This archived Web page remains online for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. This page will not be altered or updated. Web pages that are archived on the Internet are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats of this page on the Contact Us page.
This subsection describes the mechanisms (including new mechanisms) that will yield the necessary performance information to monitor the results of the Disposition Management Activities. Four mechanisms are described:
The following subsection will identify the indicators associated with each of these mechanisms.
Extensive information is documented in LAC files, including budget information, documents from departments and agencies, minutes, memos and various reports. LAC also manages databases containing statistics from the Regional Service Centers. These sources will provide extensive information for quarterly and annual reporting purposes, especially with regards to the progress of LAC and the federal Departments/Agencies in establishing RDAs, storage model, recordkeeping tools, etc.
LAC monitoring mechanisms are in place to ensure that the Departments and agencies are complying to the various agreements and directives to protect and store documents. These include on-site examinations and evaluations conducted by LAC staff. Reports stemming from these describe the extent of compliance of the departments to the requirements described in the agreements signed with LAC.
LAC staff are actively engaged with Departments/Agencies to develop agreements, implement tools and provide support. After each significant training event, LAC will forward a Training Feedback form to obtain comments on the service. The form should include key satisfaction indicators with 5-point scales (overall satisfaction, satisfaction with timeliness of service, professionalism of staff, usefulness of documents, etc.), as well as one or two open-ended questions for other comments. Once a year, statistics from all forms should be compiled (means of scores) to assess and improve the service5.
While the Training Feedback form will be useful for providing feedback on specific interventions, an annual survey orsampling of department and agency representatives would be useful to assess the overall progress of the activities in the federal organizations. This survey or sample could be conducted every second year, if feasible. Another option would be to conduct a survey when the evaluation study is completed (See Section 4.2).
To gather more in-depth information on the progress of the activities within specific Departments/Agencies, especially among key organizations representing a higher risk, specific case studies should be conducted of these Departments/Agencies. Case studies would provide context of the Department/Agency (mission, key documents to be archived, etc.), and describe the extent to which agreements and recordkeeping tools are implemented. The cases would rely on various sources of information, including interviews with LAC staff, departmental/agency staff, a file review, and a review of Department/Agency records. The case studies could also describe specific challenges and best practices when these are useful lessons learned for other Departments/Agencies. They should be in narrative form, with some statistical tables if applicable.
Each of mechanisms following the monitoring above should be based on forms, questionnaires and reporting templates. These instruments should be designed using the indicators indicated in the matrix above. The matrix also describes targets and frequency of reporting.
It should be mentioned that LAC is actively in the process of improving its measurement mechanisms for all of its activities and programs, including for the activities covered by this RMAF. It is expected that as experience is gained, the targets and reporting mechanisms will evolve and improve.
In some cases, baseline information will be required to set actual targets.
5 It is highly recommended that the process be entirely anonymous, both from the recipient and the provider perspective. Otherwise, the response rate and the actual distribution of the form may be affected.