A Success Strategy for Cross-Jurisdictional Collaboration

1. A Success Strategy for Cross-Jurisdictional Collaboration October 2004 Mike Giovinazzo & Joanne Harrington V 0-2

2. Agenda • The essence of collaboration • The evolution of a common strategy • Key aspects of the approach • A sample case study • Project Summary • Approach overview • Sample exhibits • Key Findings • Question Period

3. The Essence Of Collaboration • Not very easy • Each party has their own mandate, priorities and constraints • It can be (and has been done) • The secret is locating the common ground, respecting autonomy and building a value chain that contributes to common goals

4. Finding Common Ground • Contributing to related Outcomes • Exercising related Authorities • Addressing related Target Groups • Meeting related Needs • Delivering related Services • Recognizing related Events • Executing related Business Processes • Using related Information Effective Collaboration depends on proper alignment

5. Alignment Examples • Two programs require alignment when they recognize the same target groups and/or needs in overlapping jurisdictions. • They are aligned when their goals and strategies have been harmonized or conflicts are reduced to a minimum. • A service is aligned with a program when it contributes to a program’s goals by meeting target group needs designated by the program, in a way consistent with the program’s strategy

6. Program Owner: ACOA Jurisdiction: Atlantic Canada Outcome Goals: Increased rate of new business formation Program Owner: ACOA Jurisdiction: Atlantic Canada Outcome Goals: Higher levels of investment Program: Entrepreneurship and Business Skills Development Program: Access to Capital and Information Educational Institutions Post-Secondary Students Businesses Entrepreneurs SMEs Program: Supply Program Owner: PWGSC Jurisdiction: Canada Outcome Goals: Higher levels of Canadian supply Rural Communities Aboriginal Communities Program: Economic Development Model shows target group overlaps of three existing ACOA programs with economic development goals Program Owner: ACOA Jurisdiction: Atlantic Canada Outcome Goals: Community Economic Growth © Reproduced permission of Chartwell Program Alignment Model

7. Provincial Agricultural Program Provincial Water Mgt Program Shoreline Property Owners Farms Municipal Water Mgt Program Residents Flood Response Service Drinking Water Service High/Low Water Hazard Service © Reproduced permission of Chartwell Upper Tier/Lower Tier Program Alignment Models

8. Getting the job done A Proven Approach

9. In the beginning … • Municipal Government Need • Sanctioned by MISA (Municipal Information Systems Association) • Funded by a federal grant, Chartwell pioneered groundbreaking techniques • Generic enterprise model of municipal programs and services • Initially licensed to 27 Canadian municipalities and 2 foreign municipalities • Evolution to the Management Reference Model (MRM®) for Government Services • extended to include a broad range of government services from all tiers (local, regional, provincial, federal)

10. Evolution … • Provincial Government • Ontario adopted the approach and evolved the PSRM (Public Service Reference Model) • Used in key ministries and agencies • E.g. Land Resource Cluster (LRC) Water Program - basis of fundamental business re-engineering Basis of a detailed architecture framework and standards for the provinces Enterprise Information Architecture • Formal architecture methods, planning process and governance structure for the province • Stated benefits include: • provide fully integrated customer-centred service delivery • improve communications between business and IT stakeholders inside and outside the government • identify opportunities for business change http://www.cio.gov.on.ca

11. Evolution … • Government of Canada • Treasury Board’s new Business Transformation Enablement Program (BTEP) initiative • Projects include: • Information Management Enabler (Treasury Board Secretariat) • Secure Service Delivery Using E-forms (SSDUE) (Health, CCRA, RCMP) • Public Safety Information Sharing (Solicitor General Canada and Treasury Board Secretariat) • National Criminal Justice Index (RCMP) • Services to New Business (Industry Canada) • Seniors (Veterans Affairs Canada) • Statutes and Regulations (Justice Canada) • Business Architecture of Managing the Fisheries (Department of Fisheries and Oceans) http://www.cio-dpi.gc.ca/btep-phto/index_e.asp

12. BTEP Program Synopsis? • Why - because the Government of Canada is committed to achieving a vision of citizen or client-centric service delivery across the whole of government. • A new way of thinking about and working collaboratively • Integrated methodology for planning, designing and implementing business transformation • Based on business design best practices and models suited to public sector organizations

13. BTEP Components & Benefits • Components • GSRM (Government Strategic Reference Model) • Enablers (core business capabilities) • Transformation Framework • Transformation Deliverables • Benefits • Ensure that transformation initiatives across government are easier to coordinate, manage and sustain • Compatible business design across departments and agencies • More efficient and effective program structures and service delivery arrangements • Greater alignment of goals, programs and projects

14. BTEP – The Bottom Line “… uses public service language. Senior executives will see business transformation proposals using concepts and terminology they recognize and understand. It will help executives and program managers better understand the business processes they are responsible for and more easily identify the programs with which they must interoperate to advance client-centred service delivery.”

15. BTEP Transformation Framework Transformation Blueprint Transformation Roadmap What How Where Who When Why Things important to the business Programs Services Jurisdictions Business locations Geographical areas Target Groups Roles Parties Communities Organizations Workforce Cycles Events Vision Authorities Needs, Targeted needs Value statements Outcomes Environment things • Strategic Design & Planning Deliverables • Business Problem Assessment • Target Business Vision • Transformation Strategy • Target Business Design • Transformation Business Case • Transformation Master Plan • System Design & Planning Deliverables • e.g. as defined by RUP (Rational Unified Process) or UMM (UNCEFACT Modelling Methodology) Scope & Context Information Model Program Service Alignment Model Service Integration & Alignment Model Operations Model Service level agreements Logistics Model Target Group Model Community Model Organization Responsibility Model Culture Model Events & Cycles Model Target Group State Transition Model Authorities Model Performance Model Conceptual Logical data model Application architecture Use Cases Distribution architecture (Z - distributed system architecture) Human interface architecture Processing structure Business rule model Logical Physical data model System design System architecture Presentation architecture Control structure Rule design Physical Data definition Program Network architecture Security architecture Timing definition Rule specification Implementation Service requests Service outputs Process inputs Process outputs Service instances Process instances Physical locations Channels Service recipients Workers Service suppliers Schedule Performance actuals Operating Plans Operational Operations Blueprint

16. Jurisdictions Provider Organizations Target Groups Governance Outcomes & Impacts Programs Accomplish Services Accountability Roles Individual Clients Outputs Deliver Responsibility Processes Authority Used in Resources © Reproduced permission of Chartwell MRM – PSRM – GSRM Vocabulary

17. GSRM Service Output Types

18. BTEP Service Definition Service: • A service is a set of processes that produces and delivers a service output. Also: a means, administered by a program, of producing an output to address one or more target group needs and contribute to the outcomes of one or more programs Service Output: • A service output is an output with characteristics that distinguish it from other outputs in the same context (typically called intermediate or process outputs). These characteristics are: • Fulfilled purpose, completed production or finality from the service provider’s perspective; • Fulfilled intent or full obtainable value from the service recipient’s perspective, and • Repetition from a work designer’s perspective, in the sense that the service’s processes are designed to produce repeated instances of the service output. • Must be classifiable as one of the 19 GSRM service output types • Other useful terms for a service output are the “service delivery unit” or “unit of delivered service”.

19. MUNICIPAL RECREATION PROGRAM PROVINCIAL YOUTH PROGRAM Administers Supports achievement and funds of program goals Supports achievement of program goals Swimming Pool Access Swimming Pool FEDERAL HEALTH PROGRAM Access Swimming Pool Supports achievement Access Swimming Pool of program goals Access SERVICE PORTFOLIO © Reproduced permission of Chartwell Services Can Provide Value to Multiple Programs • What is the relative contribution to the other programs? • What opportunities exist for co-funding? • How does this influence the “real value” of the service?

20. GSRM - Governments of Canada Strategic Reference Model • A set of models that can be used to depict how the GsOC currently serves Canadians and how it could in the future. • Provides a standardized approach to support consistent analysis of business processes across different types of programs and services. • Key analytical tool for designing business architecture (Framework Rows 1 & 2). • Features libraries of services and process patterns tailored to public sector setting and vocabulary, for alignment with IS design methods. • Features strong architectural specifications for public service business design - programs, services, accountabilities, performance measures.

21. © Reproduced permission of Chartwell GSRM Structural Context

22. GSRM - Top Model

23. Vision Phase Strategy Phase Design Phase Business Case Phase Plan Phase Phases   Primary Deliverables Business Problem Assessment Target Business Vision Transformation Strategy Target Business Design Transformation Business Case Transformation Master Plan Alignment Assessments BTEP Phases & Deliverables Alignment Testing Alignment Testing Alignment Testing Alignment Testing Alignment Testing Existing projects New projects

24. Sample Case Study Seniors Service Mapping Initiative

25. Project Overview – Objectives • Define a common shared vision for seniors • Define a senior’s problem statement • Find 2 to3 transformation opportunities across the jurisdictions to support the improvement of services to seniors • Set a foundation for describing seniors programs and services across three jurisdictions • Niagara had both regional and local municipal representation • Apply and test BTEP methodology and provide feedback

26. Seniors Project Team Participants Federal Government Veterans Affairs Canada Joanne Harrington True Taylor Myron Kramar Health Canada Francine Sicotte Cathy Bennett Social Development Canada Stephane Belanger Bob Rees Melanie Rebane Scott Wallace Canada Revenue Agency Mike Hamelin-CRA Treasury Board Secretariat Kirk Labelle Region of Niagara Community Services Jane Beamer Maureen Shantz Province of Ontario Ontario Seniors Secretariat Diane Varga Anne Marie Radford Ministry of Consumer and Business Services Karin Fischer Ann Gabriel Sponsors Region of Niagara Dominic Ventresca Province Ontario Ann Gabriel Federal Government Pamela Miller – TBS Joanne Harrington -VAC

27. Expand Scope (all business types; ongoing businesses), Participation (e.g., CRA, other provinces), Level of Definition Phases  Vision Phase Strategy Phase Design Phase Business Case Phase Plan Phase  Primary Deliverables Business Problem Assessment Target Business Vision Transformation Strategy Target Business Design Transformation Business Case Transformation Master Plan Alignment Assessments StNB and Seniors projects to date Alignment Testing Alignment Testing Alignment Testing Alignment Testing Alignment Testing Existing projects Opportunities = early spin-off projects New projects Putting Next Steps in BTEP Context

28. The Vision Phase Vision Phase Strategy Phase Design Phase Business Case Phase Planning Phase Produce first iteration of Primary Deliverables Business Problem Assessment Work Products Target Business Vision Work products are associated with one or more primary deliverables Supported by Transformation Strategy Target Business Design Transformation Business Case

29. Target Group Needs SENIOR TARGET GROUP • The participants focused on three principal target groups: • Seniors • Informal Care Givers • General Public Acknowledgement Shelter Food / Nourishment Income Health SENIOR’S NEEDS Safety Seniors’ needs set the context for alignment of services to program outcomes Socialization Respect Education Meaningful Activity / Recreation Independence

30. Columns - Types of services, Rows – Types of needs (M= Municipality, R=Regional, P=Provincial, F=Federal) Governments of Canada Top Model Mapping Standard framework for classifying government activities in terms of outputs (what) and needs (why); Indicates opportunities for multi-jurisdictional collaboration

31. This model tells us: The scope of the transformation initiative wrt needs and services If there are any unmet needs If there are dependencies between periods of permission For many outputs of the same type (same colour), Can any be consolidated within/across jurisdictions? Are multiple jurisdictions providing similar service outputs? (leads to opportunity for inter-jurisdictional collaboration) Program Service Alignment Model (PSAM) - matrix

32. Seniors Limited scope at the start - Senior states (covered 5 states, there may be others Participation (e.g., 4 federal departments, and 2 ministries from Ontario ) Project Approach Summary • Must be run as a project (e.g., Project Sponsor, Project Manager, Project Charter, Collaboration Plan) • Project Sponsor ( Seniors – VAC) was responsible for selecting Federal and provincial departments. The province selected regional and municipal participation. • Participants were chosen for their breadth of knowledge of services in the area • Three workshops (6.5 days total) run over 3-4 months; Significant time and effort expended prior to and between workshops

33. Root Cause Analysis Provides context to “get at root of underlying problems / symptoms”

34. Senior’s Problem Statement Health problem example

35. Is there an opportunity here? Common Case Mgt? Identify Range of Services Seniors Program and Service Alignment Model MUNICIPAL SERVICES FEDERAL SERVICES REGIONAL SERVICES PROVINCIAL SERVICES

36. The project focused on 5 “Undesirable” States: Sick, Inadequately housed, Abused, Isolated and Financially Insecure. Various services are needed at different times to help the senior move to preferred states and to inhibit the senior from moving to less desired states A senior could be in one or more of these states at any one time Target Group State Transition ModelSenior’s state’s and transitions

37. SENIOR Acknowledgement Shelter Food / Nourishment Adult / Senior Rental Subsidy Income Rent Subsidy Health Safety Socialization Respect Education LEGEND Meaningful Activity / Recreation Independence Program and Service Alignment Model Explicitly identifies all programs & services directly satisfying one target group’s needs Identifies opportunities for service improvement e.g. where similar services meet similar needs Supports shelter options Provides income Supports financial viability of living independently Note: Distributed PSAM matrix shows all public facing services versus needs

38. Why is the Recovery bundle bigger than the Prevention bundle? Can we refocus our services from Recovery to Prevention? Putting Services in Order Outputs that prevent or detect a senior becoming Financially Insecure Prevention Recovery Seniors Transition Output Bundle

39. Transition Output Bundles • This model tells us: • How many services are required to move between states • How to prioritize looking for solutions. • Are any problems associated with a bundle? • Are some bundles more important than others? • Whether we can eliminate the major steps • If there are any dependencies • Whether the services ‘bundled’ together ‘belong’ together • Where there are many services of the same output type • Can any be consolidated? Eliminated? Moved to another transition? Is there an opportunity for identifying a common process e.g., common application initiation process, common forms?

40. Define “bundles” by identifying services that detect, help, or prevent transitions Sets context for co-ordination of efforts and aligning performance across providers Shows services by type or jurisdiction that must “fit together” to make a difference for the target group Identifies opportunities for common or standardized processes to “join up” services in the bundle Transition Output Bundle

41. Vision Template Organizes key vision information

42. Three Transformation Opportunities • Client Record for Seniors Programs and Services • Common Mail out for Seniors • Collaborative Case Management

43. Mini-Business CaseShows participants consensus on key factors for 3 opportunities

44. SIAM Example Common Mail-Out • In this example, a service provider has an agreement to provide a common mail out on behalf of a number of seniors service providers • The common mail out service provider in turn has an agreement to ensure that the required information and channels are in place to support the common mail out • Each line represents a required agreement! Who will be accountable to provide common mail out provider with required information? Which service providers will require a common mail out? Who will be accountable for common mail out service? Legend Who will be accountable for providing channel services?

45. Service Process Pattern Analysis • Is therean opportunity to pull out common processes into a common provider service (i.e., outsourcing or in-sourcing)? • Is there an opportunity for new policy standards and best practices?

46. ResultsParticipant Feedback and Summary

47. Participant Feedback on BTEP process

48. Participant Feedback • 100% of participants from the 4 jurisdictions felt: • Workshop objectives were met • Workshop process was effective • Participant comments – things found most useful: • “ability to debate, test ideas” • “problem statement” • “evaluation, alignment and ranking of opportunities • “State transition output bundles and SIAM” • “program logic model” • “implementation strategies” • “brainstorming”

49. Summary • If we want to deliver these outcomes across government, we need a transformation process that works across government jurisdictions and programs. • The Business Transformation Enablement Program (BTEP) will help us do that - by providing strategies, methods, models and framework as common design and alignment tools. • Using Service Vision for Canadians principles to demonstrate how a service strategy geared to seniors can bring about transformation in programs, policy and service delivery channels.

50. Your Presenters • Joanne Harrington, Director, Seniors Cluster, Veterans Affairs Canada joanne.harrington@vac-acc.gc.ca (613) 996-2470 • Mike Giovinazzo, President We4C Solutions Mike@Giovinazzo.ca (613) 863-9342