This Web page has been archived on the Web.

1981 Report of the Auditor General of Canada

Introduction

3.1 In our 1979 Report, we presented the findings of our first government-wide audit of the management of the direct and indirect costs of employing people in the public service - a total payroll cost of $8.6 billion. The audit examined the adequacy of the management controls in nine departments and agencies with respect to human resource planning, training, and human resource information systems, three main components of payroll costs management. We concluded in the 1979 Report that the management controls at the department level did not assure the economic acquisition and efficient use of human resources in the public service. Our recommendations sought to strengthen the Treasury Board Secretariat's management role and to foster improvements in departmental systems.

3.2 Given the importance of effective personnel management practices to the public service and the significance of deficiencies we found, we continued to review management controls over payroll costs as part of our comprehensive audits in 1980 and again in 1981.

3.3 Departments and agencies operate their human resource programs within the framework of policies and systems developed by the central agencies and are thus influenced to a significant degree by central agency policy direction. Therefore this year we concentrated on the policies and systems of the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service Commission applicable to human resource planning, training, and human resource information systems. The policies and systems audited directly affect the management of payroll costs in 26 departments as well as a number of other agencies.

3.4 We found significant weaknesses in central management controls over the development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and systems for human resource planning, training, and human resource information systems. In particular:

    - policies of the Treasury Board Secretariat did not address departmental deficiencies and long-standing problems in human resource planning;
    - the Treasury Board Secretariat's systems to monitor compliance and evaluate policies in all three areas were inadequate;
    - extensive information required of departments and agencies had not been fully utilized by the Treasury Board Secretariat; and
    - the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service Commission had made limited progress in resolving duplication of human resource information systems at the central agency level.
3.5 The central agencies were aware of the weaknesses identified by our audit and were taking steps to improve policies and systems in these areas.

Central Agencies - Roles and Responsibilities

3.6 Responsibility and accountability for the management of payroll costs in the public service is shared by the central agencies and departments. The broad outline of the division of responsibilities related to human resource planning, training and human resource information systems is set out in the Financial Administration Act and the Public Service Employment Act.

3.7 Human Resource Planning. The Financial Administration Act empowers the Treasury Board Secretariat to "determine the manpower requirements of the public service and provide for the allocation and effective utilization of manpower resources within the public service". The Public Service Commission conducts human resource planning matters related to its staffing mandate under the Public Service Employment Act. It also has other responsibilities assigned to it by the Treasury Board Secretariat.

3.8 Training. Both the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service Commission have statutory responsibilities for training. The Financial Administration Act empowers Treasury Board to "determine requirements for the training and development of personnel in the public service and fix the terms on which such training and development may be carried out". Under the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Commission is required to "operate and assist deputy heads in the operation of staff training and development programs in the Public Service.

3.9 Human Resource Information Systems. The Treasury Board Secretariat is responsible for government-wide policies on electronic data processing systems under its general administrative authority contained in the Financial Administration Act.

3.10 The Personnel Applications Centre in the Department of Supply and Services - Services Administration, acts as a government-wide service centre for computerized human resource information systems. Its role includes the design and operation of Treasury Board Secretariat systems as well as the provision of services to departments and agencies.

3.11 The central agencies delegate operational aspects of their authority to deputy heads in departments and agencies who exercise their authority within the framework of policies, systems and procedures established by the central agencies. The Treasury Board Secretariat also delegates and assigns responsibility to the Public Service Commission on matters related to policy formulation and evaluation and works closely with the Public Service Commission on the central management of human resource planning, training and human resource information systems in the public service.

3.12 The Personnel Policy Branch is the organization within the Treasury Board Secretariat which is responsible for developing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating policies and systems in the three areas audited.

Audit Scope

3.13 We examined the management controls in the Treasury Board Secretariat with respect to the development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of government-wide policies and systems for human resource planning, training, and human resource information systems, and the activities of the Public Service Commission related to these areas. The components of payroll costs management covered by our audit have been defined as follows:

    - human resource planning: ensuring that the appropriate numbers of people are available with the required skills, when and where they are needed;
    - training: identifying and meeting present and future skill, knowledge and attitudinal requirements to improve job performance and to cope with technological and other changes; and
    - human resource information systems: providing managers with basic personnel information; that is, profiles of employees and positions in an organization. We did not include language training, Equal Opportunities Programs or the operational training role of the Public Service Commission in the scope of our audit.
3.14 The Personnel Management areas reviewed by this audit constitute only a part of the activities of the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service Commission; no inferences should be drawn concerning management controls in other areas within these central agencies.

Summary of Audit Observations

3.15 As a result of our findings in the comprehensive audits over the past three years, we have concluded that departments generally lacked effective human resource planning systems and did not as a result anticipate or develop plans for dealing with staff shortages and surpluses. We also concluded that training needs were not properly identified and that training systems in the public service were not adequately planned, costed or evaluated and that proliferation of human resource information systems and duplication of data between departments and central agencies continued to exist.

3.16 Our audit of the policy activities at the central agency level in these three areas revealed that, with the exception of training, limited progress had been made in addressing these deficiencies and in strengthening the Treasury Board Secretariat central management role.

3.17 At the time of our audit, the Treasury Board Secretariat had not resolved the practical problems of departments in implementing human resource planning in a public service environment such as the problem of linkage to other departmental planning processes. Nor had they established effective processes to identify occupational groups in which critical resource problems existed. We did note that the Treasury Board Secretariat was aware of these deficiencies and was addressing them through the establishment of a task force to examine human resource planning practices in the public service.

3.18 In the area of training, the Treasury Board Secretariat had made substantial progress with the publication in June 1980 of a staff training policy which, with its associated directives and guidelines, was designed to strengthen the management of training activities at both central and departmental levels.

3.19 With respect to human resource information systems, we noted that the Treasury Board Secretariat did not have a mechanism in place that effectively controlled the proliferation of human resource information systems in departments and agencies. On 31 August 1981, however, the Treasury Board Secretariat issued its first policy on human resource information systems which set the framework for this type of control. We also observed that the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service Commission had not made significant progress in reducing duplication between their systems in spite of the expenditure of significant resources.

3.20 We noted in all three areas audited that the Treasury Board Secretariat did not have adequate monitoring or evaluation systems. We concluded that the Treasury Board Secretariat could not determine whether departments and agencies were complying with its policies and directives or whether its policies were accomplishing what was originally intended.

3.21 We observed throughout this audit that the Treasury Board Secretariat was working closely with the Public Service Commission to improve the policies and systems in the three areas audited.

Audit Criteria

3.22 The criteria applied in our audit of the management controls over the policies and systems developed by the central agencies were reviewed with the central agencies, tested and, in some cases, modified during the audit. These criteria establish what we consider to be reasonable standards against which the policies and systems in the three areas audited should be assessed. The audit observations reported in this chapter directly relate to one or more of the following audit criteria:

    Responsibilities for developing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating policies and systems should be clearly defined and communicated to all those concerned.
    - Conflicts in roles and responsibilities that relate to policy and system formulation should be identified and resolved.
    Policies and systems should be developed and/or revised in a manner given to the needs of departments and agencies and the resource implications of implementing them.
    - The relevant needs, problems and deficiencies in departmental and agency programs should be determined and taken into account when assessing the need to develop or revise policies and systems.
    - Alternative policies and systems should be evaluated in terms of likely effectiveness, operational and cost implications for departments and agencies and compatibility with other policies and systems.
    - Policies and systems should be communicated clearly to departments and agencies and should include guidelines as appropriate.
    Policies and systems should be monitored to assess compliance and evaluated to assess their effectiveness.
    - Systems should be in place to monitor the adherence of departments and agencies to policies and systems and to evaluate the degree to which they are achieving the desired result in a cost-effective manner.
    - The results of monitoring and evaluation should be used in the revision and development of policies and systems.
3.23 The criteria applied in our audit of the design and operation of the internal human resource information systems of the central agencies were those published in our 1979 annual Report.

Human Resource Planning

Background

3.24 From 1970 through 1979, the Treasury Board Secretariat developed and issued a number of policies that established the framework within which departments and agencies conduct human resource planning activities. These policies include Executive Planning and Development (1971), Roles and Responsibilities for Human Resources Planning in the Public Service (1974) and Personnel Management Planning (1979). In 1975, the Treasury Board Secretariat also published descriptive material on human resource planning in a Personnel Management Guide.

3.25 The 1974 policy on roles and responsibilities defines the roles of the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Public Service Commission and departments in human resource planning. It assigns responsibility to the Public Service Commission for carrying out human resource planning for certain occupational groups when so directed by the Treasury Board Secretariat. The policy also states that the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service Commission will conduct human resource planning across the public service for critical occupational groups and for other groups of employees such as Senior Executives.

3.26 Two of the policies require departments and agencies to forward information on human resource planning to the central agencies. The Personnel Management Planning policy requires that departments and agencies submit reports to the Treasury Board Secretariat describing the personnel actions required to deal with changes affecting human resources. The policy on Executive Planning and Development requires that summaries of appraisal information and succession planning charts be submitted to both the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service Commission. Departments are also required to submit the performance review and appraisal documents on senior executives to the Public Service Commission.

Observations and Recommendations

3.27 Policy development. The Treasury Board Secretariat consulted extensively with departments when it was developing its human resource planning policies. These consultations indicated that, although departments agreed that human resource planning was essential to good management practice, they were concerned about its practical application in the public service. Departments expressed concerns about the practicality of applying human resource planning universally to all groups and levels, the lack of a clear relationship between human resource planning and other personnel systems such as performance appraisal, staffing and training, and the tenuous linkage between human resource planning and other planning processes.

3.28 The comprehensive audits conducted this year and reported in other chapters of this Report indicate that, with a few exceptions, the problems observed in 1979 still remain. Departments generally lacked effective human resource planning systems and continued to deal with problems of staff surpluses or shortages after they had arisen, rather than anticipating problems and developing appropriate action plans. It was also evident that operating managers still did not consider human resource planning to be an integral part of their function and perceived it to be the responsibility of staff advisers in personnel branches.

3.29 The most recent policy, Personnel Management Planning, provided direction and guidance to departments regarding the completion of information reports, and only by implication did it and previous policies address the departmental concerns and deficiencies noted above. We also observed that the direction given to departments in the Personnel Management Planning policy was not clear, resulting in considerable variation in the content of the reports submitted to the central agencies. We believe that these matters have contributed to the overall deficiencies of human resource planning at the departmental level.

3.30 The Treasury Board Secretariat established a task force, in January 1981, composed of departmental and central agency representatives, to study human resource planning practices both inside and outside the public service; to develop a proposal for a human resource management system model; and to submit recommendations to overcome obstacles to effective human resource planning in the federal public service.

3.31 The Treasury Board Secretariat should review and, where appropriate, revise its human resource planning policies and guidelines to ensure that departmental needs, problems and deficiencies are taken into account and should assist departments, as required, in the application of policies to unique departmental circumstances.

3.32 The Treasury Board Secretariat did not always give due regard to efficiency when developing human resource planning policies. For example, the cost implications of implementing human resource planning policies, both for the Treasury Board Secretariat and for departments and agencies, were not addressed prior to implementation. This omission is significant, particularly in light of resources used by departments to complete the information reports requested in the policies.

3.33 The Personnel Policy Branch has established a special task force to recommend procedures to be followed by its staff in developing and promulgating policies, including the requirement to cost policy implications.

3.34 Government-wide human resource planning. In carrying out their responsibilities for conducting human resource planning across the public service for critical occupational groups, the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service Commission have focused attention on the Senior Executive category and more recently, on the Financial and Personnel Administration groups. They have also responded to urgent regional or occupational group problems as they arose.

3.35 Apart from these human resource planning activities which concern only a small proportion of the total public service, the Treasury Board Secretariat has not met its overall responsibilities for government-wide human resource planning as outlined in the policy on Roles and Responsibilities for Human Resources Planning in the Public Service.

3.36 The Treasury Board Secretariat has not, for example, analysed the overall human resource requirements of the public service to determine current or future government-wide resource imbalances or to identify critical occupational groups for which human resource planning should be carried out by the central agencies. Generally, the Treasury Board Secretariat has responded to regional or occupational group problems such as the shortage of petroleum engineers and scientists in Western Canada, when problems became urgent rather than by anticipating the human resource shortages and ensuring that action plans were developed to avoid critical situations. It is our view that effective manpower utilization in the public service depends on the ability of the Treasury Board Secretariat to identify critical problems early and ensure that plans are established for their resolution before a crisis occurs.

3.37 The Treasury Board Secretariat should regularly assess human resource requirements in the public service, identify critical occupational groups for which human resource planning should be carried out by the central agencies and ensure that the appropriate action is taken.

3.38 At the time of our audit, a human resource planning and counselling program was being developed for the new Management Category which is to replace the present Senior Executive category. Because these plans were being developed and the respective roles of the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service Commission were not yet clarified, we did not audit this program.

3.39 Policy monitoring and evaluation. The Treasury Board Secretariat did not have systems in place to monitor or evaluate its human resource planning policies other than the requirement for planning information from departments in the form of annual reports.

3.40 The reports required from departments by the Personnel Management Planning policy were originally intended to be the source of government-wide information on human resource planning from which the Treasury Board Secretariat could carry out its responsibility for government-wide planning. We found, however, that the information was often inconsistent or unreliable; for example, the level of detail ranged from single page reports to reports of up to 95 pages.

3.41 We concluded that the Treasury Board Secretariat did not know the extent to which departments and agencies were complying with its human resource planning policies or whether the policies and guidelines were accomplishing what was intended. As a result, the Treasury Board Secretariat did not know whether departments and agencies had adequate human resource planning systems in place.

3.42 In March 1981, the Personnel Policy Branch published a policy on Personnel Management Monitoring, Audit and Evaluation which stated the Treasury Board Secretariat's intention to monitor the implementation of its personnel policies and systems and to evaluate their effectiveness.

3.43 The Treasury Board Secretariat should ensure that its monitoring and evaluation processes for human resource planning gather sufficient information on departmental and agency human resource planning systems to enable it to assess compliance with its policies and to determine the deficiencies and problems in departments and agencies.

Training

Background

3.44 Over the last decade, the Treasury Board Secretariat has developed a number of policies and guidelines which have established the framework within which the departments and agencies have carried out their training activities. The most significant policies relating to general departmental training and development activities, issued prior to 1980, include:

    - Roles and Responsibilities for Training and Development in the Public Service (1977);
    - Identification of Training and Development Needs and the Evaluation of Results (1977); and
    - Conditions Governing Education, Training and Development, including Subsidization (1978).
3.45 We stated in our 1979 annual Report that management could not be assured that value for money was received from expenditures on training and development in the federal public service. We noted that training needs were not well defined. Training was often poorly planned, its full costs were not captured and it was not adequately evaluated. We recommended that the Treasury Board Secretariat strengthen its policies with respect to these matters.

3.46 In response to the concerns expressed about training in the reports of the Special Committee on the Review of Personnel Management and the Merit Principle, and of the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability and to the recommendations in our 1979 Report, the Treasury Board Secretariat issued a new training policy in June 1980. This policy defines the responsibilities of departments, the Public Service Commission, the Treasury Board Secretariat and individual employees in the training process. It addresses specific aspects of training such as conditions under which it will be provided, selection of trainees and training evaluation.

3.47 The policy also provides for the direction and co-ordination of training and development activities in the public service through a new Staff Training Council. The Council membership includes senior officers of the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Public Service Commission, the Privy Council Office, the Office of the Comptroller General, and deputy ministers of five departments. It is chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury Board. The Treasury Board Secretariat plans to establish a number of training boards composed of departmental and agency representatives to serve as working arms of the Council. One board was established in January 1981 to deal with management training matters.

3.48 The Treasury Board Secretariat has also published a draft Training Administration Guide and a Managers' Guide to Training. The Training Administration Guide is a statement of the administrative requirements necessary for effective implementation of the Staff Training Policy, and it has been distributed to departments for their review and comment. The Managers' Guide, designed to ensure consistent application of the Staff Training Policy and related administrative guidelines by all departments and agencies, has been distributed initially in draft form to selected departments.

Observations and Recommendations

3.49 Policy development. Many of the weaknesses identified in departmental training activities during our 1979 comprehensive audits still existed in 1981. Consequently, this Office supports the steps taken by the Treasury Board Secretariat in issuing a new Staff Training Policy and its associated directives and guidelines. When fully implemented, they should contribute to significant improvements in the management and operation of training in the public service.

3.50 We also noted that the Personnel Policy Branch had addressed the recommendations in our 1979 annual Report by setting out minimum requirements for training needs identification and course evaluation in the new policy, directives and guidelines and by establishing a new computerized system for obtaining departmental training cost data.

3.51 Our audit revealed, however, that the Treasury Board Secretariat did not follow a systematic approach to developing and communicating the new Staff Training Policy. For example, the Secretariat did not clarify the new policy's relationship with existing policy nor did it issue the directives and guidelines until several months after the policy was published. This situation initially caused some concern and confusion in the departments and agencies.

3.52 The new policy states that the effectiveness of processes to identify training needs in departments and agencies is closely related to the effectiveness of their human resource planning and performance appraisal systems. Our comprehensive audits, however, have continually revealed that processes to identify training needs, human resource planning systems and the relevant aspects of performance appraisal systems were not functioning adequately. We noted that Treasury Board Secretariat is now seeking to improve human resource planning and its associated systems through the establishment of the task force on human resource planning.

3.53 In the new Staff Training Policy, the Treasury Board Secretariat has delegated authority to the Public Service Commission to audit certain aspects of training in departments and agencies. We noted that the roles of the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service Commission in auditing departmental training programs were not clear. The central agencies were, however, in the process of clarifying their respective responsibilities through the Staff Training Council.

3.54 Policy monitoring and evaluation. The Treasury Board Secretariat has not formally monitored compliance with or evaluated policies on training and development apart from requiring annual information reports from departments and agencies. These reports, although extensive, were used to only a limited extent by the Treasury Board Secretariat. In support of the new Staff Training Policy, the Personnel Policy Branch identified a number of processes for monitoring and evaluating training activities. These included auditing professional training standards of departments and agencies and obtaining information from them on their annual training plans, training costs and courses. Specific implementation plans for these new monitoring and evaluation activities were being developed while this audit was in process.

3.55 The data on department and agency training activities, related costs and courses are to be obtained through a new computerized training and development information system. This system is now being tested in six pilot departments. The Treasury Board Secretariat had not conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed system as required by the Treasury Board's guidelines for development of electronic data processing projects.

3.56 Treasury Board Secretariat should conduct a full cost-benefit analysis of the new training and development information system upon completion of the pilot projects and prior to government-wide implementation.

Human Resource Information Systems

Background

3.57 For many years, the central agencies and departments have recognized that the proliferation of computerized human resource information systems has led to a number of inefficiencies. These include duplicate data capture and processing, and reconciliation problems between the central agencies and between central agency and departmental systems.

3.58 In response to these concerns, the Treasury Board Secretariat commissioned, in 1978, a study of human resource information systems in the public service. This study concluded that there was no overall concept for the development and evolution of these systems and recommended controlled development of such systems.

3.59 Our 1979 audit of human resource information systems in various departments confirmed many of the problems noted in previous studies. We recommended that directives and guidelines being developed by central agencies should foster the economic and efficient development and operation of human resource information systems.

3.60 Concurrent with our 1979 audit, the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service Commission jointly commissioned a study to propose solutions to resolve the long-standing problems of human resource information systems in the federal government. The findings of this study were contained in a report entitled "Personnel Data Systems in the Public Service and Recommendations for Their Improvement dated May 1979. This report identified the key issues that have hindered the planned development of human resource information systems and made a series of recommendations to resolve them.

3.61 Senior Steering Committee Co-ordinating Office. Acting on recommendations of the 1979 study, the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Public Service Commission and the Personnel Applications Centre established a Senior Steering Committee and a Co-ordinating Office in 1979 to ensure rational and co-ordinated implementation of new and revised human resource information systems. Both committees are composed of members from the three organizations. The Senior Steering Committee was established to provide the impetus for action on the recommendations of the study. The Co-ordinating Office is responsible for coordinating the implementation of projects originated by the Senior Steering Committee.

3.62 The Treasury Board Secretariat. In support of its overall operational and general management needs, the Treasury Board Secretariat operates the Personnel Management Information Systems (PMIS) which is made up of six major computer-based systems for processing personnel data. These are the:

    - Incumbent/Mobility System;
    - Official Languages Information System;
    - Attendance Leave Overtime and Shift-work System (ALOSS);
    - Exclusions System;
    - Entitlements and Deductions System; and
    - new Management Category Information System.
The Secretariat operates PMIS for its own use but makes information from it available to departments and agencies. Departments and agencies are required to provide data for PMIS.

3.63 Public Service Commission. In support of its staffing mandate defined in the Public Service Employment Act, the Public Service Commission operates three major computer-based human resource systems:

    - Data Stream and Senior Executive Information System (being replaced by Management Resource Information System);
    - Staffing Action System (being replaced by Appointment Information System); and
    - Language Training System/Language Knowledge Examination System.
The Public Service Commission also operates nine other smaller human resource information systems.

Observations and Recommendations

3.64 Central human resource information systems. The Public Service Commission has been replacing and upgrading its human resource information systems. Therefore, we did not conduct an in-depth audit of the existing systems. We did note, however, that documentation on these systems did not include a general systems description. This made it extremely difficult to gain a full understanding of all the elements of the system.

3.65 With regard to the human resource information systems of the Treasury Board Secretariat we observed that prior to implementing its major systems such as ALOSS, the Treasury Board Secretariat did not determine the costs, benefits and impact on departments and agencies of the proposed systems and their alternatives. These assessments are required by Administrative Policy Branch standard procedures for the control of the development of electronic data processing systems.

3.66 In developing its human resource information systems, the Treasury Board Secretariat should adhere to Administrative Policy Branch standard procedures for control of the development of electronic data processing projects, with particular reference to feasibility studies and consideration of the costs and operational impact on departments of proposed systems.

3.67 Documentation of the PMIS systems was satisfactory. We noted that, except for the Attendance Leave Overtime and Shift-work System (ALOSS), the users within the Treasury Board Secretariat were satisfied with the degree to which the major systems met their needs.

3.68 A study conducted in 1978 on behalf of the Treasury Board Secretariat expressed significant concerns with respect to ALOSS. The study noted the user requirements that were not being met by the system, the high demands placed by the system on departmental resources and the low acceptance of the system by departments. The Secretariat subsequently examined the feasibility of upgrading ALOSS, but concluded that the cost of doing so would outweigh the benefits. This audit revealed that ALOSS still does not meet user requirements for overtime data, a significant component of the system. In light of the resource impact of this system on departments and the problems noted, we consider that further review of this system is required. During the latter stage of our audit, the Treasury Board Secretariat was developing plans to re-examine this matter.

3.69 In reporting the costs of ALOSS to departments, the Treasury Board Secretariat included its internal operating costs only. It did not include departmental costs of inputting data or the cost to the Department of Supply and Services of converting source documents to computer-readable medium. A study conducted by the Treasury Board Secretariat indicated that these additional costs were far in excess of the internal operating costs.

3.70 We noted that the Public Service Commission has no regular procedures that consolidate all its human resource information system costs. We also noted that the Public Service Commission does not capture costs to departments of supplying data to the Public Service Commission's systems. This prevents adequate cost-benefit assessments of these systems.

3.71 The Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service Commission should, to the extent feasible, ensure disclosure of the full costs of their human resource information systems including departmental and other operating costs.

3.72 During the comprehensive audits of departments conducted this year, departments expressed the concern that the central agencies, prior to implementation, did not fully consider the operational impact of the demands imposed by central human resource information systems on the departments. Departments were also concerned, in light of the potential duplication and costs to them of providing data for central agency systems, that they had inadequate participation in the initial development of policies and government-wide systems. We noted that the Treasury Board had taken steps to increase departmental participation in these areas. However, given the departmental concerns, the Treasury Board Secretariat needs to ensure better communication with departments and greater departmental participation in the planning, design and development of government-wide systems.

3.73 The Treasury Board Secretariat should ensure that adequate departmental participation is obtained in the development of government-wide human resource information policies and systems.

3.74 The original mandate of the Personnel Applications Centre in the Department of Supply and Services was to design, maintain and operate the Treasury Board Secretariat's human resource systems and provide a wide range of services to departments and agencies. We found that the Personnel Applications Centre had focused its attention on upgrading the Treasury Board Secretariat's systems and had provided limited services to departments. In our view, if duplication of data capture and processing is to be reduced, the Personnel Applications Centre or some other organization must play a central role in co-ordinating systems development and operation among the Public Service Commission, the Treasury Board Secretariat and the departments. At the time of our audit, the central agencies were reviewing the role of the Personnel Applications Centre with respect to central co-ordination.

3.75 Human resource information systems policy. The Personnel Policy Branch of the Treasury Board Secretariat has primary responsibility for policy development with respect to human resource information systems. Until recently, the Branch has directed most of its efforts to developing its own systems. It has not played a strong management or policy role with respect to departmental human resource information systems. The Branch issued a Personnel Data Element Dictionary, the use of which became mandatory in 1978, and published a paper on Personnel Data Systems in 1980; it did not, however, have mechanisms in place to determine the degree of compliance with the requirement to use the dictionary. Nor had it issued any policies or guidelines specifically governing the development of departmental human resource information systems in the public service prior to this audit. On 31 August 1981, however, the Personnel Policy Branch published a "Policy for Personnel Data Systems in the Public Service of Canada". This policy addresses our 1979 recommendations concerning the proliferation of human resource information systems and the duplication of data by requiring departments to justify their information needs to the Treasury Board Secretariat prior to developing or revising systems.

3.76 Inter-agency activities. The Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service Commission have taken steps to resolve the long-standing problems of human resource information systems in the public service through the activities of the Senior Steering Committee Co-ordinating Office established in 1979. Both central agencies have given strong support to these committees. The Senior Steering Committee Co-ordinating Office has initiated a number of projects designed to resolve problems of duplication of data among the central agency systems. One project resulted in the elimination of the Public Service Commission separation document which should reduce the reporting burden on departments and eliminate the problems of reconciling data. Another project resulted in agreement between the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service Commission to use a common input form for language training data.

3.77 A number of other projects initiated by the Senior Steering Committee Co-ordinating Office had achieved only limited success after the expenditure of considerable resources. This applies to projects designed to reduce duplication created by the Personnel Pay Input form (2517T), a major source of government-wide duplication; to the joint development of a senior management information system, originally planned to be a model of joint system development; and to the merger of the systems development capabilities of the Public Service Commission and the Treasury Board Secretariat. We found that the principal factor contributing to the limited success of joint projects was a lack of agreement between the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service Commission on issues of major significance.

3.78 In the case of the joint development of the senior management information system, for example, the two agencies had difficulty reconciling different methodological approaches to systems development and took eight months to agree on what the specific problems were with the existing systems and on the information needs of each agency. As a consequence, they did not meet established deadlines and proceeded to develop their own systems with plans to resume joint development at a later date.

3.79 The merger project was initiated by the Senior Steering Committee to reduce central agency duplication by merging the computer systems development, implementation and operational services units of both agencies into one organization. We noted that, after two years of intensive study, the staff within the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Public Service Commission still did not agree on fundamental questions such as whether the merger would be in fact cost-beneficial. Although the Treasury Board Secretariat fully supported the merger concept, we found that there were serious reservations within the Public Service Commission with respect to the merger's technical and operational feasibility. We also observed that the project was not preceded by a thorough review of the overall constraints and alternatives. We believe that the above matters significantly reduced the likelihood of the successful outcome of this project. Due to the above noted problems, the Senior Steering Committee recently deferred the merger and initiated studies on a common data pool. We believe that a considerable amount of non-productive effort could have been avoided had the central agencies adequately examined alternatives prior to commencing the merger project.

3.80 The Senior Steering Committee Co-ordinating Office was originally established on a temporary basis to implement the recommendations of the 1979 report on personnel data systems in the public service. In view of the significance of the problems yet to be resolved, these committees need to be maintained on a permanent basis with continued high level support.

3.81 The Senior Steering Committee Co-ordinating Office should be established on a permanent basis until such time as the duplication between the central agency systems has been resolved.

3.82 Neither the Treasury Board Secretariat nor the Senior Steering Committee had developed an overall plan for improving human resource information systems in the public service. We believe that a long-term plan, from which objectives and priorities can be established and action plans developed, is essential to achieving economy and efficiency in the development and operation of human resource information systems in the public service.

3.83 The Treasury Board Secretariat should develop a long-term plan to resolve the problems of proliferation and duplication of human resource information systems in the public service.