Evaluation of the Implementation of Workplace 2.0

The Three Pillars

1. The Workplace – physical workspace (e.g. buildings).
2. The Back Office – policies, processes, and systems (e.g., Human Resources policies, information management).
3. The Way We Work – new technologies to encourage mobility (e.g. Wi-Fi, laptops, e-meetings, social media).

This report presents the findings of an evaluation conducted by INAC's EPMRB. It assessed the design and delivery of the Department's activities and outcomes, pointing to progress made so far and areas for improvement. It also looked at the Department's performance with respect to the three pillars of Workplace 2.0.

The evaluation incorporated these lines of evidence:

• bioecological method (study of life in a particular environment);
• literature review;
• program document review;
• administrative and financial data analysis;
• an INAC employee survey;
• key informant interviews; and
• site studies.

INAC has made significant progress to date in implementing the first pillar of Workplace 2.0 – the physical transition. Approximately half of the National Capital Region employees and nearly one third of regional office employees have transitioned to the retrofitted work environment.

A focus on the other two pillars will be critical to success moving forward as they have not kept pace with the physical transformation. The application of technological components (such as mobile phones, laptop computers, Wi-Fi) was limited, as was the revision of workplace policies, such as those supporting telework. The focus on space management has contributed to the dissatisfaction among employees, who largely see the initiative as a cost-saving exercise.

Employee satisfaction, overall, is low. In particular, they expressed dissatisfaction with the densely concentrated work environments, which seemed unsuited to some job functions. They also raised concerns regarding morale and productivity.

Employee Satisfaction Levels

Text alternative for Employee Satisfaction Levels

The bars shown for each item include satisfied and very satisfied. The summary of total satisfied is numerated. The values presented are: Availability of support spaces: 27%, Availability of boardrooms: 26%, Collaborative area: 23%, Open office concept, modern and colourful: 22%, Efficiency gained from consolidating teams: 18%, and, Improvements in technology: 11%.

Design and Delivery

The implementation process was championed by INAC’s Accommodation Services Unit, within the Human Resources and Workplace Services Branch (HRWSB). Despite limited capacity, it led the largescale initiative across the decentralized department. Regional offices were generally satisfied with their relationship with the Unit.

The Unit recently began the development of a comprehensive communication strategy to obtain employee feedback on how to improve Workplace 2.0 implementation. This will prove helpful, as the evaluation found that engagement with employees around Workplace 2.0 at INAC has been limited so far, which has contributed to employee dissatisfaction.

The creation of a defined governance and oversight structure for Workplace 2.0 is a key area of opportunity. INAC’s Human Resources Workplace Services and Management Committee provides a forum to advance the Government’s Public Service Renewal agenda, but it is unclear if it has been providing strategic or oversight decision making; Workplace 2.0 decisions were not systematically documented. Coordination will require more timely engagement with Shared Services Canada and collaboration with INAC’s Information Management/Information Technology (IM/IT) group (which has not happened so far).

Implementation at INAC has occurred in concert with other government-wide space management initiatives. The objectives of these initiatives are mutually supportive – they both call for the reduction of occupied space – but they should not conflate. A defined, strategic governance approach will ensure that INAC sees the holistic benefits of Workplace 2.0.

1. HRWSB to review and update its Workplace 2.0 Implementation, Communications and Engagement strategies to address gaps in advancing the technology and policies pillars, and seek approval from the Deputy Minister.
2. HRWSB to form a Workplace 2.0 implementation team, to include representation from Accommodations, Occupational Health and Safety, Information Technology, and Security.
3. HRWSB to identify and revise policies required to successfully implement Workplace 2.0; present these to the Human Resources Senior Management Committee; be submitted for Deputy Minister approval; and, then, be communicated to staff.

1.1 Purpose and Scope

This report presents the results of the evaluation of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada's (INAC) implementation of its Workplace 2.0 initiative undertaken by INAC's Evaluation, Performance Measurement, and Review Branch (EPMRB). The purpose of the evaluation, conducted in accordance with the Department's approved 2015-16 to 2019-20 Five Year Plan on Evaluation and Performance Measurement Strategies, is to provide a credible, reliable, and timely assessment regarding INAC's implementation of Workplace 2.0 and its early impacts.

The evaluation looked at the Department's performance with respect to the three pillars of Workplace 2.0: 1) The Workplace; 2) The Back Office; and 3) The Way We Work. The Evaluation, Performance Measurement and Review Committee approved the Terms of Reference for the conduct of this evaluation on September 25, 2015. INAC's Workplace 2.0 implementation initiative supports the federal government-wide strategy, led by Public Services and Procurement Canada, to update existing public service workspaces. The Government's Workplace 2.0 initiative is mandatory for new federal government buildings unless an exemption to the policy is sought and approved.

1.2 Report Structure

This report includes six sections: Section 1 introduces the concept of Workplace 2.0; Section 2 outlines the evaluation methodology; Sections 3, 4 and 5 provide findings as they pertain to the context under which Workplace 2.0 was introduced, including its design and delivery, and outcomes achieved so far. Section 6 details conclusions and recommendations.

1.3 Initiative Profile

2.1 Data Sources

• Literature Review – A literature review of over 35 Canadian and international journal articles, media reports, and publications were reviewed to provide broad information about the concept of workplace renewal. The findings shed light on the context in Canada and abroad and the characteristics of effective workplace renewal initiatives in other jurisdictions and organizations.
• Document and File Review – Fifty documents and files were reviewed, including Public Services and Procurement Canada and INAC publications and presentations, communication materials, project planning and operational records, financial records, and others. In addition to these files, evaluators searched the Government internet and intranet for information relevant to Workplace 2.0, such as comments, ideas, and discussion feeds shared on GCpedia and GCconnex, as well as questions and inquiries sent to the dedicated Workplace 2.0 email account (MT2.0-WP2.0@tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca), managed by Public Services and Procurement Canada.
• Key Informant Interviews – Given limited documentation available detailing Workplace 2.0 impacts at INAC, substantial effort was directed at carrying out key informant interviews, discussion groups, and site visits within both INAC Headquarters and regions. Key Informant Interviews were conducted with both Workplace 2.0 implementers and recipients to elicit knowledge and perspectives with respect to the Workplace 2.0 initiative in general and its implementation within INAC. Interviews were held with INAC officials in the National Capital Region, and at regional offices (i.e., Vancouver, British Columbia, Regina, Saskatchewan; and Winnipeg, Manitoba). Interviews with other government departments were held within the National Capital Region. A total of 51 interviews were conducted with the following groups:
  • INAC Implementers (Officials responsible for INAC's Workplace 2.0 activities) (n=15);
  • INAC Recipients (Senior officials of recipient organizations within INAC who are responsible for facilitating the transition to Workplace 2.0) (n=17);
  • INAC Senior Management (n=7); and
  • Implementers of Workplace 2.0 in other federal departments and agencies^{Footnote 10} (e.g. Public Services and Procurement Canada; Employment and Social Development Canada; Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada; Health Canada; Export Development Canada; and Treasury Board Secretariat) (n=12).
• Discussion Groups – A total of 11 discussion groups (three to 15 participants each) were conducted with INAC employees in the National Capital Region and regional offices in Vancouver, Regina, and Winnipeg. Participants were employees with a diverse range of job duties who already transitioned, or were in the process of transitioning, to Workplace 2.0. Employees who could not participate were given the opportunity to provide written responses with respect to the questions in the discussion guide.
• Site Visits – Three regional offices and a regional processing unit were selected based on implementation status and to reflect both Headquarters and the regions. Interviews with senior officials responsible for implementing Workplace 2.0, as well as discussion groups, were held with employees impacted by the implementation. The follow sites were visited:
  • Regina, Saskatchewan: Relocation and implementation completed in April 2014;
  • Vancouver, British Columbia: Relocation and retrofit completed in August 2015; and
  • Winnipeg, Manitoba: Transition to Workplace 2.0 was not yet scheduled at the time of the evaluation; Application Processing Unit, Resolution and Individual Affairs: Relocation and transition to Workplace 2.0 expected in early 2017.
• Workplace 2.0 Survey Data Analysis – A National (INAC) Employee Survey on Workplace 2.0 was administered by the HRWSB in April 2016 to obtain feedback from INAC employees on their experiences, and ideas about Workplace 2.0. A total of 1,683 completed surveys were received from employees who were either not, or already, in a 2.0 environment. Employees expected to move to a 2.0 environment in the next two years also had an opportunity to participate. The evaluation team performed a secondary analysis of the survey responses.
• Financial Review – Information was obtained from INAC's Planning and Resource Management, Chief Financial Officer Sector. A summary of the financial information is cited in Section 6.7.
• Bioecology – Bioecology is the study of interaction of life in an environment. For over two weeks, evaluators worked full time in INAC's Workplace 2.0 cubicles to generate an experimental assessment of Workplace 2.0 at INAC. Evaluators relocated to cubicles on a densely-occupied area of the 8th floor of INAC (National Capital Region).

2.2 Considerations, Strengths and Limitations

INAC undertakes a wide variety of tasks to achieve its strategic outcomes, such that employees are engaged in functions that may not be conducive to Workplace 2.0. Thus, alterations to such factors as the physical layout or configuration of space, and the provision of office facilities and services, may conflict with Workplace 2.0 and can have considerable effects on how individuals or teams go about their work. Consequently, the evaluation carefully considered the impact of the implementation at both INAC (National Capital Region) and a sample of INAC regional offices.

An NVivo encoding process used to analyze the qualitative data helped evaluators capture information about Workplace 2.0 user behaviours, needs, desires, routines, and other themes.

The methodology was limited by a lack of detailed implementation documentation. While some high-level information was available regarding Workplace 2.0 (e.g., mandate, operating approach, policies and standards), limited information was available on the specific details, particularly with respect to governance, decision making, and consultations. In addition, there were few recent (e.g., last two years) documents. In many cases, documents were outdated and had limited applicability to the implementation of Workplace 2.0 in the Department.

3.1 Significance of Workplace 2.0

The Workplace 2.0 initiative was developed in response to changing dynamics and new opportunities in the world of human resources and physical facilities, both in the broader work context and in the federal public service. The drivers of change include: generational shifts (retirement of the baby-boom generation and the introduction of a new generation to the workforce); increased emphasis on the environmental performance of the workplace; and the growing need for cross-departmental collaboration on challenging issues.^{Footnote 11}

Workplace 2.0 aims to rebuild and refine the workplace of the future for the Government of Canada through its vision of workplace renewal – a modern, streamlined, flexible and sustainable work environment. It offers multiple opportunities: to serve citizens better; to engage and motivate employees; and, to operate in an environmentally and fiscally sustainable manner.^{Footnote 12} Workplace 2.0 is pursuing this vision through an obligatory government-wide program and providing a solid foundation from which departments develop their implementation plans.

3.2 Business Context – Today's Workplace

Today's global business environment is characterized by high competition and increasingly mobile talent and capital. Businesses are increasingly revisiting their traditional workplace strategies given the view that traditional work arrangements at best provide little to the organizations and at worst impede their creative and competitive advantage. The need for more flexible workplace strategies has intensified, driven by the opportunity to capitalize on rapid technological advancements. A well-connected and mobile workforce is not well served by bricks, mortar and a 9-5 workday. The federal government is not immune to these change drivers and stiff competition for talented staff. Federal government employees are coming to expect that their work environment will mirror the private sector, including working in collaborative office spaces as teams, accessing and leveraging technology, and more flexible and meaningful work. Workplace 2.0 aims to meet these challenges.

3.3 International Context – Workplace Changes

In the documents reviewed for this evaluation, the design of the workplace (i.e., offices) is typically described as either traditional (also known as enclosed or cellular offices) or open-plan. The traditional workplace often has one or two individuals in private, wall-enclosed rooms, which contain most of the amenities required for their job.^{Footnote 13} Open-plan workspaces feature either short or no interior walls and larger floor plans.^{Footnote 14} Individual workstations tend to be arranged in groups.^{Footnote 15}

Globally, the work environment has been transitioning for decades to an open-plan workspace and, in response, private and public organizations have been investing in innovative office designs. Open-plan workspaces have been leveraged to accommodate the mobile, group-based, flexible, or remote working styles of today's workforce. The literature finds human capital and organizational objectives to be the driving forces of office transformation. One study found the top drivers to be: reduced real estate costs (18 percent); employee attraction and retention (16 percent), communication and collaboration (15 percent); employee productivity (14 percent); and, creativity and innovation (10 percent).^{Footnote 16}

Regarding real estate, one study estimates that, in the United States, the average square foot of office space per person dropped from 225 to 176 between 2010 and 2012 and is predicted to drop to 151 square feet per person by 2017.^{Footnote 17} Other literature notes that in both the United Kingdom and North America, office design is typically driven by cost and open-plan layouts remain the norm.^{Footnote 18}

Though the open plan concept was invented in Europe in the 1960s, a declining trend in its use has been observed in Europe in the past few decades. Since as early as the 1970s, the "co-determination" movement swept across Europe where legislation in Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and Italy gave workers a say in how companies were run and offices were designed. The movement led to the rejection of open office landscaping in Germany and in Scandinavia.

Several decades of research confirm that both traditional and open-plan offices have their advantages and disadvantages. Open workspaces coupled with traditional work arrangements are generally associated with greater employee stress, poorer co-worker relations and reduced satisfaction with the physical environment.^{Footnote 19}

3.4 Historical Context – Federal Government Workplace Initiatives

In the Canadian federal government, demographics, technology, and mobility have all impacted how and where public servants work. Workplace 2.0 reflects one initiative in this evolution and exists adjacent to other federal government initiatives related to workplace design.

Budget 2010 announced of a number of cost containment measures to reduce the rate of growth in operating expenditures in 2010-11 and in the following two years. This eventually led to the implementation of the Deficit Reduction Action Plan (DRAP) in 2012. Budget 2011 re-announced a "strategic and operating review", also referred to as DRAP, as a strategy to contain resource activities and translate these into ongoing savings of at least $4 billion by 2014-15.^{Footnote 20} In implementing cost containment and efficiency improvement strategies, these reviews directly influenced the implementation of Workplace 2.0.^{Footnote 21}

In the Eighteenth Annual Report to the Prime Minister on the Public Service of Canada from 2011, the Clerk of the Privy Council stated:

"A modern, healthy workplace supports greater productivity, a more engaged workforce and better results for Canadians. Deputies and managers have a responsibility to create workplaces that support the well-being, wellness and productivity of our employees."^{Footnote 22}

Workplace 2.0 was introduced by Public Services and Procurement Canada (Public Services and Procurement Canada) to support the Clerk's commitment to workplace renewal. While DRAP was focussed almost exclusively on cost-saving measures, Workplace 2.0 was (and is) focussed on modernizing and improving the federal work environment through the use of technology and more flexible work arrangements.

Budget 2012 noted, under the heading of Office Accommodation and Portfolio Impact, that "The [government] will…introduce new office space standards in Crown-owned and federal government occupied buildings…consistent with industry best practices." ^{Footnote 23} Public Services and Procurement Canada, in concert with departments, was tasked with implementing this renewed, however significantly different, focus on office accommodation. The Budget introduced two major workplace modernization initiatives, namely: Space Standards Modernization and Space Recapture. The Space Standards Modernization initiative involves modernizing (i.e., transforming) the federal government's workplaces to ensure that they are in tune with prevailing industry trends in office accommodation. Space recapture is about savings through elimination or repurposing of surplus space due to staff complement reductions under DRAP and more efficient program delivery methods.

As part of an ongoing Human Resources Modernization process, the Treasury Board introduced the Common Human Resources Business Processes in 2012 and departments were given until March 31, 2014, to fully implement the directives. The Common Human Resources Business Processes standardized the delivery of core Human Resources functions across the federal public service, including processes from planning and staffing to compensation and performance management.

Released in June of 2013, Blueprint 2020 laid out a vision for building a world-class public service to serve Canada and Canadians. In order to achieve this, four guiding principles were established:

1. an open and networked environment that engages citizens and partners for the public good;
2. a whole of government approach that enhances service delivery and value for money;
3. a modern workplace that makes smart use of new technologies to improve networking, access to data and customer service; and
4. a capable, confident and high-performing workforce that embraces new ways of working and mobilizing the diversity of talent to serve the country's evolving needs.^{Footnote 24}

From 2013 to 2014, senior management across government engaged staff in a variety of fora, including discussion groups, social media, contests, surveys, etc., to solicit their ideas and engagement on how to make real Blueprint 2020. The result was Destination 2020, which was released by the Clerk of the Privy Council in May of 2014.^{Footnote 25} The ideas and actions flowing from Destination 2020 are integral to the success of Workplace 2.0.

3.5 Current Status – The Open-Concept Government Workspace

4.1 Overview

At its core, Workplace 2.0 is about the modernization of the workplace and requires that significant time and energy be paid to transformation planning and change management. The transformation planning for this initiative requires a process, which includes the development of a strategic plan for changing the organization's business processes by modifying policies, procedures, and processes to move the Department from its "as is" state to a "to be" state.

In implementing Workplace 2.0 at INAC, a key success driver is that stakeholders are involved in determining and recognizing the need for the change. Consultations at all levels and stages would provide HRWSB with the opportunity to review and analyze the responses regarding plan design, governance, implementation and administration. Engagement should occur throughout the design and delivery process, from "getting started" to post-occupancy in order to create a "common ground" and assist in determining the scope, timing, and viability of the initiative. The process encourages such activities as establishing a recognized and effective structure to steer and manage both the design and redesign processes; data collection to measure performance; and developing a transition plan, which will indicate to affected employees consideration of their workplace welfare in the implementation process.

The existence of a Workplace 2.0 Accommodations Framework that sets the direction, accountabilities, decision-making structure and responsibilities for the management of Workplace 2.0 office accommodation, including sections on accommodation planning, office space acquisition, fit-up, management, maintenance, and physical security was not evident to the evaluation team. Such a framework would have facilitated the understanding and assessment of management principles, accountabilities and monitoring, and their effectiveness. As a communications tool, the Framework could have promoted a broader awareness of INAC's Workplace 2.0 office accommodation policies, including any existing departmental accommodation Standards, Directives and Procedures.

4.2 Objective Setting

In its implementation effort, INAC focused largely on the physical components of the initiative. In 2012, the Department implemented the first phase of its Accommodation Services Strategy, which sought to consolidate National Capital Region employees centrally and build more meeting space^{Footnote 32}. The strategy briefly mentioned the integration of the other two pillars of Workplace 2.0.

In its 2014 and 2015 presentations to the Human Resources and Workplace Services Management Committee^{Footnote 33} and the Financial Management Committee, the Accommodations Unit focused almost exclusively on the physical conversion of departmental space. It noted in a May 2014 presentation to the Human Resources and Workplace Services Management Committee that the guiding principles of the Space Strategy were to modernize current space to meet the new Workplace 2.0 standards, reduce occupied space to compensate for an incremental reduction in the space envelope, and consolidate programs to save time, reduce travel costs, and ensure effective operations^{Footnote 34}.

Each presentation during this time frame contained comprehensive details on upcoming Workplace 2.0 projects, the amount of space that would be reduced and the resulting savings that would be generated^{Footnote 35}. The Department planned to have its space envelope reduced to 117,759 m² by the end of 2014-15, but by November 2015, it still had a space envelope size of 121,374 m².

Initially, the Department expected to have Workplace 2.0 fully implemented by 2019-20.^{Footnote 36} At the time of writing, consideration was being given to "briefcase moves" in which the Department would be only be allowed to reorganize employees within the existing office footprint. Such moves would delay the National Capital Region Workplace 2.0 projects until 2019. As a result, Workplace 2.0 fit-ups are now anticipated to be completed by 2023.^{Footnote 37}

Apart from meeting the DRAP commitments and ensuring compliance with the Workplace 2.0 Fit-up Standards, there is only one other measure available to assess how INAC is progressing in implementing Workplace 2.0, which is also focused on space reduction objectives. The space utilization rate refers to the amount of space occupied by a full time equivalent. As per the 2012 Space Allocation Standards, Public Services and Procurement Canada reduced the national average allocation of office accommodation from 16 m² to 14 m² per full time equivalent^{Footnote 38}. As of October 2015, the Department's space utilization rate ranged from 17.3 m² to 20 m² per full time equivalent^{Footnote 39}. By April 2016, this figure had improved to 15.2 m² per full time equivalent, which is lower than the national portfolio average of 16.3 m² per full time equivalent, but still 8.6 percent over the target of 14 m².

4.3 Communications

The Accommodations Unit has been involved in marketing the initiative to employees. For instance, in 2013-14, approximately 700 employees attended presentations by Accommodations on Workplace 2.0, including those in sectors that were eventually transitioned to the initiative.^{Footnote 40} Regional discussion group participants and interviewees who transitioned to Workplace 2.0 recalled visiting sample floors and attending meetings. Interviewees recalled hearing about more flexible work environments with options to telework, more collaborative spaces and appropriate furniture, and improved technology, such as laptop computers and Wi-Fi. While there was some information available regarding Workplace 2.0, interviewees stated that were not aware that these were parts of the other two pillars.

The evidence suggests, however, that employees do not have a common understanding of what is meant by Workplace 2.0 and that, where there is a convergence of understanding, it is on its physical aspects. Interviewees and discussion group participants indicated that their experience of Workplace 2.0 was very different from what was communicated to them by the Department. Telework and Information Management/Information Technology (IM/IT) were cited as examples where there was an expectation that there would be simultaneous implementation along with the reduction in workspace size. It should be noted that in cases such as the implementation of mobile technologies such as Wi-Fi, the Department relies on Shared Services Canada to fulfill its roles and responsibilities.

The overarching goal of Workplace 2.0 is to "create a modern workplace that will attract, retain and encourage public servants to work smarter, greener and healthier to better serve Canadians". However, communications on this message were inconsistent. HRWSB management and interviewees impacted by Workplace 2.0 noted that contrary to this stated goal, cost reduction was (and is) the primary driver behind the initiative.

At the time of writing, the Department was preparing to implement a client engagement strategy on the Workplace 2.0 initiative. This will prove helpful as interviews with INAC employees responsible for the implementation of Workplace 2.0 noted INAC did not have a comprehensive strategy to engage impacted staff impacted. Indeed, Senior Management acknowledged this was an area where HRWSB management could improve. Management also noted that it was important for managers of staff impacted by Workplace 2.0 to ensure employees understood the impact of the initiative on their daily routine, such as an increase in noise levels.

4.4 Governance and Oversight

INAC's Human Resources Workplace Services and Management Committee is mandated to assist senior management in fulfilling its obligations related to overall human resources management, including executive resourcing, workforce and workplace related matters. It provides a forum to advance the Government of Canada's Public Service Renewal agenda. It is unclear, however, the extent to which the Committee was (is) involved in strategic or operational decision making for Workplace 2.0, or which body is providing oversight for the initiative.

An explicitly-defined governance structure for Workplace 2.0 is a key area of opportunity. Interviews with management in the National Capital Region highlighted that their involvement in the initiative had been largely limited to the role of "client" and did not have any formal involvement in the planning and design of the processes associated with implementing Workplace 2.0. Interviewees noted their desire to be involved formally in future decisions.

The implementation process was championed by INAC's Accommodation Services Unit within the HRWSB. The Unit has not been adequately resourced to implement an initiative on the scale of Workplace 2.0. It has been challenging for the Unit to secure consistent and dedicated resources from areas such as Occupational Safety and Health, Information Technology, Policy and Security in order to advance the initiative is a coordinated manner. Staff turnover over the past several years has compounded the capacity issue.

Despite limited capacity, the Unit led the largescale initiative across the decentralized department. Regional offices were generally satisfied with their relationship with the Unit, which is located in the National Capital Region. Implementers with regional offices were generally satisfied with their relationship with the Accommodation Unit. However, they noted that more engagement and direction would be helpful as there are ongoing challenges to implementation. The challenges of decentralisation to implementation were noted by the Accommodations Unit staff as there have been instances where they were unaware of the projects in progress or completed in the regions. With no formal governance body to report to and to monitor the progress on a departmental scale, staff in both the National Capital Region and regions were left to obtaining updates and information through informal channels^{Note de bas de page 41}.

Interviewees emphasized the need for an integrated team, comprised of representatives from the corporate support units (e.g., IT). IM/IT is not presently engaged with the Accommodations Unit with regards to the design and implementation of Workplace 2.0, or when moves are planned, and sometimes communications between Shared Services Canada and the Accommodations Unit by-passes IM/IT. Similarly, Shared Services Canada is not sufficiently engaged with INAC.

4.5 Working with Federal Partners

Implementers were generally satisfied with the relationship with Public Services and Procurement Canada. They found officials accommodating and helpful, albeit with minor difficulties in coordinating moves. One region found support from the Department very limited, and that their needs were not well responded to or met. INAC implementers had some challenges in working with Shared Services Canada in the implementation of Workplace 2.0 in both Headquarters and regions. Implementers on the technological side found Shared Services Canada objectives for the implementation of Workplace 2.0 unclear, and implementers in all areas of the Department found that the integration of technological components into their projects was untimely. The challenges noted by INAC implementers were echoed by officials interviewed at other federal departments.

4.6 Needs Assessment

The Accommodations Unit has identified a need to review the existing accommodation standards in order to effectively communicate new design options for workstation sizes and layouts^{Footnote 42}. It has recently begun developing a comprehensive communication strategy, including an employee survey, designed to obtain feedback from employees on how to improve Workplace 2.0. The revised Accommodations Strategy is anticipated to be completed in 2016-17^{Footnote 43}.

INAC retrofitted the physical space according to Public Services and Procurement Canada's mandated "Fit-up Standards." The Worker Profiles established by Public Services and Procurement Canada are based on the amount of time an employee spends at their desk and not on the actual work to be performed. Employees noted that the functions of certain employees (e.g. policy analysts) may require quieter, predictable, and private spaces than employees who more regularly needed to collaborate with colleagues and clients. The challenge of ensuring that form follows function is noted in the literature as the central to ensuring employees move into the right type of environment for work that they are performing.^{Footnote 44} The Department can identify special purpose space that is required, such as a library, an Indigenous Elders' Lodge, or a storage room for historical files; it is required to pay for these unique spaces out of its budget. However, the Department is not required to document how it will meet the specific needs of such employees as financial analysts, data entry clerks, or cartographers.

The evidence suggests that, until recently, the application of a process to identify and understand the needs of employees regarding Workplace 2.0 was minimal. The Accommodation Strategy of 2012 focussed on the impact and timing of the National Capital Region space consolidation exercise i.e., moving employees from Ottawa to Gatineau. The Strategy is, however, silent on how it assessed the needs of these employees and how those needs would be addressed in the new accommodations. Follow-up presentations to the Human Resources and Workplace Services Management Committee and the Financial Management Committee in 2014 and 2015 on the status of the Strategy continued to be focussed on the physical aspects of the moves and the reduction in the departmental footprint. While the focus on the reduction of the departmental footprint was an important (and mandatory) part of the implementation of Workplace 2.0, the fact that the other two pillars did not receive as much attention has resulted in those additional benefits not yet being realised.

Workplace 2.0 @ Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada

Individual Workspaces

A traditional workstation (left) vs. a 2.0 workstation (right), BC Region

 

Efforts to fit into 2.0 workstation: ergonomic screen (upper), jacket mini closet (lower), BC Region

Creative panel extensions, created independently by employees, BC Region

 

Shared Spaces

Common kitchen (upper-left), shared workspace (upper right), private meeting room (lower-left), private phone room (lower-right), Saskatchewan Region

 

Shared meeting space, Manitoba Region

 

Workplace 2.0 @ Other Departments

Shared individual workstations, Employment and Social Development Canada

Common kitchen (left), open-concept individual workstation (right) Health Canada

Collaborative workspace (left, middle) collaborative hallway board (upper-right), telepresence technology (lower-right), Policy Horizons Canada

5.1 Implementation Progress

To date, INAC has made significant progress in implementing Workplace 2.0 in its Headquarters and regional office locations. Approximately half of the National Capital Region employees and nearly one third of regional office employees have transitioned to the Workplace 2.0 environment.

5.2 Pillar 1 - The Workplace

Text alternative for The Workplace

A graphic depicts the following words:

• The Workplace
• Anywhere, anytime, with anyone
• Buildings
• Smart
• Sustainable
• Strategically located
• Workspaces
• Open
• Flexible
• Collaborative

The literature suggests that in designing the physical workspace, consideration should be given to the fact that there are considerable risks (as well as an opportunity for gain) for organizations in terms of financial, organizational, and human interests. The literature suggests that organizations often overlook these risks and pay only limited attention is paid to the interaction between workspace and individuals in the redesign. This makes the design and implementation of new, refurbished, or retrofitted work environments a relatively mitigated risk. One means of mitigating these risks is to evaluate whether the proposed open-concept format satisfies both the user and the organization's needs.^{Footnote 45}

5.3 Pillar 2 – The Back Office

Text alternative for The Back Office

A graphic depicts the following words:

• The Back Office
• Break down barriers
• Flexible HR Policies
• Better work life balance
• Updated IM Systems
• Self-service tools
• Blueprint 2020

The policy development process that supports the second pillar of Workplace 2.0 is not officially part of the 2.0 project, though their existence supports the holistic goals of 2.0. The second Pillar of Workplace 2.0 involves the renewal of a range of policies, processes and systems, however, the evaluation focused on the policies and applications of telework – one of the most discussed elements of the "The Back Office". It should be noted that the HRWSB is not involved in the implementation of telework arrangements. These arrangements are made between the employee and manager.

The Treasury Board Secretariat defines telework as "a flexible work arrangement whereby employees have approval to carry out some or all of their work duties from a telework place," while INAC's Telework Policy (2009) defines it as "a flexible work arrangement whereby employees have a written agreement to carry out some or all of their work duties away from their official workplace on a regular basis". The Treasury Board Secretariat implemented a Telework Policy in 1999, recognizing the need to allow employees to achieve a better balance between their work and personal lives by allowing them to work at alternative locations. A key element of this Policy is that telework arrangements are approved on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of management. The Policy encourages departments to clarify and publicize their approval criteria for telework requests.

Literature on organizational innovation has widely recognized that adopting telework strategies is an effective way to increase organizational flexibility. According to such literature, implementing telework strategies "…will dramatically increase organizational flexibility and enable workers to more completely embrace the ‘work anywhere, anytime' mentality of many of today's knowledge-based business models…"^{Footnote 52} The literature review highlighted the advantages of telework in achieving cost and organizational efficiencies.

According to the results of the INAC National Employee Survey on Workplace 2.0, almost half of the respondents (45 percent) identified that the ability to telework is "important" or "very important" to them. From the perspective of INAC implementers of Workplace 2.0, telework is a crucial component. It allows employees the flexibility to work remotely, eases their transition to their new physical space, therefore improving their perception of Workplace 2.0 and negating some of the noise and privacy concerns. However, based on responses from interviewees and discussion group participants, it appears that management is reluctant to pursue telework as an option at present due to a seemingly potential loss in employee productivity, and employees were also not sure if telework was a possibility for them. Results from the interviews and discussion groups also point to a lack of consistency in how telework is applied across INAC. Employees noted that the provision of teleworking opportunities was largely dependent on the discretion of their individual manager, as opposed to any official policy. Many participants expressed their frustration over this, including those that had entered into teleworking arrangements.

Some participants also noted that their telework days were used to deal with more complex files due to distraction and decreased productivity in the Workplace 2.0 environment. Some participants also recognized that, although essential for Workplace 2.0, telework should not be used as a solution to the issues resulting from Workplace 2.0.

Health Canada developed a formal telework guide for its employees in 2015, and INAC evaluators were referred to the Department as taking a leading stance on telework. Health Canada acknowledged that "teleworking can allow employees to achieve a better balance between their work and personal lives, while continuing to contribute to the attainment of organizational goals".^{Footnote 53} Further, the guide was created to form a consistent and standardized approach for telework arrangements to assist employees and managers. Health Canada acknowledged that the guide has only been recently implemented; consequently, telework is still discretionary, but the guide has been assisting managers assess telework requests with better guiding principles and parameters.

5.4 Pillar 3 – The Way We Work

Text alternative for The Way We Work

A graphic depicts the following words:

• The Way We Work
• Connect
• Communicate
• Collaborate
• Web 2.0
• Collaboration tools
• Mobility
• Laptop/notebook/smartphone
• Videopresence
• Next generation
• Videoconferencing

Workplace 2.0 calls for new, mobile technology as part of the transition to the initiative. Mobile phones, laptop computers and Wi-Fi allow employees the flexibility to work and collaborate in different areas of the workspace, as opposed to remaining sedentary at one station. Implementing Wi-Fi has been a challenge at the government-wide level. The Real Property Institute of Canada identifies it as one of the key challenges of implementing Workplace 2.0.

Shared Services Canada is leading the technological component of the initiative. As part of its role in renewing the Government of Canada's IT infrastructure, the Department is working to ensure that Wi-Fi is installed across the public service by 2020. At present, Shared Services Canada is working with INAC to implement several projects related to Workplace 2.0. As a first phase of its Wi-Fi deployment, Shared Services Canada is installing wireless capabilities into deputy minister boardrooms in the National Capital Region. The next phase of Wi-Fi deployment will occur in 2016-17, and will focus on regional offices. The Department's services are fully cost recoverable – this means that INAC will have to decide on the best areas to enable Wi-Fi. Other projects led by Shared Services Canada that are underway within INAC include replacing landline phones with cellular devices, and enabling videoconferencing.

The evaluation study included INAC managers with key technological responsibilities for the Department. As evaluators learned, these implementers did not appear to have been assigned a key role in the implementation of the technological aspects of Workplace 2.0, in spite of their expertise and experience in the subject matter. Moreover, Shared Services Canada did not establish or communicate clear technological objectives related to Workplace 2.0. A number of unresolved issues were noted – it was unclear how new technology will be secured, enable communication with clients, and allow employees to send and receive documents across different applications and systems.

Many INAC employees were still equipped with desktop computers at the time of this evaluation. This reduces the flexibility of employees, and decreases their mobility. Lacking the necessary technological tools decreases the enthusiasm and ability of employees to perform in a Workplace 2.0 environment. At present, departmental policy is to allocate a laptop or desktop computer based on business requirements that centre on the roles of employees. Employees who mostly occupy a stationary role are allocated a desktop computer; employees who spend more time away from the office to perform their duties are allocated laptop computers. INAC implementers explained that laptop computers cost more. However, implementers of Workplace 2.0 consulted by the evaluation team at Employment and Social Development Canada and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada disagreed.

5.5 Integration of the Three Pillars

Overall, many recipients of Workplace 2.0 were not aware that the three pillars of the initiative existed. Some expressed frustration that the only change they experienced as a result of the initiative was a reduction in physical space and workstation. Implementers stated that it was challenging to simultaneously integrate all three pillars by pointing to a number of reasons. First, while they emphasized that Workplace 2.0 cannot be completed in a piecemeal fashion, they added that there were difficulties engaging other parties in bringing the three pillars together while respecting the requirements to implement the initiative before 2020. It is difficult to determine whether simultaneous integration of the three pillars is in fact feasible for a client department such as INAC. The Real Property Institute of Canada breaks down implementation stages by people, space and technology perspectives. It notes that in terms of the physical transition, it may be beneficial to implement Workplace 2.0 at the end of a Public Services and Procurement Canada occupancy agreement or lease, or when consolidating programs and offices. From a technological standpoint, it recommends implementing the initiative when opportunities such as Wi-Fi arise. These events may not arrive at the same time. For instance, the need to consolidate a program may require a retrofit to Workplace 2.0 standards, while the implementation of Wi-Fi is the responsibility of Shared Services Canada. The evaluation's findings showed that opportunities from people, space and technology perspectives occurred at staggered time.

The evaluation found that the transformation of the physical aspect of Workplace 2.0 had progressed furthest since the inception of the initiative. The failure to integrate all three pillars simultaneously has impacted the perception of Workplace 2.0 amongst employees. Without the integration of back office policies such as telework and new technology, employees perceive Workplace 2.0 as only a physical change designed solely for cost saving purposes. Some interviewees and discussion group participants, most of whom were critical of the initiative, admitted that Workplace 2.0 would work well if all three pillars were implemented simultaneously.

5.6 Findings from the National Employee Survey on Workplace 2.0

In April 2016, HRWSB administered a National Employee Survey to collect feedback from 1,683 INAC employees on their input, experiences, and ideas about Workplace 2.0.

5.6.1 Employees Already in a Workplace 2.0 Environment

Dissatisfaction is high among those in a Workplace 2.0 environment (n=620) – open workspaces and enclosed offices. Half or more reported dissatisfaction on all assessed areas: improvements in technology, i.e., Wi-Fi, laptops (68 percent "unsatisfied" or "very unsatisfied"); availability of boardrooms (56 percent); collaborate area (53 percent); open office concept, modern and colourful (51 percent); efficiency gained from consolidating teams (50 percent); and, availability of support spaces (50 percent).

Chart 1: Satisfaction Rates for Workplace 2.0

Please rate your current level of satisfaction with each of the following items. (Sample: those already in Workplace 2.0 workplace)

Text alternative for Chart 1: Satisfaction Rates for Workplace 2.0

The bars shown for each item include very unsatisfied, unsatisfied, neutral, satisfied and very Satisfied. Each value is enumerated. The values presented are:

Collaborative area: 23.3% Very Unsatisfied, 29.5% Unsatisfied, 24.3% Neutral, 20.9% Satisfied, 1.9% Very Satisfied, 100% Total.

Availability of Boardrooms: 29.9% Very Unsatisfied, 25.9% Unsatisfied, 17.8% Neutral, 24.0% Satisfied, 2.4% Very Satisfied, 100% Total.

Open office concept, modern and colourful: 29.6% Very Unsatisfied, 21.3% Unsatisfied, 26.8% Neutral, 17.0% Satisfied, 5.3% Very Satisfied, 100% Total.

Efficiency gained from consolidating teams: 27.2% Very Unsatisfied, 22.8% Unsatisfied, 31.7% Neutral, 15.9% Satisfied, 2.4% Very Satisfied, 100% Total.

Availability of support spaces: 25.6% Very Unsatisfied, 24.3% Unsatisfied, 23.3% Neutral, 23.0% Satisfied, 3.9% Very Satisfied, 100% Total.

Improvements in technology: 43.7% Very Unsatisfied, 23.8% Unsatisfied, 21.8% Neutral, 8.1% Satisfied, 2.6% Very Satisfied, 100% Total.

 

5.6.2 Employees Transitioning to a Workplace 2.0 Environment

Concern is very high among those identified as going into a Workplace 2.0 setting in the next year or two, on all assessed areas: having to adapt to working conditions (87 percent "concerned" or "very concerned"); being consulted on accommodation needs during the process (85 percent); follow-through post-project (79 percent); quality and consistency of Workplace 2.0 standards implemented elsewhere at INAC (76 percent); and, preparing for Workplace 2.0, i.e., obtaining information on WP 2.0 (70 percent).

Chart 2: Concern Levels by Those Impacted by Workplace 2.0

Please rate your current level of satisfaction with each of the following items. (Sample: going into a Workplace 2.0 workplace in next year or two)

Text alternative for Chart 2: Concern Levels by Those Impacted by Workplace 2.0

The bars shown for each item include very concerned, concerned, neutral, somewhat concerned and not at all concerned. Each value is enumerated. The values presented are:

Quality and consistency of WP2.0 standards implemented elsewhere at INAC: 54.2% Very Concerned, 21.3% Concerned, 18.6% Neutral, 2.2% Somewhat Concerned, 3.7% Not at all concerned, 100% Total.

Preparing for WP2.0: 43.0% Very Concerned, 27.2% Concerned, 22.3% Neutral, 3.5% Somewhat Concerned, 4.1% Not at all concerned, 100% Total.

Being consulted on accommodation needs during the process: 65.7% Very Concerned, 19.2% Concerned, 9.2% Neutral, 3.6% Somewhat Concerned, 2.3% Not at all concerned, 100% Total.

Follow-through post‑project: 52.8% Very Concerned, 26.3% Concerned, 15.8% Neutral, 2.7% Somewhat Concerned, 2.4% Not at all concerned, 100% Total.

Having to adapt to working conditions: 69.5% Very Concerned, 17.7% Concerned, 8.7% Neutral, 2.5% Somewhat Concerned, 1.6% Not at all concerned, 100% Total

 

5.7 Findings on 2.0 Investments and Cost Savings

Public Services and Procurement Canada and client departments share responsibility and accountability for the cost of office accommodations. Public Services and Procurement Canada is responsible for costs associated with expanding or replacing new locations and ensuring major renovations adhere to Workplace 2.0 requirements. As a client department, INAC is responsible for costs related to retrofitting additional space used for special purposes (e.g., library, call centre).^{Footnote 54}

From 2012-13 to 2015-16, the estimated cost to retrofit departmental space to Workplace 2.0 was $13.5 million. The table below presents both the estimated and the actual costs invested by the Department into the Workplace 2.0 initiative.

Table 1: Workplace 2.0 Estimated and Actual Expenditures, 2012-13 to 2015-16^{Footnote 55}

Public Services and Procurement Canada controls the use of space through "space envelopes" - the authority provided from the Treasury Board to provide the space required by client departments to deliver their programs. Public Services and Procurement Canada provides accommodation and fit-up free of charge to departments, up to their approved space envelope. Any space occupied beyond the Department's space envelops is referred to as the Expansion Control Framework, paid by the Department.

Table 2: INAC Occupancy, 2011-12 - 2015-16.^{Footnote 56}

In 2015-16, INAC's total occupancy level was 124,814 m². Total annual lease cost paid by INAC (Expansion Control Framework cost) was $5.7 million, including $1.8 million in National Capital Region and $3.9 million in the regions. This cost can be reduced by Workplace 2.0 retrofitting, lowering footprint requirement such as building multifunction space to maximize usage, consolidating and reducing overall occupancy, and exploring alternative work arrangements such as telework. Savings realized can be measured in both space (m²) and dollars.

From 2012-13 to 2015-16, the Department spent a total of $19.8 million on its Expansion Control Framework. The estimated Expansion Control Framework cost for this period, had there not been any retrofit or space consolidation, would have been $28.3 million (a saving of $8.5 million). In an HRWSB presentation to the Financial Management Committee in September 2015, an estimated INAC occupancy trend was proposed for up to 2019-20. In this estimation, a total Expansion Control Framework cost after retrofit gain for the period from 2012-13 to 2019-20 is $38.7 million, compared to $64.6 million if there was no retrofit (a potential saving of $25.9 million).^{Footnote 57}

In 2015-16, a number of Workplace 2.0 projects have generated cost savings and will further promise additional savings in the upcoming years. For example, Phase I of a Vancouver relocation project has saved 688 m² in space, equivalent to $318,669 in rent savings for the fiscal year 2015-16. When completed, the project is expected to return up to 3,500 m² or $1.4 million in savings. Similarly, Phase I of a Winnipeg relation project has saved 975 m² in space, equivalent to $120,536 in rent savings for 2015-16. Phase II of the project will save an additional 708 m² or $30,555 in 2017-18.^{Footnote 58}

In its presentation to the March 2016 Financial Management Committee, Accommodation Services proposed a total of 36 Workplace 2.0 projects from 2016-17 to 2022-23. The forecasted total space reduction for these projects is 16,634 m². Using a national lease average of $341/ m², this total space reduction translates into a total saving of $5,672,194. Investment costs to retrofit Workplace 2.0 and divestitures to achieve this target range between $11.5 million to $16.5 million, depending on the choice of timelines.

6.1 Conclusions

While INAC does not control all the factors that impact the implementation process of Workplace 2.0, there are several issues/challenges facing the Department that it can address. In terms of change management, there is a significant culture shift that has to be undertaken. A more robust governance framework is required in order to provide leadership to this change management initiative and to encourage buy-in from all management levels. All staff require assistance in adapting to the idea of flexible work locations (telework), "de-cubing" of the workplace (i.e., more open collaborate environment), and understanding the needs and benefits of having mobile employees.

Moving forward, it will be beneficial for INAC to identify an INAC governance structure that integrates internal and external partners; a modernization plan with potential Workplace 2.0 projects; and develop a Technology Roadmap in preparation for future Workplace 2.0 implementation. The Department will have to focus more heavily on the second and third pillars of 2.0 – policies and processes, and technological tools – to see the full benefits of the initiative.

Workplace 2.0 delivery plans should be coordinated with the Department's change management plans in order to improve the way that implementation is done. In addition, the plans should have clear timelines and targets designed to drive Workplace 2.0 innovations. These plans should be clear and be openly and regularly communicated to employees (impacted by, or about to be impacted by Workplace 2.0) to ensure that all employees understand, are able to participate and advance change.

6.2 Recommendations

It is recommended that:

1. The Human Resources and Workplace Services Branch review and update its Workplace 2.0 Implementation, Communications and Engagement strategies. The Implementation Plan should address identified gaps in advancing the technology (The Back Office) and policies pillars (The Way We Work). Approval of these strategies should be sought from the Deputy Minister.
2. Human Resources and Workplace Services Branch form a team specifically responsible for the implementation of Workplace 2.0. This team should include representation from Accommodations, Occupational Health and Safety, Information Technology, and Security.
3. Human Resources and Workplace Services Branch identify and revise, as appropriate, the policies required to successfully implement and realise the benefits of Workplace 2.0. The updating of policies should be presented to the Human Resources Senior Management Committee, be submitted to the Deputy Minister for approval, and then be clearly and widely communicated to all staff once approved.