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.
4.1 Performance Measures
A Results-based Management and Accountability Framework (RMAF) is currently being developed and shows that collection development is subject to performance monitoring.
CASCB. As part of this exercise, the CASCB developed its own performance measurements which include 12 indicators based on the number of transactions, type of acquisition (including digital records and Aboriginal or multicultural materials consistent with the key directions) and shared measures (such as the number of linear metres and the number of megabytes). This information is provided in the CASCB's RMAF Indicators.
Performance indicators and targets have been established and documented in the Performance Measurement Framework for 2009–10 based on the key directions and are consistent with LAC's Program Activity Architecture. These indicators focus mainly on gauging operational activities rather than targeted results.
LAC developed a 2009–10 Performance Measurement Framework which sets out annual targets for the CASCB. These targets are: 5% of the number of documents acquired for digital material and 4% for the acquisition of documents on the Aboriginal and multicultural communities.
However, this type of performance measurement is not specific enough to gauge the achievement of key directions. For example, for the strategic direction on digital records, the targets established based on the number of acquisitions assign equal weight to documents already available on digital media, acquired in the normal course of LAC activity (mainly through legal deposit) and analogue records converted to digital media to give users better access. This category, which represents a genuine added value in achieving the key direction on digital records, is not subject to any specific measurement.
The performance indicators are measured annually only, and have not yet been incorporated into the CASCB's activity reports.
PHB. In January 2008, the PHB developed its own performance measurement framework for the development of the publications collection. It is consistent with LAC's PAA and the performance measurement framework developed for the organization overall. This framework provides the definition of performance indicators and sets out the collection methodology and source of data for each indicator, whereas the LAC's measurement framework identifies the acquisition targets specific to each performance indicator.
For 2009–10, the annual acquisition targets were set at 15% for digital content publications, 1.5% for publications containing Aboriginal content, and 2.5% for publications containing multicultural content. Monitoring is crucial to ensure that these targets are sufficient for implementing the key directions in the CDF.
PGCP. The PGCP has not developed a performance measurement framework tailored to its activities, containing performance indicators and targets consistent with the key directions in the CDF and LAC's Program Activity Architecture. The participation rate and PGCP client satisfaction rate are the only measurements established.
LAC should develop performance indicators for all acquisition processes that take into account the expected results and budgetary targets.
As part of the second Modernization Innovation Initiative, LAC will develop a framework for evaluation and acquisition that contains performance indicators for the acquisition process.
In terms of accountability, the CASCB reports on its activities on a quarterly basis, yet does not take into account the key directions in the CDF or its own performance indicators. The PHB produces quarterly reports on activity-driven quantitative results based on the objectives of the CDF's key directions and the performance indicators set out in its own performance measurement framework. As for the PGCP, an activity report covering the three most recent financial years (2006–07 to 2008–09) was recently published.
The accountability reporting provided by the three branches responsible for collection development does not address results achieved based on the strategic objectives and key directions set out in the CDF. Moreover, the activity reports submitted do not contain financial results to gauge progress made in achieving budgetary targets, and the results are not presented using a standard template.
In terms of the key directions on collection and national collection representativeness, the branches responsible for acquisitions did not report any monitoring of progress achieved.
All of the mechanisms and tools intended to ensure appropriate and complete accountability for the acquisitions made are not in place. They need to be completed for all of the acquisition processes in order to allow management to make informed decisions on the directions and actions needed to achieve LAC's targeted results.
LAC should develop data-collection and accountability tools and mechanisms based on a shared model in order to gauge progress toward achieving budgetary targets, and prepare activity reports that contain financial results.
As part of the second Modernization Innovation Initiative, LAC will develop an acquisitions governance model that contains standardized tools to gauge progress.