Review Branch
Direction générale de
l’examen de programmes
REVIEW OF MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE,
BRIEFING AND TRACKING SERVICES,
AND THE SUPPORTING SYSTEM (CTBS)
FINAL REPORT
FEBRUARY 2001
REVIEW OF MINISTERIAL CORRESPONDENCE,
BRIEFING AND TRACKING SERVICES,
AND THE SUPPORTING SYSTEM (CTBS)
FINAL REPORT
FEBRUARY 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. MAIN POINTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. OBJECTIVE / SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
6. FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
ANNEX A - Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
ANNEX B - CS CIMS Annual Operating Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
ANNEX C - Correspondence and Briefing Note Production and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Process Charts
Review Branch
Sir John Carling Building
930 Carling Avenue
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0C5
(613) 759-6503
http://www.agr.ca/review/rbmain.html
Correspondence, Tracking and Briefing System (CTBS)
February 2001
OVERALL CONCLUSION
The review has identified several issues requiring remedial action in both the current ministerial
correspondence and briefing processes and the system which supports them. The current system has
not achieved the benefits outlined in the original business case, more importantly, it is not capable of
meeting the requirements of senior management or users. The issues which have contributed to this
situation are captured in two main categories below; Management / Process and the Technical
capacity of the system.
As with previous reviews, some of the issues identified in this report can be directly linked to the
original process for system development / implementation and the minimal involvement of key
management decision makers.
During the course of this review it became apparent that information and correspondence requests are
received and responded to by the department in a variety of ways. The various mediums, including the
Ministerial Correspondence Unit (MCU), Public Information Request Services (PIRS), ATIP, Media
Relations and the web sites utilize separate and independent information sources; a situation which
presents potential for inconsistent messaging, duplication of effort and organizational inefficiencies.
1. MAIN POINTS (Further detail on main points can be found in section 7)
Management / Process Issues
No clear accountability
Specific accountability for the
management and maintenance of the
departmental process for ministerial
correspondence and briefing, tracking
and distribution has not been clearly
defined. In addition, accountability for
decisions affecting the system which
supports the process, in this case the
Correspondence, Tracking and
Briefing System (CTBS), has not been
clearly assigned. As a result, system
decisions have, by default, been
assumed by the Corporate
Management Branch, currently
responsible for the technical
maintenance and operation of the
Review Branch
Control Objectives for Information and Information
Technology (COBIT) ‘Expectations’
• The responsibility for the business (or in this case IT)
process must be clear and that accountability must be
unambiguous.
• Clearly documented, maintained and communicated
standards are a must for a good control process.
• Clear responsibility for custodianship of these standards
also is a requirement for good control.
• The control process must be well documented as to how it
works with clear responsibilities.
• An important aspect is the clear definition of what
constitutes a deviation, i.e., what are the limits of
deviation.
• The timeliness, integrity and appropriateness of control
information, as well as other information, is basic to the
good functioning of the control system.
• Both control information and corrective action information
will have requirements to establish accountability.
1
Correspondence, Tracking and Briefing System (CTBS)
February 2001
system. This lack of clear accountability and authority over the department-wide process and the
supporting system has affected the department’s ability to effectively manage the overall briefing,
tracking and distribution process, and to identify and implement necessary improvements to both the
process and the system.
Duplication and inefficiencies
CTBS users in general, lack sufficient knowledge of the system features and how to use them, leading
to unnecessary manual record-keeping and duplicate processes. These manual and duplicate
processes are viewed by users as simpler, more efficient and more reliable. This is contributing to
disparate, and often, inconsistent processes and use of CTBS which in turn, produces an incomplete
database. This incomplete database is limiting the ability of the department to accurately and effectively
track documents and mine available information. Although one of the expectations for CTBS was to be
able to reduce the amount of paper copies of briefings and ministerial correspondence, it appears that
the issues identified in this review are contributing to the adoption of procedures and processes which
generate as much paper as before the system was introduced, and creates duplicate paper trails.
Technical Issues
The computer system is limited in meeting requirements
As a result of technical limitations, CTBS is not capable of generating necessary information and
producing reports required by users and managers to effectively monitor and manage the
correspondence and briefing process. The system is incapable of producing information for priority
setting, performance management and environmental analysis.
The primary limitations of CTBS include; inadequate search capability; unacceptable reporting
capabilities; and, numerous, complex screens and time consuming operations.
Perception of inordinate system support costs
The ongoing operating and maintenance cost of CTBS is approximately $400K annually (see Annex
C). A portion of this annual operating and maintenance cost is “cost recovered” from user branches.
There is a perception among departmental managers that this cost is unreasonably high given the
system’s inability to meet basic user and management requirements. This perception has been cited as
the primary reason for their reluctance to pay their portion of the annual cost.
Potential security breaches limit the effectiveness of the system.
CTBS has limited capability in defining user access rights. Consequently, the system is vulnerable to
having users modify documents and tracking information which does not belong to them. This issue is
compounded by departmental IT system and physical security issues, identified by an RCMP based
1998 Threat and Risk Assessment, which renders CTBS inappropriate for classified documents. As a
result, classified documents are being managed outside the system via diskette or paper. The absence
Review Branch
2
Correspondence, Tracking and Briefing System (CTBS)
February 2001
of these classified documents from CTBS mitigates the benefits one would expect to be derived from an
automated correspondence and briefing system.
Other
Potential for inconsistent messaging to the public
During the course of the review it became apparent that information and correspondence requests can
be received by the department in a variety of ways. Likewise there are diverse ways for the
department to respond. The two corporate processes for handling departmental correspondence,
which fell into the scope of this review, are the Ministerial Correspondence Unit (MCU) for requests
addressed to the Minister, and the Public Information Request Services (PIRS) for requests not
specifically addressed to the Minister. These groups utilize separate and independent processes and
systems. It should also be noted that no evidence of coordination between the department’s other
external communication vehicles (e.g., A.T.I.P., Media Relations, Web site etc.) came to light during
the review; a situation which presents potential for inconsistent messaging, duplication of effort and
organizational inefficiencies.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the department:
Management:
1. Clearly define and delineate the responsibilities and accountability for the correspondence
and briefing process and the system which supports it.
•
Consideration should be given to the following best practices observed in other organizations:
•
•
•
Including regular dialogue with the Minister’s Office (MO) to ensure consistent high quality
decisions are made on the distribution of correspondence, instruction for responses and
development of briefings,
Examine the potential for integrating PIRS and MCU processes and system,
Add a 'Frequently Asked Questions' section to the departmental website using information
collected from 'environmental scanning' of correspondence, the experience gained through
PIRS and the analysis of e-mails to the Minister, currently underway.
•
Re-activate the departmental user group to provide a forum for dialogue.
•
Continue to participate in the interdepartmental Sub-Committee on Executive Correspondence.
•
Further refine the requirements from this report to determine specific requirements and detailed
specifications before making a system replacement decision. (see Annex B)
•
Ensure training, for the current and any future system, is comprehensive, timely and includes
follow-up to assess the need for reinforcement training.
Review Branch
3
Correspondence, Tracking and Briefing System (CTBS)
February 2001
Process:
2. Examine the mapped correspondence and briefing processes produced from this review,
with a view to developing a standard streamlined process.
•
Consideration should be given to developing a standard process which includes best practices
observed in other organizations such as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
MCU assignment of ministerial correspondence to the director level (copy to DG);
Point form draft responses for ministerial correspondence;
Professional writers in the MCU to formalize draft responses to ministerial
correspondence;
Branch sign-off at the director general (DG) level for ministerial correspondence (currently
practiced in some branches);
Increased use of departmental sign-off at the branch level for information requests sent to
the Minister (bypassing the Deputy Minister’s Office, the MCU and the MO);
Use of electronic approval, up to the Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) level;
Use of a telephone response system where appropriate; and
Provide a standard confirmation of receipt to correspondence addressed to the Minister,
including estimation of minimum response times, should current delays in the MO continue.
Under the direction of the person identified as accountable for ministerial correspondence and briefing
as well as the supporting system, it is recommended that CMB:
System:
• Test Web CIMS (new release from current vendor) using the additional management and user
requirements gathered during this review.
•
• Product testing should be completed and assessed before any pilots are undertaken.
Test Vantive (system used by the Help Desk) using the additional management and user
requirements gathered during this review.
•
Product testing should be completed and assessed before any pilots are undertaken.
Security:
• Examine network security to assess the possibility of using modern encryption network
technology so that classified documents can be included in a departmental system.
3. OBJECTIVE / SCOPE
The review was undertaken at the request of the Deputy Minister, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
(AAFC), with the assistance of Consulting and Audit Canada. The review was expected to address
three objectives:
Review Branch
4
Correspondence, Tracking and Briefing System (CTBS)
•
•
•
February 2001
Determine AAFC’s functional and operational requirements for tracking correspondence
and briefing documents;
Identify improvements needed for meeting these needs; and
Based on operational and decision-making needs, assess the existing functional capability
of meeting these needs through the current Correspondence Tracking and Briefing System
(CTBS) and examine other viable options.
4. METHODOLOGY
The Review focussed on the processes in the Department for the production of various documents for
the Deputy Minister/Associate Deputy Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State
for Agriculture. The principal document flows assessed were those for ministerial correspondence and
briefings.
Based on this information, process improvement options were developed and approaches were
examined to address the gaps between the identified requirements and current functionality. The review
also included comparisons with Human Resources Development Canada, Finance Canada and
Transport Canada, identified as organizations with possible good practices. Informal discussions were
held with a number of other departments.
5. BACKGROUND
In 1994, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) initiated a project to replace its departmental
correspondence tracking system with a new broader-based computerized system, CS-CIMS (named
CTSB). This new tracking system was implemented in January 1997. It was intended to automate
critical departmental functions including the tracking of correspondence and briefing notes for the
Minister and Deputy Minister as well as management of responses, transmission of dockets and the
maintenance of a records registry for retrieval and analysis. The system was also expected to eliminate
the need for hard copy distribution thereby reducing paper flow and improving efficiency.
There has been ongoing dissatisfaction with CTBS, and concerns with the high cost and minimal utility.
6. FINDINGS
Overview
In terms of determining the functional and operational requirements (objective 1), interviewees were
able to easily identify specific requirements for the tracking of correspondence and briefing material as
well as potential improvements. Issues identified relate to a lack of information about the requests
captured in the computerized system, the complexity of the system and the incomprehensible reports
the system generates. Detailed requirements are presented in Annex B.
Review Branch
5
Correspondence, Tracking and Briefing System (CTBS)
February 2001
Improvements to the current processes (objective 2) are presented in the recommendations section and
are based on the detailed findings presented below. The detailed findings are organized in two
categories - Management / Process Issues; and Technical Issues.
The assessment of existing capability of CTBS and its ability to meet the management and user
requirements identified in the review (objective 3), concluded that the system does not have the
necessary functionality.
Management / Process Issues
No clear accountability
Specific accountability for the management and maintenance of the departmental process for ministerial
correspondence and briefing, tracking and distribution has not been clearly defined. In addition,
accountability for decisions affecting the system which supports the process, in this case the
Correspondence, Tracking and Briefing System (CTBS), has not been clearly assigned. As a result,
system decisions have, by default, been assumed by the Corporate Management Branch, currently
responsible for the technical maintenance and operation of the system. This lack of clear accountability
and authority over the department-wide process has affected the department’s ability to effectively
manage the overall briefing, tracking and distribution process, and to identify and implement necessary
improvements to both the process and the system.
There also appears to be a need, especially in the case of briefing requests, to have better coordination
of day to day operations and clarification of requests before they are forwarded to branches for
response.
There are a number of alternative models used in other departments, such as placing the responsibility
for ministerial correspondence in the Communications branch, having a more integrated ministerial
correspondence, briefing, scheduling and parliamentary affairs unit and having more senior personnel
managing day to day operations and clarifying requests before they are distributed within the
department.
It should be noted that assigning responsibility for responses and briefings, often entails significant job
experience, judgement and knowledge, both within branches and in the MCU, and is therefore a duty
which benefits from regular assessment of qualifications.
Duplication and inaccuracy
Annex D presents detailed process charts which outline the steps
required to respond to a letter to the Minister as well as to produce
ministerial briefings. Color coding has been used to indicate automated
processes versus manual processes.
Review Branch
“Minor formatting stuff
should be changed up at
the top....you have to
redo all the copies and
all the approvals.”
6
Correspondence, Tracking and Briefing System (CTBS)
February 2001
A mapping of the process used to respond to ministerial briefing and correspondence has revealed that
CTBS is largely duplicated by a paper copy system. As a result CTBS has not reduced the paper
burden that was originally envisioned when the new system was implemented. Documents and
information, similar to those in CTBS, are kept in hard copy folders at almost every step in the process,
resulting in a myriad of duplicate information. For example, when a briefing request comes into the
department from the Minister’s staff, in addition to entering the information in CTBS, a paper copy of
the request is made and placed in a BF file. When the request is received by an ADM’s office, another
paper copy is made and put into a BF file. An electronic request is then made to a Director General,
where another paper copy is generated. This process is repeated at the Director level. In total, a
paper copy of the request is generated and stored at least four times even though the information is
contained in CTBS. If changes are required then a whole new set of paper copies will be produced.
Currently, hard copy transmittal sheets are used for sign-offs. This is accompanied by paper copies of
the request and the response. Since both the request and response are in CTBS, there is little need for
these documents to be printed and reprinted as they are revised on the way up for approval. Approval
could be done electronically by instituting electronic signature or approval capability in the department.
Unnecessary hard copy distribution was also noted in the circulation of briefing notes already stored in
CTBS, for which an electronic transfer would be far more efficient.
The reliance on paper causes delays when staff must wait for copies to be physically transferred by
MCU staff who work part-time from home, even though the copies have already been sent
electronically.
The extra paper generated also raises the potential for security breaches.
Throughout the interviews, inconsistencies were noted in how CTBS is used and how data is entered.
A case in point is the use of key words. When ministerial correspondence is entered into CTBS, key
words are assigned to characterize the request and assist in searching. The assignment of key words is
a manual choice which can result in inconsistent descriptors for similar requests, and, consequently,
database searches may not pick up all the relevant documents for a given subject.
Further inconsistencies result from the lack of mandatory fields which would ensure that certain
information is recorded in CTBS before the new entry is accepted. For example, management may
want to track VIP correspondence such as letters from Members of Parliament (MPs), however not all
letters from MPs are currently labeled as such in the system.
There are other cases where inconsistencies emerged. For example, an
urgent request may arrive with insufficient time to follow the entire process,
in these cases the process is usually circumvented. While the need to short
Review Branch
“For rush jobs I
tend to worry about
CTBS later.”
7
Correspondence, Tracking and Briefing System (CTBS)
February 2001
circuit the process is, in many cases, necessary and unavoidable, the request, associated documents
and a record of what happened are not always entered into CTBS. Most notorious is the practice of
ministerial staff calling branch officers and requesting letters or briefs directly. Both the Minister’s
Special Assistants and staff in the office of the Secretary of State were noted for this practice.
Efficiencies were also lacking in the area of service standards. Currently no service standards are
publicly advertised, such as how long a response can be expected to take. Even automatic replies
(noting receipt of e-mailed correspondence) are only available for e-mails sent to the Minister through
the departmental web site. All faxed and mailed requests for information or explanations receive no
notification. A test e-mail sent directly to the Minister in early November, specifically asked for
notification of receipt of the e-mail and an indication when a response would be forthcoming. No
notification of receipt was every received.
Inefficiencies were also noted in the briefing note process. Some requests coming from the Minister’s
Office were entered into CTBS and sent directly to a particular branch without vetting to ensure the
request was clear. This results in considerable time expended by authors and their management in
responding incorrectly to a request or doing much more work than necessary to clarify the objective. A
similar problem exists with correspondence to the Minister which may not always be directed to the
appropriate branch or agency.
More thorough vetting would allow for greater delegation to the branches of responsibility for sending
out replies in cases of requests for non-sensitive information. Some departments, such as HRDC, use
established criteria to determine whether a ministerial inquiry is for information or whether it is a policy
question requiring the minister’s signature on the response. They estimate about half of the ministerial
letters are for information and can be signed and sent out by departmental officials. Other departments,
such as Transport Canada, require all letters for the Minister to have a response signed by the Minister
or his staff. It is estimated that currently 20 - 40% of AAFC’s ministerial correspondence is signed by
departmental officials, bypassing the MO, and thereby speeding up response time to the public. It may
be possible that this percentage could be increased with greater vetting. This practice also reduces the
workload at the ministerial staff level. The aforementioned test e-mail was processed in the department
in 15 working days, but remained unsigned in the MO for over six weeks. This delay suggests that
there is merit in reducing the work load of the Minister’s staff.
Finally, the process of approvals is often overly cumbersome and inefficient, as displayed in the process
maps in Annex D. The standard process is to have the MCU send a request for a response to the
branch contact, usually in the ADMO, who then sends it down to the appropriate DGO, and then to the
director’s office and finally to the officer. Each level then approves what the officer writes before the
branch contact can then send the response back up to the MCU. Any changes go through the whole
process again. If professional writers worked in the MCU, as practiced in Human Resources
Review Branch
8
Correspondence, Tracking and Briefing System (CTBS)
February 2001
Development Canada (HRDC), then officers could simply send a point-form response and reduce the
number of times a response is forced through the approval stages for edits.
There are also specific cases of extra approval processes. Particularly convoluted is the process for the
Secretary of State’s (SoS’s) office, where the MCU, once receiving the response back from the
appropriate branch, sends the response, in both paper and electronic form, to the DMO, which sends it
to the Associate DMO, from where it is returned to the DMO, then back to the MCU and only then to
the SoS. The SoS office has expressed concern that most of the assignments they receive are late. It
might be more efficient if the Associate DMO could send documentation directly to the SoS, and
electronically only. Greater use of electronic copying (cc.s) can reduce a great number of steps
currently used in the department.
Technical Issues
The computer system is limited in meeting requirements.
Senior management has stated that information they require is generally
“The print-out doesn’t
unavailable from CTBS and that many of the current reports were
tell me enough. People
essentially unintelligible and of little value. Management found they had to
don’t type enough - not
rely on manual and hard copy processes to obtain the information
enough value added.”
required. For example, CTBS is unable to provide a concise and
comprehensive listing of various requests which are due that day, along
with information concerning the subject of the briefings or correspondence
in order to assess the relative priority of the work. Furthermore, there is often insufficient information in
CTBS to accurately interpret requests. The result is often additional work at the branch level,
incomplete briefings or briefings which do not address the key questions. In the latter two cases extra
work is involved in sending the request back and forth through a complicated multi-step editing and
correction process (See Annex D).
In some cases it would appear the data required to produce the necessary reports is simply not
collected in CTBS, or is not collected in a complete and systematic manner. In addition, even when the
information required is collected, the search function is not capable of searching all fields in the
database. These factors contribute to the management perception that CTBS is unreliable and raises
the potential for inconsistent messaging to the Minister. The fact that sensitive and secure documents
are not stored in CTBS exacerbates this situation.
Interviewees did not find CTBS particularly user-friendly. As well, CTBS was said to be slow and
difficult to navigate. In order to move from one screen to another users have to close screens and
“back out” to the screen they need to view because it is not possible to work on several screens at one
time.
Review Branch
9
Correspondence, Tracking and Briefing System (CTBS)
February 2001
Compounding this problem is the need to use more than one screen when performing certain searches.
As well, many of those interviewed found the search function to be inadequate, time consuming and
unreliable.
A primary purpose of CTBS is tracking assignments. While
CTBS does identify all those who have been given assignments,
they are not necessarily in order within one day, i.e., by time of
day, and there is no option for identifying in what unit, directorate,
division, etc., the assignee works, thus making it difficult for others
to know where in the process/system the response is.
“It isn’t clear who else is
receiving it. You get a bunch of
names of secretaries without
knowing who they work for.”
Overall the impression of the principal users of CTBS is mixed. While some felt CTBS was an
improvement over the previous computerized system, most felt it still did not meet their needs.
Discussion with staff at HRDC, which uses the same automated system, revealed that they also found
the system did not meet their requirements.
Perception of inordinate system support costs.
The annual cost to the department for utilizing CTBS is unknown. The CMB cost to operate and
maintain CTBS is approximately $400K per year. This cost does not include training costs for users of
CTBS. Detailed costs are documented in Annex C.
The known costs do not include potential time lost by the principal users of CTBS due to system
slowness and design. However, a bench marking exercise at HRDC concluded that the department
lost more than 2 PY’s per year using the same system due to these factors.
It also appears that current departmental costing practices have undermined the use of CTBS. Each
branch is billed a share of the system cost based on the number of licences in their respective branches.
This, in addition to the management perception that CTBS is of minimum value, has led branches to
reduce the number of people using CTBS. Given this situation, it would appear that the annual cost of
CTBS significantly outweighs the system functionality and benefits derived from using the system.
Potential security breaches limit the effectiveness of the system.
CTBS is not set up in such a manner that users in the department have access to certain documents on
a ‘need to know’ basis. An employee with access to CTBS can read and modify much of the content
and alter the information related to the tracking of requests. Furthermore, once a response is attached
to an electronic folder, it is possible for other users to alter the contents of the response. Interviewees
stated that it is not unusual for a folder or assignment to be closed incorrectly by another user in the
department, sometimes requiring considerable work to reset the appropriate information.
Review Branch
10
Correspondence, Tracking and Briefing System (CTBS)
February 2001
In the case of most briefings the response is attached to CTBS once the Director has signed off, but at
this point in the process, the response has not been approved by the ADM and DM. However, it is
possible for the Minister’s staff, who have access to CTBS, to access this response prior to the DM
reviewing and approving it on behalf of the Department.
On a related note, an RCMP based Threat and Risk Assessment undertaken in 1998, determined that
AAFC’s Wide Area Network and the Local Area Networks are accessible by individuals outside the
department and are therefore not secure. Since CTBS is located on the network, sensitive or restricted
documents are not entered into the system. This limits the completeness of the database for searches
and management analysis. The irony in this situation is that most authors develop and store their
responses for these requests on departmental LANs which could be accessible to outside individuals
anyway.
It is also possible that the current building security offers less protection for sensitive documents than
security offered through computer encryption technology for the database.
Other
Potential for inconsistent messaging to the public.
The department receives requests for information from several sources, including the web site, e-mail,
letter, telephone or fax. There is no consistent, coordinated approach for responding to these requests.
The two “main” units responsible for coordinating departmental responses to public requests are the
MCU and PIRS. These groups reside in different units within the department and the requests are
handled using different processes and systems. This lack of coordination presents potential for
inconsistent messaging, duplication of effort and organizational inefficiencies.
Public Information Request Service (PIRS)
Requests for information directed to the department (not an individual) by e-mail using the
departmental web site, by phone or by mail, are handled through PIRS, which is managed through
the departmental library in the CMB. PIRS staff enter information about the request into a
computer system called HEAT, which is separate and distinct from CTBS. Requests are sent
directly by e-mail to an officer in the department with instructions to respond directly to the
individual making the request for information. According to PIRS staff, the response is generally
provided within a “few days”. The response does not usually receive consideration or sign-off by
departmental management. Although officers are expected to inform PIRS when the request has
been completed, this is not routinely followed and PIRS staff do not track the requests. Therefore,
unless the officer responds back to PIRS, there is no follow-up to ensure that the request was
answered, who answered it and the content of the response.
Review Branch
11
Correspondence, Tracking and Briefing System (CTBS)
February 2001
Ministerial Correspondence Unit
A request for information sent directly to the Minister is handled through the MCU, which is part of
the DMO. The request follows an elaborate and complex path into the department (detailed in
Annex D), then to an officer and back to the MO. This process is supported by CTBS, which
tracks when the request was answered, who answered it and the content of the response.
The existence of the two systems raises a number of issues and concerns. The responses to the public
through the PIRS system are not tracked to ensure that any departmental guidelines or standards
regarding message consistency or timeliness are met. Further, responses made through the PIRS
system are not included in the departmental database where they could be searched along with
responses which may have been addressed to the Minister directly. This leads to potential for
inconsistent messaging. For example, the same request could be sent by the general public through
PIRS and through the MCU. The time-lines for a response could be quite different (days vs. weeks)
and it is possible that different officers would be assigned responsibility and thereby provide different
responses. While there was no evidence of different responses to a request, it does present a risk
which should be addressed.
It should also be noted that no evidence of overall coordination between the department’s other
external communication vehicles (e.g., A.T.I.P., Media Relations, Web site etc.) came to light during
the review; a situation which presents potential for inconsistent messaging, duplication of effort and
organizational inefficiencies.
Review Branch
12
February 2001
Correspondence, Tracking and Briefing System (CTBS)
ANNEX A
Requirements
Note: The following tables contain comments and additional requirements from interviewees.
The check marks are a preliminary indication of WebCIMS’ ability to meet these requirements based
on a brief demonstration of the product by HRDC and their opinions on the product, and as such they
are not intended to be conclusive. CMB will be doing more extensive testing.
Based on a brief demonstration of Vantive, this product has potential to be customized to meet the
current and additional departmental requirements. This option should be explored further
SAP and PeopleSoft do not have the capability for correspondence tracking and briefing. The other
options need to be assessed further.
*M = mandatory K = pre-defined keywords using a drop down selection box
*
Data Requirements
WebCIMS
Vantive
RDIMS
U
M,K
Source of the correspondence (eg, e-mail, letter, fax)
M,K
More “Action” types
M,K
Branch, Directorate, Division and Unit of assignees
(visible with assignment and folder details)
U
M,K
Geographic location of correspondent (currently
voluntary)
U
M,K
Type of correspondent
U
M,K
Context of request
U
M,K
Priority of assignments
U
M
System generated date and time of assignments or
sequence numbers
Review Branch
Integrated
Solution
U
U
U
U
U
13
February 2001
Correspondence, Tracking and Briefing System (CTBS)
*
M
M
Information / Reporting
Requirements
Assignments by:
• keyword and topic
• type
• date
• branch, directorate, division
• correspondent type
• assigner and assignee position title
Outstanding assignments requiring Minister or DM
attention by:
• topic
• due date
• type of document
• type of correspondent
• etc.
WebCIMS
Vantive
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
M
Calendar and status report (BF)
U
M
Ministers’ calendar for forward planning
U
M
Capability to analyze data
• Summaries of trends (frequencies etc) including
days per assignment per branch and area, etc.
?
U
M
Performance reports
?
U
WebCIMS
Vantive
* System Requirements
Better on-line help
M
User friendly system
• easy navigation
• intuitive
U
U
U
U
Search capability:
• all fields to be searchable
• “drill down” into the database (progressive search)
U
U
U
U
Search quality:
• faster
?
U
U
M
Review Branch
RDIMS
Integrated
Solution
RDIMS
U
M
M
M
Integrated
Solution
14
February 2001
Correspondence, Tracking and Briefing System (CTBS)
* System Requirements
WebCIMS
Vantive
M
Capability to run user-defined reports or queries
• using drop down boxes for reporting selection
criteria
U
U
U
M
Simultaneously send assignments to multiple
assignees
U
U
M
Attach any document type
U
U
M
Secure system which would allow classified
documents to be processed
• classified documents currently are copied to
diskettes
M
Automatic notification of arrival of assignments
M
More comprehensive security profiles for access
control
M
Ability to define any field as mandatory
U
M
Electronic sign-off / approval
U
M
Ability to have more information on one screen
Integrated
Solution
RDIMS
U
?
U
U
U
Process Enhancements
Place standard responses on the Web page as FAQ’s (results of analysis)
Better tracking of document status
Notification sent to all correspondents noting receipt and expected response time
Delegate routine requests
Reduce number of steps in approval process
Eliminate final scan of response after signature by Minister
Clarification of requests for briefings done at the front end of the process
More training and awareness of the system, processes and standards
Active user group
Branch sign-off at the DG level for ministerial correspondence (currently practiced in some branches)
Review Branch
15
Correspondence, Tracking and Briefing System (CTBS)
February 2001
Process Enhancements
Increased use of departmental sign-off by branches for information requests sent to the Minister
(bypassingMCU DMO/MO)
Reduced reliance on paper copies of electronic transmissions
General Observations
Screen print-outs are difficult to read (don’t look like screen)
• incomprehensible to some
Too many screens
• only one screen can be open at a time
‘Close’ and ‘Exit’ buttons are too close together
The system is slow = long wait times for screens to come up
Manual systems used to compensate for lack of awareness of system capabilities
Interoperability problems running on NT workstations
Users are not restricted from viewing other peoples’s assignments
Limited use of the comments box
The process is still highly paper based despite the electronic system. Cost/ benefit of the system needs
to be examined
Review Branch
16
February 2001
Correspondence, Tracking and Briefing System (CTBS)
ANNEX B
CS CIMS Annual Operating Costs
CTBS Operating Budget 2000-2001 (Estimated) for Cost Centre: 145635
1.51
Exchange Rate (as of Nov / 2000)
Canadian $
US $
Sub-Totals
C$
Comments
Maintenance
CIMS License 5 mths (Apr-Aug)
$22,525.43
$14,917.50
Advanced Security Module 5
mths (Apr-Aug)
Imaging (AE) 300 seats, 5 mths
(Apr-Aug)
OTG DiskXtender HP20XT 5
mths (Apr-Aug)
OTG DiskXtender Testing 5
mths (Apr-Aug)
CIMS License 7 mths (Sep/2000Mar/2001)
Eastman Kodak Imaging Pro 2.5 for OCR Server
Eastman Kodak Imaging Pro 2.5 Scanner users
Eastman Kodak Imaging Pro 2.5 Rest of users
Sub-Total
$1,415.63
$937.50
$9,718.93
$6,436.38
$621.84
$411.81
$40.49
$26.81
5 mths: Apr/2000-Aug/2000
(Old contract)
5 mths: Apr/2000-Aug/2000
(Old contract)
5 mths: Apr/2000-Aug/2000
(Old contract)
5 mths: Apr/2000-Aug/2000
(Old contract)
5 mths: Apr/2000-Aug/2000
(Old contract)
7 mths: Sep/2000-Mar/2000
(new contract)
1 license + media
$10,745.29
$139.00
$3,501.00
To Be Determined - 30 licenses
(3 * $1167.00)
To Be Determined - 320
licenses (32 * $1167.00)
$37,344.00
$86,051.59
$86,051.59
Hardware/Software
New Compaq Servers - 3 yr onsite Next Bus Day
New Compaq 35/70 DLT-3 yr onsite Next Bus Day
Diskeeper v 4.0 Annual Maint (2
copies)
Powerchute Software (upgrades
are at n/c)
Backup Exec - Upgrade
SmartNet maint for 2 telecom
switches
Misc - cables, DLT tapes,
shipping, manuals, accessories
Pager
Review Branch
Standard Warranty
Standard Warranty
$120.80
$80.00
Estimate
$0.00
$175.00
$1,680.00
$1,500.00
Estimate
$70 * 2 * 12 (Check with Carey.
Some switches removed)
Estimate
$150.00
17
February 2001
Correspondence, Tracking and Briefing System (CTBS)
Network Express - transport of
Alpaha's to Hull
Sub-Total
$161.25
Local delivery + temp fuel
surcharge (7.5%)
$3,787.05
$3,787.05
Professional Services (KnowledgeFlow / FSG)
Prof Services Support as needed
WebCIMS pilot + OTG migration
$30,200.00
$12,080.00
Optional MEI silver service plan
$8,000.00
Sub-Total
$50,280.00
Training
Training - CIMS Administration
Training - CIMS
Training - WebCIMS
Training - CIMS or WebCIMS
Sub-Total
$3,030.00
$6,060.00
$6,060.00
$6,060.00
$21,210.00
MEI
Membership fees (if AAFC joins
MEI)
Sub-Total
CS-3
CS-2
CS-2
CS-2
Sub-Total
Funded in contract but Optional
Proposal included in the new
contract
Unfunded in contract
(prerequisite: 5 day Tech
course.)
$50,280.00
3 day Admin course
5 day Technical course
5 day Technical course
5 day Technical course
$21,210.00
$15,000.00
$15,000.00
Operating Total
Salaries:
$20,000.00
$8,000.00
$15,000.00
$176,328.64
Salary
$65,000.00
$54,500.00
$54,500.00
$54,500.00
Salary +
Benefits
$78,000.00
$65,400.00
$65,400.00
$65,400.00
$274,200.00
Note: The above is based on maximum CS-02 and CS-03 Salaries and reflects the charge for a full
complement of staff time on CTBS
Note: For the fiscal 2000-2001, one CS-02 started on CTBS in September 2000
Review Branch
18
Correspondence, Tracking and Briefing System (CTBS)
February 2001
ANNEX C
Correspondence and Briefings Production and Process Charts
(The Correspondence and Briefings Production and Process Charts may be obtained from the IT/IM
Audit Manager, Rosemary Stephenson at [email protected].)
Review Branch
19