portfolio strategies intended to further support the creation of a GC real property strategy.

• Some interviewees noted that, as a temporary program, the RP‑COE’s ability to quickly resource itself with qualified personnel was hampered by short-term positions and the highly specialized nature of the work.
• The RP‑COE raised its profile and that of real property management more generally. Nonetheless, the evaluation found that there is mixed awareness of the RP‑COE and its mandate. Most interviewees (senior designated officials and real property practitioners) participating in real property committees were aware of the RP‑COE’s mandate, but less than half of community questionnaire respondents were familiar with it. Interviewees indicated that information dissemination from senior executives to real property practitioners has not taken place as expected.
• According to interviewees, although the RP‑COE’s roles and responsibilities have become clearer over time, confusion remains among a few DAs about the role of the RP‑COE and other areas of ASAS (for example, the policy centre).
• Additional documentary evidence shows that the RP‑COE established a GCXchange page to spread information and host discussions such as those with the science custodians community of practice and external bodies such as the Real Property Institute of Canada and the Centre for Greening Government.

Lessons learned and best practices from DAs were shared at the Senior Designated Officials (SDO) Council through:

• departmental presentations
• participation in working groups such as those on housing and Laboratories Canada performance indicators
• ad hoc requests and training

The document review found no evidence that the RP‑COE proactively shared lessons learned with practitioners across the community.

Although the RP‑COE has provided hands-on guidance, interviewees from small DAs gave it mixed reviews. Because DAs have such a wide variety of capacities and needs, interviewees indicated that products that are more tailored would be more helpful. Respondents to the community questionnaire, on the other hand, had high praise for the RP‑COE, with a large majority saying they were satisfied with the advice and guidance provided.

Expected outcome: stronger central leadership and horizontal governance

The RP‑COE strengthened central leadership and horizontal governance. The lack of a GC-wide strategy and a central decision-making body were identified as gaps.

• All lines of evidence suggest that the RP‑COE provided central leadership in advice, guidance, collaboration and support to the development of DAs’ real property portfolio strategies.
• Unlike the comparator jurisdictions, the evaluation found that there is no central decision-making body on real property for the federal government. Rather, decisions are made by deputy heads. Nonetheless, the RP‑COE has enabled departmental connections for ad hoc enterprise-wide decisions on housing and footprint reduction.
• The comparative study also showed that other jurisdictions have an enterprise-wide real property strategy that helps drive actions, commitments, transformation and resourcing. This model is currently used in Canada for the Centre for Greening Government.

• The RP‑COE implemented a horizontal governance structure that includes committees at the deputy minister, assistant deputy minister and director general levels. It is the secretariat for the Deputy Minister Real Property Committee and is a co-chair of the Senior Designated Officials (SDO) Council on Real Property. The latter comprises assistant deputy ministers, chief financial officers and directors general.
• The RP‑COE also participates on other senior level committees and working groups related to real property with various areas of focus (for example, greening government, laboratories, flexible work models).
• Some interviewees commented that the RP‑COE took a leadership role by influencing the agenda at the Deputy Minister Real Property Committee. Similarly, some interviewees indicated that the RP‑COE’s role with the SDO Council on Real Property provides a central meeting point for custodians. A few interviewees, notably from small DAs, mentioned that they felt the conversation at committees is dominated by the larger DAs, which suggests that their unique issues may not be addressed.
• Most interviewees and half of the questionnaire respondents thought that the RP‑COE enabled DAs to advance key real property management activities and helped improve interdepartmental collaboration through departmental clusters, for example, security. Recently, the RP‑COE partnered with Laboratories Canada, which leads the science custodians community of practice, to facilitate horizontal collaboration and discussion. Some interviewees indicated that the RP‑COE could facilitate similar collaboration with other real property clusters.
• The evaluation found that the RP‑COE helped advance the community’s knowledge and skills, as indicated by most interviewees and more than half of questionnaire respondents. Nonetheless, there was a general call for more information-sharing with the real property community to better support DAs across all levels.
• The RP‑COE advanced knowledge and skills by:
  • delivering eight training sessions in 2023 on real property portfolio strategies to more than 100 participants
  • updating two real property courses in collaboration with the Canada School of Public Service
  • contributing to the competency framework update for real property
  • exploring opportunities for real property executive talent management
  • collaborating with the Real Property Institute of Canada to organize annual real property executive sessions
• Some interviewees indicated that the RP‑COE’s role could be improved by acting as a champion for custodian DAs and continuing to strengthen the professionalization of the real property community. Given that the ASAS’s Community Development Office owns this role further illustrates a lack of understanding of ASAS’s roles and responsibilities among DAs.

Expected outcome: DAs have real property portfolio strategies in place for planning and management of their portfolio

DAs have real property portfolio strategies to some extent. Hands-on, tailored support and sharing best practices would help these DAs further develop their strategies.

• Evaluation evidence shows that the RP‑COE has supported the advancement of real property portfolio strategies through the delivery of training and the provision of tools, advice and guidance. Some interviewees and two thirds of questionnaire respondents noted that the RP‑COE has supported the advancement of their organization’s Real Property Portfolio Strategy to some extent.
• The document review shows that the readiness and maturity of DAs to develop portfolio strategies vary across the GC. As of December 2023, only a quarter^{Footnote 7} of DAs submitted a Real Property Portfolio Strategy. The data shows that another 10 DAs plan to submit their strategies by March 2024.
• Those DAs that have portfolio strategies hold the largest proportion of real property in the GC. According to interviewees, they did so largely independently of the RP‑COE given their higher capacity, maturity level, experience and resources and/or by hiring consultants.
• Key informants shared that capacity for real property management at custodian DAs varies widely, making it a challenge for the RP‑COE to meet needs. They added that an organization that has a very high level of capacity (or is a high user of consulting services) does not need the RP‑COE in the way that DAs that have lower levels of capacity would. This difference suggests that the RP‑COE will need to adapt its approach to support these differences.
• Interviewees suggested that greater action on developing real property portfolio strategies could be achieved if the RP‑COE had the authority to require DAs to develop and submit their strategies.
• Similarly, interviews suggested that the RP‑COE could do more to share best practices and lessons learned, which would advance the development of portfolio strategies.