Ccc Pm Oag Response - Feb 19

PURPOSE: The purpose of the questionnaire is to clarify the OAG’s understanding of the systems and practices in place and the roles and responsibilities of all those involved in the performance measurement process at the CCC. SOURCES: Questions are primarily derived from the TBS Corporate Governance in Crown Corporations and Other Public Enterprises, June1996, TBS Review of Governance Framework for Canada’s Crown Corporations, February 2005, and the OAG Chapter 22 – Crown Corporations: Making Performance Measurement Work. QUESTIONS:

SECTION 1: Follow-Up from Previous Special Examination 1. What has the corporation done since 2004 to improve on the monitoring corporate performance? CCC has matured incrementally and steadily in the area of corporate performance monitoring since 2004 due in large part to the evolution of internal processes, policies and frameworks to support realignment, transformation and business excellence strategies. This maturity and strengthened infrastructure coupled with the Corporation’s shift from a reactive to a more proactive approach and multiple large-scale corporate projects moving towards stabilization or evolution phases has led to organizational readiness to adopt a more comprehensive performance management framework. The Corporation has been through an evolutionary period wherein it has renewed its focus in line with its mandate, and invested in people, processes and systems to more effectively deliver its services. Such investments include strengthened governance, tighter mandate alignment, improved financial management, a more robust ERM framework, an ERP system with risk-based controls, improved project gating approach, and a renewed policy suite framework that better guides day-to-day operations. Reaping the collective benefits of these investments, CCC readied itself to embark on the development and implementation of a more formal performance management framework to further cultivate the performance excellence culture that it has determined to be key to its success. The Corporation identified that improved performance monitoring calls on a more comprehensive performance management framework and, for this reason, has made it a corporate priority moving forward. With several corporate initiatives/projects moving towards the stabilization or evolution phase, the Corporation has been ramping up its performance management focus over 2008-09 with the hiring of a Project Director to lead the development of a comprehensive high-performance management framework, the establishment of a Performance Management Table, and partnering with the Telfer School of Management that specializes in the field. The framework in development will:  be appropriate to the size and context of the Corporation;  develop a greater focus on organizational learning and agility;  build on and derive greater value from CCC’s core management processes and practices;  strike an appropriate balance between management for short-term and future success; Other parameters guiding framework development include:  scalability: striking an appropriate balance between corporate-wide standardization and valueadd flexibility at the business line/functional level;  complementarity: complementing the performance regimes of CCC’s key trade portfolio partners;  resonance: resonating with CCC’s wide range of other stakeholders to grow further their confidence in the Corporation; and  demonstrable diligence: further facilitating the Corporation’s capacity to report on its activities and demonstrate its diligence.



CCC’s current performance management regime includes a series of management/executive retreats and Board meetings to develop strategic direction, a coherent set of corporate and business planning processes that translate strategy into implementation plans, regular performance reviews through which the Corporation adjust its course as required and regularly reporting on key accountabilities through the Annual Report process.

In 2008-09, CCC has been positioning itself to better monitor its 2009-10 performance by:  articulating focused and comprehensive strategic direction in its Corporate Plan, i.e. demonstrating clearly across a three-pronged strategy where the Corporation seeks to go over the medium-term and the steps that will be taken in 09-10 to get there. This includes a formal tiered-approach (outcome, objective, activity) and articulated performance and risk indicators at both the outcome and objective level;  further integrating risk and performance management so as to better focus simultaneously on what will be monitored in terms of progress and what will be monitored in terms of what could come in the way of corporately-sound success. Through risk-based priority setting, CCC is well-placed to monitor progress and risk where risk mitigation has been identified as key;  strengthening the cascade from the Corporate Plan into Business Plans to more clearly align business activities with objectives and desired outcomes, further leverage objective measures to keep the right level of focus on business activities and shifting from a one-year to a rolling three-year horizon;  more generally, realigning existing measures, bringing to the fore many of those used day-to-day across pillar outcomes and objectives and distinguishing more clearly between indicators and targets/results;  beginning to align internally-focused measures with critical success factors;  kickstarting a measures catalogue to facilitate a measures’ review, and increase rigour around collection and use. Other 2008-09 improvements include:  integrating risk and performance management practices through the review cycle so as to further maximize ‘indicator intelligence’ and strengthened systematic looking back and looking forward approach to further improve our agility in terms of course adjustment based on progress and risk assessments;  cascading the Corporate Plan into more rigorous, comprehensive business plans;  continuing to flesh out business perspective in the Corporate Plan and evolving it to being including a formal articulation of SMARTer goals (business plan highlights) linked to short-term outcomes; and  improving alignment across incentive performance pay measures and Corporate Plan measures. 2007-08 improvements include:  approaching strategy more comprehensively (CCC-wide with cascade down into business)  a significant shift to outcome-based management through introduction of results-based management principles leading to improved demonstration of linkage to GoC overarching goals and better distinction across results, intermediate outcomes and how these cascade into business programs for short-term desired business level outcomes and outputs;  more formal articulation of the Corporation’s public policy perspective;  increased alignment of day-to-day measures with outcome/outputs and focused perspectives; and  formally articulating critical success factors 2006-2007 improvements include:  articulating branch specific strategy in support of realignment  distinguishing more clearly between business strategy and enabling strategy, the latter reflecting renewed critical success factor approach  explicitly linking between objectives and indicator targets with respect to enabling strategies 2005-2006 improvements  re-aligning objectives and performance measures for better balance across stakeholder-facing and internallyfocused perspectives  greater distinction across internal and external perspectives in strategic direction  clarifying purpose and working to realign measure accordingly – exploration of measures of progress/success



greater articulation measurable targets

2004-2005  introducing new measures along the lines of the renewed performance measurement practice (2003-2004) including concept of primary and secondary measures  strengthening linkage to objectives via more thorough articulation of measure purpose, importance and targets

SECTION 2: Quality of Information

1. What performance indicators are presently being used by the Corporation? How do they support the achievement of the corporation’s strategic direction, operational plans, and management of risk? How does the Board know that the Corporation’s key indicators are achieving the corporation’s mandate, objectives, and strategies? 











The corporation uses performance indicators to measure it business outcomes, policy outcomes and internal effectiveness. In the context of our Plans and Reports, they have been generally on the quantitative side and tend to be articulated very succinctly as compared to what is used in our day-to-day service delivery/operations. One of the reasons CCC chose the ERP system was for it’s the strength of its querying capability and so at times standard measurement tools/formulas are used at other times, measures or formulas may be specific to a contextual decision at the business line level. The indicators in the 2008-09 Plan demonstrate the linkages between the indicators and strategic outcomes/outputs withthe business and financial perspective. In terms of the cascade into business plans or the roll up of business plans into the CP, there has been steady maturity on this front as reflected above. 2008-09 saw SMARTer goal setting, the highlights of which were summarized in the CP. With our risk management maturity, we were also able to integrate our performance and risk management approach through the mid-year review cycle and have continued building on that moving into the next Plan. For the coming CP and BPlans, we have been building on the evolution to date and have begun articulating more formally those measures that help in making business decisions. We have focused on strengthening the links between pillars, outcomes, objectives and have articulated indicators at both the outcome and objective level. We have aligned our existing indicators across our pillars at the outcome level and are focused on a measure’s review moving forward so as to validate their usefulness and/or develop alternative measures that would better suit our evolving business environment. (public policy contribution is a great example of where we want to make some significant progress, though it is difficult to precisely measure CCC’s specific impact, e.g. CCC’s impact on the GDP). We are focused on looking at both performance and risk indicators simultaneously, and both figured in the Board’s direction setting and plan approval process (due to articulation of indicators across both performance and risk in addition to the risk-based measure of additional contract costs) We also strengthened our distinction in the Plan between indicators and targets. The Board knows that the Corporation’s key indicators are achieving the corporation’s mandate, objectives, and strategies through multiple channels – management brings forward a risk management report, engages in a mid-year reporting process and of course the yearend reporting process. The re-alignment of measures (CP. P.22) also includes greater articulation of why we are focused on certain measurements e.g. total value of orders received helps measure out assistance to the Canadian exporter, how many exporters we work with and in how countries we help these exporters do business). We are also very focused on industry sectors in addition to country sectors, though traditionally these have appeared in our Reports and not so much in our Plans, outside of higher-level objectives (e.g. expanding in infrastructure markets etc.) The more sectors (be it country or industry sectors) we operate in, the more we can facilitate the exchange of Canadian exporter goods & services on the international stage. Where we would moving forward on the PM side is to further articulate how many exporters we assist as a percentage of total Cdn exporters in g2g priority sectors. In terms of the fees vs non-fees measures… this helps capture and monitor the evolution and health of the CCC business model, which is key to our growth agenda. On the public policy side, we are focused on measuring how CCC helps evolve public policy discussions and ultimately the impact our work has on the GDP. Very difficult to measure, but we are dedicated to measuring the slice we can influence. We are also concerned about developing softer measures… e.g. # and quality of partnerships, particularly given that we have identified strategic partnerships as key to our success.





On the operational side, we have refocused our energies on measuring elements of our Critical Success Factors: people, financial health, processes (where we have focused on our adherence to our contract payment commitments – again key given that we are in the contracting business) and risk (again with a focus on the contract mgmt context). In terms of the workforce, it is my understanding that there has stronger alignment since the last examination between executive accords/staff commitments with strategic direction… This year the Board further refreshed its incentive performance pay approach (as noted above) so as to reflect achievement of overarching business results as well as key milestones with respect to internal corporate priorities and redesigned its approach for the Executive cadre (linking performance pay to overarching business results, internal corporate priorities and expected behaviours/competencies).

2. How does the performance information produced by the Corporation help the Board carry out their oversight function? Has the Board delegated some or all of the responsibility for assessing the state of performance measurement and reporting to the Audit Committee? 





The Board focuses on indicators through its committee work and then in plenary at Board meetings – etc… gating process stats for example are deliberated upon through the Commercial Initiatives Committee (are things progressing as per our anticipated plans and results? etc…), benchmarking indicators for executive compensation for example are taken into consideration by the HR Committee. They are a decision-based Board and from my vantage point seem focused on ensuring their decisions are based on sound data and information. If they feel they don’t have enough information to engage in sound decision-making they challenge the Corporation to engage in further data collection and analysis that best suits the decision at hand. The Corporation has clearly articulated performance indicators not only at the outcome level but at the objective level which provides the Board greater ability to focus on key objectives that support achievement of outcomes. From what I understand there is a degree of delegation to the Audit Committee in that all Plans and Reports, for example go through the Audit Committee prior to going to the Board from an oversight perspective. The Audit committee then brings forward recommendations (approval etc..) to the board.

3. How does the Corporation ensure that performance indicators are meaningful (attributable), relevant, comparable, reliable, and practical? 

 

CCC has tended to use many of the same indicators over the last years. As indicated above, there has been a push to better demonstrate how that are meaningful and relevant with links to externally-focused or internal objectives, in turn, stronger linkages to outcomes, then better aligning with pillars and better distinguishing between targets and indicators etc.. We are also focused moving forward on developing a measures catalogue through the Business Planning Process and leveraging this to kickstart a measures review, a PM best practice. The performance indicator worksheets that will form the catalogue will ensure further rigour and greater continuity of performance measurement operations. This coupled with a strong push on training and process around contract management data entry supports strong data integrity, sound comparability and reliability. As for practicality and cost-effectiveness of measurement data, being so small this always has to come into play and one of the reasons why Agresso is such a good fit with its powerful querying capability.

4. How does the Board establish intermediate and ultimate outcomes to assess the extent to which CCC is meeting its mandate? 



Cannot speak to the past as I was not here … 2009-10 cycle: short and long-term view, one year slice towards 5 year outcome and this cascades down into business plans that have shifted from a one-year to a rolling three-year horizon. Environmental scanning and risk analysis plays a big part of how direction, outcomes, indicators (risk and performance) and anticipated results are set. The Strategic Planning approach is kickstarted in the Spring from what I understand with strong strategic direction shaped through Board Committee and Board meetings in the fall and finalized through Board Committee and Board meetings in Dec. The Board is also focused on measuring the degree of assistance we bring to the Cdn exporter and the impact CCC has on the achievement of G0C international trade policy & program objectives, and CCC’s engagement in evolving public policy direction and policy instruments. Targets are outlined and reviewed over

a five-year horizon with a breakdown at the Business line/branch level in the context of where we are trying to over the short and longer-term. And it is not only forward focused, in establishing this next CP, for example, the Board looked back at 10 yr data in its deliberations around short and longer-term outcomes (See Fall Retreat Strategic Directions Deck, for example)

5. How does the Corporation determine efficiency and effectiveness measures for its performance? How are these communicated to all employees? 









Efficiency and effective measures include financial health measures, process health measures and risk management measures and again one and 5 year targets are articulated in the CP with a 3 –year horizon being formally articulated in BPlans. It falls under Pillar 3 in the plan moving forward. And we have begun breaking down what is operational excellence for CCC across a number of our Critical Success Factors. Specific measures include: operating results/surplus, admin costs as a % of total billings, indirect expenses as a % of total expenses, the extent to which we keep to our contract payments commitments, % of additional contract costs ad a % of total billings as well as our adherence to the ERM framework. In terms of communications, the Incentive Pay Plan and Executive Compensation Program are major vehicles through which the Board ensures the workforce is all on the same page. There are three elements consistent across both that heavily influence staff performance pay on a yearly basis: Operating results/surplus, billings and achievements with respect to a priority corporate initiative. For each, the workforce is rewarded for the degree to which targets have been realized. The Corporation’s performance pay approach has been in place for some time and has become a common element for staff, one that they look to year-in year-out. Much emphasis is also put in internal communications, particularly the cascade of communications through employee-manager discussions. I have noted a staged approach to communications – communications to management often through retreats or business line/branch management meetings with a cascade down to staff with simultaneous iteration through monthly town halls. Equally important, clearer articulation of results in the context of the CP has also been an area of focus, and this better equips us moving forward to develop aggregate data around our capacity in setting and reaching targets/results, which will also inform our effectiveness and efficiency measures. As we move closer and closer to a project portfolio management approach, project management measures will likely figure more and more prominently in our measurement approach (e.g. key milestones achieved on time, scope, budget). Core service measures for those services essential to the Corporation’s success are also being formally reviewed/formally articulated through this cycle, particularly for functional branches.

6. What information is used to establish performance measures to ensure that they are “complete” (able to measure all the key success factors of the corporation) and “balanced” (addresses the distortion of emphasizing some success factors over others)? 

 

CCC has identified success factors over the last few years and these have certainly been used to shape measures across Pillar 3, particularly – people, process, financial health, risk. These factors will also be a key element of the performance management framework. As noted in Section 1, over time, CCC has developed a greater balance across performance measures to ensure focus is not only on business outputs but also to measure the management capacities of the org that will best enable the achievement of these outputs and ultimately then the outcomes. CCC went from a primary/secondary approach, then recognized more fully that enabling capacity was just as critical as outputs themselves etc… see front piece Section 1 for more. CCC’s approach to measures development is to follow best practice in establishing a minimum of 1.5 to 2 measures per outcome or objective. Development of the measures catalogue through this planning cycle is what will be used to measure ‘completeness’ moving forward. These worksheets will guide the rigour of thinking to ensure that the measure truly tells the story around performance progress that it needs to. As a small organization, CCC cannot afford to put effort into measuring what is unimportant. We are focused on measuring what helps us make decisions that are key to our success.

7. How does the Corporation measure public policy results including their “sustainable achievement” (ability to maintain success in the future)? How does the Corporation ensure that their indicators remain dynamic and reflect the corporation’s changing environment?







Public policy results have been traditionally measured with a focus on value of orders received, exporters and countries worked with, industry sectors we have been facilitating engagement with (in AR) and value of billings across core services. Moving forward we are looking to further measure how our public policy results tie in to international trade policy & program objectives. Ability to maintain success in the future – or in our words sustainable performance excellence – is precisely the driving force behind the high-performance management framework we have embarked on. This will include regular capacity assessments and more formalized guidance around indicator/measurement reviews. Indicators/measures are traditionally reviewed through each planning cycle, a more formalized approach will ensure greater consistency of approach and improved leveraging of lessons learned through review cycles (mid and year-end - or quarterly from a risk management perspective). At the objective level we are focused on monitoring our ability to promote better understanding of Canadian exporter needs, better alignment of public policy and programs, and our ability to bring together key stakeholders on relevant policy issues.

8. What is done to ensure that the corporation’s information systems and management practices produce accurate reporting to the Crown? What has the Corporation done to improve the quality of reporting done by the corporation to all of its shareholders? 







The Corporation invested heavily in Agresso, not just in acquiring and implementing the tool but in training staff at all levels to ensure both data integrity from an input perspective but equally from an output (reporting and analysis) perspective. This tool was selected (from what I understand) for its strengths in supporting a contracting environment and its querying capacity. The Agresso/Agilis project was successful due in large part to a super-user group that was formed early on. This group plays a great role in ensuring we are leveraging the tool as best we can, identifying and dealing with any issues that could compromise our data or process integrity w.r.t. our contract management information and practices. Key management practices include the review cycles (both mid-year and year-end; quarterly on the risk side) which are initiated at the business line/branch level and roll up to the Corporate level. This last mid-year cycle saw the integration of risk and performance, as well as more formality around the looking back and looking forward perspectives. Equally importantly, the Corporate Plan and Annual Report are approved by Parliament, there is regular discussion/dialogue with DFAIT senior management, as well as meetings between the Minister and Board Chair. To ensure sustainable quality reporting we have more strongly linked targets, indicators to outcomes and objectives, we have strengthened our articulation of measurable results and are introducing the measurement worksheets through this cycle to further support the greatest accuracy/rigour in data collection, analysis and reporting.

SECTION 3: Measurement of Success 1. What information is used by the Board to hold management accountable for achieving its objectives? How does the Board monitor of the corporation’s performance? What is done when corporate objectives are not met? 



The Board holds management accountable for achieving objectives set out in the Corporate Plan. This is encapsulated in the incentive performance pay approach through which the Board awards the Corporation’s workforce performance pay which is awarded across three incentive categories if the pre-determined trigger is achieved: Operating results/surplus, business volume and successful achievement of milestones around a priority corporate objective. The targets and trigger are set by the Board and the incentive pay is awarded as a percentage of completion of the target (ie 95% results in receipt of 95% of the available amount so as to take stock of the degree to which a corporate objective is attained. Management must demonstrate to the Board its achievements with respect to its objectives for its deliberations around incentive performance pay awards. The Board’s HR Committee oversees the Incentive Pay framework providing recommendations to the Board at large. Equally importantly te Board also holds management accountable through the Executive Performance Management Accords (Board to CEO, CEO to VPs, VPs to Directors) and regularly holds management to task and accountable for achieving objectives regularly through its four meeting clusters through the year (four



committee meetings leading to full Board meeting). The CCC Board is very engaged and its oversight is very much from the perspective of what needs to be done, what needs to be monitored to ensure CCC meets its objectives. The tiered outcome/objective approach as well as our gating approach are further clarifying accountabilities around performance indicators that the Board considers key to effective performance monitoring.

2. How does the Board ensure that the public policy objectives are clearly described in the corporate plan? 



The Board plays a large role in the development of the corporate plan, from setting strategic direction to overseeing the articulation of objectives in the plan. From what I understand deliberations begin as early as the Spring with fuller deliberations and setting of strategic direction in the fall, followed by individual Board member consultations leading to finalization of the CP in Dec. There are four Board meeting clusters per year, with Board committee meetings preceding the Board meetings at large. The Corporate Plan is presented to the Board committee meetings for the Committees to deliberate with their committee lens. Direction is then incorporated for full Board deliberations. As noted above in Section 1, the Corporation re-aligned itself to better deliver on its mandate which included greater/clearer articulation of the Corporation’s public policy objectives.

3. How does the Board ensure that reporting to the Crown and shareholders reflect the corporation’s progress, assesses any expected impacts on the corporation, and the appropriateness of its strategic direction? 



Inasmuch as the Board is very active in the development of strategic direction and development of the corporate plan, it is my understanding that the same holds true re the development of the Corporation’s annual report. Generally speaking each Board committee discusses annual report elements from their respective perspectives/lens. Board members also provide individual direction and as a whole the Board deliberates and engages in the decision-making around outcomes, objectives, indicators, and targeted results. The Board’s oversight is ongoing and quarterly risk management reports are brought forward by management facilitating regular assessment and deliberation of risks and their impacts on progress or ongoing relevance of direction.

4. How does the Board ensure that reporting to the Crown and shareholders is timely and comprehensive and adequately communicate the significant issues confronting the corporation, including all information that would affect the corporation’s financial viability and ability to fulfill its mandate? 





From my understanding, Board meeting clusters (i.e. Board committee and Board meetings) are scheduled over the year precisely to ensure timely oversight/monitoring in a cyclical fashion with always the looking forward perspective/processes and the looking back perspective/processes in play as one is always dynamically informing the other. The meetings schedule is fixed and committee workplans articulated and adhered to precisely to ensure timeliness with comprehensive deliberation. The Board is very active and engaged so in addition to workplan items significant issues are discussed as they emerge through the year - driven by sound management principles, rather than driven by process. Board activeness is evidenced by strong meeting attendance, meeting preparations for both Board committee meetings and the Board at large. Docs go 10 days prior to meetings to ensure timely preparations so that meetings are focused on value-add discussion & deliberations.

5. How does the Corporation ensure that the Board is satisfied with the main messages contained in annual report, and when applicable the corporate plan summary, and the budget summaries? 

Inasmuch as the Board is very active in the development of strategic direction and development of the corporate plan, it is my understanding that the same holds true re the development of the Corporation’s annual report. Generally speaking each Board committee discusses annual report elements from their respective perspectives/lens. Board members also provide individual direction and as a whole the Board deliberates and



engages in the decision-making around outcomes, objectives, indicators, and targeted results. Once approved by the Board, reports, plans and summaries are approved by the Minister and then by Parliament. In terms of the budget summaries, the Audit Committee plays a key role vetting financials prior to fuller Board discussion/deliberation.

6. How does the Corporation ensure that information reported to the Crown is reliable, relevant, balanced, transparent, complete, and is compliant with Part X, section 150 of the FAA? 

The Audit Committee reviews the AR prior to the AR going forward to the Board at large. They ensure compliance and provide the Board recommendation for approval as appropriate.

150. (1) Each parent Crown corporation shall, as soon as possible, but in any case within three months, after the termination of each financial year submit an annual report on the operations of the corporation in that year concurrently to the appropriate Minister and the President of the Treasury Board, and the appropriate Minister shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after he receives it. (2) An annual report laid before Parliament pursuant to subsection (1) stands permanently referred to such committee of Parliament as may be designated or established to review matters relating to the businesses and activities of the corporation submitting the report. (3) The annual report of a parent Crown corporation shall include (a) the financial statements of the corporation referred to in section 131, (b) the annual auditor’s report referred to in subsection 132(1), (c) a statement on the extent to which the corporation has met its objectives for the financial year, (d) such quantitative information respecting the performance of the corporation, including its wholly-owned subsidiaries, if any, relative to the corporation’s objectives as the Treasury Board may require to be included in the annual report, and (e) such other information as is required by this Act or any other Act of Parliament, or by the appropriate Minister, the President of the Treasury Board or the Minister of Finance, to be included in the annual report, and shall be prepared in a form that clearly sets out information according to the major businesses or activities of the corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, if any. (4) In addition to any other requirements under this Act or any other Act of Parliament, the Treasury Board may, by regulation, prescribe the information to be included in annual reports and the form in which that information is to be prepared. R.S., 1985, c. F-11, s. 150; 1991, c. 24, s. 49(E).

7. How does the Board hold management accountable for demonstrating that the information provided to the Crown is sufficient to allow an evaluation of how well the corporation has fulfilled its objectives? 



Management accountabilities are articulated through Management Accountability Accords (performance agreements for the executive groups) and CCC’s approach to executive performance management is in the spirit of Treasury Board guidelines (e.g. behaviours and competencies) such that accountabilities around upholding of values, ethics, policy suite direction are very much a part of day-to-day expectations. As with other practices we continue to evolve in this area for improved alignment with the direction we are taking re a more comprehensive approach to performance management (e.g. Leadership Agility article for example is being leveraged for more specific articulation of behaviours and competencies that are key to successful highperformance management orgs) The Board also struck a committee for oversight of the ERP project which relates to improved information management, particularly contract information management.

Section 4: Use of Performance Information 1. What information is used to link the Corporation’s performance expectations to its legislative, public policy, and mandate requirements? Does the Board regularly assess the quality, quantity, integrity, frequency, and usefulness of information received by management? 

Information used to link the Corporation’s performance expectations to legislative, public policy and mandate requirements are tied to the quantity of exporters (direct and indirect; e.g. multinationals with a value chain that comprises SMEs) CCC links with international markets, the #, depth & breadth of sectors CCC helps Canadian exporters engage in, as well as the #, depth & breadth of countries CCC helps Canadian exporters engage with in the public sector international trade environment. The Corporation also looks to the value of its billings as a measurement of its impact on the achievement of trade policy and program objectives. The Board regularly assesses the Corporation’s performance information in terms of plans and achievements against plans, but also through its ongoing decision-making with respect to priorities or its oversight/direction-

setting role through its Committee deliberations (e.g. Commercial Initiatives Committee). As mentioned above, Management is always focused on bringing quality and timely information to the Board and its committees in support of sound decision-making and my understanding is that the Board challenges when further information is required.

2. Does the Corporation define and validate its performance indicators by ensuring that the indicators are assigned to employees directly involved in the activity being measured? Does the Corporation assign ownership and accountability to all of its performance indicators? 

Achievement of objectives and activities are assigned through business planning, particularly with a focus on ensuring that risk mitigation responsibilities/accountabilities are well-defined. Ownership of performance indicators fall in with achievement/risk mitigation accountabilities. As the Corporation moves forward with the measures catalogue, this information will be captured on measure worksheets in addition to risk management worksheets ensuring further rigour and continuity..

3. Does the Corporation review its performance indicators to ensure that they are adhered to and are measuring what they were designed to measure? 



CCC distinguishes between indicators (what we consider indicators of progress) and anticipated measurable results/targets. Relevance and/or usefulness of indicators is re-assessed regularly through the Corporate Planning/Business Planning cycles. The measure review and worksheets clearly formalize the criteria for measure assessment.

4. Does the Corporation use results of performance indicators as a means for reallocating resources? 



The Corporation adjusts its course as required based on progress and risks on an ongoing basis at both the business line and corporate level. Where course adjustments require resource reallocation ($$$ or effort) to mitigate risks of not achieving objectives, it does so. Performance indicators are used to monitor progress towards achievement of outcomes, objectives or activities and when ‘ performance intelligence’ tells us we may not be on track we refocus our efforts or introduce new risk mitigation measures to get back on track. While the mid-year review formalizes a ‘management by exception’ approach where progress concerns are brought forward for discussion and deliberation, it is an ongoing practice across the corporation.

5. Does the Corporation use performance information to encourage synergies across the corporation? 

Performance information is collected and used both collectively at a Corporate level as well as at the individual branch/functional unit levels. Synergies are further encouraged through the incentive performance pay measures which are at the collective/corporate level, so all organizational units are on the same page, working towards the same goals, monitoring via the same performance indicators.

6. Does the Corporation solicit feedback from its employees and shareholders when it develops performance expectations and indicators? Are the results communicated back to them to reinforce the link of activities to corporate strategies and objectives? 



Indeed. This past cycle saw a cross-branch/function working group that focused on the development of performance indicators; workforce feedback was solicited through a 2-day management retreat in October; and consultation with shareholders (e.g. Treasury Board, DFAIT) are a standard practice as part of Corporate Planning process. Links across strategies, objectives and activities were articulated and communicated in the course of development. In terms of the Board’s involvement re development of performance expectations and indicators see above – Sections 2.4, 3.2 etc…

7. How does the Corporation ensure that the Board gets all the information it deems necessary to evaluate the corporation’s progress and the appropriateness of its strategic direction? What does it

do to assure the Board that the corporation’s information systems and management practices meet its needs and give the Board confidence in the integrity of the information produced?  

 



Through stronger linkages of activities, objectives and outcomes and a tiered indicator approach so as to zero in on the relevant indicators as per respective Board deliberations. CCC ensures that the Board gets the information necessary to evaluate progress and continued relevance of strategic direction on an ongoing basis – through quarterly risk management reports, through mid-year reviews, through environmental scans and risk assessments that inform corporate planning on a cyclical basis and through end-of year progress reviews. Management is accountable for providing sound performance information in support of the Board committee and Board deliberations which is provided from a historical perspective where appropriate. Our evolving performance regime is focused on improving measurement practices at outcome and objective levels, but equally importantly at activity and project levels. The effective implementation of Agresso (with Board oversight via a special Board committee) along with the improved rigour around contract management practices and the clear identification and capture of key contract management information has led to Board confidence around the integrity of information produced. Corporate Plans and Reports, any documentation that includes financial performance figures are vetted by the Board’s Audit Committee as standard practice. The Board’s Committee approach to governance lends itself to greater Board scrutiny of progress.



Section 5: Follow-up question 1. What are some examples of where CCC has not reported back in its Annual Report against performance measures as outlined in its Plan. Sophia, as agreed I have focused my analysis on the year 2006-2007. 



CCC considers its Corporate Plans to be the foundation of its Annual Reports and has been continually strengthening the clarity of alignment across Plans and Reports year-over-year. Due to the nature of the report, reporting back on items in our Plans are reported in a variety of areas in the Annual report. For this reason, one must look into the specific wording across the Annual report for coverage for some Corporate Plan measures. Alignment of reporting between the Corporate Plan and Annual Report has strengthened over recent years. We continue to improve this practice. Our 2006-2007 Annual Report reports back on everything outlined in the Corporate Plan. As indicated above in Section 1 (improvements since 2004-2005), 2006-2007 improvements and efforts included more explicit linkages across objectives & indicator targets, and enabling strategies that reflected the foundations of CCC’s renewed critical success factor approach. The 2006-2007 Corporate Plan was also particularly ambitious in strengthening the Corporation’s measurement approach: CCC articulated numerous measures/commitment and learned through the year and the Annual Reporting process the merits around the best practice of one to two indicators per objective. CCC reported back on its Corporate Plan commitments via Tables in Annex A, B and C. These tables (an example of which appears below), provide a comprehensive picture for each objective set out in the Corporate Plan, the status in relation to the year’s performance and the way forward for the following year: Objective in 2006-07 to 2010-11 Corporate Plan

Commitment

Performance Way forward for 2007against Objectives 08

In addition, the 2006-2007 Annual Report was elaborated upon in more through the Report’s prose and included performance indicators broken down with greater specificity than offered through the Plan of the same year (e.g. Business Volume by Country, by Sector).



Looking forward, our PM Framework priorities include further strengthening of measures & targets/reporting alignment for increased demonstration of the Corporation’s diligence in the area of performance management.