Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

MAF 2017 to 2018 service management methodology

From: Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

On this page

Methodology Overview

The effective management of services increases the level of client satisfaction, contributes to value for money, and promotes confidence in government.

The information gathered through the annual Management Accountability Framework (MAF) assessment is designed to support and monitor the implementation of the Policy on Service and the Government of Canada (GC) Service Strategy by providing insight into organizational service management practices and performance, and supporting the improvement of the delivery of Government of Canada services to individuals and businesses. As the Policy on Service is relatively new, with the final requirement coming into force in 2017, much of the information is providing baseline data on strengths and gaps of compliance with the policy. Over time, this information will support a broader understanding of enterprise-wide trends and systemic issues. MAF results will also be used to measure progress in the establishment of a strategic and coherent Government of Canada-wide approach to the design and delivery of services, identify notable practices as well as areas requiring further guidance or attention.

The MAF Service Management methodology for 2017-18 is comprised of the following two key areas of assessment or lines of evidence.

  • Service Stewardship:
    • Good service management requires organizations to have a clear understanding of the entirety of the services they deliver, as well as defined service management goals and objectives to support service improvements.
    • This line of evidence assesses the extent to which departments and agencies develop and implement strong service management practices for the design and delivery of better services.
  • Service Performance – Client-centric perspective:
    • Canadians and businesses expect access to convenient and secure end-to-end e-services that are designed around user needs. In 2013 and 2016, the Office of the Auditor General found that government services did not meet the needs and expectations of Canadians. Moreover, online service delivery is significantly more cost-effective than delivery through traditional channels, such as in-person and by telephone.
    • This line of evidence assesses the extent to which a department or agency delivers its services in a client-centric manner, including whether it has established service standards and assesses performance against them, whether it monitors and addresses client feedback and satisfaction, and the extent to which its services are available online.

The 2017-18 MAF results will provide the following to the three key audiences listed below:

  • Deputy Heads:
    • Identify current and emerging issues with respect to how services are being managed and improved within their organizations; and
    • Align business planning and resource allocation to address priorities for service improvement and ensure alignment with the GC service direction.
  • Service Functional Communities:
    • Lead change and improve management practices within their departments or agencies; and
    • Highlight gaps and risk areas to drive action.
  • TBS:
    • Assess the state of service management practices and performance across government, including level of policy compliance, and identify potential systemic issues that warrant further guidance;
    • Indicate the level of maturity of an organization with respect to its service management practices, as well as identify problem areas and potential misalignment with GC priorities for service; and
    • Communicate priorities and expectations relating to service management to departments and agencies.

The Service Management methodology for 2017-18 builds on the 2016-17 methodology, however, new measures and questions have been incorporated to gain further insight into the implementation of policy requirements and to support an assessment of the implementation of the new GC Service Strategy. It has been developed in consultation with the Service Management community.

Updates for 2017-18 include:

  • Addition of questions related to the use of the CRA Business Number and client satisfaction.
  • Increasing focus on performance-related indicators.

Evidence in support of the assessment:

  • Unless otherwise indicated in individual questions, the review period for the Service Management AoM questionnaire is to .
  • The maximum number of documents that can be provided as evidence for each question is indicated in the table below, however, an overall maximum of 20 documents can be submitted as evidence for this area of management.
  • TBS may refer to internal or external evaluations and audits (including Office of the Auditor General audits) as well as other relevant documents to support the MAF Service Management assessment and reporting.

Questionnaire

Service Stewardship

Outcome Statement: Departments and agencies implement strong service management practices for the delivery of better services.

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

  1. Has the department or agency updated its service inventory?

    • Yes
    • No

    Rationale: The Policy on Service requires that a departmental service inventory be developed and updated annually. An updated inventory, which is required as evidence for many questions in this methodology, supports more informed and integrated service management decision-making.

    Having a complete and coherent picture of the services provided by an organization is fundamental to effectively managing these services and ensuring that they are compliant with the Policy on Service.

    Note - Review Period: The department or agency has until to fully populate its service inventory with data related to fiscal year 2016-17.

Organizations review their service inventories annually to ensure that they are up-to-date and remain relevant to support effective service management.

Policy on Service, Requirement 7.1

Service Inventory

(1 Document)
  • Management Practice
    • Policy Compliance

  1. How many of the data elements in the department’s or agency’s service inventory are fully populated?

    Rationale: The department’s or agency’s service inventory contains key data elements and metrics about its services to better support informed and integrated service management decision-making. Failure or inability to complete data elements may indicate a lack of knowledge or information regarding their services, which in turn may indicate a larger issue with organizational service management.

    Calculation Method: The number of fully populated data elements (columns) will be based on the 29 data fields identified in the TBS Service Inventory Template.

    Note - Review Period: The department or agency has until to fully populate its service inventory with data related to fiscal year 2016-17.

Organizations have comprehensive service inventories to support effective service management.

Policy on Service, Requirement 7.1

Service Inventory

(1 Document)
  • Management Practice
    • Practice

  1. What percentage of the department’s or agency’s service management strategy (SMS) commitments for 2016-17 were achieved?

    Rationale: A multi-year departmental service management strategy supports longer term planning for service improvement that is aligned with organizational and GC priorities, as well as improvements to address the requirements of the Policy on Service. This indicator provides information on the extent to which the organization is actually using its SMS to guide its actions towards service improvements.

    Calculation Method:

    # of departmental SMS commitments for 2016-17 achieved ÷ Total # of departmental SMS 2016-17 commitments

    Note: Departments and agencies should explain in their SMS or related annual update why particular commitments were not achieved.

Organizations meet their service management strategy (SMS) commitments except where circumstances warrant.

Policy on Service, Requirement 7.5

Service management strategy or related work plan, in which commitments achieved during 2016-17 are identified or other relevant documents

(3 Documents)
  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator

Service Performance: Client-centric Perspective

Outcome Statement: Departments and agencies deliver client centric, online services.

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

  1. What percentage of the department’s or agency’s priority services have service standards?

    Rationale: The public availability of service standards for priority services provides an indication to clients of the level of service they can expect and is a requirement of the Policy on Service. This indicator provides information on the extent to which this policy requirement is being met.

    Calculation Method:

    # of priority services that have service standards ÷ Total # of priority services

    Note: Questions related specifically to service standards for grant and contribution programs are listed in the 2017-18 Financial Management Methodology.

Organizations have service standards for all of their priority services.

Policy on Service, Requirement 7.7 and the GC Service Strategy

Service inventory, departmental website, or other related documents

(2 Documents)
  • Management Performance
    • Service Standard Measure

  1. What percentage of the department’s or agency’s service standards for priority services were reviewed and updated, if required?

    Rationale: This indicator provides information on whether service standards and performance targets for priority services remain relevant and meaningful to clients. Recent audits have pointed to the need to align service standards with the needs and expectations of clients as part of client-centric service delivery.

    Calculation Method:

    # of standards for priority services reviewed and updated over the term of the departmental SMS ÷ Total # of standards for priority services

Organizations regularly review and update their standards to ensure that they remain relevant.

100% over the term of the departmental SMS.

Policy on Service, Requirement 7.7

Presentations to senior management,  links to departmental/Canada.ca webpage(s), departmental performance dashboard, service inventory, service management strategy or other related documents

(2 Documents)
  • Management Performance
    • Service Standard Measure

  1. What percentage of service standard targets for priority services are being met?

    Rationale: Information on the extent to which service standard targets for priority services are being met provides an indication of the overall performance of services within an organization and informs service management decision-making, including internal resource allocations. This information is also leveraged for the GC Service Strategy PMF.

    Calculation Method:

    # of standards for priority services where targets are met ÷ Total # of standards for priority services

Organizations meet their service standard targets.

Policy on Service, Requirement 7.7 and the GC Service Strategy

Links to departmental/Canada.ca webpage(s), departmental performance dashboard, service inventory, service management strategy or other related documents

(2 Documents)
  • Management Performance
    • Service Standard Measure

  1. What percentage of the department’s or agency’s priority external services have real-time performance information published on or through Canada.ca?

    Rationale: Real time performance information improves transparency around government performance in meeting its service commitments and is a requirement for priority services under the Policy on Service. This indicator provides information on the extent to which organizations are in compliance with this requirement. This information is leveraged for the GC Service Strategy PMF.

    Calculation Method:

    # of priority external services with real-time performance information published on or through Canada.ca ÷ # of priority external services

Organizations have real-time performance information published for all of their priority services.

Policy on Service, Requirement 7.7

Links to departmental/Canada.ca webpage(s), departmental performance dashboard, service management strategy or other related documents (2 Documents)
  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator

  1. What percentage of priority services can be completed online from end-to-end?

    Rationale: The increased availability of online services improves their access, and is associated with improved efficiency in service delivery. This indicator provides information on the extent to which the organization is ensuring that priority external and internal enterprise services are fully e-enabled. This information is leveraged for the GC Service Strategy PMF.

    Calculation Method:

    # of priority services that can be completed online from end-to-end ÷ Total number of priority services

    Note: The calculation, based on information in the department’s or agency’s service inventory, takes into consideration interaction points that are not applicable (N/A) to the service. Rationales for any interaction points identified as “N/A” must be provided.

Services are available online from end-to-end.

Policy on Service, Requirement 7.9 and the GC Service Strategy

Service inventory or other relevant documents

(2 Documents)
  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator

  1. What is the percentage of client interaction points available online for priority services?

    Rationale: This indicator provides information on the progress the organization is making towards enabling online completion of priority external and internal enterprise services, recognizing that achieving ‘end-to-end’ online capability may be an incremental process for some services. This information is leveraged for the GC Service Strategy PMF.

    Calculation Method:

    Number of client interaction points available online for priority services ÷ Total number of applicable client interaction points for priority services

    Note: The calculation, based on information in the department’s or agency’s service inventory, takes into consideration interaction points that are not applicable (N/A) to the service. Rationales for any interaction points identified as “N/A” must be provided.

    For example:

    • # of priority services for an organization: 15
    • # of client interaction points, once all not applicable interaction points (N/A) are removed: 80
    • # of client interaction points that are available online: 60
    • 75% of client interaction points are available online.

Services are available online.

Policy on Service, Requirement 7.9

Service inventory, or other relevant documents

(2 Documents)
  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator

  1. What percentage of priority authenticated external services can be completed online from end-to-end?

    Rationale: This indicator provides information on the progress the organization is making towards enabling online completion of priority authenticated external services from end-to-end.

    Calculation Method:

    # of priority authenticated external services that can be completed online from end-to-end ÷ Total number of priority authenticated external services

    Note: The calculation, based on information in the department’s or agency’s service inventory, takes into consideration interaction points that are not applicable (N/A) to the service. Rationales for any interaction points identified as “N/A” must be provided.

Organizations  make 100% of their priority authenticated external services e-enabled.

Policy on Service, Requirement 7.10

Links to departmental/Canada.ca webpage(s), service inventory, annual reports, or other relevant documents

(2 Documents)
  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator

  1. What percentage of priority authenticated external services provide clients with real-time application status?

    Rationale: The availability of real-time application status keeps clients informed of the status of their application, and supports improved transparency. This indicator provides information on the progress the organization is making towards the online availability of real-time application status to clients for priority authenticated external services.

    Calculation Method:

    # of priority authenticated external services that provide clients with real-time application status ÷ Total number of priority authenticated external services

Organizations make real-time application status available to clients for 100% of their priority authenticated external services.

Policy on Service, Requirement 7.10

Links to departmental/Canada.ca webpage(s), service inventory, annual reports, or other relevant documents

(2 Documents)
  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator

  1. What percentage of the department’s or agency’s services to business use Canada Revenue Agency’s Business Number as the standard identifier?

    Rationale: The use of the BN simplifies business interactions with government by replacing multiple identifiers currently required by some organizations. This indicator provides information regarding the extent of enterprise alignment and progress towards streamlining services to businesses. This information is also required to support the GC Service Strategy.

    Calculation Method:

    # of services to business using the CRA Business identifier ÷ Total # of services  to business

Organizations that deliver services to business adopt CRA’s Business Number as the standard identifier in their interactions with clients.

The GC Service Strategy

Service inventory

(1 Document)
  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator

  1. What is the percentage of the department’s or agency’s priority services for which client satisfaction assessment has been undertaken?

    Rationale: Monitoring client satisfaction is a good management practice that promotes client centricity and can inform future service management decision-making with respect to the design and delivery of services. This indicator provides information on the extent to which organizations are tracking client satisfaction.

    Calculation Method:

    # of priority services for which client satisfaction assessment was undertaken ÷ Total # of priority services

Organizations research client satisfaction on each of the priority services that they deliver over the term of their SMS.

GC Service Strategy

Client satisfaction surveys or assessments and public opinion research.

(3 Documents)
  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator

  1. What percentage of the department’s or agency’s priority services were improved based on client feedback?

    Rationale: Monitoring client feedback is a good management practice that promotes client centricity and can inform future service improvements. This indicator provides information on the extent to which the organization is using client feedback, which may include client satisfaction information, to improve its priority services. This information is also required to support the GC Service Strategy.

    Calculation Method:

    # of priority services that were improved based on client feedback ÷ Total # of priority services

Organizations address client feedback to improve services.

Policy on Service Requirement 7.3

and the GC Service Strategy

Reports or presentations detailing service improvements based on client feedback.

(3 Documents)
  • Management Performance
    • Performance Indicator

Glossary

Authenticated service
A service that relies on a credential assurance to carry out a transaction securely (see the Standard on Credential and Identity Assurance).
Business Number/Business identifier
The Business Number is a unique number assigned to a company by the Canada Revenue Agency for tax matters related to business in Canada and is to be adopted as the standard identifier for business across departments and agencies. The BN is a 9-digit business identifier.
Client Satisfaction
The client’s perception of the service provided vis-à-vis his or her expectations. Client satisfaction research refers to scientific studies aimed at determining the level of client satisfaction with government services and includes client satisfaction surveys and public opinion research.
Departmental service management strategy
Outlines the department’s or agency’s multi-year overall approach to managing and improving its external and internal enterprise services and includes: service vision; gap or SWOT analysis; objectives and service improvement initiatives; performance management approach; risk assessment and mitigation plan; integrated service improvement work plan.
E-service / e-enabled service
The provision of a service that can be completed on-line from end-to-end, except in circumstances where it is prohibited by law or security considerations.
Priority services
External and internal enterprise services, determined by each department considering one or more of the following: volume (e.g., transactions per year), importance of service to clients (e.g., entitlements, permits, benefits, authorizations, mission-critical services), use of sensitive personal or commercial information, cost-benefit analysis, and affordability.
Real-Time Service Delivery Performance Information
Refers to information on the current level of performance that clients can expect to be provided for a service.
Service inventory
A catalogue of external and internal enterprise services, including the identification of priority services, that provides detailed information based on a specific set of elements (e.g., channel, client, volume, etc.).
Service standard
Public commitment to a measurable level of performance that clients can expect under normal circumstances.

Note: Please refer to the Policy on Service and the Guideline on Service Management for other definitions.

Acronyms

English Acronyms Spelled Out
AoM Area of Management
BN Business Number
CRA Canada Revenue Agency
GC Government of Canada
MAF Management Accountability Framework
PCO Privy Council Office
PMF Performance Measurement Framework
N/A Not applicable
SMS Service Management strategy
SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats
TBS Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

Page details

Date modified: