MAF 2015 to 2016 methodology for small departments and agencies

Table of contents

Methodology overview

The annual MAF assessment for small departments and agencies aims to improve oversight and management practices in departments as well as to support the Government of Canada’s strategic direction for management.

Small departments and agencies are included in the MAF assessment process on an annual basis. MAF 2015-16 will be the second annual MAF assessment within the pre-determined three-year cycle.

Small departments and agencies have a tailored methodology that includes specific indicators drawn from central systems. These areas will be assessed under management performance. Indicators do not duplicate areas included within Core Control Audits.

Benchmarking and comparability across small departments and agencies

The metrics and reporting format allow for comparison and benchmarking amongst same size organisations which provides an opportunity to share leading practices amongst small departments and agencies.

Questionnaire

Financial management

External financial reporting

Outcomes statement: Transparency and accountability for how government is spending public funds is supported by providing reliable and timely financial information (for the reporting period ending up to ).

Rationale pertaining to questions below: Canadians and parliamentarians expect timely and reliable reporting that provides transparency and accountability for how government spends public funds to achieve results. The MAF assessment will provide deputy heads with useful information that will help them ensure effective measures are in place to support these responsibilities related to financial reporting.

Fiscal Monitor and Public Accounts of Canada
Indicators and Calculation Method (where applicable) Policy Reference Evidence Source and Document Limit Category
  1. Number of in-year and year-end post-closing entries

Financial Administration Act, 65

Existing data within the central agency (RG)

Performance

  1. Number of year-end unadjusted audit misstatements

Financial Administration Act, 65

Existing data within the central agency (Office of the Auditor General (OAG))

Performance

Resource management

Outcomes statement: Management of public funds is supported by effective planning, budgeting and monitoring.

Rationale pertaining to questions below: Management of public funds is supported by effective planning, budgeting, monitoring and reporting which are based on reliable information and the sound analysis of that information.

Indicators and Calculation Method (where applicable) Policy Reference Evidence Source and Document Limit Category
  1. Adjusted lapse at year-end as a percentage of annual voted authorities.

    Calculation of measure: 

    Total annual departmental adjusted lapse

    (divided by)

    Total annual voted authorities

    Calculation of adjusted lapse: 

    Annual voted authorities minus Expenditures minus Over-expenditures minus Multi-year authorities minus Unspent special purpose allotments minus Frozen allotments

(Internal Services Indicator)

Existing data within the central agencies (Expenditure Management System (EMS) and Central Financial Management Reporting System (CFMRS))

Performance

Internal control management

Outcomes statement: Stewardship of public resources is adequately managed through effective internal controls.

Rationale pertaining to questions below: Policy on Internal Control is a foundational element to effective financial management and has been assessed as a core element of MAF (AoM7) since its inception. Therefore the state of progress in completing the initial assessments is a key indicator of maturity both to DHs and to the government. Once departments have completed initial design and operating effectiveness testing in all three control areas, they put in place a program to continuously monitor effectiveness of their internal controls. Having an Internal Control Management Framework in place (building from MAF 13-14) is another maturity indicator in how departments have internally instituted the roles, responsibilities, disclosure and governance of effective internal controls. Engagement of DACs is a compliance measure.

The late payments and related payment of interest is a frequent issue arising from suppliers and in particular small suppliers. This issue is one of compliance with the Directive on Payment Requisitioning and Cheque Control. The benefit for deputy heads is that this information supports their oversight of timeliness of payments.

Further, Deputy Heads oversee departmental travel spending and reporting.

Management of accounts receivable
Indicators and Calculation Method (where applicable) Policy Reference Evidence Source and Document Limit Category
  1. What percentage of the accounts receivable of the department or agency as at have been outstanding:

    • Between 0 to 30 days
    • Between 31 to 60 days
    • Between 61 to 90 days
    • Between 91 to 365 days
    • For more than 365 days

Directive on Receivables Management, 6.1.6

(Internal Services Service Standard indicator)

Existing data within the central agencies (Public Accounts Preparation System (PAPS))

Performance

Financial community capacity

Outcomes statement: Strengthen public sector financial management and its leadership within the financial community and within departments thereby contributing to appropriate stewardship of public resources, effective decision making, and efficient policy and program delivery.

Rationale pertaining to questions below: Financial Community Capacity is essential to supporting a sound financial departmental function.

Indicators and Calculation Method (where applicable) Policy Reference Evidence Source and Document Limit Category
  1. Was the Comptroller General advised of the appointment, transfer or departure of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO)?

    • Yes
    • No
    • N/A – no appointment, transfer or departure between and

Policy on Financial Management Governance, 5.1.8

Attestation

Practice

People management

Employee Retention and Work Culture

Employee turnover is a normal part of the business cycle. High consistent turnover rates however might signal challenges within an organization. A range of measures is used to better understand the work culture and identify underlying causes that affect employee retention.

Indicators and Calculation Method (where applicable) Policy Reference Evidence Source and Document Limit Category
  1. An overview of mobility within and outside of the department including departures from the Public service:

    • 1.1

      Rate of internal mobility of indeterminate employees in the department or agency broken down by the following:

      • 1.1.1

        Promotions

      • 1.1.2

        Lateral transfers (Same and different classifications)

      • 1.1.3

        Downward movements

    • 1.2

      Departures from the department/agency for the following reasons:

      • 1.2.1

        Retirements

      • 1.2.2

        Other separations, including reasons such as; lay off, Workforce Adjustment, personal, back to school etc.

      • 1.2.3

        Deployment to another department/agency

    • 1.3

      New employees to the department/agency:

      • 1.3.1

        Deployment from another department or agency from within the Public Service

      • 1.3.2

        New Indeterminate hires from outside the Public Service

    Rationale: 

    A measure of an agile and mobile workforce Mobility – an important variable in workforce planning and retention strategies.

    Calculation of measure 1.1: 

    Total number of indeterminate employees within the department who were promoted, moved laterally to another position within the department or moved downwards within the department

    (divided by)

    Average number of indeterminate employees during the period

    Calculation of Smeasure 1.2: 

    Number of indeterminate employees who left the department voluntarily for reasons of retirement, other separations or deployment during the period

    (divided by)

    Average number of indeterminate employees during the period

    Calculation of measure 1.3: 

    Inflow of number of indeterminate employees who came from other departments and those who were hired from outside the Public Service

    (divided by)

    Average number of indeterminate employees during the period

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate employees

    Employee status: Active employees and those on leave without pay.

    Period: FY 2014-2015

N/A

Incumbent Data Files, Mobility file and PSC Appointments File

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure

Separate employers must provide data for sub-measure 5.1 only.

Performance

  1. What is the average number of paid (certified and uncertified) sick days per Full Time Equivalent?

    Rationale: 

    To measure the usage of sick days and identify average trends to inform decision-making.

    Calculation of measure: 

    Sum of the number of paid sick days (certified and uncertified) taken by employees during the period

    (divided by)

    Number of Full Time Full Year Equivalent (FTFYE)

    Note: include leave codes 205, 206, 210, 220, only in the calculation of the number of paid sick days.

    The number of FTFYE is calculated as follows:

    • The FTFYE (Full-Time-Full-Year-Equivalent) variable converts all employees into units representing a full-time employee working for the whole year. The calculation of the FTFY equivalence is based on a ratio between the assigned work week and the normal work week as per the collective agreement and the amount of time an employee is active over a 12-month period.

      The formula is as follows:

      Number of periods an employee is active over a given year

      (divided by)

      12 months multiplied by assigned work week divided by standard work week

      It is important to note that the number of hours in the assigned and normal work weeks can vary depending on employees. The leave usage per employee is translated from hours to days based on individual assigned work week. This means that the number of hours contained in 1 workday can vary depending on the employee. On average however, the day conversion is close to 7.5 hours.

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate and term employees (term greater than 3 months)

    Employee status: Active employees

    Period: 

N/A

Employee Leave Reporting System

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure

Performance

Recruitment and Employment Equity

Recruitment is an essential component of workforce planning. These measures are about having the right people at the right place at the right time including being representative of Canadian workforce and offering equal opportunities to each employee.

Indicators and Calculation Method (where applicable) Policy Reference Evidence Source and Document Limit Category

Measures 3 to 6: Employment Equity Representation, Recruitment, Promotion, and Turnover of Designated Groups

Rationale: 

To measure the extent to which departments and agencies meet the legislative requirements of the EE act.

Calculation of measure: 

This calculation is done separately for each of the four designated groups. The result is displayed separately for each of the four indicators.

Representation: 

Number of designated group members

(divided by)

Total number of employees

The representation of a designated group will be displayed next to the workforce availability of that designated group calculated for the department or agency.

Employee tenure: Indeterminate (including seasonal) employees and term employees who have been with the organization for more than three consecutive months.

Employee status: Active

Period: Snapshot as of

Recruitment: 

Number of designated group members recruited

(divided by)

Total number of employees recruited

The recruitment of a designated group will be displayed next to the workforce availability of that designated group calculated for the department or agency.

Employee tenure: New Indeterminate (including seasonal) and term employees

Employee status: N/A

Period: 

Promotions: 

Number of designated group members promoted internally

(divided by)

Total number of promotions during the 12 month period

The promotions of a designated group will be displayed next to the representation of that designated group in the department.

Employee tenure: Indeterminate (including seasonal) employees and term employees who have been with the organization for more than three consecutive months.

Employee status: Active

Period:

Turnover: 

Number of designated group members that left the organization

(divided by)

Total number of employees who left the organization during the 12 month period

The turnover of a designated group will be displayed next to the representation of that designated group in the department.

Employees who left due to retirement or due to workforce adjustment will be excluded from the calculation of the measure for turnover.

Employee tenure: Indeterminate (including seasonal) employees and term employees who have been with the organization for more than three consecutive months.

Employee status: Active

Period: 

Workforce availability: The estimated availability of people in designated groups as a percentage of the Canadian workforce population. For federal public service purposes, workforce availability is based on the population of Canadian citizens who are active in the workforce and work in those occupations that correspond to the occupations in the public service. The estimates are derived from the 2011 National Household Survey (i.e. “Census”) and the 2012 Canadian Survey on Disabilities. The workforce availability estimates used in these measures are the ones calculated for each department and agency.

  1. What are the representation, recruitment, promotion, and turnover rates for women in your department or agency?

    • 3.1 Representation
    • 3.2 Recruitment rate
    • 3.3 Promotion rate
    • 3.4 Turnover rate

Employment Equity Act and the Policy on Employment Equity

Incumbent Data File and Employment Equity Data Bank

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure

Separate employers who must submit all data elements for this measure.

Performance

  1. What are the representation, recruitment, promotion, and turnover rates for Aboriginal People in your department or agency?

    • 4.1 Representation
    • 4.2 Recruitment rate
    • 4.3 Promotion rate
    • 4.4 Turnover rate

Employment Equity Act and the Policy on Employment Equity

Incumbent Data File and Employment Equity Data Bank

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure

Performance

  1. What are the representation, recruitment, promotion, and turnover rates for Persons with Disabilities in your department or agency?

    • 5.1 Representation
    • 5.2 Recruitment rate
    • 5.3 Promotion rate
    • 5.4 Turnover rate

Employment Equity Act and the Policy on Employment Equity

Incumbent Data File and Employment Equity Data Bank

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure

Performance

  1. What are the representation, recruitment, promotion, and turnover rates for Visible Minorities in your department or agency?

    • 6.1 Representation
    • 6.2 Recruitment rate
    • 6.3 Promotion rate
    • 6.4 Turnover rate

Employment Equity Act and the Policy on Employment Equity

Incumbent Data File and Employment Equity Data Bank

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure

Performance

Leadership and employee engagement

Outcomes statement: Seasoned leaders that generate employee engagement.

Leadership

The depth and breadth of knowledge of the organizational business by executives has an impact on the ability to deliver on the organization’s mandate.

Indicators and Calculation Method (where applicable) Policy Reference Evidence Source and Document Limit Category
Table 7 Notes
Table 7 Note 1

Does not have to be continuous.

Return to table 7 note * referrer

  1. What is the average number of years that executives have been in their substantive position?

    Rationale: 

    To provide an indicator of the level of experience and knowledge that executives have within the organization.

    Calculation of measure: 

    Number of years of service that executives have in their current substantive position

    (divided by)

    Total number of executives in the organization

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate executives (from EX-01 to EX-05)

    Employee status: Active executive employees and executives on leave without pay

    Period: Snapshot as of

N/A

Incumbent Data Files

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure

Performance

  1. What is the average number of years that executives have been at level?

    Rationale: 

    To provide an indicator of the level of experience and knowledge that executives have within the organization, and in the Public Service.

    Calculation of measure: 

    Number of years of service that executives have at their current level

    (divided by)

    Total number of executives in the organization.

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate executives (from EX-01 to EX-05)

    Employee status: Active executive employees and executives on leave without pay

    Period: Snapshot as of

N/A

Incumbent Data Files

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure

Performance

  1. What is the average number of years that executives have been in the organization?

    Rationale: 

    To provide an indicator of the level of experience and knowledge that executives have within the organization.

    Calculation of measure: 

    Number of years of service that executives have in their organizationtable 7 note *

    (divided by)

    Total number of executives in the organization

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate executives (from EX-01 to EX-05)

    Employee status: Active executive employees and executives on leave without pay

    Period: Snapshot as of .

N/A

Incumbent Data Files

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure

Performance

  1. What is the percentage of executives who work in an acting capacity in your department or agency

    Rationale: 

    To provide an indication of stability, leadership and knowledge retention of executives in the organization.

    Calculation of measure: 

    Number of executives working in an acting capacity in the executive group

    (divided by)

    The total number of executives

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate executives

    Employee status: Active executive employees

    Period: Snapshot as of .

N/A

Incumbent Data Files

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure

Performance

Performance management and employee learning

Outcomes statement: A skilled and agile workforce that has the knowledge and flexibility to meet the needs of an evolving public service.

Performance and Talent Management

Successful performance management facilitates the effective delivery of strategic and operational goals. For the process to work, employees must understand the process and its purpose and witness its applicability on a daily basis.

Note: Data for measures below will be pulled from the Performance Management System. There are some special circumstances where all or a subset of employees within a department or agency may not be using the new performance management system. These departments or agencies may have to submit the required data as part of their submission.

Indicators and Calculation Method (where applicable) Policy Reference Evidence Source and Document Limit Category
  1. What is the percentage (%) of employees in your organization that have documentation setting performance expectations/objectives?

    Rationale: 

    To measure the extent to which departments and agencies meet the requirements of the TBS directive on Performance Management.

    Calculation of measure: 

    Number of employees who have documentation setting performance expectations (objectives)

    (divided by)

    Total number of employees multiply by 100%

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate and term employees of more than 3 months (non-Executives)

    Employee status: Active employees

    Period: Current performance management cycle

    Date of data extraction:

Performance Management Directive

Performance Management System

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure

Performance

  1. What is the percentage (%) of employees in your organization that had mid-year conversation(s) with their immediate supervisor to review performance?

    Rationale: 

    To measure the extent to which departments and agencies meet the requirements of the TBS directive on Performance Management.

    Calculation of measure: 

    Number of employees who had mid-year conversation(s) with their immediate supervisor to review performance

    (divided by)

    Total number of employees multiply by 100%

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate and term employees of more than 3 months (non-Executives)

    Employee status: Active employees

    Period: Current performance management cycle

    Date of data extraction:

Performance Management Directive

Performance Management System

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure

Performance

  1. What is the percentage (%) of employees with a completed annual written performance assessment?

    Rationale: 

    To measure the extent to which departments and agencies meet the requirements of the TBS directive on Performance Management.

    Calculation of measure: 

    Number of employees who have completed a written performance assessment

    (divided by)

    Total number of employees

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate and term employees of more than 3 months (non-Executives)

    Employee status: Active employees

    Period: Most recent and fully completed performance management cycle

    Date of data extraction:

Performance Management Directive

Performance Management System - No evidence is to be submitted for this measure

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure

Performance

  1. What is the percentage (%) of employees who have an action plan amongst those with an unsatisfactory performance or whose management requested an action plan?

    Rationale: 

    To measure the extent to which departments and agencies meet the requirements of the TBS directive on Performance Management.

    Calculation of measure: 

    Number of employees with an action plan

    (divided by)

    Total number of employees who were identified to have an action plan and Total number of employees who have an unsatisfactory performance rating

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate and term employees of more than 3 months (non-Executives)

    Employee status: Active employees

    Period: Most recent and fully completed performance management cycle & Current performance management cycle

    Date of data extraction:

Performance Management Directive

Performance Management System

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure

Performance

  1. What is the percentage (%) of employees who have been offered a talent management plan amongst those who have surpassed or have been identified to have a talent management plan?

    Rationale: 

    To provide a snapshot of the status and results of the implementation of the TBS directive on Performance Management.

    Calculation of measure: 

    Number of employees who have been offered a talent management plan

    (divided by)

    Total number of employees who were identified to have a talent management plan

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate and term employees of more than 3 months (non-Executives)

    Employee status: Active employees

    Period: Most recent and fully completed performance management cycle & Current performance management cycle

    Date of data extraction:

Performance Management Directive

Performance Management System

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure

Performance

Learning and Development

Ensuring that the public service is equipped to meet the challenges of the 21st century requires employee learning, training and professional development. Organization’s commitment to various ways of learning is the foundation of employee development and performance improvement.

Indicators and Calculation Method (where applicable) Policy Reference Evidence Source and Document Limit Category
  1. What is the percentage (%) of employees in your organization that have documentation setting learning objectives (learning plan)?

    Rationale: 

    To measure the extent to which departments and agencies meet the requirements of the TBS directive on Performance Management.

    Calculation of measure: 

    Number of employees who have documentation setting learning objectives (learning plan)

    (divided by)

    Total number of employees

    Employee tenure: Indeterminate and term employees of more than 3 months (non-Executives)

    Employee status: Active employees

    Period: Current performance management cycle

    Date of data extraction:

Performance Management Directive

Performance Management System

No evidence is to be submitted for this measure

Separate employers must submit all data elements for this measure

Performance

Service Standards

The TB Policy on Service defines service standard as: “Public commitment to a measurable level of performance that clients can expect under normal circumstances”

Outcomes statement: Achieve excellence in human resources management services to ensure they are client-centred and efficient.

Rationale pertaining to questions below: Service standards are essential for maintaining efficient and effective client-centred services that support achievement of program delivery objectives.

Indicators and Calculation Method (where applicable) Policy Reference Evidence Source and Document Limit Category
  1. Percentage of vacant positions that have been vacant for 2 or more years

    Calculation of measure: 

    Number of vacant positions that have been vacant for 2 or more years

    (divided by)

    Total number of vacant positions for the set time period, as recorded in the TBS Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer system.

    Period: 

N/A

TBS Central Systems – Position Classification Information System (PCIS)

Performance

Management of Integrated Risk, Planning and Performance

Creation of quality performance information

Outcomes statement: Department or agency has clear collection strategies in place to create quality performance information.

Indicators and Calculation Method (where applicable) Policy Reference Evidence Source and Document Limit Category
  1. Is the department or agency’s PMF of record at an acceptable quality to support trend analysis and managing for results?

    • Yes
    • No

    Rationale: 

    There is an expectation that PMFs be at an acceptable quality, as assessed by TBS.

Policy on MRRS, 6.1.1.2

MRRS Instructions, Section 5

TBS to assess as part of annual review process of departmental PMFs of record, based on criteria identified in the MRRS Instructions

No Evidence to Submit

Performance

  1. For what percentage of performance indicators in the department or agency’s PMF have methodologies been developed?

    • 0-29% of indicators
    • 30-59% of indicators
    • 60-89% of indicators
    • 90-100% of indicators

    Rationale: 

    Departments and agencies are encouraged to ensure that methodologies be developed for all the performance indicators they use. The question is limited to indicators in the PMF to facilitate calculation.

    Calculation of measure: 

    # of PMF indicators for which methodologies have been developed (not necessarily submitted)

    (divided by)

    The total # of PMF indicators (excluding Internal Services)

Policy on MRRS

MRRS Instructions, 6.3.1

Performance indicator methodology template and evidence of calculation by the established methodology.

If methodologies have been submitted through HYLX, a note to that effect can be used as evidence instead of the methodology template but evidence of calculation must still be provided.

Up to Two Pieces of Evidence

Performance

Internal and external performance reporting

Outcomes statement: Department or agency has performance information available for internal and external reporting.

Indicators and Calculation Method (where applicable) Policy Reference Evidence Source and Document Limit Category
  1. For what percentage of lowest-level programs in the PAA are expenditures and the number of full-time equivalents (FTEs) available and reported in 2014-15 (including for the 10 Internal Services sub-programs, if applicable)?Footnote 1

    • 0-29% of lowest-level programs
    • 30-59% of lowest-level programs
    • 60-89% of lowest-level programs
    • 90-100% of lowest-level programs

    Rationale: 

    Departments and agencies are encouraged to ensure that financial and human resources are available and reported to the lowest level program, including the 10 Internal Services sub-programs.

    Calculation of measure: 

    # of lowest-level PAA programs for which financial and human resources were reported in 2014-15

    (divided by)

    The total number of lowest-level PAA programs (including Internal Services sub-programs, if applicable).

Policy on MRRS, 5.2.3, 6.1.6

Guide on Internal Services Expenditures, 3.2

TBS to assess as part of submission of departmental 2014-15 Actual Financial and FTE data sheets and the 2014-15 DPR.

No Evidence to Submit

Performance

  1. For what percentage of lowest-level programs in the PAA are program results available and reported in 2014-15 Departmental Performance Reports?

    • 0-29% programs
    • 30-59% programs
    • 60-89% programs
    • 90-100% programs

    Rationale: 

    Departments and agencies are encouraged to ensure that results against performance indicators are available and reported to the lowest level program.

    Calculation of measure: 

    # of lowest-level PAA programs for which performance results were reported in 2014-15

    (divided by)

    The total number of lowest-level PAA programs (excluding Internal Services)

Policy on MRRS, 5.2.3, 6.1.6

TBS to assess as part of submission of departmental 2014-15 Actual Results data sheets and the 2014-15 DPR.

No Evidence to Submit

Performance

  1. For what percentage of indicators from the 2014-15 PMF does the department or agency have performance data available (actual results) to support trend analysis over at least two consecutive data points, beginning in the 2013–14 fiscal year or before?

    • 0-29% indicators
    • 30-59% indicators
    • 60-74% indicators
    • 75-89% indicators
    • 90-100% indicators

    Rationale: 

    While it is recognized that some indicators may be refined from year to year to address methodology issues or changes in program mandate, intended results and methods of intervention, departments are encouraged to ensure overall stability of the PMF to support trend analysis for their programs. Indicator counts are used as a proxy unit for programs to facilitate standard calculation.

    Calculation of measure: 

    # of indicators from the 2014-15 PMF for which current and past results are available for at least two consecutive data points

    (divided by)

    The total # of indicators in the 2014-15 PMF (excluding Internal Services)

Policy on MRRS, 6.1.5

Evidence of calculation by the established methodology

(Source: 2013-14 and 2014-15 DPR)

The 2013-14 fiscal year will serve as a baseline year

One Piece of Evidence

Performance

Information Management and Information Technology (IM/IT) Management

IM stewardship

Outcomes statement: Departments and agencies develop and implement strategies and plans to effectively manage information assets to deliver on programs, services and Government of Canada (GC) priority initiatives.

Indicators and Calculation Method (where applicable) Policy Reference Evidence Source and Document Limit Category
  1. What is the department or agency’s current level of recordkeeping maturity as identified through the Recordkeeping Assessment Tool (RKAT)?

    Rationale: 

    Provides an overview of the state of recordkeeping in the department or agency with the identification of progress, gaps and challenges in the implementation of the Directive on Recordkeeping.

    Calculation of measure: 

    Results of the self-assessment using the Recordkeeping Assessment Tool posted on the TBS TAP Portal.

Directive on Recordkeeping

Completed RKAT assessment

Document Limit: 1

Performance

  1. What percentage of planned disposition for paper information resources was completed in fiscal year 2014-2015?

    Rationale: 

    Illustrates the extent to which the department or agency is applying its delegated authorities for disposition reducing the paper information glut in the department or agency. Also provides insight into the level of access to information (ATI) and legal discovery risk the department or agency carries for disposition authorities not being applied.

    Calculation of measure: 

    Total number of paper IRBV that were disposed of between and

    (divided by)

    Number of paper IRBV whose retentions expired on or before and for which the organization had the authority to dispose

    Definitions: 

    Disposition Plan
    Internally approved documented business processes that outline the methodology for disposing of information resources of business value (IRBV ) in all formats. It may also include variations in rules and steps for specific information resources.
    Disposition Log/Activity Tracker
    Evidence which quantifies progress on the implementation of a department’s or agency’s documented disposition plan for IRBV with expired retention periods and for which the department or agency has the authority to dispose.

    Note: 

    If the department or agency does not have a formal documented disposition process for paper information resources applicable for 2014-2015, input zero (0) into the response. If a department or agency is unable to determine the number of paper IRBV for which retentions expired on or before and for which the organization had the authority to dispose, input zero (0) into the response. If a department or agency did not plan to undertake any formal paper disposition activities in 2014-2015, input zero (0) into the response.

Directive sur la tenue des documents, 6.1.3

Disposition Plan applicable for fiscal year 2014-2015

Disposition Log / Activity Tracker for fiscal year 2014-2015

Document Limit: 2

Performance

  1. What percentage of planned disposition for electronic information resources was completed in fiscal year 2014-2015?

    Rationale: 

    Provides the extent to which the department or agency is applying its delegated authorities for disposition reducing the electronic information glut in the department or agency. Also provides insight into the level of access to information (ATI) and legal discovery risk the department or agency carries for disposition authorities not being applied.

    Calculation of measure: 

    Total number of electronic IRBV that were disposed of between and

    (divided by)

    Number of electronic IRBV whose retentions expired on or before March 31, 2015 and for which the organization has the authority to dispose

    Definitions: 

    Disposition Plan
    Internally approved documented business processes that outline the methodology for disposing of information resources of business value (IRBV ) in all formats. It may also include variations in rules and steps for specific information resources.
    Disposition Log/Activity Tracker
    Evidence which quantifies progress on the implementation of a department’s or agency’s documented disposition plan for IRBV with expired retention periods and for which the department or agency has the authority to dispose.

    Note: 

    If the department or agency does not have a formal disposition plan for electronic information resources applicable for 2014-2015, input zero (0) into the response. If a department or agency is unable to determine the number of electronic IRBV for which retentions expired on or before and for which the organization had the authority to dispose, input zero (0) into the response. If a department or agency did not plan to undertake any formal electronic disposition activities in 2014-2015, input zero (0) into the response.

Directive on Recordkeeping, 6.1.3

Disposition Log / Activity Tracker for fiscal year 2014-2015

Document Limit: 1

Performance

Page details

Date modified: