Language selection

Government of Canada / Gouvernement du Canada

Search

MAF 2018 to 2019 service management methodology

On this page 

Methodology Overview

In this section

Objectives

The effective management of services:

  • increases client satisfaction
  • contributes to value for money
  • promotes confidence in government

Use of Management Accountability Framework (MAF) results

Information gathered through the annual MAF assessment is designed to support and monitor the implementation of the Policy on Service and the Government of Canada Service Strategy by:

  • providing insight into organizational service management practices and performance
  • supporting improvements in delivering Government of Canada (GC) services to individuals and businesses

The final requirement of the Policy on Service came into effect in October 2017, and much of the information requested in this year’s MAF survey builds on the baseline data on strengths and gaps in compliance with the policy. Over time, this information will continue to support a broader understanding of enterprise-wide trends and systemic issues. MAF results will also be used to:

  • measure progress in establishing a strategic and coherent GC-wide approach to the design and delivery of services
  • identify notable practices and areas that require further guidance or attention

The MAF methodology for service management for the 2018 to 2019 fiscal year comprises the following four key areas of assessment or lines of evidence:

  1. Service Stewardship
  2. Service Standards
  3. Online Services
  4. Client Satisfaction

MAF results on service management for the 2018 to 2019 fiscal year will provide information to the following three key audiences:

  • deputy heads will use the information to:
    • identify current and emerging issues with respect to how services are being managed and improved within their organizations
    • align business planning and resource allocation to:
      • address priorities for improving services
      • ensure alignment with the GC service direction
  • service functional communities will use the information to:
    • lead change and improve management practices within their departments or agencies
    • highlight gaps and risk areas to determine needed actions
  • the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) will use the information to:
    • 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 organization their its service management practices, and identify problem areas and potential misalignment with GC service priorities
    • communicate priorities and expectations regarding service management to departments and agencies

The service management methodology for the 2018 to 2019 fiscal year:

  • builds on the methodology for the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year
  • has been developed in consultation with the service management community

Note: New measures and questions have been incorporated into the service management methodology in order to:

  • advance the digital government maturity model and tell the right performance story
  • allow for assessment of performance against a maturity model
  • increase focus on performance using composite indicators
  • ensure greater alignment among the service management and IM/IT methodologies
  • leverage publicly available and centralized data contained in departmental or agency service inventories and service management strategies

Departmental and agency MAF results will be based on evidence submitted by the draft release deadline ( November 15, 2018). No additional evidence will be accepted after this date unless it is to address an override.

Questionnaire

In this section

Service Stewardship

Outcome(s): Departments and agencies manage their external and internal and enterprise services strategically and coherently, resulting in better experience for clients and more efficient GC services.

Question 1: What percentage of the data elements in the department’s or agency’s service inventory are fully populated?

Category
  1. Policy compliance
  2. Results or performance
  3. Service standard
  4. Baseline information
  5. Descriptive statistic
Type
  1. Core
  2. Spot-check
Rationale

The department’s or agency’s service inventory contains key data elements and metrics about its services to better support informed and integrated enterprise-wide service management decision-making. Failure or inability to complete data elements indicates that there is an information gap that may affect decision-making. Organizations should be proactively addressing any gaps.

Target (where applicable)

100%

Calculation method

Percentage of data elements that are fully populated in the organization’s service inventory based on the data fields identified in the GC Service Inventory Template.

Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer

Data source: GC Service Inventory

Date of data extraction: Portal close date

Department or agency to answer

Evidence: n/a

Document limit: n/a

Period of assessment: 2017 to 2018 fiscal year

Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority


Question 2: What percentage of the department’s or agency’s Service Management Strategy (SMS) commitments for the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year were achieved?

Category
  1. Policy compliance
  2. Results or performance
  3. Service standard
  4. Baseline information
  5. Descriptive statistic
Type
  1. Core
  2. Spot-check
Rationale

A service management strategy outlines, among other things, what selected service improvement initiatives a department or agency intends to pursue over a multi-year period to improve the department’s or agency’s services. Regular measuring of progress:

  • helps those responsible for the strategy oversee its implementation
  • helps ensure that the service management strategy is fully and effectively implemented

This indicator assesses the extent to which organizations are delivering on their SMS commitments.

Target (where applicable)

100%

Calculation method

Number of departmental or agency SMS commitments for the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year achieved
÷ Total number of departmental or agency SMS commitments for the 2017 to 2018 fiscal year

Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer

Data source: GC service Inventory

Date of data extraction: Portal close date

Department or agency to answer

Evidence:

Service Management Strategy or related work plan, in which commitments for fiscal year 2017-2018 are identified, and accompanied by a status update.

Document limit: 3

Period of assessment: 2017 to 2018 fiscal year

Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority

Service Standards

Outcome(s): Departments and agencies have comprehensive management practices in place, including meaningful service standards and real-time performance information, that meet the expectations of clients.

Question 3: What is the department’s or agency’s maturity in services standards and performance for priority services?

  • Low
  • Medium
  • High
Category
  1. Policy compliance
  2. Results or performance
  3. Service standard
  4. Baseline information
  5. Descriptive statistic
Type
  1. Core
  2. Spot-check
Rationale

Establishing and monitoring service standards and achieving related targets are key service performance indicators. The assessment also includes the following related to service standards:

  • a review of whether these service standards were developed or assessed using the TBS Service Standards Development and Assessment Tool
  • an assessment of the extent to which real-time performance information is available

The assessment of these elements provides a comprehensive composite indicator on the maturity of service standards and service performance for the department’s or agency’s priority services.

Target (where applicable)

High

Calculation method

A result of high, medium or low for this composite indicator will be determined through analysis of the following data elements derived from the GC Service Inventory:

  1. percentage of the department’s or agency’s priority services that have service standards
  2. percentage of service standard targets for priority services that are being met
  3. percentage of the department’s or agency’s priority external services that have real-time performance results published on Canada.ca
  4. percentage of the department’s or agency’s service standards for priority services that were developed or assessed using the TBS Service Standards Development and Assessment Tool

TBS will assign points to each of the above data elements, to a maximum of 12 points.

Calculation

Points for element A
+ Points for element B
+ Points for element C
+ Points for element D
= Total

Notes

  • Calculation for element A

Number of priority services that have service standards
÷ Total number of priority services

Notes: Questions related specifically to service standards for grants and contributions programs are listed in the  MAF methodology for financial management for the 2018 to 2019 fiscal year

  • Calculation for element B

Number of standards for priority services where targets are met
÷ Total number of standards for priority services

  • Calculation for element C

Number of priority external services with real-time performance results published on Canada.ca
÷ Total number of priority external services

Note: This calculation element does not apply to departments and agencies that are internal service providers

  • Calculation for element D

Number of standards for priority services developed or assessed using the TBS Service Standards Development and Assessment Tool
÷ Total number of standards for priority services

Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer

Data source: GC Service Inventory

Date of data extraction: Portal close date

Department or agency to answer

Evidence: n/a

Document limit: n/a

Period of assessment: 2017 to 2018 fiscal year

Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority

Online Service

Outcome(s): Departments and agencies are increasing the availability of services online, resulting in improved access to and efficiency in service delivery.

Question 4: What is the department’s or agency’s level of maturity in making priority services available online?

Category
  1. Policy compliance
  2. Results or performance
  3. Service standard
  4. Baseline information
  5. Descriptive statistic
Type
  1. Core
  2. Spot-check
Rationale

By assessing the extent to which priority services can be completed online end to end, and the extent to which applicable interaction points for priority services are online, this composite indicator assesses a department’s or agency’s overall progress in making its services e-enabled to the fullest extent possible.

Target (where applicable)

High

Calculation method

A result of high, medium or low for this composite indicator will be determined by analysis of the following data elements derived from the GC Service Inventory:

  1. percentage of priority services that can be completed online from end to end
  2. percentage of the department’s or agency’s client interaction points that are available online for priority services

Calculation

  • Calculation for element A

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

Note: The calculation is based on information in the department’s or agency’s service inventory and takes into consideration interaction points that are not applicable to the service.

  • Calculation for element B

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

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

Points for element A
+ Points for element B

TBS will assign points to each of the above data elements, to a maximum of 7 points

Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer

Data source: GC Service Inventory

Date of data extraction: n/a

Department or agency to answer

Evidence: n/a

Document limit: n/a

Period of assessment: 2017 to 2018 fiscal year

Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority

Question 5: What percentage of priority authenticated external services provide clients with real-time application status?

Category
  1. Policy compliance
  2. Results or performance
  3. Service standard
  4. Baseline information
  5. Descriptive statistic
Type
  1. Core
  2. Spot-check
Rationale

By using information on the progress of making real-time application status for priority authenticated external services available online, this indicator contributes to an understanding of the extent to which services are available online, which results in improved access to services and efficiency in their delivery.

Target (where applicable)

100%

Calculation method

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

Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer

Data source: MAF Portal

Date of data extraction: Portal close date

Department or agency to answer

Evidence: Links to departmental or agency Canada.ca web page(s), service inventory, annual reports or other relevant documents

Document limit: 4

Period of assessment: 2017 to 2018 fiscal year

Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority

Client Satisfaction

Outcome(s): Departments and agencies are increasing their focus on client satisfaction with GC services across all main service channels.

Question 6: For all channels, what percentage of priority services provide clients with an opportunity to give feedback on their level of satisfaction with the service?

Category
  1. Policy compliance
  2. Results or performance
  3. Service standard
  4. Baseline information
  5. Descriptive statistic
Type
  1. Core
  2. Spot-check
Rationale

Client feedback and issue-resolution mechanisms:

  • provide a means for departments and agencies to receive and manage input from clients
  • are critical to:
    • delivering services that meet client needs
    • continually improving services

This indicator assesses the extent to which all clients, regardless of which service channel they are served by, have an opportunity to provide feedback on their level of satisfaction with the priority services rendered.

Target (where applicable)

100%

Calculation method

Number of priority services that obtain client feedback across all channels
÷ Total number of priority services

Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer

Data source: GC Service Inventory

Date of data extraction: Portal close date

Department or agency to answer

Evidence: n/a

Document limit: n/a

Period of assessment: 2017 to 2018 fiscal year

Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority

Question 7: What percentage of the department’s or agency’s priority services were improved based on client feedback?

Category
  1. Policy compliance
  2. Results or performance
  3. Service standard
  4. Baseline information
  5. Descriptive statistic
Type
  1. Core
  2. Spot-check
Rationale

This indicator assesses the extent to which an organization is using client feedback, which may include client satisfaction information, to improve its priority services. This information is also required to support the Government of Canada Service Strategy.

Target (where applicable)

100%

Calculation method

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

Evidence source and document limit
TBS to answer

Data source: MAF Portal

Date of data extraction: Portal close date

Department or agency to answer

Evidence: The following evidence is required:

  • reports or presentations that detail service improvements based on client feedback
  • links to or screenshots of an online client satisfaction questionnaire or question when an individual completes a transaction or obtains information online
  • transcripts of questions asked at the end of telephone calls
  • copies of cards or forms used for correspondence or in-person service transactions
  • pictures of terminals or displays that seek client feedback for in-person services
  • summary reports or presentations that show results of client responses by channel
  • other sources of evidence as appropriate

Document limit: 4

Period of assessment: 2017 to 2018 fiscal year

Treasury Board policy reference or Government of Canada priority

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).
client satisfaction
The client’s perception of the service provided versus 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
The department’s or agency’s multi-year overall approach to managing and improving its external and internal enterprise services that includes:
  • a service vision
  • an analysis of gaps or of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT)
  • objectives and service improvement initiatives
  • performance management approach
  • risk assessment and mitigation plan
  • integrated service improvement work plan
e-service / enabled service
A service that can be completed online 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, characterized by one or more of the following:
  • volume (transactions per year)
  • importance of service to clients (entitlements, permits, benefits, authorizations, mission-critical services)
  • use of sensitive personal or commercial information
  • cost-benefit analysis
  • affordability
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 (for example, channel, client and volume).
GC Service Inventory
A consolidated service inventory that contains service data from all departments and agencies subject to the MAF methodology for service management published via the Open Government Registry.
service standard
A public commitment to a measurable level of performance that clients can expect under normal circumstances (refer to the Policy on Service and the Guideline on Service Management for detailed definitions).

Page details

Date modified: