Streamlining Project
1 / 21

- PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Streamlining Project Final Version •August 2005 Dona Stapley, Lead; Andy Oetter, Co-chair; Bunny Covey, Mary Bauto, Gerry Gagne, Rick Logan, Stewart Philpott, Peter Smith, Sue Elo, Debra Krastel. Road Administration Team Proposals Creating a streamlined forest information model….

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about '' - fionn

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Slide1 l.jpg

Streamlining Project

Final Version •August 2005

Dona Stapley, Lead; Andy Oetter, Co-chair; Bunny Covey, Mary Bauto, Gerry Gagne, Rick Logan, Stewart Philpott, Peter Smith, Sue Elo, Debra Krastel

Road Administration Team Proposals

Creating a streamlined forest information model…

Slide2 l.jpg

Presentation Overview

  • Why change is needed

  • The Streamlining Project

    • Mandate

    • Process

    • Vision and working principles

  • Business Proposals (5)

  • Other implications

  • Streamlining benefits

The challenge why change l.jpg
The Challenge: Why Change?

  • Information required from the licensee for road permitting and appraisal varies between districts and systems

  • Road naming standards vary among licensees, and at the Ministry of Forests, causing administrative difficulties

  • Systems do not adequately support the business processes involved in road permitting

  • With the move to electronic submission, clear standards for submission and distribution of information are urgently needed

The streamlining project mandate l.jpg
The Streamlining ProjectMandate

  • Improve the forest information cycle, from up-front information access for operational plan and appraisal submissions through to free-growing declarations

  • Realize improvements through

    • Integrated business processes

    • Improved access to information

    • Consistent, streamlined information requirements that are well understood

The streamlining project three phases l.jpg
The Streamlining ProjectThree Phases

  • Phase I:

    • Issues identified, resulting in high level recommendations

    • FRPA notification and reporting streamlined

  • Phase II:

    • Cross-corporate teams developed proposals to improve business

    • Proposals were reviewed by government and industry, and revised as needed based on feedback.

  • Phase III:

    • Communicate business proposals to responsibility centres

    • Responsibility centres develop training, policies, guidelines, and systems to support changes

    • Cross-corporate Business Integration Group co-ordinates and supports implementation efforts

Phase ii team process l.jpg
Phase II Team Process

  • A Road Administration team was formed with representation from District and Branch staff

  • The Road Administration team held a number of meetings and workshops

  • Andy Oetter and Dona Stapley also visited several districts to discuss the challenges and proposed solutions

Phase ii team process cont d l.jpg
Phase II Team Process Cont’d

  • The Road Administration Team proposals are outlined in the slides that follow

  • These proposals are backed by a more detailed report available from the Streamlining website

  • The proposals were subject to a province-wide review by government and licensee operational staff

  • Proposals have been communicated to responsibility centres, and implementation is now underway

Vision l.jpg

  • Provincially-consistent, integrated road administration business processes with streamlined information requirements

Slide9 l.jpg

Working Principles

  • Information will be shared within government where possible

  • The focus is on the business - not the systems

  • Solutions will meet operational needs of districts and all licensees (large and small)

  • Clarity and integration of the business will enable future systems improvements (transition to full e-business)

  • Major business processes will be provincially consistent

  • The comparison of planned, permitted, and actual activity will be possible (C&E, Revenue, Monitoring)

Road administration proposal 1 provincial road permitting process l.jpg
Road Administration Proposal #1 Provincial Road Permitting Process

  • Corporately consistent road permitting process flows have been developed. Process maps show:

    • Licensee and district perspectives

    • System exchange information

  • Corporate consistency is required on a number of important key elements

  • Flexible district administration is allowed where possible

Road administration proposal 2 standard road naming and usage l.jpg
Road Administration Proposal #2 Standard Road Naming and Usage

  • MoF to use the name the licensee submits for a road in their application

    • Avoids current renaming practice

  • Road name integrity also applies to Forest Service Roads

  • This proposal is backed by road naming guidelines and standards for licensees (currently under development)

Slide12 l.jpg

Road Administration Proposal #3 Bundled Appraisal/Road Permit

  • Bundle road permit application and road related appraisal info together for more efficient electronic submission

    • Reduces the number of transactions

    • Improves consistency between the processes (addresses systemic problem)

  • Automatically split out layered information for processing by each MoF business area

    • No added complexity for MoF to issue permit and rate

    • Allows Revenue and Tenures staff to do tasks simultaneously to speed up processing

    • Licensee can track processing status

  • Electronically issue rate and permit to licensee at the same time

Road administration proposal 3 bundled appraisal road permit cont d l.jpg
Road Administration Proposal #3 Bundled Appraisal/Road Permit Cont’d

  • Information flow:

Slide14 l.jpg

Road Administration Proposal #4 Separate Tenure from Timber Mark

  • Introduce a new timber marking procedure that separates the tenure from the timber mark

    • Uses different numbers in FTA to separate the authority to build or maintain a road from the identification of a timber mark

  • Continue to support two legitimate permitting models:

    • An individual, geographically-based road permit model

    • A “blanket” road permit model with geographic subdivisions

Road administration proposal 5 cross boundary road permits l.jpg
Road Administration Proposal #5 Cross-Boundary Road Permits

  • Modify FTA to allow the tenure for a road permit to cross boundaries of overarching licences for a single licensee

    • The mantra for this proposal is: “A road is a road is a road” (regardless of administrative boundaries)

    • Roads could cross TFL and FL boundaries without a road tenure change

    • Reduces the amount of information that must be tracked and reduces confusion for all parties

    • Convert Special Use Permit (SUP) roads to Road Permit roads.

      • The only tenure to build or maintain a road on vacant crown land is a Road Permit.

Road administration proposals 4 and 5 an example l.jpg
Road Administration Proposals #4 and#5An example

  • One road permit covering 5 tenures, same licensee

  • Blanket mark for road within TFL

Road Tenure R12345

Mark Schedule:

TFL = 35/RDS

TLs = 70116, 70117, 70118


Various CPs (within Forest Licence or TFL)

Other implications general l.jpg
Other ImplicationsGeneral

  • Do not track road status in FTA because the concepts of maintenance, construction and deactivation are no longer valid in legislation

  • Systems need to recognize the FSR as a government responsibility. Need to be able to designate an FSR to the segment level as BCTS or Operations Division

  • RUPs should become legitimate tenures, managed in FTA

Other implications potential systems changes l.jpg
OtherImplications Potential Systems Changes

  • FTA

    • Road naming standards must be accommodated

    • Capability to accept attachments

    • Work management tool, including ability to save ongoing work if a rejection occurs

    • More than one district inbox depending on job function

    • Auto generate tenure documents and e-mail them to clients

    • Wording change from approve to issue

    • Ability to automatically notify all other ‘systems’ of work completion at appropriate times (i.e. GAS notification when status moved to HI)

  • CIMS

    • Automatic notice to CIMS when tenure issuance occurs

Other implications potential systems changes cont d l.jpg
Other Implications Potential Systems Changes Cont’d

  • ESF

    • Road naming conventions

    • Timber marking

    • Capability to submit attachments

  • ECAS

    • Needs to be more closely aligned with FTA to accommodate single submission

    • Appraisal info could be automatically forwarded to region when the clearance process is completed

    • Consider automating the co-ordination of the tenure approval and SAN (stumpage advisory notice) in some instances

Benefits l.jpg

  • Provincially-consistent, consolidated road appraisal and permit process:

    • Reduced workload for licensees – bundled submissions

    • Reduced workload for district staff– simplified administration, information exchange, training, and systems development

    • Quicker application processing and ability to track plan/application status

  • A rate will be communicated to licensees before harvesting begins

Benefits cont d l.jpg
Benefits Cont’d

  • A consistent road naming convention will eliminate the need for both a legal and a local name

    • Reduces confusion

    • More effective information flow between systems

  • Comparisons of planned activities to actual accomplishments will be possible

  • Identification of a single authority to build or maintain a road on crown land will make administration easier for both districts and licensees

  • Systems will better support day-to-day appraisal and permit processing