1. Management Accountability Framework (MAF) and the Way Forward
Introduction – Module 1
Ruth Dantzer
President, Canada School of Public Service
November 2009

2. Three central agencies share responsibility for supporting the Government of Canada in its planning and objective setting
Treasury Board (TB) is the management board of government:
Management office
Budget office
Employer
Cabinet
Prime Minister and Cabinet establish the policy priorities of the government through the Speech from the Throne, Budgets and other policy statements
Cabinet allocates resources to new policy priorities
Three central agencies – the Privy Council Office, Department of Finance and the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) share budget office functions
Privy Council Office (Secretariat which serves the Prime Minister and Cabinet)
Ensures policy proposals are consistent with government priorities
Coordinates review by central agencies/other government departments/agencies of policy proposals
Responsible for following-up on Cabinet decisions
Department of Finance
Provides advice to the Minister of Finance on the fiscal plan, budgets and tax policy and other areas
Examines economic and fiscal implications of policy proposals
Treasury Board (Cabinet Committee chaired by President of Treasury Board, Minister of Finance is a member)
Treasury Board’s budget office functions include:
Approval of all non-statutory program spending prior to seeking Parliamentary approval of the government’s spending plan
Submission of the government’s spending plan for Parliamentary approval
Setting spending levels for departments
Coordinating the reporting of program priorities, results, effectiveness and spending to Parliament
Treasury Board also acts as the government’s Management Office:
establishes the management policy framework for government
is the employer of most public servants.
Secretary to the Cabinet
Department of the Prime
Minister heads the
Public Service
Responsible for MAF*
Develops fiscal policy
Overseas the fiscal
framework
Responsible for developing
the Budget
*MAF: Management Accountability Framework

3. Management Accountability Framework (MAF) has evolved into one of the Treasury Board Secretariat’s (TBS’) key instruments for management oversight
TBS developed the Management Accountability Framework (MAF) in 2003 to better clarify expectations regarding a Deputy Minister ‘s leadership responsibilities and to assess the management capacity and performance of organizations on an annual basis.
Began as “framework for a conversation” between the Treasury Board Secretary and Deputy Ministers.
Used to comprehensively assess management capacity and performance in all departments and one-third of small agencies every year.
Direct impact on Deputy Ministers’ performance commitments and performance pay.
Iterative assessment process; information managed in a comprehensive Treasury Board database.
MAF assessments prepared by the Treasury Board Secretariat represent its ‘opinion’; summary of findings are made public.
Deputy Ministers increasingly using MAF results in their appearances before Parliamentary committees.
Assessments will be used as input to resource allocation decisions and to risk-manage departmental business with Treasury Board.
MAF began as initiative to clarify expectations of management practices/performance
basis of a conversation between Secretary and Deputy Ministers
Evolved as a means of comprehensively assessing management capacity and organizational performance
Now has direct impact on Deputy performance commitments and pay-at-risk
Findings (in the form of TBS opinion) are made public
Assessments are increasingly used to risk-manage departmental business with the Treasury Board
Deputy Ministers are using MAF to improve their management practices

4. MAF is an information gathering and assessment system that makes informed judgements about the state of management in federal government organizations
MAF is intended to assess and evaluate management performance in key areas of management (AoMs) that impact on the overall performance of the organization.
All major federal departments and a third of the small agencies are now assessed by MAF on an annual basis – between 55 to 60 departments and agencies.
19 areas of management and 65 lines of evidence underpin the assessment process.
Assessments are conducted by designated “Leads” within Treasury Board Secretariat that are each responsible for one Area of Management (AoM).
In September 2009, MAF launched its seventh round of assessments.
“Areas of Management” represent key organizational capacities
Various “Lines of Evidence” reflect expectations for each Area of Management
All major departments and 1/3 of small agencies assessed each year
Currently launching the seventh round of assessments

5. MAF distils the vision behind various management reforms into 10 expectations of each Deputy Minister
MAF translates vision of “sound public management” into 10 expectations of deputy heads, their leadership, and their departmental management.
As a Deputy Minister do I:
Exemplify Public Service values and ethics? (top blue)
Enforce organizational coherence and alignment to outcomes? (left red)
Require and use performance information? (right red)
Foster organizational confidence in the face of inevitable change? (bottom blue)
Secure and develop adequate analytic capacity? (left yellow)
Define the corporate context for managing risk? (bottom left green)
Develop the workforce/workplace needed by the department and Public Service of Canada? (top middle green)
Establish a comprehensive and comprehensible system of internal controls? (bottom middle green)
Consider the citizen’s perspective first? (top right yellow)
Manage accountabilities systematically? (bottom right green)

6. ‘Maturity’ of practice and capacity are assessed
Strong
Uses outcome/result-based management
Continuous learning and improvement to achieve highest standards
Sets best practices
Derives greatest value from its management
Is a leader, proactive and sets an example to others
In most areas of management, focus is on planning, growing capability, implementation and improved practice
Acceptable
Robust corporate engagement
Compliant with Treasury Board policies
Effective plans and demonstrated accountability
Integration and implementation is in place
Opportunity for Improvement
Aware of deficiencies and taking steps to redress
Plans/activities may be underway and accountabilities may be assigned
Corporate engagement not yet sustained
Plans are not yet fully integrated and implemented
Attention Required
Use a simple ‘maturity model’ approach
four levels
both qualitative and quantitative measures.
This model has evolved as departments have improved in capability and maturity.
Attention Required means that the organization not only faces major management challenges but seems not to be cognisant of the fact.
Opportunity for Improvement means that the organization is aware of its management challenges and has taken some but not yet sufficient action to redress them.
Acceptable means the organization has put in place adequate measures to address its management weaknesses and is compliant with TB policy where policy exists.
Strong means the organization has a record of sustained performance and strength in a particular Area of Management and may serve as a model to others.
Ratings are assigned both at the level of the 19 Areas of Management and the 65 Lines of Evidence.
Little corporate attention
Gathers little information regarding its conditions
Little effort to understand vulnerability
Little done about key issues
In areas where new Treasury Board policies are being phased in (e.g. audit, evaluation), focus is on progress towards full implementation

7. The MAF Assessment Process
The Secretary of the Treasury Board informs departments that they will be assessed by MAF.
Departments upload documents through the MAF Portal.
Documents are assessed by the Treasury Board Secretariat.
Preliminary reports are produced.
Reports are reviewed by departments for errors and/or misinterpretations.
Assessment reports are finalized, approved by TBS senior management.
The Secretary of the Treasury Board and respective Deputy Ministers have discussions on the results of the MAF report.
Assessments are forwarded to the Privy Council Office (PCO).
The Clerk of the Privy Council Office, in conjunction with a committee formed of Deputy Ministers, uses MAF in determination of Performance Pay and Performance Agreements with Deputy Ministers.
MAF Assessment Results are released on-line to the public.
Fall: departments advised of upcoming MAF Assessment process
Departments submit documentation as “evidence” of performance
Analysis by Treasury Board Secretariat occurs
Preliminary assessments provided
Departments review. discuss with Secretariat
Final assessments prepared, reviewed internally by Secretariat
Deputies and Secretary of Treasury Board discuss results
Assessments provided to Privy Council Office as input to performance review process for Deputy Ministers

8. Round VI overall performance trends continue to be positive…
% of Positive Ratings (Acceptable or Strong) have generally increased each year since
Round III.
There was a decline in ratings for Workforce (AoM #11) as a result of changes in the measures used.
Chart shows trends over last three years of assesment
Full data not collected during first two years and some areas being measured were changed – comparability in early stages therefore not possible
However, trends show organizational improvements since MAF’s inception - - chart shows this over last three rounds (Rounds IV – VI).
Notable example of success: procurement management
large gap of qualified procurement managers was identified in the earlier days of MAF
Led to concerted effort to recruit, train and retain qualified procurement managers.
Focused effort was a key factor in the improvement of management results in this area (see 7th bar from left), where since Round 1 it has moved from 50% of departments receiving acceptable or better to over 90% in recent years.
… indicating improved management performance remains a priority for departments and agencies.
Note 1: LDA refers to Large Departments and Agencies. Small agencies and micro-agencies are not included in these calculations

9. Progress was made in the majority of the AoMs identified as priorities in the previous Round of MAF
Progress on Areas of Management identified as Priorities for 2008/09
(as of May 5, 2009)
64%
54%
63%
82%
76%
90%
73%
41%
72%
80%
47%
74%
67%
95%
68%
92%
86%
46%
79%
Corporate Performance
Framework
Security and Business
Continuity
Internal Audit
Risk Management
Asset Management
Financial Management
and Control
Evaluation
Information
Management
Quality of Analysis
Corporate Management
Structure
Performance Reporting
Areas of Management most often
identified to organizations as
priorities
for 2008/09
(in ranked order)
% of LDAs rated as Acceptable or Strong
This is another demonstration of success – key priority identified
All (except one – asset management) show improvement
Four of these associated with oversight, measurement, review and performance key areas to enable improvements in management
Internal audit
Risk management
Evaluation
Performance reporting

10. Round VI assessments were positive with all Areas of Management (AoMs), except Information Management, receiving an average score of acceptable or higher…
Last round of assessments showed marked improvement – only one area with an average score below “acceptable” (information management)
Evidence that over time, assessments and associated actions have led to improvement in management capacity and performance
Increasing confidence that government of Canada is well-managed
… providing evidence that the Government of Canada is well-managed.
Note: LDA refers to Large Departments and Agencies as Small agencies and micro-agencies are not included in these calculations

11. An independent five-year evaluation of MAF was undertaken during Round VI
In November 2008, TBS commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers/ Interis to conduct an independent Five-year Evaluation of MAF.
Objectives of the Evaluation:
Evaluate how TBS is assessing public sector management practices and performance within and across the Federal government (i.e., is MAF relevant, successful and cost-effective?);
Compare MAF as a tool for assessing public sector management practices and performance across jurisdictions; and
Identify and recommend areas for improvement to MAF as an assessment tool and its supporting reporting requirements, tools and methodologies.
Focus of MAF Five-year Evaluation
Is MAF relevant – successful – cost effective
Seek comparative data across jurisdictions
Identify areas of improvement
Methodology of Five-year Evaluation
Used multiple lines of evidence
Document / literature review
Collection of cost data from TBS and a sample of organizations
International benchmarking (UK, USA, EU and Australia)
Oversight and guidance provided by a Special DM Steering Committee and TBS Evaluation Committee
Consultations / interviews were held with department/agency stakeholders:
27 Deputy Heads, Privy Council Office, 35 ADM-level MAF contacts in departments/agencies, 18 Director-level MAF Network participants; and 12 Director-level Small Agency Administrators Network, Treasury Board Secretariat contacts
Key conclusion: “MAF is meeting its stated objectives.”

12. The Evaluation Recommendations and TBS’ Management Response will support the continued evolution of MAF as a performance enabler
Recommendation
TBS Response
Implement a risk/priority based approach to the MAF assessment process.
TBS will implement a risk-based approach with a view to preserving
the benefits of MAF while reducing reporting burden by at least 20%.
Large Departments and Agencies:
Core AoMs: Core management functions on which each organization must be assessed annually (e.g. Ethics, HR, Financial, Risk, Audit and Evaluation).
Department Specific AoMs: Have a particular relevance to the organization’s mandate and activities.
Remedial AoMs: Areas of weakness and priorities identified by TBS in the previous Round.
Rotational AoMs: A three-year cycle of remaining AoMs not captured in the previous categories.
Small Departments and Agencies:
Small agencies will continue to be assessed every three years.
Only AoMs materially relevant to the mandate/ business of the entity will be assessed.
Should the entity have poor results, it may be assessed more frequently.
Five recommendations, Treasury Board Secretariat responding with changes:
Current assessment focusing on priority areas and adopting risk-based approach to lessen burden on departments and focus attention where greatest gains are to be made

13. Evaluation Recommendations (cont’d)
TBS Response
2. Develop guiding principles for MAF methodologies.
TBS will ensure consistency and transparency across the MAF
assessment framework by applying guiding principles that will aim to ensure a balance between qualitative and quantitative measure and ; and recognize innovative management practices (Rounds VII and VIII).
3. Introduce or leverage an existing governance body with senior representatives from stakeholder departments to assist MAF.
TBS will increase dialogue and build shared MAF accountability
through senior official engagement and collective discussion on
GoC priority setting and horizontal issues (Round VII).
4. Develop a stakeholder engagement strategy and communication plan.
TBS will formalize and expand existing stakeholder engagement and internal and external communication plans to increase awareness and transparency of the MAF process (Round VII).
5. Assign formal responsibilities within TBS to oversee the MAF methodology and horizontal issues management.
TBS will strengthen horizontal issues management capacity while respecting and fostering the relationship between TBS policy sectors and functional communities.
Also committed to:
streamline MAF methodologies
review what and how management performance is measured
ensure key issues are measured in a credible, reliable and consistent manner, with no major gaps or overlaps.
Plans in place to strengthen stakeholder engagement and governance in regards to the MAF process.

14. Moving forward with the Next Generation of MAF…
The MAF 5-Year Evaluation and the TBS Management Response will be posted on the Publiservice Website Fall-Winter 2009
External Launch of Round VII took take place on September 29th - 30th
Round VI Assessments will be posted on PublicService Website during Fall 2009
Implementation of MAF 5-Year Evaluation Recommendations will occur over Round VII and Round VIII (2009/ /11)
Continue to engage stakeholders (e.g. using existing committees, newly formed working groups, and regular information sessions and bulletins)
The Second Annual Leading Management Practices Conference with departments/agencies to be held Winter 2010
Round VII results will be released to departments/agencies April 30, 2010
We are well on our way to working more effectively with the MAF process in a more mature environment
Built the structure carefully and recognized the need to maintain consistency in approach
Success requires continuous review to ensure the tool is serving us well and directing attention in the right areas
Second annual Leading Management Practices Conference will be held in winter important means of learning from each other as we progress