Review of Change Management Practices

Warning This Web page has been archived on the Web.

Internal Audit Branch

378-1-239

April 3, 2008

PDF 590 kb

Table of contents

 

Executive Summary

As part of the 2007-08 internal audit plan, a review of change management and project management practices at the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) was conducted by the Internal Audit Branch with the assistance of Deloitte. This review examined four specific change initiatives to assess how they compared to established change and project management best practices. The four initiatives were the Aboriginal Strategy, the Institutional Management Structure Initiative (IMSI), the HR Strategy and the Community Restructuring Initiative (CRI). Based on the specific findings for each initiative, as well as other contextual interviews, CSC’s overall performance in the management of change was assessed.

Overall, CSC shows strength in its management of the early stages of change initiatives (i.e. making the case for change, getting mobilized and then articulating and communicating the vision). The record is more mixed when it comes to sustaining communications, generating early wins to build momentum, and then keeping the focus required to sustain and institutionalize the change.

Focusing on the four specific initiatives, the Aboriginal Strategy seems to be best positioned overall against the Change Management Framework used in the analysis, although some continued focus will be required to ensure operational employees take ownership of the Strategy. The HR Strategy is also off to a good start from a change and project management perspective, but would benefit from the adoption of a formal project or program management approach as it orchestrates multiple sub-initiatives over the next two years. The CRI is scheduled to complete its original 2004 mandate by April 2008, at which time a formal lessons learned process would be of benefit. IMSI has had a strong launch, but there is risk that the initiative will not be sustained if the ongoing leadership and resourcing are not maintained.

In terms of project management, there is little evidence that initiative leaders are systematically adopting formal project management protocols in the management of their change programs. However, some strong practices do exist and there may be opportunities to leverage expertise in IT.

The review also identified a number of existing practices that CSC can leverage to improve the management of change. For example, the focus that CSC has been placing on management practices over the last few years is yielding dividends. These dividends include increased resources in corporate communications, the creation of an ongoing communications effectiveness survey and an increased focus on performance management, reporting and risk. In addition, the approach to the recent Report of the Correctional Service of Canada Review Panel recommendations seems consistent with leading change management practices and the magnitude of the potential changes.

It is also recommended that, going forward, CSC focus on the following additional opportunities for improvement:

  • The adoption of formal Change and Project Management methodologies, practices and tools;
  • The creation of a Centre of Expertise for Change and Project Management to develop internal capacity and expertise and to facilitate knowledge exchange across change initiatives;
  • Increased focus on the involvement of front-line CSC employees in designing and implementing change;
  • The adoption of a portfolio management perspective at the corporate level to manage the overall portfolio of change initiatives, set priorities, allocate change resources, and ensure integration across organizational "silos"; and
  • Strengthened accountabilities for initiative leaders (for recognizing successes and responding to challenges), as well as processes to ensure continuity of ownership and sustained focus on implementation in the face of staff and financial changes.

The implementation of the Review Panel recommendations is an opportunity to build many of the processes, methodologies and capacities outlined in the options for improvement. Used strategically, the Transformation Team charged with leading the implementation of the wide-reaching Panel recommendations, may leave a secondary legacy of improved change and project management for future CSC initiatives.

Opportunities for improvement have been made in the report to address the review findings. Senior management has reviewed, and agrees with, the findings contained in the report. A management response is included in Appendix D.

Introduction and Scope

As a federal government agency, Correctional Service Canada (CSC) is responsible for managing institutions of various security levels and supervising offenders under conditional release in the community. CSC is one component of the larger criminal justice system, and works closely with other partners in the Public Safety Canada portfolio, including the National Parole Board and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

CSC employs approximately 14,500 staff in 58 institutions, 16 community correctional centres and 71 parole offices across Canada Consistent with its security-focused, 24x7 mandate, CSC has a strong operational culture. It is a highly de-centralized organization, with almost 90 percent of staff working in the field under the direction of institutional and regional leadership supported by specialized headquarters policy leaders.

CSC is evolving to meet the growing and changing demands associated with an increased focus by Canadians on public safety and security and a government with a "tough on crime" agenda. In addition, its offender population is ageing and has increasing rates of mental illness, addiction, violent behaviour and gang affiliations. At the same time, 90 percent of CSC’s funding is non-discretionary and it faces a significant capital deficit. Within this context, CSC is introducing and implementing changes to support its strategic and operational objectives, including improvements to its management practices.Accordingly, it is critical that these change initiatives be effectively managed to ensure that desired results are achieved, and that risks and opportunities are identified and managed.

In 2007, an Independent Review Panel was established by the government to review CSC’s priorities, strategies and operational plans with a view to enhancing public safety. The report of the Panel, tabled in October, 2007, lays out 109 recommendations which touch every aspect of CSC’s operations. As CSC finalizes its response to the Panel report, it will face a new, comprehensive set of changes to its principles, policies and operations that will require very careful management in their implementation.

Initial consultations conducted by the Audit Branch of CSC suggested that controls to support effective change management for major initiatives may require reinforcement to ensure the effectiveness and sustainability of change initiatives. The Audit Branch engaged Deloitte to conduct a risk assessment of CSC’s change management and project management practices to ensure CSC can effectively manage large-scale organizational change initiatives.

Scope

The Audit Branch required that the risk assessment of CSC’s organizational readiness and change management processes examine the current situation and identify potential recommendations for areas of improvement. It also requested that existing best practices be identified to help improve change management strategies, processes and tools to help build the change capacity of CSC going forward.

The scope of the assessment includes change management processes for both CSC overall and four selected individual change projects. At the organizational level, the focus of the risk assessment was to understand the processes in place related to assessing readiness for change and supporting change initiatives. The assessment also includes an examination of the past track record of CSC in implementing change, and its ability to incorporate lessons learned from past initiatives. At the initiative level, four were selected by CSC to provide a variety of initiatives of different scope and at different stages of implementation. The four initiatives identified were:

  • Aboriginal Strategy;
  • Strategic Plan for HR Management;
  • Community Restructuring Initiative (CRI); and
  • Institutional Management Structure (IMSI) and Correctional Officer Deployment Initiative (CODI).

The project scope also included an assessment of the existing project management infrastructure to implement change, including the existence of methodologies, standard systems and procedures, knowledge management and communications.

Review Approach and Methodology

Approach

Our approach to this engagement builds on Deloitte’s experience in conducting reviews and assessments, as well as deep technical expertise in both change management and project management. The RFP identified three specific areas of focus for this risk assessment:

  1. Overall Organizational Change Readiness;
  2. Initiative Change Readiness; and
  3. Project Management Assessment.

The workplan was designed to address these three areas of focus in an efficient and effective way, recognizing that it will be important to first understand and assess the change management practices and project management methodologies and infrastructure employed at the organizational level, followed by an assessment of these same practices, methodologies and infrastructure at the individual change initiative level.

The following diagram depicts our approach to this project including specific activities and deliverables at each stage of the project.

  Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
T
i
m
e
l
i
n
e
Project
Start-up
and
Planning
Data
Collection
Findings
Development
Opportunity
Development
and
Reporting
Late-Dec
to
Early-Jan
Early-Jan
to
Late-Feb
Late-Feb March
 
  • Hold start-up meeting to discuss and confirm:
    • Project scope and objectives;
    • Project plan including activities and timelines;
    • Interview list; and
    • Documents to be reviewed.
  • Collect and review relevant documents
  • Develop interview guide for key contextual interviews
  • Conduct key contextual interviews
  • Develop Draft Risk Assessment Framework
  • Submit Draft Assessment Framework to client for review, and revise, as required
  • Develop detailed interview guides to cover three main lines of inquiry:
    • Organizational Change Readiness
    • Initiative Change Readiness
    • Project Management Assessment
  • Conduct interviews and review related documentation
  • Assess existing practices against Risk Assessment Framework
  • Identify SWOT, key gaps in practices, existing controls and potential risks
  • Develop draft Findings Report related to change management and project management at two levels:
    • Organization-level
    • Initiative-level
  • Hold working session to review draft report with client
  • Identify opportunities for improvement for change management and project management at both the organization and change initiative level
  • Develop recommendations
  • Develop draft Final Summary Report
  • Hold working session to review draft report with client
  • Finalize Final Summary Report, based on feedback from client
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
a
b
l
e
s
  • Project Plan (activities and timelines)
  • Risk Assessment Frameworks
  • Interview Guides
  • Draft Findings Report
  • Draft Final Summary Report
  • Final Summary Report
Project Management and Communications

It should be noted that the approach is consistent with a high-level review, relying on senior level interviews and four to six documents per initiative. There was no independent verification of views or direct input from front-line employees. Based on the information collected, Deloitte has exercised its professional judgement in assessing change and project management risks. The review does not assess the scope, objectives or substantive approach of the initiatives themselves; it seeks to evaluate them as change projects against established change and project management approaches.

Methodology

In order to assess the current practices of CSC, Deloitte identified comprehensive, recognized and accepted change management and project management frameworks against which CSC could be compared. It should be noted at the outset that these frameworks were applied retroactively - neither CSC as a whole, nor the leaders of the specific initiatives examined, have explicitly applied these frameworks. This methodology has the advantage of providing a benchmark against leading practices, thereby highlighting some areas of existing strength and potential risk. However, the findings should not be read as a criticism for not having followed a specific methodology.

Change Management Framework

The change management framework illustrated below is based on the widely used work of John Kotter and Dan Cohen. It provides a robust, but high-level approach to change that is applicable to most types of organizational change and transformation. It outlines eight key steps, grouped under three phases of change.

Creating the climate for change involves establishing a motivating case for change, getting the governance and leadership in place to guide the change and articulating a vision that will resonate with employees. Engaging and enabling the organization is about planning and delivering communications designed to appeal to employees from messengers they will trust, resourcing the change program and working through barriers, and looking to drive more immediate changes that will build credibility and momentum. Finally, implementing and sustaining transformation requires maintaining leadership focus, retaining implementation resources and ensuring the changes to culture and infrastructure required to institutionalize the change actually happen.

Create a
Climate for
Change
p Engage and
Enable the
Organization
p Implement and
Sustain
Transformation
  • Increase Urgency
  • Build Guiding Teams
  • Get the Right Vision
 
  • Communicate for Buy In
  • Enable Action
  • Create Short -Term Wins
 
  • Don’t Let Up
  • Make It Stick
Examples Include   Examples Include   Examples Include
  • Obtain powerful testimonies from important stakeholders that have left or are dissatisfied.
  • Collect data about the organization's errors, failures
    and missed opportunities.
  • Provide data that prioritizes transformation activities and points to specific areas that need to change.
  • Identify key enablers for the change.
  • Gather explicit statements about desirability.
 
  • Managers express the vision in their own words and articulate what it means for their unit or group.
  • Resources are being freed up.
  • Key influencers are using results of short-term wins to demonstrate feasibility of vision.
 
  • Other related systems and infrastructures are being changed to fit with the vision.
  • Progress is monitored and measured by guiding teams
  • Change leaders are sought for advice and input.
  • Old habits, values and traditions are used to describe how things have changed.
  • High tenure people leave the organization or unit because they acknowledge they don’t fit in anymore.

This model was validated with the project authority, and then adapted for use in the risk assessment by converting each of the eight steps into a risk factor for evaluation. The detailed criteria used to assess each area are described in Appendix C. The criteria were developed to ensure that existing best practices, weaknesses and risks were identified. Summary definitions for each of the risk factors are provided in the table below:

Change Management Element Definitions
Urgency Assesses the degree to which the shared sense of urgency needed to achieve cooperation and build momentum for the change effort was created.
Guiding Teams Assesses whether the right people are in the right positions and doing the right things to lead the change effort, such as championing the initiative, managing resistance and providing resources, approvals and oversight.
Vision Assesses whether a compelling picture of the future and how the organization will get there has been articulated to stakeholders.
Communications Assesses whether the urgency, vision and strategies for change have been ly communicated to and understood by both leaders and stakeholders. It also assesses the degree to which communications appeal to and provide relevant, specific information to front-line employees who are expected to change their practices or behaviour as a result of the change.
Enablement Assesses whether the organization and its members have the structures, skills and systems needed to break through barriers and implement the vision.
Short Term Wins Assesses whether there is a strategy and plan to demonstrate progress through inspiring short-term wins designed to appeal to stakeholder interests.
Perseverance Assesses whether there are processes and strategies to maintain momentum through continued focus, management monitoring and dedicated project resources.
Making It Stick Assesses whether the organization’s norms, values and practices are being re-aligned through concerted changes to organizations, processes, supports, performance incentives and leadership behaviours to be consistent with the future state objective.

 

The Risk Wheel

Risk Wheel
Illustrative

In order to summarize the findings and assessment of overall change risk and a comparative evaluation of each initiative, Deloitte’s "risk wheel" tool has been adapted to provide a results profile against eight risk factors. The risk wheel graphically illustrates the degree of effectiveness of CSC’s change efforts and will help to determine the areas to focus on in the future. The degree of change risk is reported on the Risk Wheel using color coded dots (described below):

 

Color Description
Green Lignt Best Practice / Minimal Risk

The change activities to date have been consistent with leading practices and should not be risk factors in the achievement of project objectives.
Yellow Light Fundamental Practices / Potential Risk

There has been some activity aligned with this element of the framework; however, more focus may be required to ensure project objectives are not put at risk.
Red Light Limited or No Practices / Possible Significant Risk

There is no or limited evidence of focus on this element of the change framework. There may be significant risk to change acceptance and project objectives unless this area is addressed. An area coloured red does NOT necessarily indicate that something has gone wrong or has been done badly, but indicates only that the area needs attention.
White Light No Observations / Too Early to Tell

The initiative has not yet reached the point where it would be expected to have addressed the element of the framework, or no information was available to assess the element.

Project Management Framework

The project management framework below is based on Deloitte’s Project Management Methodology (PMM4TM) and the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK). This widely accepted and used project management approach includes a single, adaptable methodology and toolset to promote effective management in projects over five standard stages. While there is some overlap with steps in the change management framework, the project management framework focuses more tactically on detailed issues such as business case development, project planning, monitoring and risk management. It is complementary to the more strategic change management framework.

Stages
Project
Initiation
Project
Planning
Project
Mobilization &
Execution
Project
Controlling
& Monitoring

Project
Closing
Major Activities
Define Project
Goals
Create Work
Breakdown
Structure (WBS)
Acquire &
Organize Project
Resources
Measure
Performance
Obtain Acceptance
Of Deliverables
Define Project
Scope
Determine
Resource
Requirements
Manage Progress
Take Corrective
Action
Document Lessons
Learned
Document
Constraints &
Assumptions
Refine Time
& Cost Estimates
Communicate
Progress
Respond To Risk
Event Triggers
Archive
Documentation
Define Budget Develop Project
Plan
Manage
Scope Changes
Monitor Project
Activity
Evaluate
& Release
Resources
Gain Management
Approval
Obtain Plan
Approval
     

 

Project Management Element Definition
Project Initiation Assesses the beginning stages of the project, from idea realization through development and evaluation of the business case and prioritization of the potential project against organizational priorities and resource constraints.
Project Planning Assesses the planning for resourcing and execution of project activities, which will form the basis of the project management process throughout the project lifecycle.
Project Mobilization & Execution Assesses whether the project has been mobilized and activities are executed, tracked and measured against the Project Plan.
Project Controlling & Monitoring Assesses whether there is evaluation of project success and continual review of the project status against the original project business case.
Project Closing Assesses whether successful aspects, opportunities for improvement and team performance are evaluated, so that knowledge gained can be leveraged in future projects.

Review Findings - Change Management

CSC Overall

Overall CSC Change Readiness

The findings in this section represent Deloitte’s professional opinion of change management at CSC based on all documents reviewed and all interviews conducted. They are derived both from assessments of the four specific initiatives, as well as other general observations from interviewees on CSC’s evolving approach to change management.

Overall, CSC shows some strength in the first phases of change management, covering urgency, guiding teams, vision and some aspects of communications. However, there has been limited use of short-term win strategies, and additional focus and resources may be required to ensure initiatives are fully implemented and sustained for the longer-term

Change Management Element Findings
Urgency CSC seems to be able to mobilize quickly, particularly if a problem arises from operations. It also makes effective use of operational data to make the case for change based on correctional outcomes.
Guiding Teams CSC does well at striking representative task forces to address issues, develop proposals for changes and gain executive approval. Its record is less consistent when it comes to resourcing implementation teams, both nationally and in the regions, and in maintaining executive attention and managing resistance to proposed changes.

There were mixed views on the use of recently retired or end of career employees on project teams. While they bring deep knowledge and legitimacy to initiatives, some were concerned about their impact on the continuity of leadership for initiatives.
Vision CSC initiatives generally appear to have clear statements of vision and objectives, with endorsements from either the Commissioner or Senior Deputy Commissioner. More attention could be given to articulating (and ultimately measuring) the vision statements in ways that appeal more directly to the interests of front-line employees.
Communications None of the initiatives reviewed had comprehensive communication plans. Most had strong launch communication packages, but little systemic follow-up messaging or updates. There also has been no verification of communications effectiveness. However, Corporate Communications will include some questions related to IMSI in its second annual CSC wide survey in the Spring of 2008.

A few of the initiatives relied in part on the publication of updated policy instruments (i.e. Commissioner’s Directives and Guidelines) to communicate important changes. While these documents play a central role in CSC’s operations, major changes should also be accompanied by other training or communications to provide more context and explanation to affected staff.
Enablement CSC seems to do a good job of removing the large, structural barriers to changes such as policies, organization structures and job classifications. It also seems to leverage executive performance management plans by adding initiative specific performance goals. It seems to be less consistent at identifying and addressing cultural, regional and operational barriers.

CSC does not have a consistent approach to how it resources project implementations. Some initiatives have dedicated implementation teams, at least through the early phases, while others have no dedicated resources.
Short Term Wins CSC does not systematically prioritize (target, define and measure) short-term wins on large initiatives.
Perseverance Many interviewees felt CSC had challenges in maintaining focus on and support for initiatives after their initial launch. However, the regular review of Report on Plans and Priorities (RPP) commitments does provide a regular forum for senior management to review progress against high-level objectives.
Making It Stick Similar to Perseverance, it appears that CSC does not achieve optimal results on its change initiatives over the medium and longer term.

In summary, CSC does not have a common approach to change management, nor are there identified experts or resources available to assist managers in leading change initiatives. CSC seems to do reasonably well at using task forces and broad-based consultations to develop high-level plans and policies, but has been less successful in achieving the full potential of its change initiatives.

At a macro level, there are concerns about the degree of integration between and coordination of CSC’s various strategic initiatives. For example, both IMSI and CRI focused on management structures at the level of the operating unit (Institutions and Districts respectively), without also considering the interrelationship of these structures with the supporting Regional organization. CRI has been impacted by the Citizen Engagement initiative and could be affected by the Regional Infrastructure Review; however, these impacts were not planned and coordinated.

The Commissioner’s priority on improving management practices, including processes and capacity, will clearly assist in future change initiatives. Internal communications capacity is growing, HR is becoming more business focused and performance management processes, such as the regular reporting on RPP commitments, are beginning to mature. Where specific funds are allocated to an initiative, Finance is also conducting high-level tracking of the use of the funds. All of these developments will be of assistance to future change initiatives.

Initiative Change Readiness

Aboriginal CSC Overall

Aboriginal Strategy

Initiative Description:

The Aboriginal Strategy is a series of programs and initiatives designed to implement the vision to have "a federal correctional system that is responsive to the needs of Aboriginal offenders and contributes to safe and healthy communities." Specific activities include the implementation of an Aboriginal Corrections Continuum of Care to ensure that aboriginal considerations are included from intake through to release, as well as improving collaboration with aboriginal and other government organizations, and increasing awareness of aboriginal issues within CSC.

Initiative Status:

CSC is currently working towards the implementation of the Aboriginal Initiative’s 2006-2011 strategic plan. It has central and regional resources identified and earmarked to support most of its implementation.

Change Management Element Findings
Urgency The Aboriginal Strategy makes excellent use of statistics and demographic trends to make the case for improving the correctional outcomes of aboriginal inmates, both as an immediate priority and a longer-term strategic consideration. The current approach also specifically addresses identified weaknesses in earlier attempts to institute aboriginal approaches to corrections.
Guiding Teams The Aboriginal Strategy has a permanent, central coordinating unit in HQ as well as resources in each region. It also has an established governance structure with senior executive sponsorship from the Senior Deputy Commissioner, a dedicated Director General and a number of national and regional committees.

Resources are in place to support the Strategy in all regions. While the level of focus varies by region, the Regional Deputy Commissioners in regions with high aboriginal populations are demonstrating consistent ownership of the Aboriginal Strategy.
Vision The Aboriginal Strategy has a clearly articulated vision statement that provides a high-level objective for the Strategy. The vision further articulates three priorities that make it more tangible to stakeholders. The vision has significant appeal to aboriginal offenders and aboriginal organizations; however, it does not directly address the interests or concerns of front-line CSC employees who are expected to incorporate aboriginal programs and perspectives into their work processes.
Communications There were broad, regionally focused consultations in the design of the Strategy and the level of involvement has remained high in implementation. The leaders of the Strategy recognize that the different levels of CSC (front lines - institutions - regions - HQ) have different interests and have done some targeting of their communications to specific interests. Overall however, communications have not been designed to address the perspectives of employees who do not work full-time in aboriginal programs but who are expected to incorporate aboriginal strategies into their work processes.

A broad Strategy launch communications effort has been followed by communications more concentrated on the National Action Plan as opposed to regional plans. While some communications are also taking place within regions, it is not centrally coordinated or tracked. Please note, however, that there have been no assessments of communications effectiveness.
Enablement Objectives related to the Aboriginal Strategy have been included in the performance plans of Wardens, Regional Deputy Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners. Training has been developed and is being deployed nationally to improve cultural competence. Policy barriers are being identified and resources are in place to help embed aboriginal programs into CSC’s operations.

The program sponsors periodic, national meetings of regional staff to report on progress against milestones and share learning and best practices.
Short Term Wins While the Strategy did not have an explicit short-term win approach, Strategy leaders moved quickly to implement some of its programs and to add Aboriginal Program Officers in institutions. They also made effective use of pilot programs as a way of showing tangible progress with available resources while managing program risk.
Perseverance Since some of the Aboriginal Strategy funding came from TB Submissions, periodic evaluation is required. As a result, CSC executives are formally briefed on progress at least twice a year, and formal evaluations of different elements of the strategy are underway or planned. Most funding cannot be re-allocated without external approvals. Results are also reported at the regional level.
Making It Stick The Aboriginal Initiatives Directorate is working to systematically update CSC policies and procedures so that elements of the Aboriginal Strategy are embedded throughout the policy suite, as well as in the updated Commissioners Directive 702 specific to Aboriginal programs.

Funded positions have been added throughout CSC, most on a permanent basis. The Strategy is now looking to update the Offender Management System (OMS) to further integrate aspects of aboriginal programs into operations and provide ongoing tracking and reporting capabilities. It is also looking at correctional officer selection standards and training, with a view to systematically building cultural competency into the workforce.

It should be noted that the Aboriginal Initiatives Directorate has a small central fund which it uses to fund pilot projects in sectors and regions, as well as knowledge exchange across CSC’s dispersed operations. This has been a key success factor in the delivery of the Strategy thus far.

In summary, the Aboriginal Strategy is well positioned against the change management framework. Over the longer term, continued focus on instilling operations ownership of key elements of the aboriginal strategy will be critical to making the strategy "stick."

Strategic Plan for HR Management

HR Strategy CSC Overall

Initiative Description:

The Strategic Plan for HR Management is a three-year (2007-2010) plan focused on four priorities: strengthened HR management practices; an effective, representative workforce; learning, training and development; and improved workplace health and labour relations. Each priority area has specific plans and activities sequenced over the three years.

Initiative Status:

The Strategic Plan is just concluding its first year of implementation. Progress is being made on the specific plans and activities, consistent with the Plan’s timelines.
While successfully meeting the objectives of the Strategic Plan will have significant benefits to CSC, it is important to note that the Plan itself is not a change initiative per se. It is a multi-year program with four priorities, eleven projects and dozens of deliverables. A number of these projects could be viewed as change initiatives in and of themselves. While the Change Risk Framework has been applied to the Strategic Plan as a whole, some elements may be more applicable to specific projects flowing from the plan.

Change Management Element Findings
Urgency The Strategic Plan presents a strong case for improving HR management performance based on labour market and internal workforce trends. It also draws a clear link from known business and operational issues and risks to HR management.
Guiding Teams The National HR Management Committee and the Executive Committee have both provided oversight and leadership to the Strategic Plan and its implementation. The Plan does not have a dedicated project team, but is the major strategic focus of the HR leadership team. The HR leadership team includes a number of executives with deep operational experience, thereby adding a desirable balance between the functional and operational perspectives on HR.
Vision The Strategic Plan articulates its vision in terms of business problems it hopes to solve or avoid. It provides ample detail on the actions required to realize the plan and sets some expectations for the roles to be played by managers and HR specialists. However, the vision is not designed to appeal directly to the interests of the broader base of employees at CSC.
Communications The Plan had a substantial communications launch, with a message from the Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of HR, town hall meetings, union briefings, briefings to regional management committees and a dedicated web page with FAQ’s. A longer-term communications plan is being drafted. There have been some attempts to focus messages to specific audiences based on their interests. For example, specialized communications are being planned for those affected by changes to grievance processes. No assessments of communications effectiveness have been conducted to date.
Enablement Some funding was provided to the Strategic Plan, both from Public Service Modernization reserves and CSC’s own base.

Related objectives have been added to the performance management plans of executives from the Director General level and up.

Technology enablers (e.g. HRIS upgrade and an HR Planning application) have been planned and funding is being requested. HR is also re-examining its own processes and efficiency levels through a re-engineering exercise.
Short Term Wins A short term win strategy is being adopted for the HR re-engineering project. Short-term win strategies have not been developed for other projects; however the Strategic Plan prioritized some higher profile projects such as grievance delegations, succession planning and aboriginal recruitment. There has been some targeted communication of early successes.
Perseverance Progress against milestones is being monitored at a senior level on a quarterly basis. HR is planning to implement more outcome-based measurement in subsequent years of the Plan. Planning is also under way for a formal, five-year evaluation. In addition, because some funding is drawn from central Public Service Modernization reserves, additional reporting will be required.

As detailed planning takes place for individual projects under the Strategic Plan, HR is continually updating the plan and ensuring ongoing support from the Assistant Commissioner and Executive Committee where required. The creation of detailed regional implementation plans will also provide another set of benchmarks to measure progress against.

The main concern in this are is the lack of dedicated resources to focus on the coordination and tracking of the various projects under the HR Strategy.
Making It Stick This element of the change framework is less applicable to the Strategic Plan. Sub-projects of the Plan (e.g. improved labour relations or the HRIS upgrade) will require focused attention to how they ensure the desired changes become the norm at CSC.

The Strategic Plan for HR Management is relatively well positioned against the Change Risk Framework. Its primary challenges will be to ensure that its communications are being understood by stakeholders and that the headquarters-based team driving the Plan remains linked and responsive to regional and operational perspectives as the Plan continues to evolve. On the latter concern, processes are in place to produce implementation plans in each region for years two and three of the Strategic Plan, which should help mitigate this potential risk.

Community Restructuring Initiative

CRI CSC Overall

Initiative Description:

The Community Restructuring Initiative (CRI) is a project to standardize the governance structure, offender population size and staff complement for the management of offenders on parole across CSC. This initiative was expected to rationalize the administrative and management structure and enhance operational and administrative effectiveness. Not all leaders within CSC view the initiative as a major change program because its scope was very focused on management and governance structures. CRI was not expected to have a significant impact on how front-line employees work with offenders in the community.

Initiative Status:

The core recommendations for CRI were provided by a working committee report in 2003. CSC’s Executive Committee approved the plan in 2004. The number of parole districts was reduced from sixteen to eight in 2006, each with a District Director and an offender population of between 810 and 1,000. Some reclassifications have occurred and the remaining Generic Work Descriptions will be completed by March, 2008.

Change
Management
Element
Findings
Urgency The original working group report focuses the case for change on the relatively high risks to the public associated with managing offenders on parole in the community, relative to institutions, and the corresponding need for an effective model for community corrections. However, the problem statement highlights a number of broader issues in how CSC resources, coordinates and oversees Community Corrections that are not specifically addressed by the CRI.
Guiding Teams The initial working group had a strong membership and sponsorship from CSC’s Executive Committee. It conducted consultations across the country and gained approval from the Executive Committee for its recommendations. However, no specific oversight, consultative or working groups were mandated to support the implementation of the CRI. Periodic calls and meetings of District Directors, along with the Director of Community Reintegration are now taking place.
Vision While the vision and end state were clearly articulated, many believe the vision was too narrowly focused on structure and did not give sufficient consideration to regional or operational issues, or to support systems and management practices.
Communications CRI did not have a communications plan and minimal communications have occurred in support of the initiative. Some interviewees felt the original consultations did not build adequate understanding of the initiative or take sufficient account of concerns expressed in the regions.

A concern was also expressed that messages and updates from headquarters were not being passed on by managers to front-line employees. A recent update on CRI was sent directly to all employees and this approach may be used more frequently in the future. Extensive consultations with unions, managers and staff have been continued as the detailed implementation plans have been finalized. No assessments of communications effectiveness have been conducted.
Enablement Some changes to policy have been made in support of CRI. In addition, some positions have been reclassified and National Generic Work Descriptions are being finalized. The National Human Resources Management Committee has approved each step of the implementation. Unlike most other initiatives, CRI was not able to assure employees that there would be no reduction in positions which made gaining employee and union support more difficult.

To fully realize the potential of the CRI, changes will be required to the Offender Management System (OMS), reporting and support tools, and the support to districts from the regional management structure. These changes were not considered within the scope of the current initiative.
Short Term
Wins
There was no short-term win strategy for CRI.
Perseverance The initiative has not had a dedicated resource for most of its implementation and did not receive any implementation funding. It was recently given funding for a short-term resource to complete the remaining aspects of the HR plan.

The initiative has not received consistent focus and monitoring from senior management, but has remained as a corporate objective in the CSC Report on Plans and Priorities. In spite of numerous challenges and delays, the initiative is expected to complete its original mandate by March 2008.
Making It Stick This element of the change framework is less applicable to CRI. The rationalization of districts and imposition of a standardized, national governance and resource model will soon be completed. Broader, systemic changes to community corrections operations were not explicitly part of the mandate of the initiative.

The CRI has shown strengths in its ability to stay engaged with Community staff union representatives and to continue to push forward in spite of resource, mandate and extraneous challenges. However, relative to the change risk framework, a number of significant gaps are apparent which undoubtedly contributed to the delayed implementation of CRI.

Institutional Management Structure and Correctional Officer Deployment Initiative

IMSI, CSC Overall

Initiative Description:

The Institutional Management Structure initiative (IMSI) is a project to standardize the management structure for the different types of correctional institutions across CSC in order to better manage contemporary inmate populations. The objective is to better integrate correctional operations and correctional interventions, thereby improving security and other correctional outcomes. While its title suggests IMSI is focused on structure, the initiative also includes a redefinition of key management practices, committees and roles and responsibilities at the institutional level.
The Correctional Officer Deployment Initiative (CODI), which addresses the deployment of officers to security activities, has been put on hold in order to consider the implications of the CSC Review Panel recommendations. As a result, this risk assessment focuses on the IMSI initiative.

Initiative Status:

The structural changes flowing from IMSI were formally implemented in September 2007, and were accompanied by a number of new and revised managerial positions, some change management training and an HR strategy as well as detailed roles, responsibilities and expectations in the form of a detailed policy guideline. In addition, policies are being updated to create a set of advisory committees covering all regions and levels of management, with the goal of providing ongoing feedback on the implementation of IMSI.

Change
Management
Element
Findings
Urgency The case for change focuses on the results of a series of internal and third party reports at both the national and regional level concluding that the existing Unit Management driven approach is no longer meeting the needs of the institutions.
Guiding Teams IMSI had appropriate senior level sponsorship. However it is felt that sponsorship could have been more visible to the broader organization and that IMSI would have benefited from more senior executive focus. The initial project team relied heavily on recently retired or soon-to-be retired leaders to create the initial model. While this approach had the advantage of providing dedicated resources with expertise and legitimacy, it may have undermined the continuity of ownership for the initiative, since not all members of the IMSI design team were still involved during the implementation stage, including the overall lead.

The broader team was composed of a mix of headquarters and regional members with a diverse set of backgrounds and high levels of credibility within CSC. In addition to the central project leadership, broad regional consultations were conducted to examine the proposed structure.
Vision The vision articulated the corporate objectives for the initiative and the expected benefits. It expressed the expected benefits to CSC stakeholders but did not focus on the role various stakeholders should play in support of the change.
Communications Communications to date have included consultations on IMSI development, one message from the Commissioner, a presentation deck, FAQs on the CSC intranet and a detailed policy guideline. In addition, trainers were trained in each region to lead sessions with affected staff covering both the substance of the changes as well as change management skills. The subsequent training was then delivered to affected employees in the regions. While this was an important part of the roll-out plan, its impact might have been more significant if the training had been delivered prior to the launch of the new structure.

There was no formal communications plan to support the initiative after its launch in September.While no assessments of communications effectiveness have been conducted to date, the planned creation of various Internal Advisory Committees will provide standing forums to validate communications effectiveness.
Enablement The leaders of the initiative have attempted to manage potential resistance in two key areas. First, they have involved existing Unit Managers extensively in the initiative as incumbents of these roles are disproportionately affected by IMSI. Second, they responded to early feedback that the new model risked creating "silos" between clinical programs and operations by building management practices into the model to bridge these two key areas. These management practices were reinforced by changes to the standard training curriculum for managers.

The initiative will be cost neutral overall; however, to enable the initiative, some initial funding was provided (e.g. the project team, training and consultation).

In addition, changes were made to OMS to reflect the new IMSI and Regional Deputy Commissioners had a performance objective tied to IMSI.
Short Term Wins IMSI did not have an explicit short-term wins strategy. The initiative’s Results-based Management Accountability Framework (RMAF) identifies four immediate outcomes: staff awareness of new roles; infrastructure in place; national consistency; and feedback mechanisms established. These have been accomplished, but it is not clear whether the success has been communicated to stakeholders, particularly at the local level.
Perseverance There was significant leadership focus on making the September launch date. However, since the launch, project team members have moved back to other roles.

A new Management Structure group has been formed under the leadership of the Senior Deputy Commissioner (SDC) to pursue the next steps of the initiative (e.g. reviewing the regional and national organizations in the overall context of the new Institutional Management Structure).
Making It Stick While successes to date do not seem to have been celebrated by the organization, the IMSI team has made significant progress against its objectives. The planned structural changes have been made, as have a number of supporting changes to policies, systems and processes. Additional changes to the core operational policies are planned once feedback has been received from the new Internal Advisory Committees. In addition, controls are in place to require high level approvals for any deviation from the new model.

A Management Structure group has been put in place under the leadership of the SDC to support the next steps of the initiative. Maintaining visible leadership and continued support for IMSI and the new Internal Advisory Committees will be critical, and should be focused on responding to challenges experienced in the field with the new structure and, in particular, on re-enforcing the changes to management practices and operational culture required to realize the full potential of the new model.

Relative to the Change Risk Framework, IMSI compares relatively well on the early stages of managing change. Its principal risks lie in the last two elements of "perseverance" and "making it stick." A Management Structure group was recently formed under the leadership of the SDC to pursue the next steps of the initiative. For an initiative of this magnitude, maintaining a clear national executive owner and some central resources will be critical to realizing the full value of the new institutional model.

Review Findings - Project Management Assessment

The findings noted below summarize the assessment of each change initiative against the Project Management Assessment Framework. It also reflects more general observations derived from document reviews and contextual interviews.

  Project Management Element
Project Initiation Project Planning Project Mobilization & Execution Project Controlling & Monitoring Project Closing
Overall Yellow Light Yellow Light Yellow Light Yellow Light Red Light

The most significant finding of the review is that none of the change initiatives followed or are currently using a formal project management methodology. Most of the initiatives are seen as strategies or policy implementations, not projects. That said, elements of good project management were evident in a number of initiatives and these examples are highlighted below.

Project
Management
Element
Findings
Project Initiation All of the initiatives sought approval from the Executive Committee, which required the creation of a formal document with at least some elements of a project charter. For example, IMSI developed a well defined project scope that considered risks and constraints, and established design criteria against which different models could be assessed. Both the Aboriginal Initiative and the HR Strategy were presented as strategic plans. This format addressed many elements of a strong project initiation and drew strong links to broader CSC priorities.
Project Planning The Aboriginal Strategy conducts annual planning covering milestones, deliverables and planned activities, although this is not directly tied to budgets.

IMSI did not have an overall project plan per se, but did have detailed implementation plans with timelines, budgets, etc.

When staff resources were available, CRI created or updated project plans. However, the initiative was not able to maintain a consistent focus on using a project plan as a tool for managing the initiative (e.g. budget resource allocations, variances, responses, etc).

As the Strategic Plan for HR has moved into implementation, it has developed or is developing project plans for individual sub-initiatives.
Project Mobilization & Execution IMSI established a process to document and assess the impact of any proposed design changes that occurred after approval.

The Strategic Plan for HR has some elements of scope control, and HR returns to the National HR Management Committee or Executive Committee for additional approvals as necessary.

CRI would have benefited from a disciplined approach to scope management. Issues outside the control of the project changed how the initiative would impact small offices and made the approval of work description for jobs interacting with community volunteers more difficult. Supplemental planning to assess and manage the impact of these events could have lessened the impact on the initiative and allowed for clear communications about the source of delays.
Project Controlling & Monitoring At a strategic level, CSC’s Report on Plans and Priorities (RPP) is serving as a control mechanism. All of the initiatives reviewed are mentioned as objectives or activities in the RPP and quarterly reviews at Executive Committee are done to check progress against RPP commitments.

At the initiative level, the IMSI team built a Results Based Management Accountability Framework to enable systematic tracking of its planned results, but does not seem to have identified resources to track and monitor progress on an ongoing basis. IMSI also monitored two significant risks - reaction of Unit Managers and the development of silos between operations and correctional interventions - for three to four months post-launch.

The Aboriginal Strategy has quarterly "check-ins" with each region and then semi-annual briefings with the Senior Deputy Commissioner

HR is beginning to develop an evaluation approach for the Strategic Plan for HR. While designed to facilitate a five year evaluation, it could also serve as an annual project controlling and monitoring framework. HR is also doing some risk management at the project level and has linked its Plan to the overall CSC Corporate Risk Profile. It is also providing quarterly progress reports to senior management.
Project Closing None of the initiatives reviewed had formal lessons learned or other close-out processes. Only IMSI and the Strategic HR Plan anticipate five-year reviews which will provide structured assessments of their strengths and weaknesses. The Aboriginal Strategy is conducting a review of one its key programs (Pathways) and holds regular meetings of regional staff to discuss key lessons learned in implementation.

Of the initiatives reviewed, IMSI seems to align most closely to the Project Management Framework. Formal project management approaches are also planned for a number of initiatives within the HR Strategy such as HR re-engineering and the HRIS upgrade.

Summary Findings and Options for Improvement

Interview responses to questions about past successful change initiatives produced a common set of themes, many of which are consistent with the Change and Project Management Frameworks. Examples of successful change programs included the implementation of Unit Management and the upgrade to OMS. These initiatives had:

  • "Ground up" genesis - successful large scale changes in the past effectively leveraged CSC’s operational culture;
  • Dedicated project team made up of high performing employees;
  • Extended period for implementation;
  • Special authorities granted to the project leaders over key activities/change levers, that were well understood by the broader organization;
  • Resources for both design and implementation; and
  • Strong project credibility and engagement with regional/operational staff.

The initiatives examined in this review demonstrate many of these characteristics, but none have them all. The tables below show the comparative assessment of each initiative and CSC overall against the Change Management Framework, as well as the combined, summary assessment of the initiatives against the Project Management Framework.

Comparative Profile

Change
Management
Element
Initiatives Overall
Aboriginal
Strategy
Strategic
Plan for HR
Management
Community
Restructuring
Initiative
Institutional
Management
Structure
Urgency Green Lignt Green Lignt Red Light Green Lignt Green Lignt
Guiding Teams Green Lignt Green Lignt Yellow Light Yellow Light Yellow Light
Vision Yellow Light Green Lignt Yellow Light Green Lignt Green Lignt
Communications Yellow Light Yellow Light Red Light Yellow Light Yellow Light
Enablement Green Lignt Green Lignt Yellow Light Yellow Light Yellow Light
Short Term Wins Green Lignt Yellow Light Red Light Yellow Light Red Light
Perseverance Green Lignt Green Lignt Red Light Yellow Light Yellow Light
Making It Stick Green Lignt White Light White Light Yellow Light Yellow Light

Project Management Element
  Project
Initiation
Project
Planning
Project
Mobilization &
Execution
Project
Controlling &
Monitoring
Project
Closing
Overall Yellow Light Yellow Light Yellow Light Yellow Light Red Light

Options for Improvement

For the individual initiatives, a number of options are available to CSC to mitigate potential risks to their implementation.

The Aboriginal Initiative seems to be best positioned overall against the Change Management Framework used in the analysis. Over the longer term, continued focus on appealing to front-line employees and instilling operations ownership of key elements of the aboriginal strategy will be critical to making the strategy "stick."

The HR Strategy is also off to a good start from a change and project management perspective, but would benefit from the adoption of a formal project or program management approach as it orchestrates multiple sub-initiatives over the next two years. It will also be critical to execute on its plans for regional involvement to ensure a strong operational focus to how HR evolves.

The CRI is scheduled to complete its mandate by April 2008. A formal lessons learned process to assess the degree to which the initiative addressed the problem statement articulated by the original National Working Committee report as well as the challenges experienced in implementation, would be of benefit to all of CSC.

IMSI has had a relatively strong launch. Stabilizing the ownership and leadership under the SDC is a positive development. Maintaining the leadership and the on ongoing support of the Management Structure group will be critical to coordinating the Internal Advisory Committees, sustaining the policy framework and driving enabling management practices. In addition, more proactive communications would be of benefit.

At a macro level, there are a number of opportunities for improvement open to CSC:

  1. The adoption of formal Change and Project Management methodologies, practices and tools. This would enable a more common approach to change at CSC and provide guidance and resources to initiative leaders;
  2. The creation of a Centre of Expertise for Change and Project Management. The COE would help develop internal capacity and expertise across regions and sectors, and facilitate knowledge exchange across change initiatives;
  3. Increased focus on the involvement of front-line CSC employees in designing and implementing change. While efforts to include front-line employees are usually made, they could be more effective and more consistently continued into the implementation phase;
  4. The adoption of a portfolio management perspective at the corporate level. A key challenge for CSC is to integrate the various initiatives underway. Formally adopting a portfolio management approach would enable CSC to better manage the overall portfolio of strategic initiatives, set priorities, allocate change resources (i.e. people, systems, funding, management focus), and ensure integration across organizational "silos."

    Enterprise Portfolio management Approach


    In addition to some supporting resources and processes, it will be critical that a portfolio management approach leverage the existing executive committee structure, notably the Executive Committee, the National Finance Committee and the National HR Management Committee; and
  5. Strengthened accountabilities for initiative leaders. Initiative leaders need to be clearly accountable for responding to challenges and meeting change objectives, as well as recognizing and celebrating successes. In support of strengthened accountabilities, CSC should develop processes and documentation protocols to ensure continuity of ownership and sustained focus on implementation in the face of leadership, staff and financial changes.

In considering these options for improvement, CSC should note that the review also identified a number of existing practices that can be leveraged to improve the management of change. For example, the focus that CSC has been placing on management practices over the last few years is yielding dividends. These dividends include increased resources in corporate communications, the creation of an ongoing communications effectiveness survey and improved focus on performance management, reporting and risk. Corporate Services has set up a small Change Management group, led by an experienced Senior Executive, to coordinate various changes initiatives impacting finance and administration in headquarters and the regions. There also seems to be strong project management experience in Information Management Services.

In addition, the approach to the recent Review Panel recommendations seems consistent with leading change management practices and the magnitude of the potential changes. The response is being viewed as a long-term, "Transformation Agenda." Substantial resources have been allocated to the first phase of implementation. It has clear executive sponsorship, an executive owner, a strong, diverse guiding team and dedicated communications resources, with Communications planning focused on internal communications first, before considering external stakeholders. Communications to date have been appropriately geared towards generating awareness and description of process, and they demonstrate a focus on making the change tangible and meaningful to all employees.

This comprehensive approach will increase the probability of successfully delivering the large scale changes necessary to implement the Review Panel’s recommendations. While this is a major strategic undertaking in and of itself, the implementation approach may also be viewed as an opportunity to build some of the processes, methodologies and capacities outlined in the options for improvement. Used strategically, the Transformation Team may leave a secondary legacy of improved change and project management for future CSC initiatives.

 

Appendix A - Interview List

Contextual Interviews

Denis Methé, Assistant Commissioner, Human Resource Management

Ross Toller, Assistant Commissioner, Correctional Operations and Programs

Lynn Garrow, Assistant Commissioner, Performance Assurance

Liette Dumas-Sluyter, Chief Audit Executive

Richard Harvey, Director General, Human Resources

Lisa Allgaier, Director General, Aboriginal Initiative

Pamela Yates, Director, Evaluation

Bill Staubi, Director General, Performance Management

Steven Wilson, Director General, Values and Ethics

Beverly Arseneault, Director, Community Reintegration Operations

Rachel Gervais, Director General, Transformation and Change Management

Gerry Bastien, Director, Financial Management

Nadine Boudreau-Brown, Director, Corporate and e-Communications

Marybeth Wallack, Corporate Communications, Review Panel Response Team

Annie Joannette, Corporate Communications, Review Panel Response Team

Detailed Interviews

Beverly Arseneault, Director, Community Reintegration Operations

Christine Cloutier, Senior Director, Human Resources Planning and Reporting

Suzanne Léger, Director, Strategic Human Resource Planning

Crystal Pinay, Manager, Aboriginal Relations

Denis Levesque, Warden, Sainte-Anne des Plaines Institution, Québec Region

Appendix B - Documents Reviewed

The following documents were reviewed in the course of the risk assessment:

Methodology

The Heart of Change, John P. Kotter and Dan S. Cohen, Harvard Business School Press, 2002.

CSC Context

CSC Draft 2008 Internal Communications Survey

CSC Internal Communications Survey Results, June 2007

CSC Corporate and e-Communications Three-year Overall Strategy, 2008-2011, February 2008

CSC 2007-2008 Report on Plans and Priorities

CSC National Finance Committee Terms of Reference

A Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety: Report of the Correctional Service of Canada Review Panel, October 2007

Announcing the CSC Review Panel Report and Recommendations, Internal Communication from the Commissioner, December 13, 2007

Launching the CSC Transformation Agenda, Internal Communication from the Commissioner, February 29, 2008

CSC Review Panel - Frequently Asked Questions, CSC Intranet Document

Budget 2008, Chapter 4 - Leadership at Home and Abroad, Department of Finance Website

Aboriginal Strategy

Strategic Plan for Aboriginal Corrections: Innovation, Learning and Adjustment, 2006-07 to 2010-11

Aboriginal Corrections: Presentation to CSC Review Panel, May 3, 2007

Aboriginal Corrections: Submission to CSC Review Panel, June 15, 2007

Briefing Note to the Senior Deputy Commissioner on Enhancing capacities to provide effective interventions for First Nations, Métis and Inuit offenders, September 20, 2007

Strategic Plan for HR Management

Strategic Plan for HR Management 2007-08 to 2009-10

Strategic Plan for HR Management: Overview of Priorities and Plans, June 2007

Strategic Plan for HR Management: Quarterly Report, Fall 2007

Implementation Plan for National Framework and Guidelines for Human Resource Planning in CSC, August 2007

Community Restructuring Initiative

Community District Infrastructure Review Q&As

District Infrastructure (overview presentation), March 2007

Community Infrastructure Review: Key Objectives

Advisory Committee on Community Staff Safety Meeting. Minutes and Record of Decision, Meeting at a Glance, September 6, 2007

Report of the National Working Committee on the Review of CSC District Management Infrastructure, October 27, 2003

Institutional Management Structure and Correctional Officer Deployment Initiative

Institutional Management Structure and Correctional Officer Deployment Standards, FAQs, (Infonet printout)

Institutional Management Structure: An integrated approach to the management of correctional operations and interventions, (presentation deck) October 2007

Results-based Management and Accountability Framework: Institutional Management Structure and Correctional Officer Deployment Standards

Communication text on the "draft CD on Internal Advisory Committees"

Discussion Draft - Commissioner's Directive, Internal Advisory Committees

Policy Bulletin. Guidelines 005.1 - Institutional Management Structure: Roles and Responsibilities, Issue 235, October 4, 2007

Appendix C - Detailed Interview Guide

Interview Guide

Change Management Risk Assessment Criteria

Urgency

Assesses the shared sense of urgency needed to achieve cooperation and momentum for the change effort.
Criteria

  • How strong is the case for change?
  • Do individuals know what risks the organization faces by maintaining "business as usual"?
  • Does the case for change address anticipated sources of resistance?
Guiding Teams

Assesses whether the right people are in the right positions and doing the right things to lead the change effort.
Criteria

  • Are the organization’s leaders championing the change?
  • Does the leadership consistently provide the resources, information and support needed?
  • Do the change leaders and governing committees meet regularly to facilitate the change effort?
  • Is the leadership engaged in managing resistance to change?
  • Are there change leaders at all levels of the organization?
Vision

Assesses whether there is a compelling picture of the future and how the organization will get there.
Criteria

  • How clearly does the leadership articulate the vision?
  • Do individuals understand the part they play in the vision?
  • Does the vision appeal to the long-term interest of everyone in the organization?
Communications

Assesses whether the urgency, vision and strategies for change have been clearly communicated to both leaders and followers.
Criteria

  • Is there a plan for communicating with and involving all members of the organization?
  • Is communication about progress towards the vision both effective and timely?
  • Is there communication to individuals about how change will affect them?
  • Is there a regular assessment of the effectiveness of communications about the change?
Enablement

Assesses whether the organization and its members have the structures, skills and systems
needed to break through barriers and implement the vision.
Criteria

  • Is there a process to identify and address cultural barriers to the change?
  • Is there a process to identify and address operational barriers to the change?
  • Is there a strategy to help individuals develop the skills and competencies they will need to support the change?
  • Are the required technologies in place to enable change?
  • Are performance measures aligned so that a "line of sight" exists between individual performance and the change effort?
Short Term Wins

Assesses whether there is a strategy to demonstrate progress through inspiring short-term wins.
Criteria

  • Is there a strategy to identify and deliver short-term wins based on stakeholder interests?
  • Are quick results and short term wins made visible to everyone?
  • Do leaders at all levels use short-term wins to demonstrate progress and sustain support?
Perseverance

Assesses whether there are processes and strategies to maintain momentum.
Criteria

  • Does the leadership monitor and measure the progress of the change effort?
  • Does the leadership maintain a consistent approach and direction?
  • Are there resources and expertise assigned to support and sustain the change program?
Making It Stick

Assesses whether the organization’s norms, values and practices are being re-aligned to be consistent with the change.
Criteria

  • Does the leadership identify what changes must be made to the organizational culture in order to sustain the change effort?
  • Does the leadership model the change?
  • Are the required changes to organizations, positions, processes and supports being identified and implemented?
  • Are clear performance measures being created so that employees at all levels know when they are demonstrating the behaviours consistent with change?
  • Is the change becoming the norm and if so, has the success been communicated and celebrated?

Project Management Risk Assessment Criteria

Project Initiation

Assesses the beginning stages of the project, from idea realization through development and evaluation of the business case and prioritization of the potential project against organizational priorities and resource constraints.
Criteria

  • Are the project’s goals, scope, budget, constraints and assumptions being defined and documented, in a Project Charter for example?
Project Planning

Assesses the planning for resourcing and execution of project activities, which will form the basis of the project management process throughout the project lifecycle.
Criteria

  • Is there a project plan that details the project’s milestones, deliverables, activities and resource requirements, for approval by stakeholders?
Project Mobilization & Execution

Assesses whether the project has been mobilized and activities are executed, tracked and measured against the Project Plan.
Criteria

  • Is the project being mobilized and executed according to the project plan and plans for managing staffing and communications?
  • Are the project’s progress and any scope changes being reported, with additional planning as needed?
Project Controlling & Monitoring

Assesses whether there is evaluation of project success and continual review of the project status against the original project business case.
Criteria

  • Is performance being measured and are risks being controlled, with corrective action taken as needed?
Project Closing

Assesses whether successful aspects, opportunities for improvement and team performance are evaluated, so that knowledge gained can be leveraged in future projects.
Criteria

  • Are project results and lessons learned being documented and archived, and are project resources being released and reassigned?

 

Appendix D – Management Response

Management Response:

We agree with the results of the Review of Change Management.  The Review comes at an important juncture for CSC, as it embarks on a number of important initiatives, most notably its Transformation Agenda, which will lead to significant changes in how CSC currently operates.  The Transformation Agenda was launched earlier this year to respond to CSC Independent Review Panel Report: A Roadmap to Strengthening Public Safety, which includes 109 recommendations for improvements touching on every aspect of CSC’s business.

It is clearly recognized that strong change management practices will be critical to the successful implementation of the Transformation Agenda. The Transformation Team, which is lead by the Senior Deputy Commissioner, has already taken measures consistent with the report, including the use of the framework to manage change and to monitor change management requirements and risks associated with the project.  Finally, the Transformation Team will also implement the necessary project management elements noted in the report as it moves forward.