Library and Archives Canada
Symbol of the Government of Canada

Institutional links


Archived Content

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.

Review of Governance: Service Delivery

Previous | Table of Contents | Next

2 Observations and Recommendations

2.3 Performance Management and Oversight


Performance management and oversight practices are those which close the loop on accountability, authority and responsibility. Through these processes, management gathers and analyzes information on expected outcomes, to assess, and ultimately manage, effectiveness, efficiency and relevance. In light of these requirements, the following criteria were used to assess the state of performance management and oversight for this review.

  • Management has defined and communicated the performance expectations of the (SAB) and the (SC).
  • Performance expectations and measurement strategies are in place, have been communicated and are well understood by all parties.
  • Management periodically reviews performance and relevance of the two bodies.



The assessment and performance management of the (SC) and the (SAB) are done informally, in the absence of defined metrics.

While the ToR speak to the role of the (SAB) and the Services Committee, management has neither defined nor communicated specific performance expectations in relation to these bodies. There is presently no performance measurement framework in place, including means and frequency of assessment. While LAC need not implement a complex performance framework, a minimum amount of formality is required to ensure that effectiveness, efficiency and relevance of the two bodies are periodically assessed. This is of particular importance in light of the materiality of the expenditures associated with the bodies, most notably the (SAB), whose budget in 2008–09 was approximately $400,000.

To date, the assessment of the relevance and effectiveness of the two bodies has been done informally, by the ADM responsible. Through these means, performance has been deemed to be positive. As LAC implements its Services Strategy, there is acknowledgement that relevance of the committees should be examined in this broader context. At present, there are no formal plans to conduct this performance review.


7. As part of the broader implementation of the Services Strategy, management should determine its consultative requirements. These requirements should then be reviewed against the current roles, relevance and performance of the (SAB) and the Services Committee to ensure both bodies are optimally positioned to meet the requirements of Management Board in relation to the Services Strategy.

8. Subsequent to this analysis, management should establish and communicate performance measures and conduct periodic reviews for both the (SAB) and the (SC).

Management Response

7. LAC management will consult broadly across the institution regarding the consultative needs of the institution and how these needs would integrate with the work of internal committees focusing on modernization.

8. LAC management agrees with the recommendation. Results and outcomes will be well defined and integrated into any process for client consultation.

Previous | Table of Contents | Next