Evaluation of the Classification Program

Conclusion

The current policy supports innovation. But for innovation to continue, departments and agencies need clarity on what is allowed, as respondents report mixed messages from the program. Departments are trying new ideas, but face barriers like resource constraints, rigid policies and low support.

Findings

• When asked about their use of innovative approaches in classification, departments and program partners had a varied understanding of what qualifies as innovation, though they also confirmed doing at least some innovating and experimenting in their organizations.
• The document review showed that a few departments are adopting new ideas to improve internal efficiencies at scale. For instance, one department pioneered a pilot project on fast track–processing of low-risk classification actions^{Footnote 10} that was later rolled out internally.
• Interviewees and survey respondents cited six main barriers to their innovation efforts:
  1. resource constraints
  2. personnel shortages/lack of training
  3. rigid policies and standards
  4. low level of trust in the program
  5. insufficient tools and processes
  6. low program support to and collaboration with departments

Conclusion

ICS was introduced in 2021. ICS is outside the policy framework and departments can explore it to address their needs, though its use requires approval from the Chief Human Resources Officer. Perceptions are that ICS was designed to overcome challenges raised by outdated occupational groups.

Findings

• The document review shows that of the 10 proposals from 17 departments,^{Footnote 11} two were approved. One was implemented and the other was cancelled during implementation.
• When probed for their views on these, departments responded with some uncertainty around ICS’s eligibility criteria, scope and purpose.
• Interviews and the document review identified that proposals were denied for being incompatible with policy requirements (for example, using ICS to offer competitive salaries or solve retention issues instead of resolving an organizational or classification issue).
• Departments emphasized the need for prompt feedback and concrete examples of ICS to aid implementation. For example, one of the approved ICS cases reported a 16-month delay in receiving a response to their application. Guidance was either not provided, or infrequent from the program, they added.

Conclusion

Deputy heads have the authority to use DHDCDs subject to approval from the Chief Human Resources Officer. DHDCDs are intended to support the development and testing of organizational design and innovation in classification. The policy states they may be used to address short-term, critical workforce needs to meet rapidly changing business requirements, though they carry risk.

Findings

• Most interviewees indicated having limited to no experience with DHDCDs.
• A few examples of use include the Free Agents program that was created to secure positions that require specialized skills and the creation of stand-alone EC-08 positions to address knowledge transfer needs.
• Respondents point to a need for further examples of appropriate use, with templates to guide them, given that the directive does not show how to get them approved.
• Evidence from interviews showed that three departments excessively relied on DHDCDs, leading to budgetary issues and an unsustainable number of such classified positions.
• According to one key informant, overrating positions through DHDCDs can distort internal relativity and strain budgets, especially when positions created under DHDCDs remain active for years.
• Interviewees added that DHDCDs are poorly understood by hiring managers and are often perceived by classification advisors as bypassing existing standards rather than addressing unique or exceptional circumstances as outlined in the policy. This misunderstanding has led to anomalies (supervisory positions standing alone, double-or triple-banking positions) and resistance (discarding classification advisors’ advice) when using this tool.
  • While the formal use of DHDCDs appears limited, interviewees described how senior management sometimes directs classification advisors to bypass existing standards, without using this formal tool.

Conclusion

Lessons on innovation were shared minimally. The GCXchange page and newsletters exist but require active content-gathering to be more relevant for stakeholders.

Findings

• Evidence showed that lessons on innovation were shared to a limited extent.
• The program established a GCXchange page to showcase lessons and share information, alongside its quarterly newsletters. Yet the program was not proactive in gathering content from the community, which impacted the page’s potential value.
  • Only one lesson learned was found in the Classification innovation page on the GCXchange.
  • Some interviewees suggested having a centralized repository for sharing best practices to prevent redundant efforts across departments. This suggestion may reflect poor awareness of the GCXchange page that hosts lessons learned. It may also reflect an opportunity to seek contributions to the page.

Conclusion

An assessment of the program’s information management capacity and ease of access to information holdings confirm that the program manages information very effectively,^{Footnote 14} with some losses being out of their control.

Findings

• Evidence was available to support the effective conduct of this evaluation, with records that chart the program’s evolution and ongoing management.
• Some erosion of information management was detected through a data migration exercise in 2024, when the organization moved to SharePoint and adopted a new filing architecture. The change resulted in some lost documents and information now residing in three areas.

Conclusion

Steady efforts to grow the program were made and a vision was created, yet adoption of the vision was limited.

Findings

• The Policy on People Management delegates the Secretary of the Treasury Board the authority to identify the current and future needs of the public service as provided for in subsection 30(3) of the Public Service Employment Act, which may include requirements other than those specified in the Treasury Board qualification standards. This is achieved through OCHRO and the Classification Program. The document review showed that over time, the program made several reforms to meet varied needs where necessary. While ambitious, these changes did not compellingly support a vision for the program, and lack of a comprehensive plan for change was identified in postmortem exercises (Comptroller General, 2003 and Gartner study in 2023).
• In April 2024, senior management published a vision that established the main objectives and success factors for each of the four functions of the program (Policy Centre, oversight, community enablement and professionalization, and digital tools and systems).
  • Feedback from program representatives indicate mixed views on the best ways to share and implement this vision. With funding pressures in mind, some expressed doubt about whether the vision is doable, while a majority reported not being aware of a vision or long-term plan whatsoever.

Conclusion

The program provides classification advisors with the training, support and policy framework to carry out their dual roles. In an enabling capacity, they can advise on necessary changes and adjustments over time to reflect changing needs in a department. In a stewardship capacity, they support the classification policy framework’s goal of managing the wage bill through appropriate job assessment and the resulting classification decision, accounting for job relativity across the core public administration.

Findings

• While there is strong evidence to show classification advisors understand their roles as enablers and stewards, this duality is not clearly understood by senior management and hiring managers in their organizations, according to classification advisors.
• They added that they commonly face resistance on their positions and see their advice ignored.
  • In some cases, resistance included stakeholders pressuring advisors by escalating matters to more senior levels of management
• Stakeholder lack of understanding and resistance pressure classification advisors to prioritize the enabling role at the expense of their stewardship role in applying the policy strictly and managing the wage bill.
• Classification staff expressed the need for more support from the program to effectively communicate and enforce classification policies. They suggested additional training to stakeholders and more timely advice, guidance and clear interpretations to help classification advisors to overcome resistance and ensure transparent and consistent decisions.

Conclusion

Opinions vary on the best placement for the program within TBS. Yet, despite changing priorities over time within OCHRO, there is a strong interest in ensuring consistent direction and stable funding for the program.

Findings

• The document review showed that the program was established to provide a foundation for the introduction to collective bargaining. It is now part of OCHRO as this office holds the final authority over all matters relating to the management and organization of the core public administration, including the management of labour relations, compensation and pay equity.
• When asked, half of the interviewees believed the program should remain under OCHRO because of its relevance to pay equity.
• Others believe if the program were to be moved, the stewardship role that classification advisors play in managing compensation and the wage bill should determine its placement within TBS.
  • Another concern from those who suggested moving the program was the challenge of receiving equal attention at senior levels as other demands, such as bargaining and pay equity.
• In all cases, there was unanimous sympathy for the program given the number of years of ongoing funding pressures, impacting multiple classification initiatives (see Appendix C for initiatives to modernize OGS). These pressures coupled with emerging priorities, such as pay equity and building the infrastructure for data integrity, which meant that OCHRO has had to restructure the program and reallocate resources.^{Footnote 15}

Conclusion

When implementing large-scale changes, the Classification Program (the program) provides training and tools to support departments in communicating classification changes to relevant parties. The importance of change management practices being applied in the implementation of a classification conversion exercise is broadly recognized. IT conversion was well managed, but other conversion exercises show there is still room for the program to improve its support for change management.

Findings

• Evidence shows that departmental readiness for and adoption of change management practices to support such activities differs across the core public administration. The size of the department and the experience and expertise of classification staff are major factors.
• Interviewees and survey respondents had mixed views of program support for change management practices. Though some interviewees reported having received useful material (such as communications documents), most felt that the program’s support was only somewhat useful and, in a few cases, late.
• The IT conversion was highlighted as a good example of efficient change management, given that the program provided adequate training, tools and dashboards.
• Some challenges that were raised included lack of a dedicated change management function in some departments and inadequate supports and tools more generally.
• Interviewees suggested strengthening the program’s role in managing broad classification related change by:
  • improving communication and clarity
  • providing proactive support for major initiatives such as conversion
  • formalizing training and tools

Interpret, guidance and direction

• Provide leadership regarding knowledge and standards for heads of HR and the HR management community
• Lead the development and sustainability of HR management through community development strategies

HR tools and systems

• Direct deputy heads on oversight, systems, information requirements or reporting
• Maintain an HR system for heads of HR to submit classification actions and decisions

Develop and maintain

• Maintain relevant job evaluation standards
• Maintain relevant qualification standards
• Determine and maintain the OGS, job evaluation tools, people management initiatives, requirements, data and services to support a high-performing public service

Guidance and direction

• Provide leadership of HR management and business processes to achieve greater efficiencies and maximize effectiveness

Training and continuous learning

• Stipulate mandatory training and continuous learning requirements to exercise Policy on People Management responsibilities.

Accreditation

• Determine requirements for organization and classification learning and issuing accreditations