Audit of the Implementation of the Staffing Frameworks

Findings

The Corporate Staffing group of HRWSB developed independent staffing frameworks for each of CIRNAC and ISC. The staffing frameworks, approved by each department's respective Deputy Minister, were communicated via email to sub-delegated managers and HR advisors when introduced and were available to all employees on each department's intranet sites. The frameworks were to be reviewed periodically; however, no set timeline for the review was identified. The initial staffing framework for ISC was introduced in December 2017 and was last updated and approved in January 2020. The CIRNAC Staffing Framework was introduced in December 2018 and has not yet been updated.

Each framework contains several modules that provide relevant guiding information on how sub-delegated managers and HR advisors are expected to conduct certain aspects of their staffing duties. These modules were designed to:

• Assist sub-delegated managers in making sound decisions when choosing the type of appointment process used to staff one or more positions;
• Communicate the Policy on Area of Selection to outline the departments' mandatory policy requirements and help sub-delegated managers determine who is eligible to participate in an appointment process;
• Provide guidance to sub-delegated managers on how to articulate selection decisions in writing; and
• Provide guidance to sub-delegated managers and HR advisors in defining staffing strategies to apply a risk-based approach in order to meet departmental business needs, priorities and commitments.

The frameworks also formally defined and communicated the roles and responsibilities of sub-delegated managers and HR advisors as it related to staffing. Having these roles defined in the framework helped sub-delegated managers and HR advisors fulfill their responsibilities, as well as understand each other's role in the staffing process.

The ISC Staffing Framework included a module on Indigenous recruitment, which provided guidance on the recruitment of Indigenous employees and promoted the needs and values of Indigenous employees in the Department. The CIRNAC Staffing Framework did not contain specific guidance on Indigenous recruitment; however, information on Indigenous recruitment was available to CIRNAC employees through the Indigenous Recruitment and Retention Framework, which was published on the intranet in 2016 under the former Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. The Indigenous Recruitment and Retention Framework also included guidance on Indigenous recruitment and highlighted the value of Indigenous employees; however, the 2016 information pre-dated the dissolution of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada and may not reflect the current context.

The reorganization within HRWSB, competing priorities within the Sector and the time required to better understand the legal perspective has resulted in delays updating the CIRNAC Staffing Framework and the incorporation of Indigenous recruitment guidance within the framework. Not having guidance on Indigenous recruitment incorporated in the staffing framework may limit awareness of this key component in the Department's recruitment efforts and may subsequently impact Indigenous recruitment efforts.

Recommendation

Findings

The staffing optimization project was led by the HRWSB Change Management Team. The project was piloted internally within HRWSB and did not have participation from other sectors in either ISC or CIRNAC. When the project was initiated, it was recognized within HRWSB that non-administrative staffing (i.e., advertised and non-advertised) was having an impact on clients. This process faced challenges regarding the overall time to staff, number of steps and overall client service. The initial phase of the project, which started in May 2018, completed the following four stages:

1. Kaizen workshop and process mapping;
2. Pilot project;
3. Consultations with internal participants (i.e., HRWSB); and
4. Optimization of the identified staffing processes.

The Change Management Team reported in July 2018 that a working group, including representatives from different HR teams was established to evaluate the non-administrative staffing process through a lean management lens and a Kaizen workshop. The non-administrative staffing processes included: advertised and non-advertised staffing appointments (both indeterminate and term appointments), and acting appointments greater than four months. A Kaizen workshop is a process improvement exercise designed to make quick and easy process improvements in a focused area. As a result of this workshop, the "actual process" was mapped-out and an "ideal process" was identified.

Between November 2018 and May 2019, a pilot project to test the "ideal process" was conducted within HRWSB for HRWSB staffing actions in the National Capital Region only. According to the Change Management Team, the objectives of the pilot project for non-administrative staffing were to test the ideal process; measure its effectiveness; identify where potential issues could occur in the staffing process; implement effective changes; and adjust the process as needed.

The pilot project had identified some key improvement indicators and set targets that were to be reached during the piloting exercise; however, these targets were not reached in the key areas that would have indicated improvement in the timeliness of the staffing process. Under the pilot process, an average of 122 days was needed to complete appointment processes or 104 days with the help of a consultant while the target was 90 days. Only 43 percent of the participating sub-delegated managers believed that the staffing process executed through the pilot project moved faster than if it had gone through the usual approach when the target was at 80 percent. Only 57 percent of the participating sub-delegated managers believed that it was easier to follow the proposed ideal staffing process when the target was at 80 percent.

After reviewing the pilot project and its results, some adjustments were made to continue with the optimization exercise. The primary adjustment was that best practices were identified from regional HR service hubs and the process for EX staffing. The optimized non-administrative staffing process was redesigned via flowchart in June 2019.

As part of the pilot project, consultations were done with all the Team Leaders from Hubs of HRWSB and with HRWSB's Business Management Unit (BMU). The Change Management Team indicated that the newly developed process was presented to these stakeholders and comments and recommendations were collected.

The analysis of the new optimized process against the current process identified limited overall improvement to the length of time required for the staffing process due to the following:

• The same staffing steps were required under both the current and optimized process.
• The optimized process highlighted a reduction, on paper, in the number of stakeholders involved in the staffing process from four (i.e., sub-delegated managers, HR advisors, HR assistants and BMUs) to two (i.e., sub-delegated managers and HR advisors). However, all four stakeholders would continue to have a role in staffing activities.

The optimized process highlighted opportunities to conduct certain steps in the staffing process in parallel, which may help reduce the time it takes to do the applicable steps (i.e., language testing, security screening, etc.) under the current sequential approach. The new process highlights new points at which these parallel steps may be started to reduce their impact on the overall time of the staffing process.

In addition to mapping an optimized process, the Change Management Team developed some tools, such as the staffing calculator and the Staffing Action Request Form, to facilitate the implementation of the optimized processes.

Other tools were also identified, such as a MyGCHR module called "HR Service Request" that was expected to automate the follow-up and tracking of HR requests. However, the plans to develop the identified tools and any information technology solutions to assist in the staffing process were still in the exploratory stage.

The optimization project is still ongoing and it is not clear when an optimized staffing process will be implemented in ISC and CIRNAC. Without clear targets for the project and their respective completion dates, the opportunity to optimize HRWSB's and sub-delegated managers' resource utilization for staffing may not be achieved.

Recommendation

Findings

HRWSB established how long key steps in the departmental staffing process should take for different staffing actions. This information was made available to sub-delegated managers through the staffing calculator. HRWSB developed a staffing calculator as a tool to help sub-delegated managers determine the earliest start date for a potential hire that complied with the HR-to-Pay requirement. Once a sub-delegated manager entered a date in the staffing calculator for an employee's future start date, it determined the key milestone dates and steps that must occur, as well as who was responsible for the action (the sub-delegated manager, HR advisors, HR assistants or BMUs). Figure 1 illustrates an example of the key steps generated by the calculator tool for a staffing action using an external advertised appointment from a pool.

Text alternative for Figure 1: Key Staffing Steps per the Staffing Calculator

Figure 1, which is a process diagram, illustrates the six key steps generated by the staffing calculator that sub-delegated managers should consider in order to meet their own staffing timelines and comply with the HR-to-Pay timeline requirement. The diagram also highlights that steps four to six in the process are not only part of the staffing process but are where the HR-to-Pay timeline for staffing action is calculated.

The six steps illustrated in the process diagram are as follows:

1. Sub-delegated manager contacts the HR Advisor or HR Assistant to schedule Second Language Evaluation.
2. Sub-delegated manager submits the security clearance request to Business Management Unit (BMU) or to regional security officer.
3. Sub-delegated manager submits the Staffing Request Action to HR advisor.
4. Sub-delegated manager submits the necessary documents to develop the Letter of Offer.
5. HR advisor provides the Letter of Offer to Sub-delegated manager.
6. Sub-delegated manager submits the signed Letter of Offer and the required pay documents to HR advisor.

In addition to the staffing calculator, HRWSB established documented HR-to-Pay timelines to define the amount of time required for the five key steps leading up to the start date of an employee, including the time required to send documentation to the Pay Centre. Timelines have been established for the 11 staffing action types that OCHRO monitors. The timelines begin once the sub-delegated manager requests a letter of offer, including the employee's start date. The timeline ends once the Pay Centre has input the information into the employee's pay file. Figure 2 illustrates the timelines set by HRWSB to comply with the HR-to-Pay initiative for a new hire that is new to the Public Service.

Text alternative for Figure 2: HR-to-Pay Timeline for a New Hire that is New to Public Service

Figure 2, which is process diagram, illustrates the five steps of the HR-to-Pay process for a new hire. The first four steps in the process are internal to ISC and CIRNAC and the last step is external process by the Pay Center. Each of the five steps has an associated time of completion which must be met in order to comply with the HR-to-Pay requirement. Meeting these timelines ensures that the new hires will not encounter pay issues once they start.

The five steps illustrated in the HR-to-Pay timeline process diagram are as follows:

1. Sub-delegated manager forwards the final documentation required to prepare the letter of offer to HRWSB. This start of the process and should take one day.
2. Human Resources and Workplaces Services branch (HRWSB) has four days to deliver the letter of offer to the sub-delegated manager.
3. Sub-delegated manager has three working days to sign the letter, obtain the employee's signature and return the letter to HR.
4. HRWSB has five working days to enter data, do quality control and submit a copy of the letter to the Pay Centre.
5. Pay Center has 10 days (before the employee start date) to enter the relevant information into the pay system so that employees pay is not impacted.

OCHRO measures departmental compliance by determining if the Pay Centre receives all the necessary information from HRWSB early enough to modify the pay file prior to the employee's start date on the letter of offer. For the 11 staffing action types, the amount of time required by the Pay Center ranges from three days for an acting appointment to ten days for a new hire.

The audit noted that HR-to-Pay timelines have been communicated to sub-delegated managers and can be found on the intranet sites of both ISC and CIRNAC, along with supplementary information on HR-to-Pay. The compliance rate of each department was very low. In the fourth quarter of 2019-20, only 36 percent of CIRNAC's staffing transactions and 46 percent of ISC's staffing transactions met the OCHRO service standard for timeliness. Additional awareness training was being provided to HR advisors and sub-delegated managers who may not have been aware of the timelines or who may have had some gaps in their understanding of what the timelines meant.

The audit found that although HRWSB had developed timelines for how long key steps in the staffing process should take and had further developed detailed HR-to-Pay timelines for the part of the staffing process impacting HR-to-Pay compliance, data was not being collected to measure performance against the timelines. There was no monitoring of the timelines and no support for continuous improvement.

As seen in Figure 2, meeting the HR-to-Pay timeline requires adherence by both the sub-delegated manager and HRWSB for all of the steps included in the process under their respective responsibilities. Missing a required timeline for any of these steps by either the sub-delegated manager or HRWSB could affect the compliance to the overall HR-to-Pay timeline for the particular staffing action.

Given that there is no database to track the time spent by sub-delegated managers, BMUs, HR advisors, and HR assistants to complete each key step identified in the online calculator or in the HR-to-Pay timelines, the departments cannot focus their efforts on improving compliance with the HR-to-Pay timelines or on general improvements to the staffing process. There may be a risk of ongoing or increasing non-compliance with the HR-to-Pay timeline requirements, increased employee pay issues or further delays in the staffing process.

Recommendation