Canadian International Development Agency

• Previous page
• Table of contents
• Complete text
• Next page

Annex E

Monitoring report
Computer System (CS) Positions: CS 2, 4 and 5
Canadian International Development Agency

March, 2006
Longo & Associates

Contents

Background

Summary of recommendations

Classification monitoring process/methodology

Observations and comments:

1. Quality of work descriptions
2. File documentation
3. Organization charts
4. Use of Classification Committees to evaluate positions
5. Proper organizational setting
6. Request for classification action
7. Classification grievances
8. Official notification of classifications decisions to employees
9. Use of generic work descriptions
10. Evaluation rationales
11. National Occupational Classification (NOC) codes
12. Retroactivity of classification decisions
13. Quality of classification decisions

Annex A: Excerpts from CPSA reports

Annex B: Chart of file review findings and recommendations

Background

In August of 2004 the Canada Public Service Agency (CPSA) completed a relativity review report of the Computer System (CS) occupational group across the federal Public Service. This report, in addition to providing a group overview, included provision of various statistics related to small, medium and large size departments and average profiles as established by CPSA.

Departments and Agencies were directed to:

“monitor the application of the CS Standard within their own context and, balanced with other identified risks in their department, to take appropriate action to address issues identified by this study, particularly for the CS 2, CS 4 and CS 5 levels.”

The CS profile observations in relation to the 2004 CPSA report, were considered by this Monitoring Officer as a separate issue from the normal classification monitoring exercise. All comments on the group profile are contained in Annex A. For the purposes of this report, the profile of a group is just the number of occupied positions at each level. Also contained in Annex A is an analysis providing observations and recommendations of the Monitoring Officer on various aspects of comparing the government-wide CS profile with the CIDA profile.

The actual monitoring of Agency CS 2, 4 and 5 file documentation and decisions are contained in the text of this report and are further detailed in Annex B.

Summary of recommendations

This classification monitoring exercise was restricted to CS 2, 4 and 5's. Overall, the quality of file documentations and decisions was considered to be good. The CS positions underwent a complete re-organization in 2004, becoming the IMTB Branch and the majority of work descriptions were updated and evaluated at that time. As I did not review the CS 1's, 3's and non-CS positions, I cannot comment on whether these would be rated good as well.

It is recommended that:

1. In the case of positions #2194, 2726, 1452 and 43 it is recommended that the work descriptions be updated and submitted for classification review.
2. The classification files (position # 2726, 4902 and 1452) be updated to contain the correct/updated Organization Charts. In addition the position number (position # 1452), job title Client Services Director) needs to be reviewed with a view to ensuring the correct position number is on all documentation.
3. The work descriptions for positions 10002, 1452, 4927, 2194 and 2212 need to be updated and submitted for review by a Classification Committee.

Classification monitoring process/methodology

The classification monitoring review of CS levels 2, 4 and 5 was a review based on existing documentation on file and the classification decision itself. No discussions were held with Managers, nor were any onsite reviews conducted with employees to verify that what is down on paper as the work description is what the employee is actually doing (job coincidence).

This classification monitoring review exercise assessed the quality of the documentation on file, provides observations as to “best practices” from a classification program perspective and recommends the next steps for certain files whether either the documentation was lacking or the classification decision was questionable.

A total of 34 CS 2, 4 and 5 files were reviewed which, because of generic work descriptions, represented 58 position files.

Observations and recommendations

In addition to the more detailed information listed below, the observations and recommendations are contained in Annex B, file review findings and recommendations. It should be noted that many of the observations contained in this report are in regard to items where the writer suggests that action should be taken.

The recommendations are issues that, according to central agency policy, must have action taken to resolve the situations.

1. Quality of work descriptions

   The overall quality of the work descriptions is considered good and the appropriate central agency format was used.

   Some work descriptions were missing the signature and date of the employee and/or the supervisor or manager. At a minimum, classification requests should not be processed without the dated signature of a supervisor or manager.

   It should also be noted that the format for work descriptions was changed by the central agency (CPSA) in 2005 however CPSA left the decision on format to departments as long as they covered the Human Rights elements of work. If not already informed the Classification section should determine the format they want used within CIDA and advise all concerned. This will lead to a standardized work description format with less confusion on what is acceptable format.

   In a few cases the work descriptions were considered to be out of date or not considered acceptable. (position #'s 2194, 2726, 1452 and #43). In one case the work description was dated 1996 and in the second case there was no formal work description on file; what was on file was a photocopy of a work description of another department although it was signed and dated.

   Recommendation 1: In the case of positions #2194, 2726, 1452 and 43 it is recommended that the work descriptions be updated and submitted for classification review.

2. File Documentation

   Overall it was considered that the file documentation was good for the 34 classification files reviewed. Full work descriptions, organization charts, rationales and classification action and position record form's were found on most files.

   It should be noted that in some cases, although the classification action and position record form was signed, the signature was illegible. It is suggested that consideration be given to modifying the signature block that includes the typed name of the signatory on the document which will be useful for positive determination of the signee.

3. Organization charts

   All files reviewed contained an organization chart however in one case it was not signed or dated by management. In some cases where they were dated, this was not the same date as when the classification action occurred.

   The Chief, Organization and Classification should reinforce the requirement that organization charts be signed and dated.

4. Use of classification committees to evaluate positions

   Central agency policy dictates that an interdepartmental classification committees will be used to evaluate all CS 5 level positions and interdepartmental committees were organized in all cases.

   In 2005 central agency policy was amended so that any reclassifications must be subject to an onsite review to confirm job coincidence and that reclassifications should only be completed by Classification Committee and not by an individual. All files reviewed confirmed adherence to this criteria.

5. Proper organizational settings

   In 3 situations (position #'s 2726, 4902 and 1452) the monitoring officer was unable to determine the appropriate organizational setting. In these cases the Organization Chart on file placing the position in its organizational setting at the time of evaluation is now different when reviewing the current organization charts.

   Recommendation 2: It is recommended that the classification files (position # 2726, 4902 and 1452) be updated to contain the correct/updated organization charts. In addition the position number (position # 1452), job title Client Services Director) needs to be reviewed with a view to ensuring the correct position number is on all documentation.

6. Request for classification action

   The Central Agency, as a “best practice” considers that all requests for classification action be accompanied by a note from management requesting the classification action. Not all the files reviewed contained a request for classification action.

   The Chief, Organization and Classification for CIDA may wish to institute this practice.

7. Classification grievances

   Of the 34 files reviewed, none had been the subject of a classification grievance.

8. Official notification of classification decisions to employees

   Central agency policy requires employees to be officially notified of a decision with regard to the classification level of their position. This allows employees to determine if they wish to challenge the classification decision through the classification grievance process.

   In some departments, as the classification decision directly impacts on the employee, the required notification is on the staffing file. This should be verified and if this is the case at CIDA no further action is required with regard to a change in process or procedures as long as the employees receive formal notification by human resources. If this documentation is not on the staffing files then it is recommended that the Chief of Classification determine where CIDA would wish to have this documentation filed and ensure that this is done.

9. Use of generic work descriptions

   It was noted that in some cases the organization uses a generic work description to represent the work of more than one position. The usage of generic work descriptions should be encouraged as it lessens the workload with regard to writing and evaluation requirements and generally leads to a better understanding of the work description with employees, supervisors and managers all being able to better distinguish between levels.

   It should be noted that the onus is on management, regarding job coincidence, that what is down on paper in the work description and that significant change in the work should be reflected by a changed work description.

10. Evaluation rationales

    It was noted that the majority of files had full classification rationales with group allocation, benchmark references and signatures. As well, the increased usage of Classification Evaluation Committees was noted and is considered an improvement over the single evaluator process.

11. National Occupational Classification (NOC) codes

    The majority of files contained the appropriate codes under the National Occupational System. Exceptions are noted for four files; position # 2241, 12003, 43 and 2196.

12. Retroactivity of classification decisions

    During the monitoring exercise there were only two instances identified where there was significant retroactivity in the reclassification. One file (position #2241) was fully documented by management whereas for file position # 1452 there was no explanation on file for the retroactivity.

    As a “best practice” the Chief, Organization and Classification may wish to consider the implementation of a policy in use in some departments where any retroactivity of a classification decision exceeding a pre-determined time frame would be reviewed by the Senior Management Committee if this process is not already in place.

13. Quality of classification decisions

    Overall it is considered that the quality of the classification decisions are good for the number of positions monitored, however there are some positions that should, for a variety of reasons, be reviewed by Committee to determine the appropriate level.

    Recommendation 4: The work descriptions for positions 10002, 1452, 4927, 2194 and 2212 need to be updated and submitted for review by a Classification Committee.

    In May 2005 CIDA instituted a new policy entitled “Organization restructuring and classification requests”.

    “In an effort to ensure that the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) is managing its organizational design and classification requirements in a corporate manner, all organizational restructuring proposals and classification requests with corporate implications will be brought to the Corporate Resources Committee (CRC), through the Human Resources Management Committee (HRMC), for review before any decision is made to undertake any organizational or classification request change.”

    This policy change has been reviewed by the undersigned and is considered an excellent initiative which should be recommended for use by all departments across the Public Service as a “best practice”.

Applicability of 2004 PSHRMAC report to CIDE profile

CIDA, with its encumbered number of FTE's at approximately 1700, was placed with organizations which had a population ranging from 500 to 2000, a medium sized organization as defined by CPSA.

This CPSA report is quite lengthy so for the purpose of this monitoring exercise the undersigned has brought forward only those particular aspects of the report which are considered to relate to the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). A full copy of this report is available from Ms. Suzanne Forget at 944-5379 should it be required.

Annex A: Excerpts from CPSA study

Paqe 4, section 1.1

“In 2003 Deputy Heads were reminded of their responsibility for systematic monitoring to ensure the overall integrity of classification in the Public Service.”

Paqe 6, section 2.2.1

“Distribution of CS positions by size of department as at Sept. 30, 2003 medium sized organization profiles (500-2000) encumbered”

Government wide profile:

CS 1 - 19%
CS 2 - 40%
CS 3 - 24%
CS 4 - 10%
CS 5 - 8%

Paqe 8, section 2.5

“Further guidance was requested concerning the CS 5 level, considered for salary purposes to be an EX 1 equivalent and the use of the EX 1 level in an information technology organization. The Executive Management Group, of the Leadership Network, has confirmed that, although unusual, it would be acceptable in some cases for a CS level position to an EX 1 level position. The Position Classification and Information Systems (PCIS) show that this does exist in a few organizations. Departments are advised to be cautious when considering organization options and when determining group allocation at these levels, to not create unnecessary salary compression and potential inversion of the supervisor-subordinate positions”.

Page 13, section 2.10.2

“Medium-sized (greater than 500 less than 2000 total occupied positions) and small departments (under 500 total occupied positions)

Occupied CS positions across the public service comprise approximately 5.8% of total occupied positions for medium-sized departments and approximately 6.6% of total occupied positions for small departments. The percentage of occupied CS positions to total occupied positions varies from 0.6% to 15.9% at the departmental level.

There was limited difference in organizational usage between medium and small-sized departments reviewed. Differences are noted where they are found.

For the majority of medium and small departments reviewed, the CS community is located at headquarters. When these medium departments have regional positions, they comprise 10% to 25% of the total CS population.

In the medium-sized and small departments reviewed, the following position types and reporting relationships were found:

CS 01: Programmers and help desk technicians most typically reporting to CS 03 positions but also reported to other levels within the CS group.

CS 02: Programmer analysts and technical specialists typically reporting to CS 04 or CS 05 positions.

CS 03: Project managers, team leaders and technical analysts, typically reporting to CS 04 positions with some reporting to CS 05 positions. It was noted that, in small departments, CS 03 positions report equally to AS 07, CS 05, EX 01 or EX 02 positions.

CS 04 and CS 05: Managers and directors. Both levels typically report to EX 02 or EX 03 positions. It was noted that small departments generally have either CS 04 or CS 05 positions but not both. In small departments, CS 05 positions typically report to EX 02 positions.”

Monitoring officers observations with regard to profile comparison

Comparison of profiles of CIDA occupied positions versus 2004 CPSA report on medium sized departments

As can be seen, the CIDA % profile exceeds the government-wide profile at levels 3, 4 and 5 and is under the profile at levels 1 and 2

Correction of profile

There are of course many ways to change the profile, but hypothetically, to demonstrate the scope of the issue, if CIDA was to change the number of occupied positions from its present situation

Scenario #1

Scenario #2

Analysis

As can be seen, although the CIDA profile is high at present, a slight alteration in the number of encumbered positions would have a significant impact. Experience indicates that group profiles should not be viewed in isolation. The mandate of the organization can also impact on the profile. Further, the way that an organization conducts its business, i.e. outsourcing rather than using FTE's to meet its operational requirements, can leave an organization with a “top heavy” profile. Further it is this Monitoring Officer's understanding that a number of competitions are presently ongoing to fill a number of vacant positions which could alter the group profile of encumbered positions.

Recommendations

To improve the CIDA profile in relation to the government-wide profile fewer positions should be staffed at senior levels versus junior levels, and the creation of non-supervisory positions at the CS 4 or 5 level with limited supervisory responsibility should be curtailed.

As well, the monitoring exercise of CS 2, 4 and 5 positions identified a number of positions where the levels are suspect and that they should be evaluated by Committee to determine the appropriate level. Departmental management would then be in a position to determine if the amended CIDA profile (after ongoing staffing actions) is or is not in line with the government-wide profile.

Annex B

File review findings and recommendations
CS positions: Canadian International Development Agency

• Previous page
• Table of contents
• Complete text
• Next page