Review of RCMP Management of Major Initiatives

Observation 1

A governance framework for major initiatives exists in the current organizational governance structures to some extent. However, there are opportunities to clarify accountabilities, roles and responsibilities associated with the governance of major initiatives to effectively apply senior management’s attention and oversight to the highest priority initiatives.

Observation 2

Although various major initiatives are considered in the RCMP’s Strategic Plan, there are opportunities to improve how major initiatives are integrated into the strategic planning process. Clear identification of the highest priority initiatives, as well as integrating these initiatives into the organizational and business line strategic plans and monitoring results could enhance the organization’s ability to dedicate resources and oversight towards highest priority initiatives, increasing the organization’s ability to achieve the intended outcomes and advance priorities.

Observation 3

Limited project management and change management support is in place for major initiatives. While reliance on externally contracted support (such as consultants) has helped to address this gap, this potentially limits the organization’s ability to build internal capacity and may affect the RCMP’s ability to advance these initiatives if the external support is no longer available.

Guidance available for major initiatives

To assist in performing the review, the review team sought to find a definition or parameters to describe a “major initiative”. However, it was determined that there is no single definition of what constitutes a major initiative. ^{footnote 2} Specifically, direct guidance or definition for major initiatives as well as for “transformation” and “modernization” within the Government of Canada is limited. The most direct guidance to major initiatives can be found in the Treasury Board’s Policy on the Planning and Management of Investments and its related Directive on the Management of Projects and Programmes. The Policy defines a “project” as an activity or series of activities that has a beginning and an end; produces defined outputs and realizes specific outcomes, within a clear schedule and resource plan; and is undertaken within specific parameters for time, cost and performance. Further, the Policy on Results describes the requirements for federal departments pertaining to performance management and public reporting.

The RCMP’s project delivery offices and related support

At the national level, the RCMP has three project delivery offices within Corporate Management and Comptrollership and Specialized Policing Services. They provide project management guidance and tools for initiatives relating to IM/IT, real property and corporate systems. In addition, the RCMP has policies and procedures in place for initiatives that are categorized as “projects” or “investments”. These policies provide guidance and direction to project teams by clearly defining requirements.

The RCMP also has in place a Modernization Contract with an external consulting firm (hereinafter will be referred to as the Modernization Contract) that was established to provide a mechanism for business lines and divisions to access specialized skills (for example: project management, change management and business analysis) and services to support their modernization efforts.

In addition, National Communication Services provide communication and outreach services to major initiatives through the development of communication strategies that outline the recommended activities to communicate the objectives of the initiatives both internally and externally. These activities may include news releases, social media campaigns and the creation of websites amongst others.

Recent governance changes

The RCMP Audit on Policy Management – Phase One (2018) recommended that the RCMP consider strengthening the policy governance process to ensure accountable structures are in place to support the Senior Executive Committee (SEC) with evidence-based information for decision-making. In response, Strategic Policy and External Relations (previously Strategic Policy and Planning Directorate) consulted with business lines and divisions to assess the policy and planning governance process with the view of formalizing an effective and efficient policy committee structure within the organization.

In addition, the RCMP’s Audit of National Committee Governance (2020) highlighted areas of improvement pertaining to committee governance including providing greater clarity for the sequencing of business items through the committee process, and ensuring that items have been reviewed, challenged, and/or approved by the appropriate committees. In response, Strategic Policy and External Relations consulted with business lines and divisions to develop a governance framework for the RCMP, including new committees reporting to SEC, and reviewed other senior level committees across the organization to strengthen the integration of governance committees and enhance decision-making.

Current governance structure

As per figure 1, the RCMP’s current governance structure consists of three tiers of committees to support the Commissioner in managing the strategic decision-making of the organization. Governance principles are bound within the mandates of senior management committees, which are responsible for the overall administration of the organization. These committees work to establish the RCMP’s direction and culture, while being governed by the authorities set out in the RCMP Act. Lower tier RCMP committees have their mandate and priorities set forth by senior committees and work with other committees to avoid the duplication of effort and coordinate usage of resources. Detailed roles and responsibilities of the key-tiered committees are contained in Appendix B of this report.

What was expected

Governance is the combination of processes and structures implemented by the board to inform, direct, manage, and monitor the activities of the organization toward the achievement of its objectives. ^{footnote 8} The review team expected to find a governance framework for major initiatives in place at the national level including a clearly defined transformation vision and scope, governance and monitoring mechanisms to oversee the successes, risks and challenges of major initiatives at a national level.

What was found

Evolving governance has affected the management of major initiatives

Vision150 established four pillars of modernization that are considered as guideposts for all RCMP modernization efforts, however, clear expectations to guide the outcomes of each pillar of modernization have not been established. In recent years, the RCMP has enacted a number of changes to its national governance structures including a re-structuring of the tiered senior management committees. However, neither transformation nor modernization has been assigned to a policy centre and major initiatives are not formally required to report to tiered committees. Although, in some cases, a requirement to report major initiatives to external bodies (for example: Management Advisory Board) was noted by initiative leads, it was not clear which tiered committees they should go to for endorsement and/or guidance. In some cases, initiative leads were able to choose which committees to attend at their own discretion. The focus groups found that 31% of participants were either “dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied” with the support provided by senior management. This may indicate that some initiatives have challenges obtaining senior management guidance and support, which could result in slower progress or a lack of alignment with RCMP priorities.

The review found that the inherent lack of governance around major initiatives has caused challenges for both senior management and initiative leads. For example, at the senior management level, interviewees noted that sometimes committee members are not given enough time to prepare for discussion and/or decision-making (for example: agenda items are provided on the same day of the committee meeting as opposed to in advance). While at the initiative level, interviewees noted that committees are often used as a consultation tool rather than conducting relevant consultations with business lines and external stakeholders (for example: Contract Management Committee) ^{footnote 9} prior to attending committees for decisions. Not having assigned accountabilities around major initiatives could lead to ineffective coordination of major initiatives.

Limited RCMP policy guidance relating to major initiatives

There is limited process and guidance for major initiatives that are not categorized as an “investment” or “project”. The absence of a definition and framework has led to confusion over roles, responsibilities and requirements for major initiatives, both in terms of initiative leads and from an oversight perspective, which may be contributing to various challenges such as transformation resistance. The absence of a definition and/or framework may lead to inconsistent approaches being taken, potentially resulting in inadequate guidance from management and comparability issues when it comes to prioritization and funding decisions. For example, there is senior management visibility over the pistol modernization project (a sub-initiative) but not the overarching Modernization of Public and Police Safety Intervention Equipment initiative. While senior management may oversee sub-initiatives (like projects), they do not oversee the overarching major initiative and how they link to the overall organization’s priorities/strategy in a holistic manner. This may not provide the most effective national oversight over major initiatives.

In addition, as major initiatives may involve substantial time for implementation, senior executive turnover can further affect the RCMP’s continuity of oversight and guidance for major initiatives.

Limited monitoring of major initiatives at the national level

Responsibility for monitoring and mitigation of risks related to major initiatives has not been formally assigned at the national level. Instead, monitoring and mitigation of risks occurs at the business line level, resulting in inconsistent monitoring of major initiatives at the national level. The progress, risks and challenges associated with major initiatives are monitored at various levels and in a variety of ways, including:

• SEC through SEC presentations, stock-takes, and progress updates on operational priorities and mandate commitments
• executive dashboards that highlight data from various programs across business lines
• strategic dashboards that monitor and track progress, risks and challenges regarding mandate commitments
• Vision150 results tracker that communicates the progress, challenges and barriers of some initiatives

In addition, the Management Advisory Board has identified its own top priorities and tracks the initiatives related to them.

While components of major initiatives may be tracked through the above sources, monitoring of major initiatives does not occur holistically at the national level. Various committees and programs track their own priorities. As a result, common risks may not be identified in a timely manner, affecting senior management’s ability to course correct based on priorities, budgets and government pressures, and ultimately affecting the success of major initiatives and the overall transformation vision.

Benchmarking results: Governance

Overall conclusion

The review found that while elements of a governance framework exist, the authorities, roles, and responsibilities over major initiatives need to be refined and clarified by senior management. The review also found that major initiatives are not consistently applying the current national governance framework, and in some instances, major initiatives have bypassed the national tiered committee structure to obtain senior management endorsement and approvals because the path was unclear and authorities had not been properly assigned to a policy centre or oversight body. There may be opportunities to leverage digital tools to better support the governance framework.

Various foundational issues are linked to these challenges including the RCMP’s evolving governance, the lack of a policy centre for transformation, dispersed authorities and senior executive turnover. ^{footnote 10}

Why is this important

A sound organizational strategy will support the RCMP in translating its transformation vision into an actionable plan in order to meet its mandates and adapt to the changing police environment. In consideration of policy requirements, Deputy Heads (and delegated authorities) are responsible for ensuring that appropriate governance for all projects is in place, strengthening the current governance framework for major initiatives to ensure that governance is proportionate to the initiative’s complexity, risk and scope, and provides effective and timely decision-making, communication and oversight can improve senior management’s awareness of and ability to act on significant risks and barriers that could affect major initiatives and the overall success of the RCMP’s transformation vision. ^{footnote 11}

Emphasizing senior management’s commitment (tone at the top) to the RCMP’s transformation vision will better position the organization to achieve its objectives and outcomes as it relates to changing the governance, culture and policing services within the RCMP. Additionally, defining and communicating roles and responsibilities relating to major initiatives is important for ensuring a better understanding of the RCMP’s transformation vision, coordinating major initiatives, and ensuring responsibilities are successfully carried out. Sound monitoring mechanisms can further strengthen the information available to senior management to support decision-making.

What was expected

A robust strategic planning process helps an organization to define its strategic direction, meet its mandate, adapt to changing circumstances, and enable management's implementation of activities. The process translates the vision of the organization into an actionable plan with goals and key performance indicators to monitor progress. The key steps of a strategic planning process are outlined in figure 2.

The review team expected to find major initiatives integrated into the organization’s strategic planning process, including major initiatives identified in the Strategic Plan and linked to organizational priorities, implementation timelines for these initiatives and monitoring over results.

What was found

The review found that there are gaps between the overall strategic planning process, prioritization process and performance data collected to monitor these activities.

Vision150

Vision150’s four pillars of modernization act as guideposts for the RCMP’s modernization efforts, however, initiative leads identified that the need for major initiatives is often identified in reaction to an issue that arises, as opposed to proactively through the strategic planning process. As a result, initiatives are often identified through a bottom-up approach and then links are subsequently identified to the pillars. This may limit the organization’s ability to apply a strategic planning approach to major initiatives, resulting in the organization pursuing initiatives in an uncoordinated fashion.

Strategic Plan

In response to recommendations from the Audit of Policy Management – Phase One, the RCMP established a Strategic Plan in 2021. Senior officials within AIM identified that while a Strategic Plan has been created, the strategic planning process was still in development and being enhanced. Although the Strategic Plan identifies organizational priorities and various activities that will be undertaken to achieve these priorities, the Strategic Plan does not include mechanisms to measure or assess the progress of these activities. Performance measures for these activities are intended to be identified and incorporated in the next Strategic Plan.

Additionally, the review found that there was limited data-collection and monitoring of major initiative activities included in the Departmental Results Report, though this report is used as an administrative reporting tool for Parliament and not an overall performance-monitoring tool for all major initiatives across the RCMP.

The lack of a comprehensive plan, including performance measures and directions for assessing progress, limits the ability of the organization to understand and communicate progress on its overall transformation vision.

Major initiatives may not be effectively prioritized during the strategic planning process, affecting the RCMP’s ability to obtain funding

A bottom-up approach used to identify major initiatives, in place of a top-down strategic planning approach, might be affecting the organization’s ability to obtain funding for major initiatives. Interviews with Strategic Policy and Corporate Budgeting units indicated that there were two standard funding streams for major initiatives – as per figure 3, funding can be obtained through (1) reallocation of existing resources, or (2) requesting new funding through the annual budgeting process.

Sources of priorities

A number of business line strategic planning units noted that the RCMP has numerous priorities (for example: Public Safety mandate commitments, Commissioner mandate commitments, Vision150, Strategic Plan, horizontal government commitments, etc.). The RCMP is required to address each of these priorities affecting the organization’s ability to target realistic and feasible priorities and dedicate the finite resources available to advance them. Funding requests that align to Government of Canada or Ministerial priorities increase the likelihood of receiving this funding. However, a lack of a coordinated approach limits the RCMP’s ability to identify interdependencies and properly sequence the numerous initiatives taking place. This affects the organization’s ability to prepare effective funding requests, reducing the likelihood of obtaining necessary funding for initiatives in a timely manner.

In addition, the strategic planning units, corporate budgeting units and senior management noted that since the there is a lack of a formal mechanism to identify the highest priority initiatives, everything is treated as equal priority. This may complicate the RCMP’s ability to reallocate resources or focus its budget requests to its highest priority initiatives. This may also result in the RCMP not being positioned to effectively determine how many initiatives it has the capacity to advance, given resourcing limitations.

Overall conclusion

The review found that there is consideration of major initiatives in the RCMP’s strategic planning process; however, there are opportunities to improve the management of major initiatives through the strategic planning process, such as by including timelines, prioritization, performance measurements, etc. Some business lines have developed a strategic plan to prioritize their initiatives while integrating the organizational strategic priorities, to facilitate monitoring and reporting. However, there were instances where business lines did not reference their role in organizational major initiatives. Business line plans also did not reference their role in major initiatives led by other business lines.

Various foundational issues are linked to these challenges including the volume of initiatives the RCMP is currently undertaking; multiple strategic and operational priorities; and the evolving nature of the RCMP’s strategic planning and alignment to the funding process.

Why is this important

Strategic planning allows an organization to identify and communicate its goals and track progress towards them. When the various components of an organization understand its larger strategy, they can collaboratively work towards its success. In consideration of policy requirements, Deputy Heads (and delegated authorities) are responsible for ensuring that information for projects is available to enable performance measurement and reporting as well as support the planning, budgeting and accounting for allocating resources. ^{footnote 14} Therefore, incorporating major initiatives into the organization’s strategic planning framework will allow the organization to communicate on the state and management of its highest priority initiatives to help ensure awareness, and align priority initiatives and resources. Furthermore, prioritization is key to identifying the sequencing of major initiatives in order to optimize resources and achieve the transformation vision.

What was expected

The review team expected to find project management support available to assist initiative teams in the management of their major initiatives, including for areas such as determining human and financial resource needs.

In addition, the review expected to find change management support available to initiative teams, including a systematic approach to minimize transformation resistance (see figure 4 for common change management obstacles) across the RCMP and help ensure the initiative meets their objectives. The review team also expected there to be culture management practices in place at the national level to help align employees’ behaviours and mindsets to those consistent with the organization’s changing values and goals (for example: assisting in minimizing transformation resistance across the RCMP).

What was found

Overall conclusion

The review found that there was limited project and change management (including culture management) support available for major initiatives. Internal expertise and resources dedicated to change management in particular were identified as lacking within the organization, with support limited to communications services, GBA Plus and EDI.

It was noted that, due to the inability to attract and retain individuals with the suitable skill set, project and change management services were largely procured externally, through contracts such as the modernization contract. While this addresses the gap noted above, it does not directly address building internal capacity and may limit initiative teams’ ability to implement their plans and achieve their intended outcomes once the external support has ended.

Various foundational issues are linked to these challenges including the RCMP’s resourcing limitations and the lack of organizational support for change/culture management.

Why is this important

For the most part, major initiatives are linked to RCMP mandate commitments and key departmental priorities. If the RCMP does not continuously modernize its business processes, the organization may not be able to respond effectively to the rapidly changing internal and external environments. As major initiatives involve modernizing or transforming the organization to adapt to this reality, effective change management can assist with preparing, equipping and supporting employees. In addition, applying project management principles such as an organization-wide project management framework, consisting of processes, systems and controls, can assist major initiatives by providing structure and promoting a coordinated management of major initiatives in order to reduce risk, contribute to shared outcomes, and realize efficiencies and benefits not available from managing initiatives individually. ^{footnote 17}

Governance – Good practices currently in place

• All four initiatives had developed internal governance structures to oversee their respective initiatives. This was mainly achieved through dedicated steering committees established to set direction including facilitating stakeholder communications, risk management and performance management. The membership of these committees was composed of initiative leads, senior management and other stakeholders.
• Monitoring of initiatives was also achieved through steering committees. They used tools such as executive dashboards where sub-initiatives under the major initiative inputted information on their progress, health, financials and other indicators. Feeding information into a single dashboard provided steering committee members with an overarching perspective on how the major initiative was progressing as a whole.
• These steering committees were also used to report on progress to senior management. They had the capacity to escalate issues and request approvals from national governance committees such as the Investment Oversight and Prioritization Committee and the Senior Executive Committee. Reporting requirements to senior management varied amongst major initiatives. Some had regular reporting schedules and others reported as needed.

Project management – Requirements not clear for major initiatives

• All four initiatives had developed an internal integrated plan to manage sub-initiatives and related dependencies. These plans documented the initiative’s objectives and stakeholders, as well as implementation roadmaps. The review found that all plans were aligned to Vision150 pillars and/or strategic priorities. However, they did not all include a needs assessments and defined performance metrics. Planning documents like these were noted as being useful tools to coordinate efforts.
• The People Strategy and the National Cybercrime Coordination Centre had established units dedicated to provide project, risk and performance management support over their respective sub-initiatives. This allowed employees to better focus their attention and time on advancing the major initiative, as opposed to trying to advance the initiative in addition to their normal day to day work.
• Three of the selected initiatives used the Modernization Contract to obtain project management support. However, concerns were raised that business lines may not have the people and financial resources necessary to implement the project plans designed by the external consultant.
• Initiative leads indicated that it was not clear what the requirements were for initiative management. This led to the inconsistent application of risk and performance management principles amongst major initiatives.

Change management – Minimal support for major initiatives

Communication plans

All four initiatives had communication plans prepared or in development. These communication plans detailed stakeholder consultations, the targeted audiences and more. However, most initiatives did not develop entire change management strategies that expanded on change management principles beyond communications, such as change impact assessments. Interviewees identified that the lack of organization-wide change management guidance was a challenge.

Capacity issues

National Communication Services (NCS) provide communications support to many initiatives across the organization and it is currently developing the communication strategy for the National Cybercrime Coordination Centre. However, capacity issues have been noted within NCS. For example, the People Strategy noted they were using an external consultant to develop their communications plan because the RCMP’s internal communications group did not have the capacity to undertake this work. This lack of internal communications capacity may lead to increased cost and delays related to the procurement of external services.

Consultations

Most initiatives had completed extensive stakeholder consultations including other business lines and, in some instances, external stakeholders. For example, to address the culture of working in silos, the People Strategy implemented “Change Hubs” which bring stakeholders across the business lines together to encourage discussion on the transformation work that is occurring across the RCMP.

GBA Plus/EDI

All four initiatives had considered GBA Plus and EDI in the planning of their initiatives. Some received guidance in these areas from the Modernization Contract and the GBA Plus unit. However, most did not complete a formal documented analysis, limiting how effectively these elements are implemented in each initiative.

Senior Executive Committee

The Senior Executive Committee (SEC) is the most senior committee. SEC is responsible for setting the overall strategic direction and vision for the organization. This committee allows the Commissioner to make decisions regarding key RCMP and government policy, planning, programs, operations, strategic issues, and strategic communications proposals. It is crucial that major matters requiring decision be brought to SEC, following internal and, where appropriate, external consultations.

Senior Management Team

The Senior Management Team (SMT) is an assembling of Senior Executive Committee members, Commanding Officers, as well as other senior executives such as the Chief Information Officer, Professional Responsibility Officer and Chief Audit and Evaluation Executive. Which allows for broader and substantive discussions at the national level that lead to advice and recommendations to SEC on the RCMP’s operational and policy issues and priorities.