Review of AANDC Systems of Record

Background

A review of departmental systems of record was requested by the Deputy Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC or the Department) with the aim of improving governance over and user uptake of the departmental systems of record that support the activities and functions of programs, sectors, and regions.

A system of record can be considered the authoritative data source for a given data element or piece of information. In the context of AANDC, certain corporate systems (e.g. SAP and Grants and Contributions Information Management System (GCIMS)) have been informally accepted as authoritative sources of information for specific data elements. It is important to note that a system of record must be identified at the data element level, and thus a system may be identified as the system of record for some of its data elements, but not for all, particularly if the data element originates from another system of record.

Where systems of record do not exist, are inadequate (e.g. user needs are not met or usability is poor) or where the technology has not been maintained or is obsolete, alternative tools and methods (e.g. "black books") are sometimes created by users to manage the information. Further, where Information Management (IM) governance practices do not sufficiently promote the integration of support systems with established systems of record, duplicate data elements are often maintained in separate systems which reduces the accuracy and integrity of information for decision making.

Review Objective and Scope

The objective of this review was to provide management with an independent assessment of the management of authoritative sources of information held within departmental systems of record.

The scope of the review focused on the following:

1. Identification, categorization and communication of systems maintaining authoritative sources of information that support the management and administration of departmental programs and the reporting of performance against program objectives;
2. Stakeholder engagement, identification, and assessment of user requirements, and system governance during system development lifecycles to appropriately manage authoritative sources of information;
3. Uses of alternatives to the existing departmental systems of record and the impediments to user uptake and to leveraging and consistently relying on existing departmental systems; and
4. Identification of recommendations to improve user recognition, uptake and departmental reliance on official systems of record.

In order to meet the above-mentioned review objective and scope, the review focused on answering the following three questions related to departmental systems of record:

1. How many departmental systems of record exist within the Department and is there a listing?
2. What are the current governance mechanisms in place over departmental systems of record?
3. What are the impediments to the use of departmental systems of record?

Conclusion

The review noted that although some corporate systems are considered authoritative sources of certain types of information, such as financial data from SAP, there is currently no definition of authoritative sources of information nor is there a comprehensive listing of authoritative sources of information available for use across the Department, although there are specific examples of good starting points for such a listing.

Governance frameworks/processes are in place and provide the opportunity to identify existing corporate systems and potential authoritative sources of information prior to the investment in new IT projects; however, without an associated policy framework and a comprehensive listing, the impact of these processes may be limited. Further, without these foundational elements, the Department cannot be assured that information presented and decisions made are based on the validated, appropriate source of information housed within a recognized system of record.

While the review did confirm that generally corporate systems are used as the basis of day-to-day operations and reporting results, alternative tools are being used to address functionality gaps and unfamiliarity with specific aspects of the corporate systems. This could impact the appropriateness and reliability of information used to support decision making.

Recommendations

Based on the evidence gathered through the examination of documentation, analysis and interviews, each area within the scope of the review was assessed by the review team, resulting in three recommendations as follows:

1. The Chief Financial Officer in conjunction with the Chief Information Officer should, as part of the IM/IT Strategy and Plan, develop and maintain a comprehensive listing of authoritative sources of information that would include the systems of record that host this information, data definitions, data owners and other stakeholders.
2. The Chief Financial Officer in conjunction with the Chief Information Officer should, as part of the IM/IT Strategy and Plan, establish a policy framework that governs, at a minimum, the process to identify and meet the information needs of the Department, from investment planning to the System Development Life Cycle. This would provide the framework to centrally prioritize new information needs, whether to be met by new systems or enhancements of existing systems, against the priorities of the Department and hold stakeholders accountable for compliance. We understand this action is being considered as part of the data management strategy within AANDC's Enterprise Architecture.
3. The Chief Financial Officer in conjunction with the Chief Information Officer should, once the IM/IT Strategy and Plan have been implemented, communicate expectations and roles and responsibilities of data management stakeholders (owner, steward, custodian) which should include leveraging corporate systems and the associated reporting tools as a basis for reporting and decision making. This should include the development of a plan to address specific concerns related to impediments to user uptake (e.g. training and user guidance).

Management Response

Management is in agreement with the observations, has accepted the recommendations included in the report, and has developed a management action plan to address them. The management action plan has been integrated into this report.

1.1 Rationale for the Review

A review of departmental systems^{Footnote 1} of record was requested by the Deputy Minister of AANDC with the aim of improving governance over and user uptake of the departmental systems of record that support the activities and functions of programs, sectors, and regions.

1.2 Background on AANDC Systems of Record

The Treasury Board (TB) Policy on Information Management states that, "The availability of high-quality, authoritative information to decision makers supports the delivery of programs and services, thus enabling departments to be more responsive and accountable to Canadians." In order to ensure that information supports decision makers, which is identified in AANDC's 2013-14 Corporate Risk Profile as a key departmental risk, information must be rigorously managed throughout its life cycle, for as long as it is required to meet a department's responsibilities, legal obligations, and accountabilities. TheTB Policy on Information Management goes further to assign the responsibility for effective and well-coordinated information management within a department to the deputy head, who in turn designates an Information Management (IM) senior executive to represent him/her to TB for the purposes of the policy. At AANDC, the IM senior official is the Chief Information Officer (CIO) who reports to the Chief Financial Officer (CFO).

Based on the Application Portfolio Management Collection report, which is a listing of applications (based on a specific Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) definition of an "application") prepared annually for the TBS, as of March 31, 2014, the Department maintained a total of 189 applications^{Footnote 2}, of which 119 were owned within Headquarters (HQ) and 70 were owned by the regions. The breakdown of applications within the Application Portfolio Management Collection report by Program Alignment Architecture (PAA) is as follows:

It has been confirmed by the CFO and CIO that, in the current environment of tighter budgets and reduced appropriations, the costs to maintain this number of existing applications within the Department is not sustainable. As part of the implementation of a planned enterprise-wide IM/IT Strategy (currently in the approval process), a rationalization exercise is being contemplated to confirm which applications are necessary and support the priorities of the Department, and which ones can be retired (or consolidated into existing systems), thereby freeing up limited resources for those applications that are critical to the achievement of the strategic objectives of AANDC.

A system of record can be considered the authoritative data source for a given data element or piece of information. In the context of AANDC, specific corporate systems (e.g. SAP and GCIMS have been informally accepted as authoritative sources of information for specific data elements. It is important to note that a system of record must be identified at the data element level, and thus a system may be identified as the system of record for some of its data elements, but not for all, particularly if the data element originates from another system of record. For example, SAP may be considered the authoritative source for grant and contribution payments, whereas the authoritative source of the funds allocated to each funding recipient may be GCIMS. Sources of data that are formally recognised as authoritative enable senior management to be presented with, and make decisions based on, validated data that can be referenced to the approved sources.

Where systems of record do not exist, are inadequate (e.g. user needs are not met or usability is poor) or where the technology has not been maintained or is obsolete, alternative tools and methods (e.g. "black books") are sometimes created by users to manage the information. Further, where IM governance practices do not sufficiently promote the integration of support systems with established systems of record, duplicate data elements are often maintained which reduces the accuracy and integrity of information for decision making.

2.1 Review Objective

The objective of this review was to provide management with an independent assessment of the management of authoritative sources of information held within departmental systems of record.

2.2 Review Scope

The scope of the review focused on the following:

1. Identification, categorization and communication of systems maintaining authoritative sources of information that support the management and administration of departmental programs and the reporting of performance against program objectives;
2. Stakeholder engagement, identification, and assessment of user requirements, and system governance during system development lifecycles to appropriately manage authoritative sources of information;
3. Uses of alternatives to the existing departmental systems of record and the impediments to user uptake and to leveraging and consistently relying on existing departmental systems; and
4. Identification of recommendations to improve user recognition, uptake and departmental reliance on official systems of record.

5.1 Existence of Departmental Systems of Record

The review attempted to determine the extent to which systems of record and authoritative sources of information have been identified within the Department, as well as the extent to which information reported publicly in the DPR is being sourced from systems of record.

5.2 Governance over Systems of Record

As part of this review, interviews were conducted and documentation was reviewed to obtain an understanding of the existing departmental frameworks that govern the process to identify, prioritize and meet the information needs of the Department, including the IT investment process, the PMF and the SDLC. The focus of the review was to understand whether these frameworks provide the appropriate governance to ensure existing data maintained within the Department is being leveraged, as appropriate, in the development of new applications to meet business requirements.

5.3 Impediments to the Use of Corporate Systems

The review included case studies of a sample of applications used by program areas and of Internal Services systems. The case studies involved interviewing representatives at HQ and from a sample of regions in order to identify potential impediments to the uptake of corporate systems, as well as any alternative tools being used. In addition, as part of the information gathered regarding the PMF and the SDLC, the opportunity for user input at various stages of the processes (e.g. business requirements gathering, user acceptance testing) was assessed to identify any potential linkages to a lack of uptake by users.

Many corporate systems exist to support ongoing operations within the Department. They vary in level of sophistication and complexity, and are used to varying degrees by the related program areas at HQ and, if applicable, in the regions. From the case studies completed, it was generally observed that these corporate systems are being used to conduct day-to-day business and are being used for reporting purposes. Some of the corporate systems have been developed to meet the majority of the needs of the HQ and regional representatives (either through the development of the necessary functionality or through the interfacing of the corporate system with the regional systems) and therefore, strong user uptake has occurred across the Department.

As an example, FNCFS IMS, a national system within the Child and Family Services program area, was recently implemented. Stakeholders were heavily involved in the consultation, development and implementation of the system, principles embedded in both the PMF and SDLC. Regional program representatives noted that although they face some challenges in using FNCFS IMS, it meets the majority of their functionality and reporting needs. During the development of the system, it was recognized that in some jurisdictions, specific information would need to be captured for provincial requirements and as a result, a decision was made to have specific, existing regional systems interface with the national system. This recognition has allowed these regions to capture the information required to meet the national requirements and continue to meet the unique provincial requirements. As a result, regional users interviewed confirmed that there was no need to leverage alternative tools.

In the cases described below, impediments to the exclusive use of the existing corporate systems were identified, resulting in the creation and maintenance of alternative tools by HQ and regional offices. Alternative tools are being used for the following primary reasons: 1) a lack of functionality and/or familiarity with corporate systems, and 2) a perception of a lack of resources available and priority given to regions' change requests to improve the functionality of corporate systems. The following sections provide additional details on these impediments.