Audit of staffing and classification service delivery

Final report

Global Affairs Canada
Office of the Chief Audit Executive

Tabling Date
June 2019

Abbreviations

ADM

Assistant Deputy Minister

BMO

Business Management Office

CBS

Canada Based Staff

EX

Executive

ExCo

Executive Committee

FTE

Full-time Equivalent

GAC

Global Affairs Canada

HAR

Human Resources Action Request

HCM

Human Resources Branch

HFD

Assignment and Executive Management Bureau

HFR

Executive services and Talent Management

HR

Human Resources

HRMS

Human Resources Management System

HSD

Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services Bureau

HSOE

Center of Expertise, Organizational Design, Classification and Development Programs

HSOS

HR Client Staffing Services

ICBP

Integrated Corporate Business Plan

LES

Locally Engaged Staff

MAF

Management Accountability Framework

PAR

Pay Action Request

PE

Personnel Administration occupational group

PMA

Performance Management Agreement

PSC

Public Service Commission

TBS

Treasury Board Secretariat

Executive summary

In accordance with Global Affairs Canada’s approved 2018-19 Risk-Based Audit Plan, the Office of the Chief Audit Executive conducted an audit of Staffing and Classification Service Delivery.

Why it is important

The goal of Human Resources (HR) management activities is to build a diverse, nimble and high-performing workforce allowing the Department to meet its business objectives. As of December 31, 2018, Global Affairs Canada manages a workforce of 10,123 employees, including 6,157 Canada Based Staff (CBS) and 3,966 Locally Engaged Staff (LES). In 2017-18, Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) completed 9,853 staffing actions and 3,600 classification actions for non-executive positions for a total of 13,453 actions. Excellence in the design and delivery of services promotes efficient service delivery and better service experiences for clients. In order to achieve and maintain high quality service, it is important for organizations to establish services standards, monitor service performance and take actions to improve service when issues are identified. With increasing demands from clients, the timely provision of classification and staffing services is critical to deliver on the Department’s priorities and operational needs.

What was examined

The objective of the audit was to assess controls in place, management practices, performance measurement and reporting to optimize delivery of staffing and classification services.

The audit assessed whether Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) established a framework to ensure controls are set around staffing and classification service delivery, such as roles and responsibilities for HR advisors and managers (hereinafter referred to as clients); allocation of resources; learning opportunities available to HR advisors; and adoption and communication of service standards.

The audit assessed management practices by determining how Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) and clients dealt with service standard delays occurring during the process; and how Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) sought feedback to improve service delivery.

The audit assessed whether Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) monitored compliance with service standards and reported solutions used to redress situations of non-compliance to the Assistant Deputy Minister of Human Resources (HCM); and reported on staffing and classification service delivery challenges and performance to senior management.

For the purpose of the audit, the Executive group (EX) and pooled employees were excluded because service standards for these transactions are going to be implemented in 2019-20. More details about the audit objective, scope, and criteria can be found in Appendix A.

What was found

The audit team found that Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) has elements of a control framework in place to ensure staffing and classification service delivery, such as definition and communication of roles and responsibilities, resource allocation against staffing and classification activities, learning opportunities available to HR advisors, and adoption and communication of staffing and classification service standards. However, the control framework requires some improvements with regards to inclusion of operational objectives in client performance management agreements to improve staffing and classification service delivery; and learning opportunities for HR advisors with regards to client service excellence.

Efficiency in service delivery is a shared responsibility between Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) and management clients within the Department. The audit team found that practices could be improved in the areas of service standards, feedback and service issues-resolution mechanisms. Clients interviewed view staffing and classification processes as an administrative burden and cause for inefficiency. Clients were aware of the challenges faced by Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) regarding staff movement and/or lack of HR advisors. In fact, as of March 31, 2018, Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) had a position vacancy rate of 21 percent for staffing and classification services. In addition, clients recognized that their lack of timely response to HR advisors’ requests contributed to the inefficiencies.

Service delivery standards are used to help clarify expectations for clients. They are also used to provide HR advisors with performance targets and inform clients that their file will be with HR advisors for a given period. However, clients misunderstand these standards, creating confusion and unrealistic expectations.  Clients provided examples of service issues encountered during staffing and classification processes that caused, according to them, inefficiencies in service delivery. However, the audit team found no feedback or service issues-resolution mechanisms informing Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) on these issues.

The audit team found evidence that service standards were first monitored in 2017-18. However, adherence to service standards is not being continuously monitored since the Human Resources Management System (HRMS) is neither configured to allow for real-time tracking nor for automatic reminders when deadlines associated with standards are about to be exceeded. Moreover, HR advisors are not recording information in a consistent and systematic manner. Consequently, the recorded and subsequently reported information is neither reliable nor accurate. Without consistent and systematically recorded information, Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) cannot accurately measure if services are performed at the desired level.

Recommendations

1. To strengthen the staffing and classification service delivery framework, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Human Resources (HCM) should:
   • Ensure that the current wording in managers (clients) performance management agreements reflect the recent approved changes to service standards; and
   • Develop for HR advisors a plan for learning activities related to client service excellence.
2. The Assistant Deputy Minister of Human Resources (HCM) should clarify the staffing and classification service standards to enhance communications with clients.
3. The Assistant Deputy Minister of Human Resources (HCM) should integrate a client feedback mechanism in the staffing and classification process and use the results to develop issue-resolution mechanisms to improve staffing and classification service delivery.
4. The Assistant Deputy Minister of Human Resources (HCM) should ensure HR advisors record data in HRMS in a consistent and systematic manner to obtain accurate and reliable information for monitoring and reporting.

Statement of Conformance

In my professional judgment as the Chief Audit Executive, this audit was conducted in conformance with the Institute of Internal Auditors' International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing and with the Treasury Board Policy and Directive on Internal Audit, as supported by the results of the quality assurance and improvement program. Sufficient and appropriate audit procedures were conducted, and evidence gathered, to support the accuracy of the findings and conclusion in this report, and to provide an audit level of assurance. The findings and conclusion are based on a comparison of the conditions, as they existed at the time, against pre-established audit criteria that were agreed upon with management and are only applicable to the entity examined and for the scope and time period covered by the audit.

1. Background

In accordance with Global Affairs Canada’s approved 2018-19 Risk-Based Audit Plan, the Office of the Chief Audit Executive conducted an audit of Staffing and Classification Service Delivery.

The delivery of services in the federal government, including Human Resources (HR) services, is governed by Treasury Board’s Policy on Service. The policy aims to establish a strategic and coherent approach to the design and delivery of external and internal enterprise services that is client-centric, realizes operational efficiencies and promotes a culture of service management excellence. The goal of HR management activities at Global Affairs Canada is to build a diverse, nimble and high-performing workforce. Few departments have the same level of human resource complexity as this Department, given the extensive and diverse network of Canada Based Staff (CBS) and Locally Engaged Staffed (LES) at headquarters, across Canada, and at missions abroad.

The Preliminary Survey (the Survey) of Human Resources Management and Administration was completed in 2015-16. The Office of the Chief Audit Executive did the Survey to identify potential HR audits to be conducted in the upcoming years. The Survey identified three areas for potential audits. The first two audits have been completed and a summary is presented below. The current audit is the third audit identified by the summary.  

1. Human Resources Data Integrity. An audit of Human Resources Management System (HRMS) Data Integrity was conducted in 2016-17. The audit team examined the management framework supporting the integrity of human resources data. The data integrity of HRMS was also tested to assess the progress of management action plans. The audit concluded that Global Affairs Canada had measures in place to ensure that human resources related activities were supported by accurate, complete, and timely data. However, important governance, monitoring, and control areas for data integrity improvements remained.
2. Human Resources Planning. An audit of Human Resources Planning was conducted in 2017-18. The audit team examined the management framework supporting the annual HR planning exercise from the collection of HR information to its integration in the Integrated Corporate Business Plan (ICBP). The audit concluded that Global Affairs Canada had a management framework in place for developing and implementing integrated HR plans with the aim of achieving operational objectives and strategic outcomes. However, this framework required some improvements in order to be fully integrated and to report on actual performance against HR plans.

In December 2018, the Public Service Commission (PSC) conducted a System-Wide Staffing Audit to review compliance for staffing across federal departments. Global Affairs Canada was one of the departments included in the scope of this audit. The audit reported high levels of compliance for requirements regarding consideration of persons with a priority entitlement, merit and other appointment related authorities. However, the audit did identify areas for improvement related to system-wide awareness and understanding of staffing requirements; quality control of documents in relation to official languages; and having sufficient documentation to explain appointment decisions .

Departmental Context

As of December 31, 2018, Global Affairs Canada manages a workforce of 10,123 employees distributed in three categories: 1) Non-Pooled (non-rotational) CBS; 2) Pooled (rotational and mobile) CBS; and, 3) Locally Engaged Staff (LES). There are:

• 3,257 non-rotational CBS, which represents 32 percent of the departmental workforce ;
• 1,795 rotational CBS, which represents 18 percent of the departmental workforce ;
• 1,105 mobile CBS, which represents 11 percent of the departmental workforce; and
• 3,966 LES, which represents 39 percent of the departmental workforce. These do not include the 1,298 employees whose salaries are cost-recovered from partners and co-locators to which these LES provide services.

As per the 2017-18 Integrated Corporate Business Plan (ICBP), Global Affairs Canada set out to address HR issues pertaining to classification, staffing, mobility and rationality, and performance and talent management to ensure the workforce is diverse, nimble, and able to deliver on the government’s priorities. With increasing demands from clients, the timely provision of classification and staffing services is critical to deliver on the Department’s priorities and operational needs.

Staffing

The cornerstone to an effective staffing strategy is the integration of business and HR planning, which includes the analysis of HR needs to meet business objectives. The staffing process includes gathering and considering all information required about the position(s) to be filled in order to launch the process. The hiring manager and the Human Resources branch (HCM) work together to provide the information, including the specifics about the selection requirements, choice and rationale of appointment process, area of selection, and assessment approach. The staffing process is presented in more detail in Appendix B.

Classification

Organizational classification is the means by which work is defined, organized, managed and remunerated within departments across the federal public service. Classification promotes effective organizational design, efficient planning, and economic position management.

Position management is the cost-effective use of people to accomplish an organization's mandate. Good position management results from organizing and assigning work amongst staff efficiently and fairly, and is the responsibility of every manager. Within the federal government context, position management includes two key components: ensuring that up-to-date work descriptions accurately describe an employee’s duties and deleting vacant positions no longer required. Current and accurate work descriptions are important as they not only guide an employee's performance, but are also required when staffing a position. Clients perform position management each time they change or establish a new position in their organization. The classification process is presented in more detail in Appendix C.

As the audit focused on classification and staffing services, the key departmental stakeholders are:

• Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD), who is responsible for classification and staffing services at the corporate level.; and
• Clients (managers), who are involved in the classification and staffing business processes.

2. Observations and Recommendations

This section sets out key findings and observations, divided into three general themes, addressing the framework on staffing and classification service delivery, the practices to improve staffing and classification service delivery, and the monitoring of and reporting on service delivery performance.

2.1 Framework on Staffing and Classification Service Delivery

The audit team used several requirements of the Treasury Board’s Policy on Service and some key elements of the Guideline on Service Management related to learning opportunities, mechanisms to provide feedback, service standards, and monitoring and reporting to guide its assessment on staffing and classification service delivery. Clients, external or internal, expect effective services that are integrated, simple, timely, and secure.

The audit team expected that Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) would have established a framework to ensure that controls were set around staffing and classification service delivery. This framework should include:

• Defined and communicated roles and responsibilities for Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) and client relating to staffing and classification;
• Resources allocated against staffing and classification activities;
• Service-related knowledge and client service excellence learning opportunities available to HR advisors; and
• Adopted and communicated staffing and classification service standards.

The audit team found that key elements of a control framework were in place to ensure staffing and classification service delivery. However, the control framework requires some improvements with regards to the inclusion of operational objectives in client performance management agreements to improve staffing and classification service delivery, and learning opportunities in client service excellence for HR advisors.

Roles and responsibilities

The audit team found that roles and responsibilities of HR advisors and client related to staffing and classification were clearly defined and were available on the intranet. The departmental MODUS tool breaks down the steps to follow in the staffing and classification processes and outlines the responsibilities of both HR advisors and the client in a given process. The departmental Table of Human Resources Management Delegated Authorities is also available on MODUS and outlines the authorities for staffing and classification functions, amongst others, for all clients or persons within the Department who have received HR management delegated authorities on behalf of the Deputy Minister.

The audit team reviewed common key commitments in 2017-18 performance management agreements for directors and managers to assess if staffing and classification operations were identified as departmental priorities. The audit team noted general statements on managing human resources, such as staffing strategies and processes that have to be managed in an open, fair, transparent, and consistent manner; and sound financial, administrative, human resources, and information management practices that have to be followed. However, the audit team did not find operational objectives in management’s performance agreement to improve staffing and classification service delivery. On February 21, 2019, the Executive Committee decided that service standards related to staffing and classification service delivery would be expanded to also include HR and clients (hiring managers). Therefore, the wording of the general statement of managing human resources in performance management agreement will need to be updated to include the operational objectives reflecting the additional responsibility of managers regarding staffing and classification. Without including operational objectives in the performance management agreement, it is difficult to assess how staffing and classification service delivery will be improved to achieve operational objectives.

Allocation of resources

Staffing and classification operational plans were included in the 2017-18 Corporate HR Plan. The audit team discussed operational plans with staffing and classification directors and reviewed the HR advisor resource allocation document. Staffing and classification managers allocate client portfolios to HR advisors. Subsequently, HRMS automatically assigns HR action requests to the appropriate HR advisor. Staffing and classification directors stated that they review and adjust these workloads frequently, mainly due to vacant positions. The directors specified that staffing and classification activities that could not be allocated to in-house HR personnel had been allocated to contractors. However, complex transactions and those requiring client interactions were kept in-house.

Learning opportunities

The Policy on Service requires that learning opportunities regarding service-related knowledge and client service excellence be given to service providers at the beginning of employment and on a regular basis. The audit team expected to find that such learning opportunities were provided to HR advisors on a regular basis.

The audit team reviewed the learning objectives of the PE Development Program for HR advisors and found that it did not have learning opportunities on client service excellence. Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) indicated that the curriculum is currently under review to include mandatory courses on client service in order to meet requirements of the Policy on Service. On the other hand, when they receive their sub-delegation, clients need to take mandatory training to understand their roles and responsibilities regarding human resources management.

The audit team also found that Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) held regular meetings with HR advisors to discuss progress made against staffing and classification actions. During these meetings, HR advisors discuss service-related knowledge and ways to improve on relationships with clients, if necessary.

Service standards

The Policy on Service requires that service standards and real-time service delivery performance information are made available to clients. The audit team found that Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) have started to implement service standards in a phased approach. Phase I started in 2017 and included service standards for all classifications actions and for non-EX, non-pool staffing actions. Phase II is scheduled to be completed at the end of Fiscal Year 2019-20, and will include service standards for EX (executive position) and pool staffing actions.

Service standards are based on actual level of resources. They were developed based on consultation with other departments, and then internally via conversations with operational services in classification and staffing. Service standards are communicated to employees via the intranet. Exhibit 1 below presents the current service standards for staffing and classification HR actions.

Exhibit 1: Service Standards for Staffing and Classification Human Resources Actions

Source: Workforce Analysis Unit (HSEC), Global Affairs Canada

In 2017-18, service management was assessed government-wide through the Management Accountability Framework (MAF).The MAF is a key tool of oversight that is used by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) to help ensure that federal departments and agencies are well managed, accountable and that resources are allocated to achieve results. Specific questions were asked to 11 large departments in the federal government. Global Affairs Canada was not part of the assessment. However, in comparison, 91 percent (10/11) departments had developed service standards. For more details on the answers provided during this exercise, see Appendix D.

Starting in April 2017, Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) began implementing service standards for most HR services in a phased approach and for selected groups. Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) did not fully implement the second phase as planned by April 2019. The last phase will introduce in 2019-20 a second set of service standards and will include the Executive group (EX).

The service standards measure the time it takes HR advisors to provide the service once a request is assigned to them. Elements outside Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD)’s control are not part of the service standards, such as:

• The length of time it takes the clients to respond to requests;
• The length of time to obtain a priority clearance;
• The length of time to obtain a security clearance;
• Second Language Evaluation assessment;
• Use of external service providers to mark written exams; and
• Time with the Public Service Pay Centre.

For staffing transactions, the time begins when the HR advisor receives the HR Action Request (HAR) with required documentation and/or information from the client, and ends when the letter of offer is sent out to the selected candidate. For classification transactions, the time begins when the HR advisor receives the HAR including all required documentation and/or information signed by the delegated authority, and ends when the HR advisor closes the file in the Human Resources Management System (HRMS). HR advisors are responsible to manage the status of their HR actions in HRMS.

Recommendation #1

To strengthen the staffing and classification service delivery framework, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Human Resources (HCM) should:

• Ensure that the current wording in managers (clients) performance management agreements reflect the recent approved changes to service standards; and
• Develop for HR advisors a plan for learning activities related to client service excellence.

2.2Practices to Improve Staffing and Classification Service Delivery

According to Treasury Board People Management Framework, the Department is responsible for planning and implementing people management practices that deliver on their operational objectives and for assessing their organization's people management performance. It also states that departmental managers are responsible for ensuring effective people management in all activities falling under their area of responsibility.

The audit team expected Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) and clients to have adopted practices to improve staffing and classification service delivery. The audit team selected a non-statistically representative sample of staffing and classification actions that occurred between April 1, 2017, and September 30, 2018, to assess staffing and classification practices. More details on the sampling strategy are presented in Appendix E. The audit team met with clients involved in the selected actions to obtain their views on strengths and weaknesses of staffing and classification processes; their roles and responsibilities with regards to HR; their client relationships with HR advisors; and opportunities for improving service delivery.

The audit team assessed the following components:

• Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD)’s workload;
• HR advisors and clients responded in a timely manner; dealt with delays occurring during the process; and redressed the situation as soon as possible;
• Service standards were reviewed and adjusted, if necessary; and
• Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) sought feedback to improve service delivery.

The audit team found areas for improvement to staffing and classification service delivery with regards to clarification and communication of service standards and feedback and service issues-resolution mechanisms.

HR workload

The audit team reviewed the presentation made by Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) to the Executive Committee (ExCo) in February 2019. In 2017-18, 9,853 staffing actions and 3,600 classification actions for non-executive positions were completed for a total of 13,453 actions. See Exhibit 2 below for the total staffing and classification actions per year for comparison.

Exhibit 2: Staffing and Classification Actions

Source: Workforce Analysis Unit (HSEC), Global Affairs Canada

These actions included all related staffing and classification transactions registered in HRMS such as: promotion, deployment, assignment, acting, creation of positions, and change in reporting relationship. Over the last three years, the number of transactions completed for non-executive positions for staffing remained the same. However, classification actions dropped significantly starting Fiscal Year 2016-17.  

In 2017-18, the position vacancy rates for staffing services went up from 12 to 21 percent; as for classification, the position vacancy rates went down from 31 to 21 percent as shown in Exhibit 3.

Exhibit 3: Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) position vacancy rate in 2017-18

Source: Workforce Analysis Unit (HSEC), Global Affairs Canada

In order to address capacity issues, Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) hired indeterminate employees and contractors to support processing of HR actions. Despite these efforts, Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) reported having an attrition rate of 13.9 percent, for 2017-18; see Exhibit 4 for attrition rate per year for comparison. Employee attrition refers to the loss of employees through a number of circumstances, such as resignation, retirement and any other external movements.

Exhibit 4: Staffing and Classification attrition rates

Source: Workforce Analysis Unit (HSEC), Global Affairs Canada

In addition, Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) had to assign some HR advisors to departmental initiatives, such as the Duty of Care and the G7 Summit which added to the workload of HR advisors.

The information received from Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) indicates an increase in the backlog of HR actions from April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018, as shown in Exhibit 5.

Exhibit 5: Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) backlogs

Source: Workforce Analysis Unit (HSEC), Global Affairs Canada

Despite all solutions implemented, Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) was unable to reduce the backlog of HR activities. Therefore, the Department is unable to complete the staffing actions required in a timely manner which has resulted in persistent staffing shortages.

Responding to delays

The audit team expected that clients would respond in a timely manner to Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD)’s requests; and when delays are occurring during the business process both HR advisors and clients would redress the situation as soon as possible for activities under their respective control.

Clients interviewed provided numerous reasons to explain delays occurring during a staffing and/or classification process:

• The initial delay to assign an HR advisor was too long;
• The HR advisor was changed during the business process;
• There was a lack of coordination between staffing, classification, and official languages;
• There were contradictory advice provided between Business Management Office (BMO) and HR advisor;
• The HR advisor shared inadequate information at the beginning of the process;
• There was a lack of support from HR advisors as per the manager’s expectations;
• Clients stated having to resend information lost most likely due to the transfer of the file to the newly assigned HR advisor; and
• Clients stated not responding in a timely manner when dealing with staffing and/or classification actions. They rely heavily on HR advisors to remind them of their responsibilities under staffing and/or classification.

Most clients view staffing and classification processes and their related multiple steps as an administrative burden and cause for non-efficiency. They also recognized that Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) staff movement and/or lack of HR advisors is a challenge and a source of delays. Some clients also mentioned being aware of information stored in MODUS, but indicated that they do not consult it. Other clients invite HR advisors to their management meetings to discuss some issues to improve the efficiency of their staffing or classification processes. As a result, clients also contribute to delays in processing HR actions.

The audit team expected that HR advisors would justify delays associated with service standards with proposed solutions to redress the situation, hence improving service delivery. The audit team found some evidence in selected staffing and classification files of proposed solutions to improve service delivery, but did not find evidence of proposed solutions to improve or to ensure compliance to service standards. As a result, delays are not dealt with and still persist during the business process.

Clients expressed the desire to be kept updated on the progress made toward the staffing or classification action. HRMS currently provides automatic notifications at different steps of the staffing or classification actions and when it has been completed. HR advisors also stated that they regularly review the status of each HR actions under their responsibilities and discuss them with their directors.

HR advisors interviewed reported that they discuss efficiency matters informally during their HR staff meetings and recognized that efficiency is also their responsibility. They also indicated that they do not follow-up with clients who are not responding to their requests in a timely manner. Staffing and classification directors indicated that HR advisors have a heavy workload and that they establish priorities with their clients. When unforeseen situations occurred, such as departure of HR personnel, HR advisors’ portfolios are shuffled and most unplanned demands lead to delays.

Service standards

The Guideline on Service Management stipulates that a service standard is a commitment to a measurable level of performance that clients can expect under “normal circumstances”. The term “normal circumstances” refers to the expected level of supply and demand for regular day-to-day service operations. Service standards should be linked to an operational performance target and the target should take into account the risks associated with process delays and uncertainties arising from factors such as workload fluctuations, staff movements, and seasonal variations. The purpose of the operational target is to help Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) manage operations and track progress against overall delivery objectives.

Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) uses service delivery standards for performance information and to help clarify expectations for clients. A service standard provides HR advisors with performance targets and informs clients that their file will be with HR for a given period.

The audit team expected Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) to adjust its staffing and classification service standards, if necessary, to fit operational reality.  In February 2019, Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) reported to the Executive Committee (ExCo) that they were assessing the results of the first phase of service standards and would make adjustments accordingly in 2019-20.

The audit team expected that HR advisors would inform their clients on how many days it would normally take them to perform the next step in the staffing and classification processes to improve service delivery. However, interviews revealed that some clients were not aware that service standards existed for staffing and classification. HR advisors indicated that it is not their practice to share service standards with clients at the beginning of and during a process, although it is written as an objective in their 2018-19 performance agreement. The audit team noted that most clients do not fully understand the meaning of the staffing and classification service standards. For example, they understood that all stakeholders involved are accountable to meet the service standards when in fact, only HR advisors are accountable. Clients were unaware that the number of days was not consecutive. For example, 30 days are allocated to complete a non-advertised internal process, but clients stated that it could take six months to execute it from the HR action request to the letter of offer. Further, HR advisors are responsible for data entry in HRMS. They manage data entry information related to the HR action that has an impact on the total number of days to execute the HR transaction from beginning to end, such as putting “on hold” the transaction. HR advisors place the transaction ‘on hold’ when the transaction is not under their control. As a result, it creates confusion and unrealistic expectations from clients.

Recommendation #2

The Assistant Deputy Minister of Human Resources (HCM) should clarify the staffing and classification service standards to enhance communications with clients.

Feedback

The Policy on Service requires that a mechanism be available to clients to provide feedback and to address client service issues in a timely manner.

The Guideline on Service Management indicates that client feedback and issue-resolution mechanisms provide a means for departments to receive and manage input from clients, and involve recording, processing, responding to and reporting on the input received.  A service issue refers to a challenge experienced by clients at any point in the process of receiving a service. Service issues are often minor in nature and are routinely raised with HR advisors during normal client interactions. The audit team expected that there would be a formal process allowing clients to provide feedback to Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) on services received. The audit team found no formal mechanisms in place for clients to report service issues to Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD).

Most clients interviewed indicated that they did not provide written feedback to HR advisors during the course of their action process, and none of them received a feedback form from Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) at the end of their staffing and/or classification process. Most interviewees expressed a lack of interest in completing another administrative form to avoid expanding their administrative burden. The 2017-18 MAF results show that only 45 percent (5 of 11) of organizations used client feedback to improve all their priority services (Appendix D). In addition, the audit team found no post-mortem activities on the selected staffing and classification files on how to improve the processes’ service delivery from both the manager and the HR advisor’s point of view.

As previously discussed, clients had provided examples of service issues encountered during staffing and classification processes. These issues could have been collected by Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) through feedback or service issues-resolution mechanisms. As a result, the lack of client feedback and service issues-resolution mechanism limit senior management in regards to:

• Identifying areas of service design and delivery that require improvement (including reviewing and adjusting service standards, if necessary);
• Contributing to the overall evaluation of client satisfaction with Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD)’s services;
• Providing an opportunity to establish (or re-enforce) trust relationships with clients by assisting them in overcoming service related challenges; and
• Increasing operational efficiency by identifying and addressing service delivery issues.

Recommendation #3

The Assistant Deputy Minister of Human Resources (HCM) should integrate a client feedback mechanism to the staffing and classification process, and use the results to develop issue-resolution mechanisms to improve staffing and classification service delivery.

2.3 Monitoring and Reporting on Service Delivery Performance

As per the Policy on Service, deputy heads are responsible for the following:

• Monitoring compliance with this policy within their department and taking corrective action as needed; and
• Providing reports or information as requested by Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat to confirm compliance with this policy, including through existing reporting mechanisms, such as the Management Accountability Framework, or through an annual confirmation that requirements are being met.

The Guideline on Service Management proposes regular reviews to ensure service standards and operational targets are being met to help the Assistant Deputy Minister of Human Resources (HCM) determine whether resource adjustments are required. A best practice in managing service standards is to measure performance against them on a periodic basis to ensure that the service is performed at the desired level and the information used is accurate.

The audit team expected that Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) would monitor and report on staffing and classification service delivery performance, notably:

• Monitoring and reporting on progress made against staffing and classification service delivery standards;
• Monitoring and reporting on solutions used to redress situations of non-compliance to service standards; and
• Reporting on challenges encountered on the delivery of staffing and/or classification to members of the Executive Committee.

The audit team found that Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) monitored service standards to improve staffing and classification performance. Tracking of HR staffing and classification service standards is primarily performed through HRMS. However, HRMS is neither configured to allow for real-time tracking nor for automatic reminders when deadlines associated with standards are about to be exceeded.

The audit team found evidence of service standards being monitored in 2017-18 and 2018-19. In July 2018, Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) issued a dashboard to the Executive Committee for completed staffing and classification actions for the period 2017-18. The compliance rate was 88 percent for non-executive staffing, which exceeds its self-imposed target of 80 percent, and 61 percent for non-executive classification (no self-imposed target was released for classification). The Dashboard for the first two quarters of 2018-19 indicates a compliance rate of 72 percent for non-executive classification and 90 percent for non-executive staffing.

However, HR advisors are not recording information in a consistent and systematic manner. The review of a sample of staffing and classification actions revealed discrepancies in the data contained in some files related to the recording by HR advisors of key dates necessary to support monitoring of service standards data. For example, the review showed that dates for specific staffing steps were entered before the file was even automatically assigned to the HR advisor. The analyst in charge of the HR Service Standards Dashboards indicated that there is currently no control in place to ensure the accuracy of the information uploaded in HRMS, and to ensure that the information is recorded in a consistent and systematic manner. Consequently, compliance rates reported in the dashboard may be inaccurate. Without consistent and systematically recorded information, Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) cannot accurately measure if services are performed at the desired level.

The audit team expected Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) to report to members of the Executive Committee on challenges encountered on the delivery of classification and/or staffing services.

The audit team reviewed minutes from the Executive Committee, the Corporate Management Committee, and the Resource Management Committee meetings for the period April 2017 to December 2018. The audit team found evidence of discussions related to staffing and classification but limited evidence related to challenges encountered in 2017-18 on the delivery of staffing and/or classification services.

At the Executive Board Retreat in July 2018, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Human Resource (HCM) presented initiatives to expand service standards to all aspects of HR services, and to use them as performance indicators as well as for management planning; and, improving the speed of service through process simplification. This includes predictability in service delivery and consistency in the advice given by HR advisors. As previously mentioned, in February 2019, Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) made a presentation to the Executive Committee (ExCo) to discuss capacity and gaps within HR staffing and classification services.

In 2018-19, Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) reported more regularly on the challenges encountered in staffing and classification service delivery; the audit team found some evidence on corrective actions such as ongoing recruitment of HR advisors.

Recommendation #4

The Assistant Deputy Minister of Human Resources (HCM) should ensure HR advisors record data in HRMS in a consistent and systematic manner to obtain accurate and reliable information for monitoring and reporting.

3. Conclusion

The audit concluded that key elements of a control framework were in place to ensure staffing and classification service delivery, including defined and communicated roles and responsibilities; resource allocation against staffing and classification activities; adopted, communicated staffing and classification service standards.

The audit team found opportunities for improvement with regards to management practices and performance measurement and reporting to optimize service delivery in the following areas:

• Inclusion of operational objectives in manager (client) performance management agreement to improve staffing and classification service delivery;
• Learning opportunities for HR advisors regarding client service excellence;
• Clarification of service standards to enhance communication to clients;
• Feedback or service issues-resolution mechanisms informing Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) of service issues; and
• Reliability and accuracy of data for monitoring.

Appendix A: About the audit

Objective

The objective of the audit was to assess controls in place, management practices, performance measurement and reporting to optimize delivery of staffing and classification services.

Scope

The scope of the audit included business processes for the delivery of classification and staffing services under both Human Resources (HCM) and clients’ responsibility. The focus was on Canada Based Staff (CBS).

The audit team used Human Resources Management System (HRMS) database to determine a population of Human Resources Action Requests (HAR) for the period of April 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018. From the population, the audit team selected a non-statistically representative sample of 20 HARs for review. Additionally, the audit team reviewed the related 20 staffing and classification files. The sampling exercise selected HR actions for non-executive and non-pooled employees.

For staffing, the following appointment processes were included:

• External and internal processes; and
• Advertised and non-advertised processes.

For classification, these processes were included:

• Create a position with committee; and
• Reviewing and updating a position with committee.

For the purpose of the audit, the following were excluded:

• Duty of Care transactions because Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD) presented a separate report to the Executive Committee on service standards specifically related to this initiative;
• The Executive group (EX) and pooled employees because service standards for these transactions are going to be implemented in 2019-20;
• Fast Track transactions (such as student programs, acting less than four months, assignment/secondment and casual employment) because there are no service standards for  those transactions; and
• HARs related to the Office of the Chief Audit Executive and Assistant Deputy Minister Human Resources.

Locally Engaged Staff (LES) were also excluded because these actions are subject to separate terms and conditions and their HR data is captured in separate systems and spreadsheets.

Criteria

Approach and Methodology

To ensure audit objective can be achieved and concluded, the following methods were used to gather audit evidence:

• Interviews;
• Identification and analysis of relevant policies and directives;
• Review and analysis of relevant documents related to staffing and classification operations;
• Data analysis of a representative sample of staffing and classification transactions;
• Other relevant methods deemed necessary by the audit team; and
• Use of evidence already gathered through previous preliminary survey and audits.

Appendix B: Staffing process

Source: The Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer (OCHRO) - Common Human Resources Business Process

Appendix C: Classification process

Source: The Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer (OCHRO) - Common Human Resources Business Process

Appendix D: Management accountability framework

Service management was assessed government-wide through the Management Accountability Framework (MAF). The MAF is a key tool of oversight that is used by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) to help ensure that federal departments and agencies are well managed, accountable and that resources are allocated to achieve results. It also ensures that Treasury Board Policy Suite requirements and expected results are met.

In 2017-18, specific questions were asked to 11 large departments (*) in the federal government with the following answers:

1. What percentage of the department’s or agency’s priority services has service standards?
   
   91% (10/11) have developed services standards for most of their priority services.
2. What percentage of the department’s or agency’s service standards for priority services were reviewed and updated, if required?
   
   82% (9 of 11) of them reviewed most (over 80%) of their service standards regularly.
3. What percentage of service standard targets for priority services is being met?
   
   82% (9 of 11) organizations were struggling to meet the service standards they established.
4. What is the percentage of the department’s or agency’s priority services for which client satisfaction assessment has been undertaken?
   
   While 82% (9 of 11) of organizations conducted client satisfaction assessments for some of their priority services, only 4 conducted it for all of their priority services.
5. What percentage of the department’s or agency’s priority services was improved based on client feedback?
   
   Only 45% (5 of 11) of organizations used client feedback to improve all their priority services.

Source: 2017-18 Government-wide Management Accountability Framework reporting data, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

(*) Global Affairs Canada was not part of the assessment.

Appendix E: Sampling strategy

The audit team used Human Resources Management System (HRMS) database to determine a population of completed Human Resources Action Requests (HAR) for the period of April 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018. From the population, the audit team selected a non-statistically representative sample of 20 HARs for review. Additionally, the audit team reviewed the related 20 staffing and classification files. The sampling exercise selected HR actions for non-executive and non-pooled employees.

Population

For staffing, the following appointment processes were the only ones taken into consideration as agreed upon with Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD):

• External and internal processes; and
• Advertised and non-advertised processes.

For classification, these processes were the only ones taken into consideration as agreed upon with Corporate Human Resources Strategies and Operational Services (HSD):

• Create a position with committee; and
• Reviewing and updating a position with committee.

The extract from the HRMS database resulted in 721 staffing transactions and 85 classification transactions for the period from April 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018.

Staffing

Classification

The following factors were considered for selecting a sample of 20 transactions:

• The HR advisor and client for a given process are still with the organization;
• Transactions that took longer than the service standards;
• Transactions  that took less time than the service standards;
• Branches with the highest volume of transactions; and
• Occupational groups with the highest volume of transactions.

Sample Coverage

The following tables identify the coverage by action type, by occupational group, and by branch.

Coverage by Action Type

Coverage by Occupational Group

Coverage by Branch

Appendix F: Management action plan